EGLL problems
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I couldn't believe I was reading the words that said NAS
is the most modern FDPS system in Europe, then I saw
the phrase "having been completely rewritten", "new hardware"
etc and realised it wasn't an ATCO/ATSA (who work with the
beast) and sunk into standard cynic mode. Still.
Anyone want any airspace, apply c/o NATS. Large chunks of
WORLD LEADING airspace going cheap. Take some - please.
What nice WORLD LEADERS.
World Leaders?
Seven Iron
is the most modern FDPS system in Europe, then I saw
the phrase "having been completely rewritten", "new hardware"
etc and realised it wasn't an ATCO/ATSA (who work with the
beast) and sunk into standard cynic mode. Still.
Anyone want any airspace, apply c/o NATS. Large chunks of
WORLD LEADING airspace going cheap. Take some - please.
What nice WORLD LEADERS.
World Leaders?
Seven Iron
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm questions, questions, BDIONU:
So, if it has been completely rewritten there will be no lines of 1960s vintage 9020D in it at all? True or false?
I also note no one has yet answered the question:
NOTHING has been done to sort this PROBLEM out. Why not? Why are we still stuck with the WORST DD&C option? Perhaps because the Operational Staff are still coping with the aftermath of a crap management decision years before...... I have yet to see ANY NATS manager admit they made mistakes here... I HAVE seen at least one still trying to justify his demonstrable errors.
BTW has anyone EVER seen a NATS manager being suspended and offered re-training (community service)? No, thought not.
NAS is the most modern FDP system in Europe, having been recently completely rewritten.
I also note no one has yet answered the question:
why would the world's best system need to be shut down once a week?
BTW has anyone EVER seen a NATS manager being suspended and offered re-training (community service)? No, thought not.
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bexil160
So, if it has been completely rewritten there will be no lines of 1960s vintage 9020D in it at all? True or false?
I also note no one has yet answered the question:why would the world's best system need to be shut down once a week?
NOTHING has been done to sort this PROBLEM out. Why not? Why are we still stuck with the WORST DD&C option?
I cannot answer on behalf of management except to say
BTW has anyone EVER seen a NATS manager being suspended and offered re-training (community service)? No, thought not.
BD
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Knowing what NAS does for us users, then I offer the following as its poor points.
1. Crap and unwieldy user interface which is not intuitive or forgiving of errors.
2. Inability to cope with any routes which are out of the ordinary. Everything has to be 'adapted' and I don't believe it has the capacity to cover every possible scenario which we see on a regular basis. Hence people spend an inordinate amount of time frigging the system and trying to get something meaningful out for controllers.
3. Extremely poor processing of direct routes, unable to provide the ATCO with anything meaningful except 7 or 8 irrelevant strips. Other FDPs can cope with airspace entry/exit which are not through recognised COPs. NAS apparently can't.
4. Defaults to 'preferred routes' between city pairs sometimes regardless of what the aircraft has actually filed. There is now a dependence placed on someone inputting the fact that the filed and processed routes differ. And if it is missed ...... ??
5. Far too many simple input errors seem to cause it to crash once a year or so. A decent system would have protections which provide a caution to the user before allowing them to make a critical error. Or simply just not allow them to do it.
6. Still unable to process PAC, REV and MAC messages thus involving staff in having to undergo co-ordination telephone calls everytime something changes after the ACT has been sent.
7. As already mentioned, extremely poor memory retention which means it needs to be shut down once a week .. is it running on a Sinclair Spectrum ZX81 or something ??
The above is a few minutes worth of thinking about, I am sure I could add many more little niggles, which I as a user have to put up with, and which I don't believe should be found in any modern and developed system, as could others.
My impression is that those who have worked tirelessy and thanklessly on the NAS 'empire' over the years now see a real threat to their domain and the realisation that their specialist knowledge and skills will soon become redundant. As such, they are extremely keen to champion NAS, some even propose developing it as part of any future system
I strongly agree the work done now and in the past has been done as well as it possibly can by a very skilled staff group, but one day we have to wake up to the fact that the core processing philosophy which NAS has was designed in an age which did not have any of the high traffic and complexity levels which we experience today. Sure, we have continuous tinkering with the system to add on bits and pieces, but that's not the same as providing a system which has it more or less right as its basic configuration. It's inflexible, it's not easy to use, and does not provide a simple or graphic interface capability.
Seeing some of the other systems out there and what they can do in simple mouse clicks or typed instructions, I for one won't shed a tear when the NAS system is thrown out to the Science Museum
1. Crap and unwieldy user interface which is not intuitive or forgiving of errors.
2. Inability to cope with any routes which are out of the ordinary. Everything has to be 'adapted' and I don't believe it has the capacity to cover every possible scenario which we see on a regular basis. Hence people spend an inordinate amount of time frigging the system and trying to get something meaningful out for controllers.
3. Extremely poor processing of direct routes, unable to provide the ATCO with anything meaningful except 7 or 8 irrelevant strips. Other FDPs can cope with airspace entry/exit which are not through recognised COPs. NAS apparently can't.
4. Defaults to 'preferred routes' between city pairs sometimes regardless of what the aircraft has actually filed. There is now a dependence placed on someone inputting the fact that the filed and processed routes differ. And if it is missed ...... ??
5. Far too many simple input errors seem to cause it to crash once a year or so. A decent system would have protections which provide a caution to the user before allowing them to make a critical error. Or simply just not allow them to do it.
6. Still unable to process PAC, REV and MAC messages thus involving staff in having to undergo co-ordination telephone calls everytime something changes after the ACT has been sent.
7. As already mentioned, extremely poor memory retention which means it needs to be shut down once a week .. is it running on a Sinclair Spectrum ZX81 or something ??
The above is a few minutes worth of thinking about, I am sure I could add many more little niggles, which I as a user have to put up with, and which I don't believe should be found in any modern and developed system, as could others.
My impression is that those who have worked tirelessy and thanklessly on the NAS 'empire' over the years now see a real threat to their domain and the realisation that their specialist knowledge and skills will soon become redundant. As such, they are extremely keen to champion NAS, some even propose developing it as part of any future system
I strongly agree the work done now and in the past has been done as well as it possibly can by a very skilled staff group, but one day we have to wake up to the fact that the core processing philosophy which NAS has was designed in an age which did not have any of the high traffic and complexity levels which we experience today. Sure, we have continuous tinkering with the system to add on bits and pieces, but that's not the same as providing a system which has it more or less right as its basic configuration. It's inflexible, it's not easy to use, and does not provide a simple or graphic interface capability.
Seeing some of the other systems out there and what they can do in simple mouse clicks or typed instructions, I for one won't shed a tear when the NAS system is thrown out to the Science Museum
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: London
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uuummm, its not used that code since about 1990 when the processors changed from IBM360's to IBM370's.
Up until I stopped teaching FDP courses fairly recently, there were still "patches" in the system that had been there for a while.. I can even tell you who was responsible for writing them!!!
NAS IS an unwieldy system, and fully understanding it has always been a black art.
Mr Chips
So sad to not be working NAS anymore.....
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BDIONU>>>>
Granted, DD&C has nothing to do with NAS. The point I was trying to make is that Swanwick is still touted as the "Most Advanced" ATC system in the world. It is not. Without the elderly NAS, Swanwick doesn't work very well at all.
NAS shutdowns?
How come Maastricht (for example) don't have to shut down once a week?
DD&C?
Remind me, just how many DD&C options were there? And why was the one were are "stuck with" chosen?
I personally have done many more than the 2-3 a year you mention. Odd that the most advanced system requires us to reduce traffic flows that cause delays for our customers, the airlines. But apparently that's ok, and not a problem.
BEX
Granted, DD&C has nothing to do with NAS. The point I was trying to make is that Swanwick is still touted as the "Most Advanced" ATC system in the world. It is not. Without the elderly NAS, Swanwick doesn't work very well at all.
NAS shutdowns?
How come Maastricht (for example) don't have to shut down once a week?
DD&C?
Remind me, just how many DD&C options were there? And why was the one were are "stuck with" chosen?
I personally have done many more than the 2-3 a year you mention. Odd that the most advanced system requires us to reduce traffic flows that cause delays for our customers, the airlines. But apparently that's ok, and not a problem.
BEX
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. Crap and unwieldy user interface which is not intuitive or forgiving of errors.
Which one? Swanwick? or any other of the dozen or so units its been stretched to manage? Have you suggested improvements? Offered suggestions?
2. Inability to cope with any routes which are out of the ordinary. Everything has to be 'adapted' and I don't believe it has the capacity to cover every possible scenario which we see on a regular basis. Hence people spend an inordinate amount of time frigging the system and trying to get something meaningful out for controllers.
We have tried to standardise routes to standardise strip outfall. Flight plan 'A' will produce strips 'B - F' at units 'G - k'. Its because our airspace is so complex. If the routes don't suit then do something about it via ops.
3. Extremely poor processing of direct routes, unable to provide the ATCO with anything meaningful except 7 or 8 irrelevant strips. Other FDPs can cope with airspace entry/exit which are not through recognised COPs. NAS apparently can't.
Agreed
4. Defaults to 'preferred routes' between city pairs sometimes regardless of what the aircraft has actually filed. There is now a dependence placed on someone inputting the fact that the filed and processed routes differ. And if it is missed ...... ??
Agreed and defined by ops reps. Again, take it up with them and we will fix it!
5. Far too many simple input errors seem to cause it to crash once a year or so. A decent system would have protections which provide a caution to the user before allowing them to make a critical error. Or simply just not allow them to do it.
Which decent system? SACTA? Eurocat?
6. Still unable to process PAC, REV and MAC messages thus involving staff in having to undergo co-ordination telephone calls everytime something changes after the ACT has been sent.
NAS is being replaced so management (and the lackies really are a pain here) will not spend money on it. PAC, MAC and REV and half done in NAS so, again, MAKE SOME NOISE!!
7. As already mentioned, extremely poor memory retention which means it needs to be shut down once a week .. is it running on a Sinclair Spectrum ZX81 or something ??
Shut down once a week due memory? I don't think so. Try for testing as 'management' will not invest in a proper test bed (actually they may now be doing this at the CTC).
My impression is that those who have worked tirelessy and thanklessly on the NAS 'empire' over the years now see a real threat to their domain and the realisation that their specialist knowledge and skills will soon become redundant. As such, they are extremely keen to champion NAS, some even propose developing it as part of any future system
Maybe so in some quarters. Lets see what the new system can do. iTEC (there isen't one) stands for interoperability through european cooperation. Does that sound like an FDP system to you. Its SACTA with tools - maybe tools like IFACTS! SACTA cannot cope with the London FIR - period!
I strongly agree the work done now and in the past has been done as well as it possibly can by a very skilled staff group, but one day we have to wake up to the fact that the core processing philosophy which NAS has was designed in an age which did not have any of the high traffic and complexity levels which we experience today. Sure, we have continuous tinkering with the system to add on bits and pieces, but that's not the same as providing a system which has it more or less right as its basic configuration. It's inflexible, it's not easy to use, and does not provide a simple or graphic interface capability.
So get involved and do something about it. Is there a thread developing here? Most ATCO's just do the job and go home.
Seeing some of the other systems out there and what they can do in simple mouse clicks or typed instructions, I for one won't shed a tear when the NAS system is thrown out to the Science Museum
Which ones? Do tell. Have you seen them actually working in a complex ATC environment like ours? No! didn't think so.
COP's out of the blue are illegal. Defined COP's are required for OLDI processing, even the IAA should know that!
Which one? Swanwick? or any other of the dozen or so units its been stretched to manage? Have you suggested improvements? Offered suggestions?
2. Inability to cope with any routes which are out of the ordinary. Everything has to be 'adapted' and I don't believe it has the capacity to cover every possible scenario which we see on a regular basis. Hence people spend an inordinate amount of time frigging the system and trying to get something meaningful out for controllers.
We have tried to standardise routes to standardise strip outfall. Flight plan 'A' will produce strips 'B - F' at units 'G - k'. Its because our airspace is so complex. If the routes don't suit then do something about it via ops.
3. Extremely poor processing of direct routes, unable to provide the ATCO with anything meaningful except 7 or 8 irrelevant strips. Other FDPs can cope with airspace entry/exit which are not through recognised COPs. NAS apparently can't.
Agreed
4. Defaults to 'preferred routes' between city pairs sometimes regardless of what the aircraft has actually filed. There is now a dependence placed on someone inputting the fact that the filed and processed routes differ. And if it is missed ...... ??
Agreed and defined by ops reps. Again, take it up with them and we will fix it!
5. Far too many simple input errors seem to cause it to crash once a year or so. A decent system would have protections which provide a caution to the user before allowing them to make a critical error. Or simply just not allow them to do it.
Which decent system? SACTA? Eurocat?
6. Still unable to process PAC, REV and MAC messages thus involving staff in having to undergo co-ordination telephone calls everytime something changes after the ACT has been sent.
NAS is being replaced so management (and the lackies really are a pain here) will not spend money on it. PAC, MAC and REV and half done in NAS so, again, MAKE SOME NOISE!!
7. As already mentioned, extremely poor memory retention which means it needs to be shut down once a week .. is it running on a Sinclair Spectrum ZX81 or something ??
Shut down once a week due memory? I don't think so. Try for testing as 'management' will not invest in a proper test bed (actually they may now be doing this at the CTC).
My impression is that those who have worked tirelessy and thanklessly on the NAS 'empire' over the years now see a real threat to their domain and the realisation that their specialist knowledge and skills will soon become redundant. As such, they are extremely keen to champion NAS, some even propose developing it as part of any future system
Maybe so in some quarters. Lets see what the new system can do. iTEC (there isen't one) stands for interoperability through european cooperation. Does that sound like an FDP system to you. Its SACTA with tools - maybe tools like IFACTS! SACTA cannot cope with the London FIR - period!
I strongly agree the work done now and in the past has been done as well as it possibly can by a very skilled staff group, but one day we have to wake up to the fact that the core processing philosophy which NAS has was designed in an age which did not have any of the high traffic and complexity levels which we experience today. Sure, we have continuous tinkering with the system to add on bits and pieces, but that's not the same as providing a system which has it more or less right as its basic configuration. It's inflexible, it's not easy to use, and does not provide a simple or graphic interface capability.
So get involved and do something about it. Is there a thread developing here? Most ATCO's just do the job and go home.
Seeing some of the other systems out there and what they can do in simple mouse clicks or typed instructions, I for one won't shed a tear when the NAS system is thrown out to the Science Museum
Which ones? Do tell. Have you seen them actually working in a complex ATC environment like ours? No! didn't think so.
COP's out of the blue are illegal. Defined COP's are required for OLDI processing, even the IAA should know that!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simply that lots of people, ATCO and ATSA, are ready to critisize but very very few are actually willing to make positive contributions.
Complaining is easy, NAS IS %^$£*g complex and so will iTEC be by the time it (SACTA) has been modded to manage the London FIR, so any help is always appreciated! Most ATC staff do not understand just what FDP systems do, they use it.
Much better that complaining
Take PAC, MAC, REV. Is there a requirement for these? Not at LACC apparently and not at all for MAC and REV!!! If the IS a requirement then say so.
Complaining is easy, NAS IS %^$£*g complex and so will iTEC be by the time it (SACTA) has been modded to manage the London FIR, so any help is always appreciated! Most ATC staff do not understand just what FDP systems do, they use it.
Much better that complaining
Take PAC, MAC, REV. Is there a requirement for these? Not at LACC apparently and not at all for MAC and REV!!! If the IS a requirement then say so.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aware of that. Its not for use at LACC though - no requirement apparently. The point is that although MAC and REV (and any other OLDI message) can be done in NAS there is actually no requirement for it OR management don't wish to spend the money.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Why does it have to be shut down once a week?"
Surprised no one has answered that question which we asked a few years ago as operators and were told the simple and logical answer;
There is only 1. If you want to fiddle with that 1 you have to take it off line.
Other places have 2 or even 3 computers. 1 working, 1 on standby and 1 for playing with. That is why they don't have the same problem.
It is ironic that we file our FPLs and RPLs to two computers that are not just independent and backed-up but located in geographically different areas. However, that feeds to a single point of failure in London.
We were told that the plan was to have 1 new computer for all the UK in Scotland's ACC and another in London's ACC and they would provide back-up for each other. IS that still a plan or are NATs going to save some money and just by 1 system?
Regards,
DFC
Surprised no one has answered that question which we asked a few years ago as operators and were told the simple and logical answer;
There is only 1. If you want to fiddle with that 1 you have to take it off line.
Other places have 2 or even 3 computers. 1 working, 1 on standby and 1 for playing with. That is why they don't have the same problem.
It is ironic that we file our FPLs and RPLs to two computers that are not just independent and backed-up but located in geographically different areas. However, that feeds to a single point of failure in London.
We were told that the plan was to have 1 new computer for all the UK in Scotland's ACC and another in London's ACC and they would provide back-up for each other. IS that still a plan or are NATs going to save some money and just by 1 system?
Regards,
DFC
