Common Strip Display
A Cautionary Tale
Many years ago, prior to the introduction of Emirates Control, the management of Abu Dhabi International ATC thought it would be a good idea if we had a "Common Strip Display" to help those who would be working Area and Approach.
Their solution was to have all sectors (including Tower) use a Eastbound and Westbound system instead of inbound and outbound i.e. Blue FPS for West and buffs for East.
The resulting fiasco was like trying to ride a bike with reverse steering! Mistakes were made all the time, even in very quiet periods. One week and several embarrassing incidents later the change was scrapped.
Having tried the CSD CBT and seen my Unit's attempt at adapting the CSD to fit our purposes (which makes it non CSD anyway), my fear is that it will lead to a disaster that will make the Manchester incident seem very insignificant.
Their solution was to have all sectors (including Tower) use a Eastbound and Westbound system instead of inbound and outbound i.e. Blue FPS for West and buffs for East.
The resulting fiasco was like trying to ride a bike with reverse steering! Mistakes were made all the time, even in very quiet periods. One week and several embarrassing incidents later the change was scrapped.
Having tried the CSD CBT and seen my Unit's attempt at adapting the CSD to fit our purposes (which makes it non CSD anyway), my fear is that it will lead to a disaster that will make the Manchester incident seem very insignificant.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LetMfly,
Well they must have introduced again cos it was there in 92.Yep it was also mega confusing.It's very difficult to use a brand new system especially when colours and strip orders are changed.
Wait til we get fog with no SMR.Milan lessons obviously not learned then.I am not going to use it,and if the powers that be don't like it,then they can withdraw my tower validation.
I'd rather keep Joe Public safe,and myself out of prison
Well they must have introduced again cos it was there in 92.Yep it was also mega confusing.It's very difficult to use a brand new system especially when colours and strip orders are changed.
Wait til we get fog with no SMR.Milan lessons obviously not learned then.I am not going to use it,and if the powers that be don't like it,then they can withdraw my tower validation.
I'd rather keep Joe Public safe,and myself out of prison
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I sincerely hope that you don't assume that human factors experst are always listened to. They are not the decision makers, they just give their professional opinions and than often shake their heads when these opinions are disregarded.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: By the Sea-side
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
throw a dyce
it's just up the road from the Lawson's factory.
2 Sheds
A bit harsh on HF. You should always listen to people. Only then can you choose to ignore them.
it's just up the road from the Lawson's factory.
2 Sheds
A bit harsh on HF. You should always listen to people. Only then can you choose to ignore them.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Centre of old Europe
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lon More
.... the problem in getting it accepted by everyone was the fact that it was percived as strips being presented electronically. When they got away from this mind set the change was no great problem. For a period both systems ran parallel, then strips were produced, but no requirement to update them, then they were produced , but no longer distributed, then the printers were switched off.
I spent some ime at NERC during the trials and was not very impressed by the adherence to the strip form of display.
I know that a totally paperless environment is impossible to acheieve - where else could you put the coffee orders? - but with the introduction of data links, etc. updating paper is just a duplication of workload. Also with an electronic system there is only one way of doing it.
As I said, personal opinion from a retired controller
I spent some ime at NERC during the trials and was not very impressed by the adherence to the strip form of display.
I know that a totally paperless environment is impossible to acheieve - where else could you put the coffee orders? - but with the introduction of data links, etc. updating paper is just a duplication of workload. Also with an electronic system there is only one way of doing it.
As I said, personal opinion from a retired controller
1) Human Factors specialists have a tendency to replicate paper strips electronically. Unfortunately the HF people do this on advice from ... ehum ... controllers. Mostly not the controllers who have gone through the experience, but controllers without too much exposure to automation, in the worst case selected by management for their tractability. Management usually think the replication of strips is an excellent idea, at least it is something they can recognize, but invariably it leads to failure. The data presentation and data handling needs to be adapted to electronic means, also in accordance with local circumstances rather than centrally dictated. What is intuitive on a paper strip is not any longer intuitive on a screen. The funny thing is that almost every ATC establishment, with only few exceptions, makes the same mistake, or if you prefer, learning curve. In particular the ATC units with a large bureaucracy want to reinvent their own wheels, despite the frequent meetings at Eurocontrol or elsewhere. And industry has no problem to deliver, the more repair actions, the higher the profits. Of course the price tag to such mistakes is considerable and worst of all sometimes blamed on the conservatism of controllers. Oh, how do I hate this.
2) Keeping two systems running for a period until full confidence is reached, as described by Lon More, is wisdom. An investment worth its money.
3) Updating paper in stripless environment is adding workload and counterproductive. In the early days of URET, just when the system was accepted by the controllers majority in Indianapolis and Memphis Centres, there was an order from their HQ to keep updating paper strips. The controllers refuted the workload duplication and told management to chose between annotation of paper strips or withdrawal of URET. Since URET was one of the few remnants of the failed 5 billion $ ATC full automation project of the early nineties, management drew back and condoned the use of URET without paper strip annotation. A few controllers did not want to work with URET, for them paper strips had to be made up, but I guess that was a minor inconvenience between controllers.
For the rest, I mustn't think of the horrors of changing blue and yellow strip colours. I thought I had seen funny things in my career, but that ain't funny anymore ! Asking for disaster, I'd say.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of us are quite happy with URET as a strip replacement. As a conflict probe (what they spent all the money on) it stinks, but as a replacement for paper it is very nice. It however can NOT be used for non-radar and you still must use strips for that. They are working on it, but it is still not perfect...
regards
Scott
regards
Scott
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Common Strip Display - bag of s***e?
ATCOs at my unit are currently being "trained" in the use of Common Strip Display. Training consists of 1-2 hours live time in Tower, followed by an instruction to "go play with the traffic". The new system is basically an upside-down, back to front version of that which we've all been using for the last umpteen years...imagine being told that tomorrow morning we'll all be driving on the wrong side of the road....and by the way we've swapped the accelerator and brake pedals!! Explanation does not = training. People are wary of filing, but everyone I have spoken to is unhappy with the situation, and the attitude from Management is "this is what we have to do....so get on with it". On paper we are allowed as much familiarisation time as we need, however logistically if everyone insisted on 3 months monitoring the unit would shut!! I can see that this is "I told you so" waiting to happen, but I can't make anyone listen....what should I do? Can I file a 4114 on other people's behalves? What happened to our open and honest safety culture?? (Excuse me whilst I pmsl!!) 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: north auroa ill
Age: 63
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of us are quite happy with URET as a strip replacement. As a conflict probe (what they spent all the money on) it stinks, but as a replacement for paper it is very nice. It however can NOT be used for non-radar and you still must use strips for that. They are working on it, but it is still not perfect...
regards
Scott
regards
Scott
how can you say people are happpy with URET, one URET was never ment to be a strip replacement and it dose a horribal job of it. only one controller can use it at a time, if you have a d-side the radar controller can not use it because of only one entry method with the track ball and their is only one. most of the time when you are busy all you d-side is doing is asking question about what you have done, it removed the nonverbal part that strips gave you. the whole point of URET was that it IS a conflict probe, but some one decided to replace strips with it. the ACL list is a joke and its hard to find the info in it, id love for some one to show me the human factors that was done on it!!!!! their WAS NONE.the only reason URET came was thet indy center controller were too lazy to use their strips .most of the controllers at ZAU that liked URET were the weaksticks that couldnt seperate the cheeks of their asses with both hands, but after a while most controller just gave in.at ZAU he had a very good radar team using strips that had evolved over 50 years and URET destroyed it in a few short months.i could go on but lets just say that URET was the main reason i left for C90 and iam much happyer that i did. URET is ATC for the criminally stupid, and just so you know i spent 20 years at ZAU so i know what iam talking about.you can paint a turd to look like a rose but its still a turd.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Norway, Stavanger
Age: 44
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will I find an online description of the NATS "Common Strip Display"?
I work at an airport with intersecting runways, and we are currently looking for better ways of presenting possible runway conflicts. It doesn't sound like the CSD is worth considering, but I am a bit curious...
I work at an airport with intersecting runways, and we are currently looking for better ways of presenting possible runway conflicts. It doesn't sound like the CSD is worth considering, but I am a bit curious...
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grim,
I find an absolutely terrifying suggestion! Who pays if you screw it up?
File on it, CHIRP it, put it in writing (e-mail or paper) to your GM/MATC, copy it to PC over at Stirling!! Make sure you point out that you are unhappy with the system and lack of training and state that you believe that there is a very real likelihood of a mistake happening - if it does you can then produce the written evidence and say "SEE, told you so".
What do your LCE's think of it?
Who has signed off the Safety Case? and what's the mitigation for Controller error causing a horrendous incident?
I still cannot get my head round the quote above - so much for a safety first organisation.
DD
followed by an instruction to "go play with the traffic".
File on it, CHIRP it, put it in writing (e-mail or paper) to your GM/MATC, copy it to PC over at Stirling!! Make sure you point out that you are unhappy with the system and lack of training and state that you believe that there is a very real likelihood of a mistake happening - if it does you can then produce the written evidence and say "SEE, told you so".
What do your LCE's think of it?
Who has signed off the Safety Case? and what's the mitigation for Controller error causing a horrendous incident?
I still cannot get my head round the quote above - so much for a safety first organisation.
DD
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There will be a Teneriffe or Milan disaster if CSD is imposed on us.The primary concern of an ATCO in a VCR is to look out the window.What is the point in telling ATCO's with years of experience,to shuffle strips arse over face,and screw up whats going on outside.
Thats just the fixed wing side.Here at ISZ we have a vast amount of helis on 4 runways.It just CANNOT be done with CSD.OK make all the helis behave like fixed wing and cut capacity by 40%.Explain that to the Helicopter and Oil companies.CSD is designed to prevent what we do every day. 
Ps IF CSD comes they can have my Tower validation,stuck right up their A SE
Thats just the fixed wing side.Here at ISZ we have a vast amount of helis on 4 runways.It just CANNOT be done with CSD.OK make all the helis behave like fixed wing and cut capacity by 40%.Explain that to the Helicopter and Oil companies.CSD is designed to prevent what we do every day.
Ps IF CSD comes they can have my Tower validation,stuck right up their A
SE
Last edited by throw a dyce; 6th Nov 2006 at 21:41. Reason: typo
aceatco, retired
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: one airshow or another
Posts: 1,431
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
We (Luton) went over to common strip display some time ago (a year? 
) and for our operation - single runway but quite busy - I think it works well. I wouldn't do it any other way now.
And it was all to prepare us for Electronic Flight Progress Strips and that goes live this weekend . . .
) and for our operation - single runway but quite busy - I think it works well. I wouldn't do it any other way now.And it was all to prepare us for Electronic Flight Progress Strips and that goes live this weekend . . .