Common Strip Display
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Not quite sure anymore
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Common Strip Display
Anyone else think this is a complete pile of horse****?
I have a method of strip management that I have developed and fine tuned thru 18 years in the business (probably not too dissimilar to your own!) and am now being told by management that I have to change over to the new common display or else! How is this safe? I understand that after the manch incident the company are trying to introduce a bit of accountability but this is going too far. How am I,or any of my colleagues, supposed to operate in the increasingly busy summer period when faced with an enforced system that leaves us all disorientated and confused??? There is no coverall common strip display so forget this crap and let us get on with our jobs!!! And that means you mr "barstool" Barron!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have a method of strip management that I have developed and fine tuned thru 18 years in the business (probably not too dissimilar to your own!) and am now being told by management that I have to change over to the new common display or else! How is this safe? I understand that after the manch incident the company are trying to introduce a bit of accountability but this is going too far. How am I,or any of my colleagues, supposed to operate in the increasingly busy summer period when faced with an enforced system that leaves us all disorientated and confused??? There is no coverall common strip display so forget this crap and let us get on with our jobs!!! And that means you mr "barstool" Barron!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have some sympathy, although I was bought up on the standard display system, some of my colleagues have positively bizzare strip board methodology which I wouldn't understand if I spent the rest of the week thinking about it.
That said if you are working at a busy unit with people taking over from you every two hours, its only reasonable to have standard system so that your oncoming colleague doesn't have to spend five minutes rearranging the strip board before they get the full picture.
Try using your method with an electronic strip display system.
That said if you are working at a busy unit with people taking over from you every two hours, its only reasonable to have standard system so that your oncoming colleague doesn't have to spend five minutes rearranging the strip board before they get the full picture.
Try using your method with an electronic strip display system.
More than just an ATCO
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Up someone's nose
Age: 75
Posts: 1,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try using your method with an electronic strip display system.
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
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Niknak,
I believe that pikman was referring to the 'Common Strip Display' that NATS are introducing across all units (just towers, or is it radar too?). The idea is that Aberdeen will have the same marking and movement as Luton etc etc. I don't believe there's a unit that has different methods of stip movement and display within that unit.
I believe that pikman was referring to the 'Common Strip Display' that NATS are introducing across all units (just towers, or is it radar too?). The idea is that Aberdeen will have the same marking and movement as Luton etc etc. I don't believe there's a unit that has different methods of stip movement and display within that unit.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And there is the rub.....
Aberdeen and Luton Towers have about as much in common as Chalk and Cheese. Luton 1 runway Aberdeen 5 (all crossing and/or intersecting) plus the ability to "sectorise" (Line up at an intermediate point and land one behind.) Yes I know 40- 50% are "helicopters" but they all have an FPS and they all need to occupy the Runway bay. On a calm day it is entirely possible to have 4 cleared for take-off at the same time. Go figure how CSD works for that!
As for reversing the methodology - we currently work on the deps "floating to the top" at which point they are clear for take-off, (CSD = move to bottom) well I wouldn't like to sign off the safety accountability for when an ATCO under pressure looks at the board, sees the dep at the top and clears it for take-off when there are still others on the runway but at the bottom of the bay.
Personally I think they are barking up the wrong tree - I believe there are over 30 (33 was mentioned?) different strip layouts in use throughout NATS - if they want to standardise start there!
(There was a thread on this subject in the NATS forum a while back)
Aberdeen and Luton Towers have about as much in common as Chalk and Cheese. Luton 1 runway Aberdeen 5 (all crossing and/or intersecting) plus the ability to "sectorise" (Line up at an intermediate point and land one behind.) Yes I know 40- 50% are "helicopters" but they all have an FPS and they all need to occupy the Runway bay. On a calm day it is entirely possible to have 4 cleared for take-off at the same time. Go figure how CSD works for that!
As for reversing the methodology - we currently work on the deps "floating to the top" at which point they are clear for take-off, (CSD = move to bottom) well I wouldn't like to sign off the safety accountability for when an ATCO under pressure looks at the board, sees the dep at the top and clears it for take-off when there are still others on the runway but at the bottom of the bay.
Personally I think they are barking up the wrong tree - I believe there are over 30 (33 was mentioned?) different strip layouts in use throughout NATS - if they want to standardise start there!
(There was a thread on this subject in the NATS forum a while back)
StandupfortheUlstermen
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Peoples' Democratic Republic of Wurzelsetshire
Age: 53
Posts: 1,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Horsesh!t is being too kind, but you can lay odds what's coming next..........when this common strip display comes in, there'll be a raft of incidents as people get used to it, then the company can have a new initiative and witch hunt to stamp out the errors which, after all, will be put down to controller error. Then they'll look proactive for dealing with the problem promptly. Same as the recent "when is a level bust not a level bust" trial.
We teach a strip display layout here at Brizz when we have a new trainee. They are expected to use the same format as the rest of us, albeit, there are minor differences between individuals. But then, after the fuss has died down, everyone will 'adapt' the common display to suit themselves. So what's the point?
We teach a strip display layout here at Brizz when we have a new trainee. They are expected to use the same format as the rest of us, albeit, there are minor differences between individuals. But then, after the fuss has died down, everyone will 'adapt' the common display to suit themselves. So what's the point?
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is possible to have sometimes 5 strips in the runway bay at Aberdeen,quite legally.As Data Dad states the combinations are endless.Where do circuit helis fit,or ones doing rejects? Where to helis hovering on 23 fit in on CSD?
The whole thing is completely the opposite to what we do.You may as well have blues for inbounds,and buff for outbounds just to finish the job.
If CSD is implemented at Aberdeen then they can stick the tower rating up their backsides.I'll just sit on radar.It too dangerous and someone will make a big mistake.We don't get paid for it anyway being a sleepy little airstrip where nothing happens.(5 terminals,4 runways,20% monthly increase in traffic zzzzzzzzz)
The whole thing is completely the opposite to what we do.You may as well have blues for inbounds,and buff for outbounds just to finish the job.
If CSD is implemented at Aberdeen then they can stick the tower rating up their backsides.I'll just sit on radar.It too dangerous and someone will make a big mistake.We don't get paid for it anyway being a sleepy little airstrip where nothing happens.(5 terminals,4 runways,20% monthly increase in traffic zzzzzzzzz)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: EGCC
Age: 56
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I get the gist... and I'm 'yes' and 'no' for the CSD.
First off, for a tower there's nothing like a GRAPHICAL representation rather than a strip bank display. I've used both at different times and both worked.
As for RADAR, that's a different flagpole altogether. When London Mil first moved to plasma panels, there was a huge kickoff over 'electronic flight strips'. Personally, I thought it worked darn well! (Next door in Civil was a cleaner's nightmare - more strip ends on the floor than strips!)
On the other hand, I can write and think and talk and watch all at the same time. (How big a slab does one want?)
As for standardisation, my strip marking was the same everywhere, in accordance with instruction. If it's standard markings then I say go for it! Might counter the oft-times illegible markings of fellow colleagues!
First off, for a tower there's nothing like a GRAPHICAL representation rather than a strip bank display. I've used both at different times and both worked.
As for RADAR, that's a different flagpole altogether. When London Mil first moved to plasma panels, there was a huge kickoff over 'electronic flight strips'. Personally, I thought it worked darn well! (Next door in Civil was a cleaner's nightmare - more strip ends on the floor than strips!)
On the other hand, I can write and think and talk and watch all at the same time. (How big a slab does one want?)
As for standardisation, my strip marking was the same everywhere, in accordance with instruction. If it's standard markings then I say go for it! Might counter the oft-times illegible markings of fellow colleagues!
Pikman - I sympathise with you. I was taught a display method at my unit over 30 years ago (straight from the college) and after all this time I'm expected to change to a TOTALLY different and illogical method in less than a month, with the left hand bay packed full of pendings, taxy's and starts and very little in the right bay (we only have two bays and there's no room to expand).
My method was so simple; left bay pending, right bay live!
My method was so simple; left bay pending, right bay live!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pikman et al, I know how you feel!
At my APC unit we have two methods of identifying whether strips are inbound or outbound. They are: colour of FPS holder and ALSO format of FPS. After nearly four decades using 'outbounds blue, inbounds buff' for CDS reasons we have had to reverse the FPS holder colours for inbounds and outbounds. I think we have all overcome it but I still find a tendency to 'revert to type' especially when the FPS supplied is of the incorrect format. This leads me to conclude that the significance of the holder colour has now been degraded and that the FPS format provides the greater cue. The next CDS move, apparently, is to mix time order and vertical in the same display. The apparent intention is as follows: The inbounds will be displayed using the time-honoured 'lowest and earliest' method but the outbounds, however, will be displayed inversely, ie 'highest and earliest', and bear a departure sequence number, which, to all intents and purposes, is 'vertical'. This becomes even more confusing when the departure sequence is changed by TWR. I believe that this undermines proven lowest and earliest techniques and that the changes are frought with risk. Fortunately I won't have to endure these misguided directives for much longer.
Chevvron, you did well to adapt from the clipboard and 'blank chits'........
At my APC unit we have two methods of identifying whether strips are inbound or outbound. They are: colour of FPS holder and ALSO format of FPS. After nearly four decades using 'outbounds blue, inbounds buff' for CDS reasons we have had to reverse the FPS holder colours for inbounds and outbounds. I think we have all overcome it but I still find a tendency to 'revert to type' especially when the FPS supplied is of the incorrect format. This leads me to conclude that the significance of the holder colour has now been degraded and that the FPS format provides the greater cue. The next CDS move, apparently, is to mix time order and vertical in the same display. The apparent intention is as follows: The inbounds will be displayed using the time-honoured 'lowest and earliest' method but the outbounds, however, will be displayed inversely, ie 'highest and earliest', and bear a departure sequence number, which, to all intents and purposes, is 'vertical'. This becomes even more confusing when the departure sequence is changed by TWR. I believe that this undermines proven lowest and earliest techniques and that the changes are frought with risk. Fortunately I won't have to endure these misguided directives for much longer.
Chevvron, you did well to adapt from the clipboard and 'blank chits'........
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Hong Kong they used blue holders for inbounds and buff for outbounds.On single runway this was vey confusing,as your brain is programmed for the opposite.The only thing that saved my ass was going back to the system taught in the college 26years ago,the system I use now.Trouble was that others used a different system again so handing over could be a problem.But I never had an incident on any runway at CLK.
This CSD system is crap.I tried it because I've seen different systems etc.This is the worst and completely unworkable at Aberdeen.The most important strip,the one in the active bay is out of sight down by your navel.But still no-one can tell me how you can show a heli departing 34 from the north end,one lined up behind halfway,a fixed wing lined up 34 threshold,2helis landing on 32 at the same time,and one doing a hover check on 23.That's 6 strips in the ''Runway active ''bay.But which runway?
Come on Nats boffins,show me how you display that on CSD.
This CSD system is crap.I tried it because I've seen different systems etc.This is the worst and completely unworkable at Aberdeen.The most important strip,the one in the active bay is out of sight down by your navel.But still no-one can tell me how you can show a heli departing 34 from the north end,one lined up behind halfway,a fixed wing lined up 34 threshold,2helis landing on 32 at the same time,and one doing a hover check on 23.That's 6 strips in the ''Runway active ''bay.But which runway?
Come on Nats boffins,show me how you display that on CSD.
Precisely; it's obviously a 'knee jerk' because of a certain incident and the so-called safety experts homed in on EFPS displays and tried to copy them unsuccessfully for paper strips, and so those of us who use paper strips have to suffer.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Presumably the NATS Safety Management System was followed before introduction, and appropriate Hazard Analysis was carried out utilising operational staff at some point ........ this analysis would hopefully identify the problems being flagged up here and offer mitigations against them being unsafe, or deem them not to be risks (with appropriate justifications documented).
Why not ask your unit management to let you have sight of the safety paperwork and see exactly how your fears have been mitigated ??
I think you are a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic if you believe that the 'Baron' had any role to play in the introduction of an operational system or procedure. He employs people in NERL and NSL to do that kind of stuff for him surely ??
Why not ask your unit management to let you have sight of the safety paperwork and see exactly how your fears have been mitigated ??
There is no coverall common strip display so forget this crap and let us get on with our jobs!!! And that means you mr "barstool" Barron!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Up North
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Come on Nats boffins,show me how you display that on CSD. "
They can't. It's as simple as that. That is a local problem of which your training department will have to come up with a solution. Your display will then be different from everyone elses and will then not be common. Pointless!
We in southern Scotland are in a similar situation.
The thing that irritates me is we are being sold this as a 'safety issue' rather than the truth of it needs to come in before introducing the EFPS to make things simple. I agree the whole thing is Bu****it. Each unit is different but once on unit everyone uses the same strip display. The Manc incident was an error. They happen. When we were being presented with the CSD, Rob S showed us that it couldn't happen with the new system, but it wouldn't happen with the old system either, IT WAS AN ERROR!
My major gripe is that we have a date of implimentation for this. I and others will not be signing up for this if we are not ready and as previously stated we are to be trained during the busiest period of the year. We don't have a lot of flexibility in the workforce and I am not signing ready until the old ways have been wiped from my brain. Same old story if I embarass myself I will get no back up from above.
They can't. It's as simple as that. That is a local problem of which your training department will have to come up with a solution. Your display will then be different from everyone elses and will then not be common. Pointless!
We in southern Scotland are in a similar situation.
The thing that irritates me is we are being sold this as a 'safety issue' rather than the truth of it needs to come in before introducing the EFPS to make things simple. I agree the whole thing is Bu****it. Each unit is different but once on unit everyone uses the same strip display. The Manc incident was an error. They happen. When we were being presented with the CSD, Rob S showed us that it couldn't happen with the new system, but it wouldn't happen with the old system either, IT WAS AN ERROR!
My major gripe is that we have a date of implimentation for this. I and others will not be signing up for this if we are not ready and as previously stated we are to be trained during the busiest period of the year. We don't have a lot of flexibility in the workforce and I am not signing ready until the old ways have been wiped from my brain. Same old story if I embarass myself I will get no back up from above.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hootin,
Well the solution at the moment is that you stick all the strips in the giant runway bay and look out the window.But when you change the order that the strips are moved ,then the scope for clearing a fixed wing for takeoff,before a heli has vacated on a cross runway has increased a lot.This is because the strips are right the old way,but wrong the new way.When you get busy,then the old way takes over.All helicopter movements have to use,cross,or infringe rwy 16/34.
The whole operation at Aberdeen has evolved over years.All the helicopter rules are in Mats part 2,not part 1.The whole operation is non standard (heli wise),yet a Common display which is DANGEROUS,could be imposed on us. Most of the people in Nats making these decisions don't even know where Aberdeen is,let alone what the operation is.
Well the solution at the moment is that you stick all the strips in the giant runway bay and look out the window.But when you change the order that the strips are moved ,then the scope for clearing a fixed wing for takeoff,before a heli has vacated on a cross runway has increased a lot.This is because the strips are right the old way,but wrong the new way.When you get busy,then the old way takes over.All helicopter movements have to use,cross,or infringe rwy 16/34.
The whole operation at Aberdeen has evolved over years.All the helicopter rules are in Mats part 2,not part 1.The whole operation is non standard (heli wise),yet a Common display which is DANGEROUS,could be imposed on us. Most of the people in Nats making these decisions don't even know where Aberdeen is,let alone what the operation is.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd venture that those responsible for this initiative in NATS airports are so far removed from the coalface that they wouldn't know what a headset was. Or, heaven forbid, was it an engineer's idea?????
Let's face it, every airfield has its own little quirks that need a unique variation on strip display. At my airfield, there are so many vehicles likely to operate on or near the runway that we have to find room to store over 30 vehicle specific FPS'!!
I asked about hazard analysis for CSD and came up against a wall of silence, so I don't know if a specific one was done, or if they just assumed the one for EFPS was valid.
I asked about hazard analysis for CSD and came up against a wall of silence, so I don't know if a specific one was done, or if they just assumed the one for EFPS was valid.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Up North
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I'd venture that those responsible for this initiative in NATS airports are so far removed from the coalface that they wouldn't know what a headset was. Or, heaven forbid, was it an engineer's idea????? "
Gonzo
It was your ex Head of Training's idea wasn't it? He's certainly doing the rounds attempting to promote it and claiming part responsibility.
Gonzo
It was your ex Head of Training's idea wasn't it? He's certainly doing the rounds attempting to promote it and claiming part responsibility.