What do you know about SACTA???

[goldfrog]

The other major problem with getting ATC buy-in is finding a concensus as to what is "right". I spend my life asking groups from ATC what they want but find great difficulty getting "the right answer" as there are invariably many wish lists which cannot be reconciled and a lack of leadership to select a solution.

[BEXIL160]

The result is a system (fully aided and abetted by the staff who operate it of course ) which moves a sight more traffic than West Drayton ever did or could.

.... and cost how much? and was how late? and still relies on NAS which is HOW old?

OTHER systems were available at much less cost and were proven, but would have mean junking NAS. Those same systems have been in use in Europe for some time now, and offer the unique facility (to NATS) that they don't have to be shut down on a weekly or monthly basis. Swanwick of course, isn't quite so advanced.

Lack of CCTV information has been implicated in safety related incidents since Swanwick opened (the latest last week) Lack of it has been cited in many incident investgations and yet it's still not provided. You seem to be saying that management think that this situation is acceptable beacuse MOST of the time we get by without it. Doesn't sound much to me like a committment to safety

iFACTS does seem to be getting it right. It has had operational ATC people involved from the beginning.

The rest of the systems you mention have not (by your own admission). PM seems to be a bit hit and miss then.

LEADERSHIP, as goldfrog mentions is something that ATC sorely misses. The problem for NATS is that any leadership tends be stiffled by the current management because it doesn't fit "company style". Getting consensus can be very difficult among a group of controllers, they will however tell you as one, when you've got it wrong.

BEX

[goldfrog]

Originally Posted by BEXIL160

Getting consensus can be very difficult among a group of controllers, they will however tell you as one, when you've got it wrong.
BEX

And that's what makes being a project engineer so worthwhile and life enhancing!

[ex-EGLL]

Just make the PM a controller, so much more fun

[BDiONU]

Originally Posted by BEXIL160

.... and cost how much? and was how late? and still relies on NAS which is HOW old?

It cost however much building a new bespoke ATC platform cost, which is why SACTA/CASPIAN/iTEC is a colloborative project with AENA to share the costs . Only the senior management put about the ridiculous date, everyone on the project kept telling them it was not realistic. The original concept of NAS may be old but it is still doing the job, still being updated with all the airspace changes and coping with it all very well. There's a saying 'If it ain't broke then don't fix it'. Aside from that a new FDP system is going to cost an absolute mint, hence iTEC-eFDP which is another collaberative project which will share the costs.

OTHER systems were available at much less cost and were proven, but would have mean junking NAS.

This is your opinion and obviously not generally shared.

Lack of CCTV information has been implicated in safety related incidents since Swanwick opened (the latest last week) Lack of it has been cited in many incident investgations and yet it's still not provided. You seem to be saying that management think that this situation is acceptable beacuse MOST of the time we get by without it. Doesn't sound much to me like a committment to safety

Management decision, management carry the can in the event of an SSE attributable to a lack of equipment which could have been foreseen. We've had this discussion already.

iFACTS does seem to be getting it right. It has had operational ATC people involved from the beginning.

Not from the beginning thats the domain of the engineers, don't think ATC would be interested or compenent to work out the wiggly amp bits. Yes there has been strong ATC input for over a year now, where we are in the ATC user phase but this has been around for about 4 years.

The rest of the systems you mention have not (by your own admission). PM seems to be a bit hit and miss then.

SACTA/CASPIAN/iTEC are approaching but not yet at the ATC input stage. When they reach that stage then you'll see just the same commitment as there is currently with iFACTS. Right now we are agreeing the ATC goals (formerly known as requirements) amongst the 4 ACC.

Getting consensus can be very difficult among a group of controllers, they will however tell you as one, when you've got it wrong.

600 controllers = 620 different answers

BD

[Minesapint]

One of the biggest problems I have working on a number of large projects around NATS, is convincing some elements of the engineering world that the ATC requirement is king. Big mistakes were made in the NERc project as the shutters went up and fingers plugged ears, there is an element of that in the CASPIAN project - not in the ATC side though. Seriously, if you have any questions concerning this then there are groups of people at Swanwick that can answer your questions, or refer you to people who can. I agree that ATC Ops are NOT involved early enough but exactly when is a really difficult call.

If SACTA cannot interface with EFPS I will be stunned!

Can SACTA meet the ATC requirement? Time will tell. Same answer for delivering on time

[Minesapint]

BTW, completely agree with BDIONU, gather requirements for a new ATC system from ScACC and LACC and you would find that you need two completely different systems!!!! So, coming up with a common platform will not be easy! Even at LACC, if you get 5 controllers in a room and say "what do you think of this then?" you will get a minimum of 5 different answers..... Always been the same, will never change.

[London Mil]

Originally Posted by Minesapint

BTW, completely agree with BDIONU, gather requirements for a new ATC system from ScACC and LACC and you would find that you need two completely different systems!!!! So, coming up with a common platform will not be easy! Even at LACC, if you get 5 controllers in a room and say "what do you think of this then?" you will get a minimum of 5 different answers..... Always been the same, will never change.

..... and don't forget the TC guys

[BDiONU]

Originally Posted by Minesapint

One of the biggest problems I have working on a number of large projects around NATS, is convincing some elements of the engineering world that the ATC requirement is king. Big mistakes were made in the NERc project as the shutters went up and fingers plugged ears, there is an element of that in the CASPIAN project - not in the ATC side though. Seriously, if you have any questions concerning this then there are groups of people at Swanwick that can answer your questions, or refer you to people who can.

Not many at Swanwick working on CASPIAN yet, their focus is iFACTS. Most of CASPIAN is with OS&D over at the CTC but I'm Swanwick based and doing some work for ATC User assurance, PM me if you've questions.

If SACTA cannot interface with EFPS I will be stunned!

Not so much SACTA as the FDP system which is being worked under iTEC-eFDP.

Can SACTA meet the ATC requirement? Time will tell.

If it doesn't it won't be through lack of effort or trying by the ATC people directly involved in the project.

Same answer for delivering on time

No comment

BD

[BDiONU]

Originally Posted by Minesapint

BTW, completely agree with BDIONU, gather requirements for a new ATC system from ScACC and LACC and you would find that you need two completely different systems!!!! So, coming up with a common platform will not be easy!

Ahem, not forgetting that this is also a collaberation with AENA and and it has to work for them as well. iTEC-eFDP is even more complex given the additional involvement of DFS.

BD

[BDiONU]

Originally Posted by London Mil

..... and don't forget the TC guys

Nope, they'll be included just the same as the other 3 current centres as we eventually get down to 2 centres on one common system and one FDP system. Of course the military will just have to take what they're given

BD

[Minesapint]

Never forget TC we treat all our customers with the same high quality of service always polite never assuming and always ready to help/support
Implementing any new FDP system is a mammoth task, just look around Europe and see the fun they are having. There is one common thread - every ANSP is trying to do too much too quickly with dwindling resources. Some of the smaller service providers are having a big rethink and looking at what can be realistically achieved.
The NATS programme is suffed full for ever, at least working in the opsroom, and I know how challenging that is, you go home, usually on time and get reasonable breaks. Us "backroom boys" are paid less (usually ) and tend to work the msot unsociable hours - ALL OF THEM! Does anyone in this area have just one job anymore?

DFS will be introducing the Vaforit system in its UACC's

[BDiONU]

Originally Posted by Minesapint

DFS will be introducing the Vaforit system in its UACC's

But it doesn't include CORA yet does it?

BD

[London Mil]

Originally Posted by BDiONU

Of course the military will just have to take what they're given
BD

Usual third rate, "value for money", crap then.

[BDiONU]

Originally Posted by London Mil

Usual third rate, "value for money", crap then.

At Swanwick LJAO have the same kit as Civil. LMARS are moving down into a shiny new Ops room and shiny new A&FC but the cunning plan is to bring LMARS into the AC Ops room as soon after Prestwick Centre goes live as possible. You will be assimilated!
FMARS will all be on the same kit as civil AC and will move onto SACTA/CASPIAN when AC does (and the same FDP system because EDDUS won't be supported), with TC to follow.
I was twisting your tail , the military are equally as important to NATS/NERL as AC/TC and Oceanic and the new contract makes that explicit. Have a read of the NATS MOD Team website (what I constructed ) on the intranet or the article in the latest Pulse.

BD

[Gonzo]

Minesapint,

Can SACTA meet the ATC requirement?

EFPS doesn't, why should SACTA be any different?

[BDiONU]

Originally Posted by Gonzo

EFPS doesn't, why should SACTA be any different?

Who says that EFPS does not meet the user need? Gatwick seem very happy with it and its not in LL yet. Besides which SACTA is for area not aerodrome

BD

[Gonzo]

As for other units it depends to whom one talks.

As for Heathrow, are you saying that we will only know if a piece of kit meets our requirement when it's installed and we're working it? Seriously?

Who says that EFPS does not meet the user need?

Those who should know, the ATCOs. And especially the ATCO EFPS instructors.

And that answer would come from someone who had just played with it for 30 minutes in a classroom, or even just by reading about its 'features'.

[BDiONU]

Originally Posted by Gonzo

As for other units it depends to whom one talks.

Of course! Ask 600 ATCO's about what they want you get 620 answers. I missed the visit to EGKK to look at EFPS but from what my workmates tell me its a resounding thumbs up.

As for Heathrow, are you saying that we will only know if a piece of kit meets our requirement when it's installed and we're working it? Seriously?

No not quite. What I'm saying is that there is always resistance to change, thats perfectly natural and a part of the human condition. God only knows we had enough of that when AC moved from West Drayton to Swanwick but after 3 months no one wanted to move back! Funny that! What the project teams try (very hard) to do is ensure it meets the need but its impossible to ascertain whether the need is met, in the real world, until its working with real controllers in the real world.

You can simulate and build scenarios as much as you like but that never ever achieves meeting the real world goal because different people use the system in subtly different ways. Not to mention that is is absolutely impossible for any one person, or even a whole team of people, to envisage every possible scenario and every possible circumstance that will challenge every new system or working practice.

Those who should know, the ATCOs. And especially the ATCO EFPS instructors.
And that answer would come from someone who had just played with it for 30 minutes in a classroom, or even just by reading about its 'features'.

I assume you're only talking about EGLL? So if there is such a HUGE level of concern I would assume that these people are feeding this back into the project? They're the only ones who can make the project aware of these perceived difficulties and ensure they go on the risk register.

Strangely enough project teams do not want to impose or force down your throats systems which patently don't work for the operational staff (Apart from anything else the business just wouldn't accept it). However what they do have to do is work out the fine dividing line between what is everyday bellyaching and carping about the change engendered by a new system and the real, concrete and measurable concerns that its not going to work operationally.

BD

[goldfrog]

Originally Posted by BDiONU

However what they do have to do is work out the fine dividing line between what is everyday bellyaching and carping about the change engendered by a new system and the real, concrete and measurable concerns that its not going to work operationally.

BD

I wish I had said that, in fact I probably will.