What do you know about SACTA???
SACTA
Sistema Automatio de Control del Trafico Aéreo (Automated Air Traffic Control System) integrating all ACC, TMA and Control Towers in a coordinated and automated manner.
This system has been conceived in close collaboration with Aena with a view to speeding up ATM procedures, allowing the capacity and flow of air traffic to be increased with maximum levels of safety.
SACTA is a unique system that integrates all Air Control Centres (ACC), Terminal Control Centres (TMA), Approach Control Centres (APP) and Airport Control Towers at national level, exchanging data with overseas systems by means of international standards. This makes the system an unarguable point of reference for the future "Single European Sky".
The fundamental elements of this system are the Flight Data Processing System (FDPS), the Surveillance Data Processing System (SDPS), the Meteorological and Aeronautical Information Processing System (AMIS), the Dynamic Support and Simulation Sub-systems (ADS), the Supervision Sub-system (SS) and the Voice Communications System (VCS).
More info here:
SACTA
Did I pass ???
Sistema Automatio de Control del Trafico Aéreo (Automated Air Traffic Control System) integrating all ACC, TMA and Control Towers in a coordinated and automated manner.
This system has been conceived in close collaboration with Aena with a view to speeding up ATM procedures, allowing the capacity and flow of air traffic to be increased with maximum levels of safety.
SACTA is a unique system that integrates all Air Control Centres (ACC), Terminal Control Centres (TMA), Approach Control Centres (APP) and Airport Control Towers at national level, exchanging data with overseas systems by means of international standards. This makes the system an unarguable point of reference for the future "Single European Sky".
The fundamental elements of this system are the Flight Data Processing System (FDPS), the Surveillance Data Processing System (SDPS), the Meteorological and Aeronautical Information Processing System (AMIS), the Dynamic Support and Simulation Sub-systems (ADS), the Supervision Sub-system (SS) and the Voice Communications System (VCS).
More info here:
SACTA
Did I pass ???
Not expected in the UK (operational) much before Winter 2010.
Development and training versions will appear before that in various locations (CTC near Southampton, Prestwick Centre, and Manchester Centre).
Development and training versions will appear before that in various locations (CTC near Southampton, Prestwick Centre, and Manchester Centre).
Google is your friend .....
Plus I have used the system in a few simulations. It had a few failings but was easy to use and intuitive.
It will probably be a heap of crap once the NATS engineers get their hands on it and give us something they think we want instead of what we actually asked for.
Plus I have used the system in a few simulations. It had a few failings but was easy to use and intuitive.
It will probably be a heap of crap once the NATS engineers get their hands on it and give us something they think we want instead of what we actually asked for.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Retired to Leafy Bucks
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Google is your friend .....
Plus I have used the system in a few simulations. It had a few failings but was easy to use and intuitive.
It will probably be a heap of crap once the NATS engineers get their hands on it and give us something they think we want instead of what we actually asked for.
Plus I have used the system in a few simulations. It had a few failings but was easy to use and intuitive.
It will probably be a heap of crap once the NATS engineers get their hands on it and give us something they think we want instead of what we actually asked for.
Too true Goldfrog, but there does seem to be a juggernaut of an engineering empire building a head of steam on the CASPIAN project, many of whom I detect have their own personal agendas and ideas of what the project should be, ATC just being seen as a minor player and an irritant in their aspirations. Of course, it is incumbent on ATC to specify the system functionality they need correctly in the first place, so removing the ability of anyone to give us something which is not suited or wanted for the ATC task. There's a lot of work gone in to that part of the project so far, but I'd be a fool to claim we have everything 100% baselined and cast iron, not least because the aviation world is constantly getting busier, methods of operations are changing and evolving, as is technology.
There are some very clever and innovative people in NATS Engineering who should be at the forefront of helping adapt the things in SACTA for the benefit of their ATC colleagues (and ultimately the pilots and passengers they serve). But there's also some who always want to reinvent the wheel and tamper too much with something simply because it 'wasn't invented here'. So turning our Commercial Off The Shelf procurement policy in to a joke and once again ensuring that everything we get is of gold plated Rolls Royce status, along with the resultant massive time and resource costs that entails, when what the customer (be that ATC or airlines) wants is something which is simple, does the job, is cost effective, and is reliable.
Gonzo
If it speaks OLDI, it is compatible. If not, then I see the options are that EFPS/SACTA is adapted accordingly, or EFPS is junked
There are some very clever and innovative people in NATS Engineering who should be at the forefront of helping adapt the things in SACTA for the benefit of their ATC colleagues (and ultimately the pilots and passengers they serve). But there's also some who always want to reinvent the wheel and tamper too much with something simply because it 'wasn't invented here'. So turning our Commercial Off The Shelf procurement policy in to a joke and once again ensuring that everything we get is of gold plated Rolls Royce status, along with the resultant massive time and resource costs that entails, when what the customer (be that ATC or airlines) wants is something which is simple, does the job, is cost effective, and is reliable.
Gonzo
If it speaks OLDI, it is compatible. If not, then I see the options are that EFPS/SACTA is adapted accordingly, or EFPS is junked
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too true Goldfrog, but there does seem to be a juggernaut of an engineering empire building a head of steam on the CASPIAN project, many of whom I detect have their own personal agendas and ideas of what the project should be, ATC just being seen as a minor player and an irritant in their aspirations. Of course, it is incumbent on ATC to specify the system functionality they need correctly in the first place, so removing the ability of anyone to give us something which is not suited or wanted for the ATC task.
what the customer (be that ATC or airlines) wants is something which is simple, does the job, is cost effective, and is reliable.
BD
Last edited by BDiONU; 29th Aug 2006 at 20:11.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there are a lot of ATC people onside and on the project who want this to be ATC oriented.
I don't recall ANYONE on my watch (or the watches I spin with) being asked to get involved from the start.
History tells us that when projects go wrong in CAA / NATS it's because nobody asked the REAL end user what was required at the begining and called them for their opinions when it was too late to do anything.
BEX
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And how many are actually valid, currently operational ATC people from the whole spectrum of NATS ATCUs ?
I don't recall ANYONE on my watch (or the watches I spin with) being asked to get involved from the start.
History tells us that when projects go wrong in CAA / NATS it's because nobody asked the REAL end user what was required at the begining and called them for their opinions when it was too late to do anything.
BEX
I don't recall ANYONE on my watch (or the watches I spin with) being asked to get involved from the start.
History tells us that when projects go wrong in CAA / NATS it's because nobody asked the REAL end user what was required at the begining and called them for their opinions when it was too late to do anything.
BEX
BD
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
History repeating itself?
BEX
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my experience a difficulty with Swanwick is due to the focus on the introduction of iFACTS. This doesn't mean that the rest of the company is not trying its level best to deliver a product designed for the controllers. The workstation is already designed and as the processors will be remote they're more like simple desks than the bulky monsters currently in use.
BD
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its at least 6 years until this is due to be rolled out at Swanwick. There is time for the ATC 'need' to be ascertained and this is being done.
BTW we are STILL waiting for Departure CCTV in the Swanwick ops room, something many of us asked for durring the NERC development phase... but by the time any OPERATIONAL people got invloved it was all too late. I know, cos I was there.
It seems from an end users viewpoint that NATS project managers have learned very little......
I don't understand your carp
BEX
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: southeast england
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was asked to look at SACTA versus EFPS for Tower suitability as an operational ATCO - and my views were listened to. I know NATS' reputation for not involving operational staff, but in this case I know they did!
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think your concern is more about how you're going to interface with the system than about what the wiggly amps are doing down the back. Lessons have been learnt since NERC and Human Factors are now involved every step of the way.
BTW we are STILL waiting for Departure CCTV in the Swanwick ops room, something many of us asked for durring the NERC development phase... but by the time any OPERATIONAL people got invloved it was all too late. I know, cos I was there.
It seems from an end users viewpoint that NATS project managers have learned very little......
BD