Thames 'DARLEK' Radar
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Underneath downwind R for 09 at EGLC
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whether I refered to ATC prople as officers, operators or contollers, as I have heard them call themselves, was not intended to offend. I just wanted to point out the poor audio quality , probably caused by a lack of bandwidth in the data link between themselves and the transmitter. The People on Thames radar do a great job! and dare I admit to being a PPL after all the negiative comments already posted.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The term Operator
As a current, license holding ATCO, I have no problem if a member of the public uses the word operator - anyone with a dictionary or a grasp of basic English will know that it is a valid noun for our profession, if not the one that we use ourselves.
Mike, one of the reasons mooted as possibly being responsible for the 'tinny' sounding R/T (which is evident on most of the TC frequencies) is the fact that it is all digitised and therefore somewhere in the process, quality is affected.
Mike, one of the reasons mooted as possibly being responsible for the 'tinny' sounding R/T (which is evident on most of the TC frequencies) is the fact that it is all digitised and therefore somewhere in the process, quality is affected.
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BD
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<Rubbish, do you really think that NATS would use a voice comms system which didn't support the task?>>
Perhaps those on watch the day after TC moved to the seaside might have other views on the subject!!
Perhaps those on watch the day after TC moved to the seaside might have other views on the subject!!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BDiONU
DAZDAZ wrote:
and then you added:
I appreciate that you know a more than bit about the VCCS and it's associated bits and pieces however I have a couple of points there -
firstly my post was heavily weighted by words which indicated that what I was saying was not the definitive answer, but I can guarantee it is one that is, as I said, being mooted in the OPs room. The veracity of it or otherwise is not within my remit.
This is a rumours and news network so I think it has a valid place here - especially as no one has come across with a definitive answer!
Secondly, are you honestly saying that Dazdaz's explanation is a likely answer? If so, why are frequencies that have transmitters nowhere near the City, and why are aircraft that are mid channel or near Daventry (to name just a few of the geographically distant areas) reporting the same phenomena? It is not by any means exclusively Thames radar that is affected.
Further, if dazdaz's explanation is deemed to be correct, why is it still happening? Playing about with the reception on someones mobile is one thing, however employing measures that have a detrimental effect on the frequencies used by a very busy ATC unit is a whole different ball game.
Finally, again if dazdaz's explanation is anywhere near true, why has it just started happening now that we have moved to Swanwick and are using a brand new piece of kit? It is not something that we suffered when working at West Drayton.
No one is saying that
What many pilots and ATCOs are reporting is that the sound quality is not perfect or ideal. The fact of the matter is that it is suitable to carry out the task as required, but since when has 'good enough' been good enough?
And finally(honestly this time!) to quote you again
No, I do not, which is the very same reason why I think that they would not allow
cheers,
Anotherthing (ex mil aviator, with several 'in depth' courses on electronic warfare under my belt)
DAZDAZ wrote:
It is well know in areas of London ie. Buck Palace/Downing St/MI5 building on the Thames that certain radio frequencies are blocked/distorted for security reasons of which I'm sure you might be aware of the reason for. Next time outside Buck Palace see does your mobile work?
dazdaz provides the more likely and probable explanation.
I appreciate that you know a more than bit about the VCCS and it's associated bits and pieces however I have a couple of points there -
firstly my post was heavily weighted by words which indicated that what I was saying was not the definitive answer, but I can guarantee it is one that is, as I said, being mooted in the OPs room. The veracity of it or otherwise is not within my remit.
This is a rumours and news network so I think it has a valid place here - especially as no one has come across with a definitive answer!
Secondly, are you honestly saying that Dazdaz's explanation is a likely answer? If so, why are frequencies that have transmitters nowhere near the City, and why are aircraft that are mid channel or near Daventry (to name just a few of the geographically distant areas) reporting the same phenomena? It is not by any means exclusively Thames radar that is affected.
Further, if dazdaz's explanation is deemed to be correct, why is it still happening? Playing about with the reception on someones mobile is one thing, however employing measures that have a detrimental effect on the frequencies used by a very busy ATC unit is a whole different ball game.
Finally, again if dazdaz's explanation is anywhere near true, why has it just started happening now that we have moved to Swanwick and are using a brand new piece of kit? It is not something that we suffered when working at West Drayton.
No one is saying that
Rubbish, do you really think that NATS would use a voice comms system which didn't support the task?
And finally(honestly this time!) to quote you again
do you really think that NATS would use a voice comms system which didn't support the task?
certain radio frequencies are blocked/distorted for security reasons
Anotherthing (ex mil aviator, with several 'in depth' courses on electronic warfare under my belt)
Last edited by anotherthing; 17th Dec 2007 at 10:41.
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BD
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can guarantee it is one that is, as I said, being mooted in the OPs room. The veracity of it or otherwise is not within my remit.
Of course there are no alternative routes up to London.
Secondly, are you honestly saying that Dazdaz's explanation is a likely answer? If so, why are frequencies that have transmitters nowhere near the City, and why are aircraft that are mid channel or near Daventry (to name just a few of the geographically distant areas) reporting the same phenomena? It is not by any means exclusively Thames radar that is affected.
There are a lot of factors involved in radio reception (weather anyone?) and it seems obvious to me that if the transmissions sound peculiar in one area but not another which uses the same radio leg then its not the transmitter at fault.
Finally, again if dazdaz's explanation is anywhere near true, why has it just started happening now that we have moved to Swanwick and are using a brand new piece of kit? It is not something that we suffered when working at West Drayton.
BD
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good to have a civilised exchange of views I think. And healthy.
That would not explain why the 'tinny' sound was experienced from both ends.
Yes there are many factors - however I think that from an ATCO perspective the confidence in the kit is high and getting better everyday; thanks to the sterling work by those in the background.
However, no matter how persuasive an argument anyone can come up with, I stand by the following, which I wrote in my last post
Which was made in answer to your post
I know that work is continuing on the system, and I am sure that in the long term it will be what we want it to be. As it is now, I still think that overall, it is a hell of an improvement (especially the functionality) on what we used to have 
There are other factors which need to be looked at for example how are the staff using the new headsets, is the mic close enough to the mouth etc.
Yes there are many factors - however I think that from an ATCO perspective the confidence in the kit is high and getting better everyday; thanks to the sterling work by those in the background.
However, no matter how persuasive an argument anyone can come up with, I stand by the following, which I wrote in my last post
The fact of the matter is that it is suitable to carry out the task as required, but since when has 'good enough' been good enough?
do you really think that NATS would use a voice comms system which didn't support the task?
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on outside, be a man and get your dukes up 
Took a bit of a dent on that Sunday methinks. The software we tested last week should deploy Weds night for a test and fully on Thursday.
My answer would be that you're still at Swanwick and not WD so its obviously 'good enough' to do the task.
Blimey! A couple of years ago the projects understanding was that the system at WD was simply the best thing since sliced bread and couldn't possibly be replicated and improved upon
It will take a little time in order to determine what/where the 'fault' with audio quality is and I'm certain that the project and other engineering staff are very keen on providing perfect audio quality.
BD
Yes there are many factors - however I think that from an ATCO perspective the confidence in the kit is high and getting better everyday; thanks to the sterling work by those in the background.
However, no matter how persuasive an argument anyone can come up with, I stand by the following, which I wrote in my last post
I know that work is continuing on the system, and I am sure that in the long term it will be what we want it to be. As it is now, I still think that overall, it is a hell of an improvement (especially the functionality) on what we used to have
It will take a little time in order to determine what/where the 'fault' with audio quality is and I'm certain that the project and other engineering staff are very keen on providing perfect audio quality.
BD
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By saying that 'good enough is not good enough', I mean that one should not settle for something that is 'adequate'. Especially when the system in question is capable of so much.
Fortunately making do with 'adequate' is not the mentality of the engineers etc
Fortunately making do with 'adequate' is not the mentality of the engineers etc
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BDiONU said:
I wouldn't go saying that too loudly at some airports....... 
do you really think that NATS would use a voice comms system which didn't support the task?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: EGPH
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I go into LCY most days and it isn't just Thames that are "Daleks" it goes further out than that - Daventry(?) 130.925 on the way out and the controllers near Clippy on the way in from Scotland.
It doesn't happen on all transmissions, but it never seems to happen at the start of a transmission.
It doesn't happen on all transmissions, but it never seems to happen at the start of a transmission.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<...ATCO perspective the confidence in the kit is high and getting better everyday; thanks to the sterling work by those in the background.>>
Forgive me for saying this, but shouldn't they have had absolute confidence in the equipment from the very start? It's quite ludicrous to say that the confidence of people who are dealing with the lives of thousands of people is "getting better". The question should never have arisen.
Forgive me for saying this, but shouldn't they have had absolute confidence in the equipment from the very start? It's quite ludicrous to say that the confidence of people who are dealing with the lives of thousands of people is "getting better". The question should never have arisen.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VCCS works and is working well.
There were more than adequate back-up facilities to it on day one and there still are and always will be. In fact we have better back-up/redundancy at Swanwick than we ever had at West Drayton or even back in the halcyon days of operating in our ivory tower at LHR.
There is always a certain amount of mistrust in new equipment. With VCCS I think the rumour mill allowed what issues there were prior to going live to be somewhat blown out of proportion and it perhaps got a rap that wasn't entirely justified.
Whatever, it's here, it works, it's staying.
There were more than adequate back-up facilities to it on day one and there still are and always will be. In fact we have better back-up/redundancy at Swanwick than we ever had at West Drayton or even back in the halcyon days of operating in our ivory tower at LHR.
There is always a certain amount of mistrust in new equipment. With VCCS I think the rumour mill allowed what issues there were prior to going live to be somewhat blown out of proportion and it perhaps got a rap that wasn't entirely justified.
Whatever, it's here, it works, it's staying.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember moving from Heathrow Tower to LATCC well.. Having been very emphatically assured of the integrity of the equipment... one morning every other radar display in the ops room failed, leading to certain consternation among the troops and we craned to get a shufty over a colleague's shoulder. Things don't change.....
