Heathrow Holding.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually xzulu, I feel sorry for the contractor... they delivered AMAN with exactly the criteria that NATS asked for. When it was discovered the criteria was deficient, the contractor was extremely good at giving support.
Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the criteria fell woefully short of what was needed/acceptable. The criteria even missed several basic requirements, such as switching runways, TEAM, taken outer holds into consideration...
Then to top it all, we did not allow a proper bedding in time - running both systems in conjunction with each other to iron out the major problems. All it would have taken was a couple of weeks of rostering an airports GS on each shift to oversee AMAN as if it was live. It may have meant a few AAVAs, but at least it would have meant proper testing and the system could have been introduced with a lot less faults.
If we had introduced it properly, instead of the haphazard way we did, whilst trumpeting its sucess the very same day on NATSNET, people would have been much more receptive to it.
It's basic man management, something this company has lost sight of in the clamour to be seen to be being green, or listening to its customers.
The issue with AMAN, which is common with many other things, is that NATS wants o be seen to be doing something - even if in reality, the system in place at the moment is best (when all factors are taken into consideration, such as cost etc).
AMAN would be an excellent tool for huge sectors with one stream of aircraft feeding each hold. The question is, was it the right tool for NATS UK airspace?
NATS tends to hear the word 'technology' and automatically believes it must be better than what is in place already. So what if
... the customers also demand that we reduce our charges, give them shortcuts, favour them over other airlines... we are a business - maybe sometimes NATS experts know better than what the customers do? In the case of AMAN, the shortfalls of the system in our airspace confines could have been explained to our customers.
Out of interest, was there any AC participation in the specification? AC and TC(Area) are the ones who had to put up with most of the rubbish, as once an aircraft was in the hold, the Approach guys, who are the experts from that point onwards, could give a realistic time to aircraft, not the noddy times AMAN was producing.
Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the criteria fell woefully short of what was needed/acceptable. The criteria even missed several basic requirements, such as switching runways, TEAM, taken outer holds into consideration...
Then to top it all, we did not allow a proper bedding in time - running both systems in conjunction with each other to iron out the major problems. All it would have taken was a couple of weeks of rostering an airports GS on each shift to oversee AMAN as if it was live. It may have meant a few AAVAs, but at least it would have meant proper testing and the system could have been introduced with a lot less faults.
If we had introduced it properly, instead of the haphazard way we did, whilst trumpeting its sucess the very same day on NATSNET, people would have been much more receptive to it.
It's basic man management, something this company has lost sight of in the clamour to be seen to be being green, or listening to its customers.
The issue with AMAN, which is common with many other things, is that NATS wants o be seen to be doing something - even if in reality, the system in place at the moment is best (when all factors are taken into consideration, such as cost etc).
AMAN would be an excellent tool for huge sectors with one stream of aircraft feeding each hold. The question is, was it the right tool for NATS UK airspace?
NATS tends to hear the word 'technology' and automatically believes it must be better than what is in place already. So what if
d) the customers have demanded it for years
Out of interest, was there any AC participation in the specification? AC and TC(Area) are the ones who had to put up with most of the rubbish, as once an aircraft was in the hold, the Approach guys, who are the experts from that point onwards, could give a realistic time to aircraft, not the noddy times AMAN was producing.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: South-ish
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maybe if
Maybe if ATC actually followed AMAN sequence numbers rather than insisting on making up their own numbers using a variety of different approaches then the AMAN sequences would not look so hopeless.
Machines need a set of rules to function. The problem is that ATC never disclose the full set of rules that they have adopted as working practice and its not written down in MATS.
NATS need to create a detailed concept of operations for TC that describes TC practices? It doesn't currently exist or if it does its a well kept secret
So its hardly surprising that the tools provided don't work as expected. Actually in UK ATC its worse than that, controllers work slightly differently in any given scenario, so just how is a machine supposed to cater for all these subtle differences.
As we increasingly systemise the airspace and the tools we use then it will either force ATC to all do the same thing in the same way, or we will stay in the dark ages and struggle to cope with the traffic levels. Assuming they pick up again before we run out of oil.
Machines need a set of rules to function. The problem is that ATC never disclose the full set of rules that they have adopted as working practice and its not written down in MATS.
NATS need to create a detailed concept of operations for TC that describes TC practices? It doesn't currently exist or if it does its a well kept secret
So its hardly surprising that the tools provided don't work as expected. Actually in UK ATC its worse than that, controllers work slightly differently in any given scenario, so just how is a machine supposed to cater for all these subtle differences.
As we increasingly systemise the airspace and the tools we use then it will either force ATC to all do the same thing in the same way, or we will stay in the dark ages and struggle to cope with the traffic levels. Assuming they pick up again before we run out of oil.
Last edited by looneykeycode; 28th Feb 2009 at 12:01.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: southampton
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually in UK ATC its worse than that you all work slightly differently in any given scenario so just how is a machine supposed to cater for all these subtle differences.
Weather for starters, and i don't mean CB's etc i just mean wind. One day the wind will allow for one aircraft to go infront of another will the next day stop that from happening.
And don't forget that AMAN only looks for EGLL and EGKK inbounds, it takes no account of how we get that traffic into streams and then into the hold. It doesn't see how much vectoring or speeding that needs to be done to avoid EGSS, EGGW inbounds plus the flights to other UK airfields that are all doing there own things and other overflights. This traffic all needs to be got out of the way before we can sort out the stuff that the wonderful AMAN is looking for.
We can feed in a set of rules that one person thinks will work but as soon as another person sits down they all get thrown out the window. My brain doesn't work the same as someone elses, its human nature. What i think will work someone else won't agree with. So unless you clone me a few hundred times then ATC will never ever do things the same way every time and maybe not even then depending on if my clones are tired, fed up had argument etc etc. You can't just box a set of rules that fits every situation.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Posts crossed with 1985 above
That's because there is usually more than one way of doing things
If you try to set a totally rigid set of rules to something as fluid and dynamic as ATC and enforce people to adhere to them (or else what, disciplinary action?), then ATC will cease to function so well.
In the UK the airspace is pretty congested and pretty complex - hence why it is managed the way it is.
There is always room for improvement, but taking away flexibility?!!!
Being inflexible and doing things one way all the time will cause us to
Actually in UK ATC its worse than that, controllers work slightly differently in any given scenario
If you try to set a totally rigid set of rules to something as fluid and dynamic as ATC and enforce people to adhere to them (or else what, disciplinary action?), then ATC will cease to function so well.
In the UK the airspace is pretty congested and pretty complex - hence why it is managed the way it is.
There is always room for improvement, but taking away flexibility?!!!
Being inflexible and doing things one way all the time will cause us to
struggle to cope with the traffic levels
Last edited by anotherthing; 28th Feb 2009 at 12:09. Reason: crossed with 1985
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: solent-on-sea
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looney, a very interesting idea. I fully accept that the maximum capacity revolves around everyone doing the same thing all the time. Unfortunately until the airlines all fly the same types with the same loads and same company SOPs at the same time every day with the same weather conditions, we'll struggle to do this. Also, and perhaps most important, until we have airspace designed to accomodate at least the present traffic levels (pre decline), rather than bumble along tagging on bits of airspace here and there, and tweaking procedures, usually when someone has an incident when they weren't following them anyway, 'making it up as we go along' does actually seem to be the best option.
Obviously all that would require government input and a cohesive long term transport policy as well. Any guesses on time scale anyone?
Deep breath and off to work...
Obviously all that would require government input and a cohesive long term transport policy as well. Any guesses on time scale anyone?
Deep breath and off to work...
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: South-ish
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its going to happen
AC need to see further out. Currently this is limited to 20 mins before ETA. There is a plan to extend this to the equvalent of about 140NM. This should give them an opportunity to absorb delay enroute
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: South-ish
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yes you can
Theroretically You can always model sets of rules that cater for the majority of realistic situations. Thats what systemising is all about.
It may mean that you can't always do things the same way and it won't be convenient for everybody. You may have to mode change to cater for a different scenario like for example a bad weather scenario or a wind from the west scenario etc but the overall win is for the big picture. AMAN can't mode change by the way.
Machines however need constant feedback to become increasingly accurate. AMAN does not yet get the benefit of Controller input speed changes, level changes, vectoring changes etc.
The GS uses his or her experience to manipulate the sequence ( heres a question why is it that some GS have never done the Heathrow approach task and how do they expect to provide accurate sequences that the approach controllers believe in if they don't regularly do the task themselves?).
We need to get to the stage in my view at least, where AMAN gets a dynamic input from the controller tools so that it can modify the sequences, ETA and EAT to reflect the real world.
Future Electronic flight strips could provide a way of feeding back speed and level instructions issued to a/c to AMAN
It may mean that you can't always do things the same way and it won't be convenient for everybody. You may have to mode change to cater for a different scenario like for example a bad weather scenario or a wind from the west scenario etc but the overall win is for the big picture. AMAN can't mode change by the way.
Machines however need constant feedback to become increasingly accurate. AMAN does not yet get the benefit of Controller input speed changes, level changes, vectoring changes etc.
The GS uses his or her experience to manipulate the sequence ( heres a question why is it that some GS have never done the Heathrow approach task and how do they expect to provide accurate sequences that the approach controllers believe in if they don't regularly do the task themselves?).
We need to get to the stage in my view at least, where AMAN gets a dynamic input from the controller tools so that it can modify the sequences, ETA and EAT to reflect the real world.
Future Electronic flight strips could provide a way of feeding back speed and level instructions issued to a/c to AMAN
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: South-ish
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK airspace is overly complex
I agree that the way we currently manage our airspace needs a very flexible and creative approach and this is why TC controllers do such a good job.
Problem is that humans will run out of puff at varying levels of traffic dependent on age, experience, tiredness etc and the one more a/c scenario can cause a mind melt down in a way that machines following rules are not vulnerable to. Predicting the limit is easier with machines.
What we need is an approach where the machines do the bread and butter stuff and the humans intervene when the bread and butter approach just won't work for the scenario. I'm suggesting in the future ATC will be a more trouble shoting supervisory function.
Actually for this the overall systemisation needs to extend to include the a/c and to both enroute and TC controllers. Maybe less variation in a/c type , weight, load, etc etc is necessary.
problem is how do we get there from here. We really need a clean sheet of paper and thats just not going to happen. We are in a cul de sac to some extent.
Problem is that humans will run out of puff at varying levels of traffic dependent on age, experience, tiredness etc and the one more a/c scenario can cause a mind melt down in a way that machines following rules are not vulnerable to. Predicting the limit is easier with machines.
What we need is an approach where the machines do the bread and butter stuff and the humans intervene when the bread and butter approach just won't work for the scenario. I'm suggesting in the future ATC will be a more trouble shoting supervisory function.
Actually for this the overall systemisation needs to extend to include the a/c and to both enroute and TC controllers. Maybe less variation in a/c type , weight, load, etc etc is necessary.
problem is how do we get there from here. We really need a clean sheet of paper and thats just not going to happen. We are in a cul de sac to some extent.
Spink Pots
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Up in the air
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by looneykeycode
Problem is that humans will run out of puff at varying levels of traffic dependent on age, experience, tiredness etc and the one more a/c scenario can cause a mind melt down in a way that machines following rules are not vulnerable to. Predicting the limit is easier with machines.
Originally Posted by looneykeycode
What we need is an approach where the machines do the bread and butter stuff and the humans intervene when the bread and butter approach just won't work for the scenario. I'm suggesting in the future ATC will be a more trouble shoting supervisory function.
The bread and butter of ATC as you put it, is exactly what controllers are there to do and what they do best. It's the part of ATC that a human can do a million times better and more efficiently than any machine. We need to go down a path of using technology (which works
) to assist controllers in doing their bread and butter task. Technology can take care of the tasks extrinsic to the bread and butter bit, leaving the human with much more capacity.Mind you, a half arsed concoction from the depths of Bullsh!t Manor in Whitely will probably be implemented in 10 years time, capable of shifting half the traffic of a decent controller and requiring three people to monitor.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Originally Posted by looneykeycode
Actually for this the overall systemisation needs to extend to include the a/c and to both enroute and TC controllers. Maybe less variation in a/c type , weight, load, etc etc is necessary.
Originally Posted by looneykeycode
problem is how do we get there from here. We really need a clean sheet of paper and thats just not going to happen. We are in a cul de sac to some extent.
I quite fancy some bread and butter now...
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: southampton
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AC need to see further out. Currently this is limited to 20 mins before ETA. There is a plan to extend this to the equvalent of about 140NM. This should give them an opportunity to absorb delay enroute
It may mean that you can't always do things the same way and it won't be convenient for everybody. You may have to mode change to cater for a different scenario like for example a bad weather scenario or a wind from the west scenario etc but the overall win is for the big picture. AMAN can't mode change by the way.
AMAN does not yet get the benefit of Controller input speed changes, level changes, vectoring changes etc.
Future Electronic flight strips could provide a way of feeding back speed and level instructions issued to a/c to AMAN
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: southampton
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1985 - The office based ATCO that does a couple of fridays/month had nothing what so ever to do with its development!!!!! - he only wrote the OPNOT letting AC know it was comming
In that case was there any proper ATCO involvement? I haven't met anybody from the AC side and as we are supposed to absorb the delay shouldn't someone have been consulted?
Still doesn't change the fact that it was rushed in without any proper thought as to how it should be used. If NATS was serious about this tool enabling us to reduce holding, CO2 etc etc then it would be engaging in proper discussions with the french and MAAS about streaming EGLL and EGKK inbounds. It hasn't though has it? Its been done so that they can look good to the airline group. "See we listened to what you want and spent loads of money on it, aren't we great!"
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know how much AMAN cost, figures have been banded about.
If NATS wanted to be seen to be green (which is a very strong possibility), they could have spent the money on building habitats for the lesser spotted natterjack toad or something...
Of course, then the airlines (who want NATS to spend lots of money either developing or buying tools to supposedly reduce their - the airlines costs - yet on top of that they want to reduce our fees as well), would not have been happy as the natterjack toad would not have benefitted them.
The same failings recur through much of what NATS does. NATS is a business, NATS should work like one. That means we don't have knee jerk responses just because a customer would like something. I'd like a new Jaguar XKR soft top for £10 grand less than book price, but Jaguar aren't going to give me (the customer) it...
Sometimes the customer is not right - thats when you sit down and explain to them why.
If NATS wanted to be seen to be green (which is a very strong possibility), they could have spent the money on building habitats for the lesser spotted natterjack toad or something...
Of course, then the airlines (who want NATS to spend lots of money either developing or buying tools to supposedly reduce their - the airlines costs - yet on top of that they want to reduce our fees as well), would not have been happy as the natterjack toad would not have benefitted them.
The same failings recur through much of what NATS does. NATS is a business, NATS should work like one. That means we don't have knee jerk responses just because a customer would like something. I'd like a new Jaguar XKR soft top for £10 grand less than book price, but Jaguar aren't going to give me (the customer) it...
Sometimes the customer is not right - thats when you sit down and explain to them why.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hants
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't believe the chinese whispers - there was plenty of ATCO involvement, in the tool's development phase, and later there was an ATC lead and team who are valid LL approach controllers (BTW, lets not get personal and name anyone). First mistake - it was assumed to be an approach tool, so there wasn't enough TC TMA & AC involvement. Projects need ATCO involvement & expertise all the way through - plus their skills have to be appropriate to the tool being developed.
Where AMAN really fell down is in the final implementation. It sat in the ops room but anotherthing is spot on - they wouldn't pay for GS Airports to test it properly in a live environment, so although it ran live, it wasn't being monitored anywhere near enough. If it had been, all the fixes that they've put in/ are putting in and which seem to have really improved it could & should have been sorted BEFORE it went live. EAT PC should also have been left to run alongside it. These are failures of management.
Don't forget though, this is cutting edge stuff. Airspace has been resectorised so much over the last 10 years that most of the capacity has been wrung out of it. What do we do next?
Where AMAN really fell down is in the final implementation. It sat in the ops room but anotherthing is spot on - they wouldn't pay for GS Airports to test it properly in a live environment, so although it ran live, it wasn't being monitored anywhere near enough. If it had been, all the fixes that they've put in/ are putting in and which seem to have really improved it could & should have been sorted BEFORE it went live. EAT PC should also have been left to run alongside it. These are failures of management.
Don't forget though, this is cutting edge stuff. Airspace has been resectorised so much over the last 10 years that most of the capacity has been wrung out of it. What do we do next?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
of course it does - it's true in any customer/supplier business. I'm not saying that you sit down and talk to your customers low end - but between airlines and NATS, or as you stated CTC and Ops rooms, there are very good reasons to have a proper dialogue.
However, the difference between CTC project managers and the Ops room is that a lot of the time projects are foisted on CTC project managers by a 3rd party - not at the request of the Ops room.
The annoying thing about it all is that the most successful things which have been introduced into the operational environment have been designed and built by our very talented in house engineers and other staff. The big problems with the new pieces of kit have all stemmed from trying to buy something from a third party, then bastardize it to fit UK airspace.
Why can't some people see that just because a certain piece of technology is fantastic in one piece of airspace, it does not always follow that it will work so well, if at all, in other airspace.
However, the difference between CTC project managers and the Ops room is that a lot of the time projects are foisted on CTC project managers by a 3rd party - not at the request of the Ops room.
The annoying thing about it all is that the most successful things which have been introduced into the operational environment have been designed and built by our very talented in house engineers and other staff. The big problems with the new pieces of kit have all stemmed from trying to buy something from a third party, then bastardize it to fit UK airspace.
Why can't some people see that just because a certain piece of technology is fantastic in one piece of airspace, it does not always follow that it will work so well, if at all, in other airspace.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: South-ish
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
early morning arrivals and AMAN
There is a gleam in the eye of the NIG (NATS Investment Group) to develop AMAN to cater for early morning arrivals. The feasability and options kicks off this summer
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: South-ish
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
slowing all inbounds to same speed
why would you slow all the inbounds to the same speed ? why not just note the time to lose on AMAN and slow the aircraft down to folow the planned sequence and come to think of it why not tell enroute at the same time?
