Tonights the big night...PC here we come
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Retired to Leafy Bucks
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zooker
It's engineering speak that we would not expect you to understand. Probably no more right/wrong than your ATC banter/gibber.
"a fix is expected in the next software drop"
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10W
At the risk of sounding cynical, TC has had several software drops over the past 2 years and we are still having failures. Sorry, I mean we are still witnessing system 'features'
I'd be pleasantly surprised if this latest drop halted 'features' and would also question why it took 2 years of TC operation an one month of Scottish to get it to work...
I am not sitting here holding my breath
At the risk of sounding cynical, TC has had several software drops over the past 2 years and we are still having failures. Sorry, I mean we are still witnessing system 'features'
I'd be pleasantly surprised if this latest drop halted 'features' and would also question why it took 2 years of TC operation an one month of Scottish to get it to work...
I am not sitting here holding my breath
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: An ATC centre this side of the moon.
Posts: 1,160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK survived my first shift in there today.....you know I think I could get to like the place....mind you with my new 6 on and 3 off roster I guess I will have to!! 
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
anotherthing
It's the next build which is targetting a fix, not the Prestwick Centre build. I suspect that PAS have been working flat out to fix the TC builds and build the PC build, the re-set 'feature' may have been deemed sufficiently low risk that it could wait until PAS had time to draw breath.
However I was surprised at the nature of the problem 10W experienced, as explained to me over a sumptious dinner this evening, it's not what we had been led to believe happened with a re-set.
BD
It's the next build which is targetting a fix, not the Prestwick Centre build. I suspect that PAS have been working flat out to fix the TC builds and build the PC build, the re-set 'feature' may have been deemed sufficiently low risk that it could wait until PAS had time to draw breath.
However I was surprised at the nature of the problem 10W experienced, as explained to me over a sumptious dinner this evening, it's not what we had been led to believe happened with a re-set.
BD
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BD
Believe it or not, I actually know that the engineers are working their socks off trying to make VCCS stable, along with every other task they have - It's just that sometimes ATCOs and engineers that have to work with systems every day get a bit annoyed when the 'backroom' guys ferreting away in the background deem things not to be 'failures' when as an operator, they are!
It's also annoying that we still get new failures two years down the line - take the fairly dramatic event on TC South a few days ago.
In horrible NATS speak, we are the customers...
I am a big supporter of new technology etc and have had some in depth hands on experience in previous projects. The thing that annoys me most is the silly act that some Project Managers go through by stating to the Board etc that such and such will do this or deliver that.
The latest of those is S**M and the ridiculous statement about how quick it will get things safe in the event of a catastrophe. Why can't people just turn round to the Board and say 'we cannot give you cast iron guarantees or give you precise figures (because of the very nature of ATC), but this project will mitigate X,Y and Z and will satisfy the Eurocontrol requirements and is the best available solution taking efficiency and value into consideration'?
The sooner we get away from trying to please the Board by promising unrealistic goals and by being honest about what might be do-able, the sooner the cynics in the Ops rooms will buy into things.
Once that happens projects will take on a momentum of their own because the cynics will actually want to contribute instead of sniping.
Once that happens, the chances are the (realistic) goals and milestones will not just be achieved, but will be surpassed and proper recognition of the 'backroom' staff will be given.
Win - Win, but still a long way off I reckon.
Believe it or not, I actually know that the engineers are working their socks off trying to make VCCS stable, along with every other task they have - It's just that sometimes ATCOs and engineers that have to work with systems every day get a bit annoyed when the 'backroom' guys ferreting away in the background deem things not to be 'failures' when as an operator, they are!
It's also annoying that we still get new failures two years down the line - take the fairly dramatic event on TC South a few days ago.
In horrible NATS speak, we are the customers...
I am a big supporter of new technology etc and have had some in depth hands on experience in previous projects. The thing that annoys me most is the silly act that some Project Managers go through by stating to the Board etc that such and such will do this or deliver that.
The latest of those is S**M and the ridiculous statement about how quick it will get things safe in the event of a catastrophe. Why can't people just turn round to the Board and say 'we cannot give you cast iron guarantees or give you precise figures (because of the very nature of ATC), but this project will mitigate X,Y and Z and will satisfy the Eurocontrol requirements and is the best available solution taking efficiency and value into consideration'?
The sooner we get away from trying to please the Board by promising unrealistic goals and by being honest about what might be do-able, the sooner the cynics in the Ops rooms will buy into things.
Once that happens projects will take on a momentum of their own because the cynics will actually want to contribute instead of sniping.
Once that happens, the chances are the (realistic) goals and milestones will not just be achieved, but will be surpassed and proper recognition of the 'backroom' staff will be given.
Win - Win, but still a long way off I reckon.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, my bad. Users who need stable equipment to ensure that the instructions we pass to our customers to prevent aircraft with hundreds of passengers colliding get through to them on time, every time 
My argument about the promises made to the Board still stands though
My argument about the promises made to the Board still stands though
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunny Scotland
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
reset's may be a system feature, but i call a spade a spade. if my frequency doesnt work when i want to transmit i say the frequency has failed. I do not want to be there when its going like a fair and it resets . 8 seconds can seem like an eternity when you are queuing up your transmissions, and if its like 10w says and you have to sometimes set up all your phones again and select your roles. thats up to a minute that the controller may be distracted, by the equipment thats meant to be helping them, which is only going to increase the pressures on them. The company seems very big on reducing ops room distractions shame they dont consider this to be one
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
I have no personal knowledge of the VCCS system selected for PC. However I do know that there are a number of state of the art systems already up and running world-wide.
Is it one of these COTS failing (defined as not functiuoning 100% correctly) or is it a one off NATS bargain special?
Is it one of these COTS failing (defined as not functiuoning 100% correctly) or is it a one off NATS bargain special?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it one of these COTS failing (defined as not functiuoning 100% correctly) or is it a one off NATS bargain special?
All VCCS installations are one off specials but this one is probably as COTS as they can ever be. I don't know what you define as state of the art but it is probably more advanced than most. It is up and running in several locations but as far as I know none of them are anywhere near as large as the system supplied to NATS and it may not have scaled up as well or as easily as the supplier expected. That is not unusual, several of those systems you are thinking of had similar problems at the start of their lifecycle.
