Scottish Airports EFPS
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Heathrow
Age: 45
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BDiONU said.....
What debacle? Every controller was provided with a minimum of 56 hours hands-on EFPS training, most of which was in a 360-degree tower simulator (btw, we moved to a new control tower on the same day as commencing EFPS operations). Whilst the transition date was put back a few months to April 2007, this was primarily to facilitate entire watch shadowing sessions in the New VCR, and the new date actually ended up being a better transition time for the airlines. In the end, all 55 controllers completed the training satisfactorily, some of them receiving extensive additional simulation time and support (believe me, I should know
!).
The New VCR opened with EFPS, and the flow restrictions that were put in place were lifted within hours in some cases. I wouldn't call that a debacle, I'd call it a kick-ass training plan led by a crew of instructors who had the balls to stand-up to Exec-level management and run the transition in a way that made it easier for the ATCOs to operate the equipment.
Believe me, the ATCOs have the power. If you don't think it's fit-for-purpose, only you can persuade your management. LHR had many, many issues with EFPS throughout the 18-months of training, and had it not been for the fact that LHR ATCOs are by their very nature mouthy gits, the EFPS user group would have shoved their off-the-shelf version straight into operation. Your EFPS working group (I trust you have one) should be working through every one of the concerns that you have, carrying out a full hazard analysis on each one, and coming up with strong mitigations. If one of these mitigations proves to be a reduction in capacity, your management will soon sit up and listen.
Since the Heathrow debacle
!).The New VCR opened with EFPS, and the flow restrictions that were put in place were lifted within hours in some cases. I wouldn't call that a debacle, I'd call it a kick-ass training plan led by a crew of instructors who had the balls to stand-up to Exec-level management and run the transition in a way that made it easier for the ATCOs to operate the equipment.
Believe me, the ATCOs have the power. If you don't think it's fit-for-purpose, only you can persuade your management. LHR had many, many issues with EFPS throughout the 18-months of training, and had it not been for the fact that LHR ATCOs are by their very nature mouthy gits, the EFPS user group would have shoved their off-the-shelf version straight into operation. Your EFPS working group (I trust you have one) should be working through every one of the concerns that you have, carrying out a full hazard analysis on each one, and coming up with strong mitigations. If one of these mitigations proves to be a reduction in capacity, your management will soon sit up and listen.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: solent-on-sea
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not on the working group and have only very briefly seen the new proposed set up for TC (the best was a demo of the new system on a weekend with the project lead answering questions, unfortunately the demo broke and noone was available to fix it, so it basically became a 'static' demo!).
I fully believe it is the future because nearly all projects in the pipeline rely on it being in place and NATS doesn't like changing direction. Will it be fit for purpose? Yes. What will that purpose be? Read the very small print and don't presume your idea will be the same as someone else. Does that mean it will make the ATCO's life easier? Not necessarily. Will it be able to handle more traffic? Certainly not immediately, personally I can't see it ever being quick enough to actually increase capacity in the TMA.Will it save money? Again presumably in the long term.
Now it's not for a lowly ATCO to decide if that's a good idea for the long term, that's presumably why board members and higher managers get thir bonuses.
I just hope it doesn't increase my workload too much, and I can get over the fact I've made 5 typing errors just writing this, let alone in a busy days worth of controlling.
I fully believe it is the future because nearly all projects in the pipeline rely on it being in place and NATS doesn't like changing direction. Will it be fit for purpose? Yes. What will that purpose be? Read the very small print and don't presume your idea will be the same as someone else. Does that mean it will make the ATCO's life easier? Not necessarily. Will it be able to handle more traffic? Certainly not immediately, personally I can't see it ever being quick enough to actually increase capacity in the TMA.Will it save money? Again presumably in the long term.
Now it's not for a lowly ATCO to decide if that's a good idea for the long term, that's presumably why board members and higher managers get thir bonuses.
I just hope it doesn't increase my workload too much, and I can get over the fact I've made 5 typing errors just writing this, let alone in a busy days worth of controlling.
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BD
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Heathrow
Age: 45
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It shouldn't have come to it that the ATCO's had to 'fight' to get a working system.
Let's not get into the LHR story. You don't know enough about it to contribute, but I'm happy to take it offline.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will EFPS talk to EFD?
What about links to the Military and 'Non-state' airfields?
Will these 2 systems communicate 'seamlessly' with other parts of the "Single european Sky".
What about links to the Military and 'Non-state' airfields?
Will these 2 systems communicate 'seamlessly' with other parts of the "Single european Sky".
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Initially it will in a roundabout way via NAS. Once iTEC goes in things will improve.
Only to airports with EFPS.
Eventually, that's certainly one of the intents of SESAR.
BD
What about links to the Military and 'Non-state' airfields?
Will these 2 systems communicate 'seamlessly' with other parts of the "Single european Sky".
BD
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: On a foreign shore trying a new wine diet. So far, I've lost 3days!
Age: 75
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BD,
I think your previous post demonstrates that perhaps your new system isn't fit for purpose yet.
To quote you
That's not to say it won't improve things in the future. But your answers seem to demonstrate the reservations that I and your colleagues have about introducing new technology that hasn't been thought through properly.
Why not wait until ITEC goes in and wait for things to improve?
Why not install EFPS to all airports?
If that's one of the the intents of SESAR, are we to assume that this technology is waiting for something else to occur?
Surely if you are waiting on all these events to happen then in the meantime someone has to cope with working the new system and also working around the problems and limitations of the new system that you have acknowledged yourself above.
If I had this many unanswered questions or concerns I think I would seriously question the Safety Case?
On the beach
I think your previous post demonstrates that perhaps your new system isn't fit for purpose yet.
To quote you
Once iTEC goes in things will improve.
Only to airports with EFPS.
Eventually, that's certainly one of the intents of SESAR.
Why not wait until ITEC goes in and wait for things to improve?
Why not install EFPS to all airports?
If that's one of the the intents of SESAR, are we to assume that this technology is waiting for something else to occur?
Surely if you are waiting on all these events to happen then in the meantime someone has to cope with working the new system and also working around the problems and limitations of the new system that you have acknowledged yourself above.
If I had this many unanswered questions or concerns I think I would seriously question the Safety Case?
On the beach
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire, California, Geneva, and Paris
Age: 67
Posts: 867
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that all of you are aware of the "Elephant in the room". The rationale of most of these projects is to reduce or eliminate your ATSA colleagues, jobs, and associated costs and as to whether a project is useable/safe/efficent etc is secondary to that main goal. In my opinion none of your reservations or concerns however well justified will be allowed to deflect that primary aim.
Last edited by DC10RealMan; 7th Feb 2010 at 14:32.
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BD
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: not the W.P.
Age: 70
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect that any ATSA who has taken VR based on the introduction date of EFD in TC will be enjoying a lot more scrumptious LTCC canteen dinners than he/she expected. Re. TMA South EFD trial this week.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: solent-on-sea
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Do you really think it's an effective use of a skilled persons time to put paper strips into a holder and walk them round to put them in front of the ATCO?
BD"
Well given we've got to get the info somehow, and ATSAS do slightly more than that, then yes I suppose I do.
BD"
Well given we've got to get the info somehow, and ATSAS do slightly more than that, then yes I suppose I do.
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
But your answers seem to demonstrate the reservations that I and your colleagues have about introducing new technology that hasn't been thought through properly.
Why not wait until ITEC goes in and wait for things to improve?
Why not install EFPS to all airports?
If that's one of the the intents of SESAR, are we to assume that this technology is waiting for something else to occur?
If I had this many unanswered questions or concerns I think I would seriously question the Safety Case?
BD
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BD, It's all spin.
What is the point in EFD, EFPS, iTEC, SESAR et al.
Allegedly, at this time, several of the airfields in my local TMA (and probably yours), don't even have the benefit of code-callsign conversion.
This means that controllers working in adjacent areas of (often very complex) airspace, are not even looking at the same radar picture!
For decades, (given the fragmented state of the UK ATC 'system'), the only reason that the unthinkable hasn't happened is due to the skill and professionalism of those working in these often under-equipped control rooms.
Let's get back to basics.
Let's get everyone singing from the same hynm-sheet. (sorry if this sounds like the management yuck-speak I so utterly detest).
Then, and only then, can we start talking about the future, because at this time, it appears we still haven't got the present working properly.
What is the point in EFD, EFPS, iTEC, SESAR et al.
Allegedly, at this time, several of the airfields in my local TMA (and probably yours), don't even have the benefit of code-callsign conversion.
This means that controllers working in adjacent areas of (often very complex) airspace, are not even looking at the same radar picture!
For decades, (given the fragmented state of the UK ATC 'system'), the only reason that the unthinkable hasn't happened is due to the skill and professionalism of those working in these often under-equipped control rooms.
Let's get back to basics.
Let's get everyone singing from the same hynm-sheet. (sorry if this sounds like the management yuck-speak I so utterly detest).
Then, and only then, can we start talking about the future, because at this time, it appears we still haven't got the present working properly.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: On a foreign shore trying a new wine diet. So far, I've lost 3days!
Age: 75
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bd,
Okay, to answer some of your concerns. But before we do that perhaps we should deal with what appears to be a subjective approach that you seem to be adopting to justify your responses.
First:
Now, from that statement we can only deduce that the whole exercise that you are embarking on here is one of cost-cutting. On that ground alone I would seriously question your Safety Case.
Second:
Well, actually yes I do. Because your solution disregards the majority of airports in Scotland. i.e. those that aren't Edinburgh and Glasgow. I haven't included Aberdeen as they have already raised their own concerns re the fact that the new technology doesn't seem to cater for helicopters, which probably account for the majority of movements there. You can't introduce a system that only caters for a minority of the airports and users in an FIR and then wonder why the system doesn't work when interfacing with the airports and users that are not part of the new system. It has to be all-inclusive.
I know you will say, who pays? And the answer that I will throw back to you is it should be funded by the same people who are going to pay for it's introduction to NATS. i.e. the flying public. Unless you feel that only NATS operated and run airports are deemed suitable for the benefits of new and improved technology.
So we come back to the Safety Case. If the new technology improves the safety of air transport users, then shouldn't that apply to all air transport users, irrespective of which airport in Scotland they happen to be flying out of or into. I hope this explains my previous reference to the fact that the whole concept and it's introduction hasn't been thought through properly. It is a band-aid solution which refuses to accept the fact that the patient has cancer.
As some of the comments by others previously have indicated you need to start from a level playing field, for want of a better cliche. So my suggestion to you and the members of the D of S that read this is to do just that and if the technology can't be introduced throughout Scotland then you need to ask yourself the question - why? If, as I suspect it's cost then that's a question that the CAA, as opposed to NATS, needs to address. If it enhances safety, then.... well, you don't need me to state the obvious.
On the beach
Okay, to answer some of your concerns. But before we do that perhaps we should deal with what appears to be a subjective approach that you seem to be adopting to justify your responses.
First:
But without that mindless strip loading task there will be less of them required as the workload will reduce per individual.
Second:
Do you really think it's an effective use of a skilled persons time to put paper strips into a holder and walk them round to put them in front of the ATCO?
I know you will say, who pays? And the answer that I will throw back to you is it should be funded by the same people who are going to pay for it's introduction to NATS. i.e. the flying public. Unless you feel that only NATS operated and run airports are deemed suitable for the benefits of new and improved technology.
So we come back to the Safety Case. If the new technology improves the safety of air transport users, then shouldn't that apply to all air transport users, irrespective of which airport in Scotland they happen to be flying out of or into. I hope this explains my previous reference to the fact that the whole concept and it's introduction hasn't been thought through properly. It is a band-aid solution which refuses to accept the fact that the patient has cancer.
As some of the comments by others previously have indicated you need to start from a level playing field, for want of a better cliche. So my suggestion to you and the members of the D of S that read this is to do just that and if the technology can't be introduced throughout Scotland then you need to ask yourself the question - why? If, as I suspect it's cost then that's a question that the CAA, as opposed to NATS, needs to address. If it enhances safety, then.... well, you don't need me to state the obvious.
On the beach