EFPS - Your Experiences Please ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 3rd Shelf on the Left
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EFPS - Your Experiences Please ?
OK, So the time has come to start looking at the possibility of implementing EFPS (Electronic Flight Progress Strips) at our unit.
I know that there are several units in the UK already using this system and I'd really appreciate any observations or opinions from people working with these systems.
in particular your thoughts on the questions below.
Are they easier to use ?
Any specific shortfalls or compromises which have had to be made ?
Given the chance, would you go back to paper strips ?
What system are you using ?
Thanks for your input.
I know that there are several units in the UK already using this system and I'd really appreciate any observations or opinions from people working with these systems.
in particular your thoughts on the questions below.
Are they easier to use ?
Any specific shortfalls or compromises which have had to be made ?
Given the chance, would you go back to paper strips ?
What system are you using ?
Thanks for your input.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't understand why you haven't had a response yet, so here goes.
My experience - not current, but worked NavCanada EFPS system including transition from paper strips to EFPS at large unit in UK - TWR only.
There was some reluctance to use new technology during training - not all from "senior" users. Were you were to suggest reversion to a paper system now, I don't think you'd get much support - from anyone! It's easy to use once familiar with the system.
Benefits.
You can now read my strips!
Logical strip movement of strips between windows (strip bays) and between work stations GMC - AIR etc
Strip marking and movement universal throughout unit
Automatic interface with other computer systems NAS (UK) - IFPS - AFTN - Slot Management - Stand Management etc
Every input to system is recorded, so tons of data available to ATC, Airlines, Airfield operators etc = income!
Staff costs!!
Disadvantages
Reduced staff numbers
Consideration must be given to high ambient light conditions
I would suggest that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.
Perhaps someone will comment on a combined TWR and Approach system for you?
Hope that helps.
My experience - not current, but worked NavCanada EFPS system including transition from paper strips to EFPS at large unit in UK - TWR only.
There was some reluctance to use new technology during training - not all from "senior" users. Were you were to suggest reversion to a paper system now, I don't think you'd get much support - from anyone! It's easy to use once familiar with the system.
Benefits.
You can now read my strips!
Logical strip movement of strips between windows (strip bays) and between work stations GMC - AIR etc
Strip marking and movement universal throughout unit
Automatic interface with other computer systems NAS (UK) - IFPS - AFTN - Slot Management - Stand Management etc
Every input to system is recorded, so tons of data available to ATC, Airlines, Airfield operators etc = income!
Staff costs!!
Disadvantages
Reduced staff numbers
Consideration must be given to high ambient light conditions
I would suggest that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.
Perhaps someone will comment on a combined TWR and Approach system for you?
Hope that helps.
OK if all your traffic is pre planned, but if you have large numbers of un notified transits freecalling all the time, (eg 2 or 3 per minute) how do you manage it?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unplanned movements do cause a little, but not insurmountable problem.
You will probably understand that towed movements and infrequent crossers were our only unplanned traffic. Initially towed traffic had to be notified in advance - like that's going to work! - but that quickly passed when we realised that we could input as they called.
Most inputs, being menu driven, were fairly easy to do especially if you have regular customers. Frequent unfamiliar callers do present more of a challenge, but there are units with such traffic who I'm sure will respond.....
You will probably understand that towed movements and infrequent crossers were our only unplanned traffic. Initially towed traffic had to be notified in advance - like that's going to work! - but that quickly passed when we realised that we could input as they called.
Most inputs, being menu driven, were fairly easy to do especially if you have regular customers. Frequent unfamiliar callers do present more of a challenge, but there are units with such traffic who I'm sure will respond.....
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's plenty of threads out there if you do a search.
I find controlling less 'fun' than with paper strips, and using EFPS does introduce some mental friction over paper. All other things being equal, I would go back. Of course, the electronic environment means that things aren't equal; interfaces with CFMU, CDM etc would be impossible with paper.
Just make sure that you have enough resource (i.e. software engineers) to make all the changes and updates you require. There's nothing more frustrating to identify a major issue and be told "Maybe next year, and it will cost x thousands of pounds" and then having to try and justify your need.
I find controlling less 'fun' than with paper strips, and using EFPS does introduce some mental friction over paper. All other things being equal, I would go back. Of course, the electronic environment means that things aren't equal; interfaces with CFMU, CDM etc would be impossible with paper.
Just make sure that you have enough resource (i.e. software engineers) to make all the changes and updates you require. There's nothing more frustrating to identify a major issue and be told "Maybe next year, and it will cost x thousands of pounds" and then having to try and justify your need.
Last edited by Gonzo; 14th Aug 2011 at 16:50.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have been working with EFPS since last year Tower and Approach. Project delivery was poor and post op support almost non existant. There is no way so far to move the system on from the build we went live with except for a couple of patches for the worst problems.
There are a some fixes still required but when we finally get a control system running they should not be difficult to sort out [eventually!!]
The biggest problem people have is getting familiar with the system and some get it quicker than others. There is still a small group who struggle a bit when something " goes wrong" and while it is sometimes EFPS or lack of training, more often it's finger or memory trouble.
Having said all that I actually like EFPS. It is fairly easy to use and eventually most do get up to speed inputting the freecall VFRs. Would I go back to paper?...probably not. I think the benefits - a LOT less phone calls - outweigh the hassles [why did the strip do that?....not another bloody VFR who can't be bothered to file a FPL!!]
There are a some fixes still required but when we finally get a control system running they should not be difficult to sort out [eventually!!]
The biggest problem people have is getting familiar with the system and some get it quicker than others. There is still a small group who struggle a bit when something " goes wrong" and while it is sometimes EFPS or lack of training, more often it's finger or memory trouble.
Having said all that I actually like EFPS. It is fairly easy to use and eventually most do get up to speed inputting the freecall VFRs. Would I go back to paper?...probably not. I think the benefits - a LOT less phone calls - outweigh the hassles [why did the strip do that?....not another bloody VFR who can't be bothered to file a FPL!!]
Is your unit tower (significant visual attention required outside) or radar?
One of the things I've noticed at the tower I work at is that inputting data on the EFS - particularly if multiple dialogue boxes need to be used - is that it is very possible to get "bogged down" in that, at the expense of a visual scan. This is particularly true if you're a couple of millimeters out in where the scribe touches the screen, resulting in unwanted/incorrect dialogue windows.
The screen forces the operator to process data in a serial rather than holistic function, which is often at odds with the mindset traditionally used for ADC operations.
One of the things I've noticed at the tower I work at is that inputting data on the EFS - particularly if multiple dialogue boxes need to be used - is that it is very possible to get "bogged down" in that, at the expense of a visual scan. This is particularly true if you're a couple of millimeters out in where the scribe touches the screen, resulting in unwanted/incorrect dialogue windows.
The screen forces the operator to process data in a serial rather than holistic function, which is often at odds with the mindset traditionally used for ADC operations.
Last edited by Tarq57; 15th Aug 2011 at 03:22. Reason: typo
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: South of Brittany
Age: 75
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EFPS
My main concern about EFPS is that the request is not coming from the OPS side but from the industry , with in background the aim to more automatize the ATS functions. Its clear that they do'nt have OPS experience in that area and their system is build as a generic tool in oder to satisfy their owns views, not in order to help ATCOs. Especially for TWR -ground and Local- it's a disaster.. As presented by them, it will work the same in Atlanta, Biggin Hill or Dubaļ !
Most of the system I have been involved with ( OPS implementation verification in new towers) request more actions, wich are time consuming, than paper strips or a system which at the simpliest could mimic only a paper strip and then being upgraded with regards to the real need. ( Like "vigie strip" protoype from DTI in France). As aresult, ATCOs are spending most of their time head down on the EFS display..!!
Most of those systems do'nt cope also with the ICAO recommandation (DOC9758 about Human factors) which state that any kind of information present on a display should not disappeared from it without a positive action from the ATCO. (eg, when airborne the EFS moves automatically from a "runway box" to a "transfer box", the trouble coming from the different systems which design differently by software what is the "airborne time.
Also some systems (Eurocat T e.g.) are design with a runway drawing in the middle. When cleared to line up the EFS moves immediatly from "holding list" to the runway....even if for any reason the captain dont move the aircraft for 3 minutes and the worst is an alarm which can be triggered due to the command, not the real position !
Also the color coding makes most displays look like a christmas tree (For ICAO no more than 6 colors, used in parrallel with other devices like Inverted video)
I could add 10 pages of those inconsistencies. There is a real need to transfer to the global system, actions, time or position of traffic in a more effective manner if it can help the efficiency of ATM . But a flight strip is a short term planning support to ATCO ( European "Mantea" study ), writing is an helper to short term memory and also, really a concern in most existing systems, a flight strip is not a flight plan....
Most of the system I have been involved with ( OPS implementation verification in new towers) request more actions, wich are time consuming, than paper strips or a system which at the simpliest could mimic only a paper strip and then being upgraded with regards to the real need. ( Like "vigie strip" protoype from DTI in France). As aresult, ATCOs are spending most of their time head down on the EFS display..!!
Most of those systems do'nt cope also with the ICAO recommandation (DOC9758 about Human factors) which state that any kind of information present on a display should not disappeared from it without a positive action from the ATCO. (eg, when airborne the EFS moves automatically from a "runway box" to a "transfer box", the trouble coming from the different systems which design differently by software what is the "airborne time.
Also some systems (Eurocat T e.g.) are design with a runway drawing in the middle. When cleared to line up the EFS moves immediatly from "holding list" to the runway....even if for any reason the captain dont move the aircraft for 3 minutes and the worst is an alarm which can be triggered due to the command, not the real position !
Also the color coding makes most displays look like a christmas tree (For ICAO no more than 6 colors, used in parrallel with other devices like Inverted video)
I could add 10 pages of those inconsistencies. There is a real need to transfer to the global system, actions, time or position of traffic in a more effective manner if it can help the efficiency of ATM . But a flight strip is a short term planning support to ATCO ( European "Mantea" study ), writing is an helper to short term memory and also, really a concern in most existing systems, a flight strip is not a flight plan....
