Controller screws up NAS??
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Jockland
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Controller screws up NAS??
Heard a rumour today that the last NAS failure was caused by a controller trying to input info. into the system.
The reason he/she was doing this...?
Apparently because of a shortage of ATSA staff.
Can anyone confirm or deny this?
The reason he/she was doing this...?
Apparently because of a shortage of ATSA staff.
Can anyone confirm or deny this?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Last (but not the only) NAS FLOP was caused by the well known Irish Gap Problem where a flight ducks in and out of the FIRs.
Don't know who actually tried to do the ammendment on the FPL that caused the FLOP but it doesn't really matter. Since it was / is a known problem it should have been fixed and NAS made unable to accept the input.
BTW ATCOs at Swanwick regularly access and ammend FPLs in NAS.It's part of the Planner Task. Now chant after me " NAS before NERC, NAS before NERC" etc etc etc.
Rgds BEX
Don't know who actually tried to do the ammendment on the FPL that caused the FLOP but it doesn't really matter. Since it was / is a known problem it should have been fixed and NAS made unable to accept the input.
BTW ATCOs at Swanwick regularly access and ammend FPLs in NAS.It's part of the Planner Task. Now chant after me " NAS before NERC, NAS before NERC" etc etc etc.
Rgds BEX
(said TOTALLY in jest).
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: PommyLand - but I'll be back!
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well you're quite right there Bigears. At least that's how it used to work in Oz. Controllers there not only never make mistakes, but they walk on water too! - well most of them anyway
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern England
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEXIL160 is quite correct. It doesn't matter who made the amendment, NAS should have been adapted not to accept this update, especially after the last incident had occured due to a similar input. I spoke to a DSS at LTCC after the first flop who gleefully told me that this was a known problem and they were just waiting for this sort of thing to happen!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Asgard
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand that it was indeed a DVR ATCO who, quite reasonably, was making a time amendment so that an ACT message on an aircraft would have been sent correctly to our froggy chums. I totally agree with others that sensible inputs should be processed by NAS without bringing the whole edifice down and that stupid/ineligible inputs should be rejected (with a decent error message)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Jockland
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the replies folks.
What I was trying to get at was: were ATCOs covering for a shortage of ATSAs? This is what was implied when I was told.
As I didn't think we were supposed to do such a thing, I just thought it a bit strange.
Personally, I can barely remember how to DM something. For me to even think about doing something more complicated than that would give NAS a fit!
What I was trying to get at was: were ATCOs covering for a shortage of ATSAs? This is what was implied when I was told.
As I didn't think we were supposed to do such a thing, I just thought it a bit strange.
Personally, I can barely remember how to DM something. For me to even think about doing something more complicated than that would give NAS a fit!
