Electronic Strips
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Garp..
No, I doubt very much whether we'll see ANYTHING in NATS either not invented here, or without origins in the USA. Had a more Euro-sympathetic Government been in power in the late 1980s the NERC fiasco would not have happened and I would probably be sitting in front of equipment similar to that now used French or EuroControl Centres.
"Inability to let go of the past". Maybe, but this assumes that the past was bad or wrong and that new ideas / concepts are "better". Personally I like evolutionary systems development rather than revolutionary, there's usually less risk involved.
The point about taking your eyes off the screen and refocussing is a valid one.
Using the mouse to get info from each track / target sounds very reminiscent of the wonderful Track ball systems that were used at Eastern / Border Radar to obtain SSR Info..... But that WAS a long time ago
(yes I got used to that as well)
Thanks for the comments. Any more?
Rgds BEX
No, I doubt very much whether we'll see ANYTHING in NATS either not invented here, or without origins in the USA. Had a more Euro-sympathetic Government been in power in the late 1980s the NERC fiasco would not have happened and I would probably be sitting in front of equipment similar to that now used French or EuroControl Centres.
"Inability to let go of the past". Maybe, but this assumes that the past was bad or wrong and that new ideas / concepts are "better". Personally I like evolutionary systems development rather than revolutionary, there's usually less risk involved.
The point about taking your eyes off the screen and refocussing is a valid one.
Using the mouse to get info from each track / target sounds very reminiscent of the wonderful Track ball systems that were used at Eastern / Border Radar to obtain SSR Info..... But that WAS a long time ago
(yes I got used to that as well)Thanks for the comments. Any more?
Rgds BEX
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To give a different angle.....
one of my worries about EFPS is the loss of the assistants. The unit I work at has assistants with on average around 15 years experience. That can be invaluable in some situations and it is a shame that it will be lost.
one of my worries about EFPS is the loss of the assistants. The unit I work at has assistants with on average around 15 years experience. That can be invaluable in some situations and it is a shame that it will be lost.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In relation to the assistants. In Australia when we went into TAAATS and the electronic strip display, we got rid of probably 70% of the assistants keeping the remainder to check flight plans etc. that were rejected by the system, and distribute info during upgrade/system degraded mode times (early days almost daily upgrade and related degraded state).
While it was a shame to lose a lot of the assistants, its the way of the world. Some had the skills to train up as controllers and we didn't lose their experience, and on the whole the most experienced of the rest stayed on doing the tasks mentioned above.
BTW I can't believe how slow the UK and the US have been in the uptake of a modern ATC system, is the reason for this political, fiscal, stubbornnesss or all of the above?
While it was a shame to lose a lot of the assistants, its the way of the world. Some had the skills to train up as controllers and we didn't lose their experience, and on the whole the most experienced of the rest stayed on doing the tasks mentioned above.
BTW I can't believe how slow the UK and the US have been in the uptake of a modern ATC system, is the reason for this political, fiscal, stubbornnesss or all of the above?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: this side of the hill
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please ANSA, no to critical on the British, after all they've invented ATC and we would probably be sweeping the streets if it wasn't for them 
Garp
(Is it true that RVSM and/or 8.33 spacing is not yet in place in the US?)
Garp
(Is it true that RVSM and/or 8.33 spacing is not yet in place in the US?)
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's called SARPS. Sheer Arrogance and waste of Resources by ans Provider's Syndrome.
It originated in Australia in the late eighties, when the manager's elected to reject available off-the-shelf technology and instead pi$$ away unbelievable amounts of money reinventing the wheel. After 10 years ended up with something remarkably similar, and a HUGE bill. Of course some little empires sprang up along the way, requiring further expense to dismantle. If only all that time and money had been spent improving the available technology?
It seems SARPS has now spread (obviously spread by aeroplanes). The cure is to pretend that you are now a business, deny all knowledge of anything that happened before you 'corporatised', and attack the staff in order to retrieve all the lost money- after all, this is now a business!
The irony is that if mangers in real business performed like this, they would have very short careers. Doesn't seem to work like that in the 'business' of air traffic.
It originated in Australia in the late eighties, when the manager's elected to reject available off-the-shelf technology and instead pi$$ away unbelievable amounts of money reinventing the wheel. After 10 years ended up with something remarkably similar, and a HUGE bill. Of course some little empires sprang up along the way, requiring further expense to dismantle. If only all that time and money had been spent improving the available technology?
It seems SARPS has now spread (obviously spread by aeroplanes). The cure is to pretend that you are now a business, deny all knowledge of anything that happened before you 'corporatised', and attack the staff in order to retrieve all the lost money- after all, this is now a business!
The irony is that if mangers in real business performed like this, they would have very short careers. Doesn't seem to work like that in the 'business' of air traffic.
Guest
Posts: n/a
It originated in Australia in the late eighties, when the manager's elected to reject available off-the-shelf technology and instead pi$$ away unbelievable amounts of money reinventing the wheel.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading the posts it would seem that there may be advantages in an en-route environment for the use of electronic strips.
Have they been used sucessfully however in an approach environment and at at Tower.
I cannot see how they will improve or aid mywork in Approach ,inparticular the LARS service, I would spend a considerable amount of my time imputting info as im sure it would be used as an excuse to rid the unit of ATSAs leaving me less time to actually control.
If anyone can tell me different I would be grateful to hear.
Have they been used sucessfully however in an approach environment and at at Tower.
I cannot see how they will improve or aid mywork in Approach ,inparticular the LARS service, I would spend a considerable amount of my time imputting info as im sure it would be used as an excuse to rid the unit of ATSAs leaving me less time to actually control.
If anyone can tell me different I would be grateful to hear.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Southern Hemisphere colleagues....
One of the few things that is done more or less the same the world over is The bad management of ATC. It's not unique to the Antipodes, but pehaps we in the UK can take some credit for setting the Standard of incompetence.
It's only a small boast, but hey, we do have to be first at something.
Flower....
Nope, can't see how electronics would help much in a LARS environment either. However, I can see the DigiStrips example being quite useful in TMAs and larger airports where digitised info is useful to all.... I'm thinking of things like stack TV.
Rgds BEX
One of the few things that is done more or less the same the world over is The bad management of ATC. It's not unique to the Antipodes, but pehaps we in the UK can take some credit for setting the Standard of incompetence.
It's only a small boast, but hey, we do have to be first at something. Flower....
Nope, can't see how electronics would help much in a LARS environment either. However, I can see the DigiStrips example being quite useful in TMAs and larger airports where digitised info is useful to all.... I'm thinking of things like stack TV.
Rgds BEX
Reading the posts it would seem that there may be advantages in an en-route environment for the use of electronic strips.
In Australia the TMAs in Brisbane, Melbourne, and Sydney (plus some more that noone here will have ever heard of) use electronic strips. They may or may not be the best but they have not gone back be it for whatever reason.
Not being an expert but having had the privilege to have seen the Canadian college 360 degree tower sim, they use electronic strips there as well, a touch screen number, very nice, plus the Hornet doing Beat Ups on the cab.....Giddy Up.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: 43° 40' 47" , -80° 25' 28"
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I take some of the points above about Digistrips being for people afraid of leaving the past, but there are some excellent interface ideas. And it's worth remembering that paper strips offer a flexibility that is impossible in any electronic system (due to the need to tell the programme what it's meant to do in advance through some software language).
The main advantage of digistrips, as I see it, is that it exploits as close to a 'natural language' as it can: that of writing. The only more natural language is speaking, and claims about the accuracy of voice recognition don't seem to stand up in ATC. We are all taught to write from the age of 3 (
) and, although our handwriting may be bad, we can all do it without really thinking about it.
Contrast writing with using a mouse and keyboard. Writing will allow you to directly interact with the object of interest, so you could write in the box and then hit 'enter': a total of two actions. Mouse and keyboard, whatever the electronic display may look like or do, you must move the mouse to the correct field, select it, enter the data (maybe having to hunt, one fingered, for the appropriate keys on the keyboard), then hit 'enter' (or move the mouse again to 'OK', then select 'OK'). This task may possibly involve up to 9 discrete actions (let's assume worst case, and inputting a five character waypoint). Both these examples assume that the correct field was available in the first place.
There's also the question of abstraction (psycho-babble - sorry). The action you take with writing is not really mediated by anything else; with mouse and keyboard you are manipulating some agent of language, without any associated proprioceptive (
) feedback (unless you are a skilled typist). This type of feedback lets you know when you've done something wrong, even while you are still doing it (how many of us have written something and realised it was wrong before we'd finished it, without looking at it, just through the .feeling of writing it?).
One danger of increasing computing capabilities is that we load everything onto the visual channel, and we become saturated and unable to do more work and start to make mistakes. By finding solutions that spread this load onto the auditory, verbal and motor channels, we can do more work, quicker, with less errors. The French have tried this with Digistrips, others try it with speech recognition, still others try eye movements or electro-chemical sensors on the head, arms, etc.
Whatever the electronics may look like, and whatever they may do, the important thing is that it exploits the controller's natural strengths, and does not try to change them, unless there is demonstrable benefit in doing so. The belief that electronics are better than humans so humans should fit around the electronics won't apply to ATC for a while.
But NATS couldn't go for Digistrips...they're French!!!
Sorry for the long message (that's HF for you).
The main advantage of digistrips, as I see it, is that it exploits as close to a 'natural language' as it can: that of writing. The only more natural language is speaking, and claims about the accuracy of voice recognition don't seem to stand up in ATC. We are all taught to write from the age of 3 (
) and, although our handwriting may be bad, we can all do it without really thinking about it.Contrast writing with using a mouse and keyboard. Writing will allow you to directly interact with the object of interest, so you could write in the box and then hit 'enter': a total of two actions. Mouse and keyboard, whatever the electronic display may look like or do, you must move the mouse to the correct field, select it, enter the data (maybe having to hunt, one fingered, for the appropriate keys on the keyboard), then hit 'enter' (or move the mouse again to 'OK', then select 'OK'). This task may possibly involve up to 9 discrete actions (let's assume worst case, and inputting a five character waypoint). Both these examples assume that the correct field was available in the first place.
There's also the question of abstraction (psycho-babble - sorry). The action you take with writing is not really mediated by anything else; with mouse and keyboard you are manipulating some agent of language, without any associated proprioceptive (
) feedback (unless you are a skilled typist). This type of feedback lets you know when you've done something wrong, even while you are still doing it (how many of us have written something and realised it was wrong before we'd finished it, without looking at it, just through the .feeling of writing it?).One danger of increasing computing capabilities is that we load everything onto the visual channel, and we become saturated and unable to do more work and start to make mistakes. By finding solutions that spread this load onto the auditory, verbal and motor channels, we can do more work, quicker, with less errors. The French have tried this with Digistrips, others try it with speech recognition, still others try eye movements or electro-chemical sensors on the head, arms, etc.
Whatever the electronics may look like, and whatever they may do, the important thing is that it exploits the controller's natural strengths, and does not try to change them, unless there is demonstrable benefit in doing so. The belief that electronics are better than humans so humans should fit around the electronics won't apply to ATC for a while.
But NATS couldn't go for Digistrips...they're French!!!
Sorry for the long message (that's HF for you).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Llamapoo
Thanks for the HF input. You've put into words what I had intuitively thought
As for NATS not even looking at the system, sadly I tend to agree, BUT WHY NOT? The system is "Commercial Off-the Shelf" (COTS) which is exactly what we are supposed to be making much greater use of. Could it possibly be a case of "Empire Protection" (Not invented at ATMDC), or possibly Xenophobia?
About time somebody stood up and advocated the best tools for the job, regardless of their origin...... there goes another pig past the window
Best rgds BEX
P.S. Does Llamapoo have origins in Ontario?
Thanks for the HF input. You've put into words what I had intuitively thought
As for NATS not even looking at the system, sadly I tend to agree, BUT WHY NOT? The system is "Commercial Off-the Shelf" (COTS) which is exactly what we are supposed to be making much greater use of. Could it possibly be a case of "Empire Protection" (Not invented at ATMDC), or possibly Xenophobia?
About time somebody stood up and advocated the best tools for the job, regardless of their origin...... there goes another pig past the window
Best rgds BEX
P.S. Does Llamapoo have origins in Ontario?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: NERC
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I watched the video of the digi-strips and they are very impressive, but I got the feeling they are only experimental at the moment.
There are a couple of engineering questions.
Where is the data being stored?
With a paper strip you write on it, and it becomes a permanent record. With a digi-strip it is stored by the computer. What happens if the computer fails? I assume a copy of the data is kept on another machine.
What kind of computer interface does it have?
To call this product COTS is stretching the term a bit. It will need extensive tailoring to interface to your systems which will in effect make it bespoke. Of course there will also be the changes enforced on the FDP system to support it.
Anyone know how tailorable the look of the strips is?
On the general subject of Electronic Strips, what are the fallback modes on the systems that are fielded operationally, i.e. what happens if your electronics goes down?
There are a couple of engineering questions.
Where is the data being stored?
With a paper strip you write on it, and it becomes a permanent record. With a digi-strip it is stored by the computer. What happens if the computer fails? I assume a copy of the data is kept on another machine.
What kind of computer interface does it have?
To call this product COTS is stretching the term a bit. It will need extensive tailoring to interface to your systems which will in effect make it bespoke. Of course there will also be the changes enforced on the FDP system to support it.
Anyone know how tailorable the look of the strips is?
On the general subject of Electronic Strips, what are the fallback modes on the systems that are fielded operationally, i.e. what happens if your electronics goes down?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: 43° 40' 47" , -80° 25' 28"
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aaaaah Ontario. Where April means 6 inches of ice pellets sitting on a sheen of frozen water (also known as ice). However, it does mean that the ATCOs (at least at YYZ) get periodic lulls in the traffic when they can't clear the runways.
At least a frozen llamapoo is easier to pick out of the gutter!
At least a frozen llamapoo is easier to pick out of the gutter!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those who spoke out against the format of digistrips and not being able to "let go" of the old. I was completely letting go of the OLD paper world and happy to do so. What I want though is something that I can use and interface with that is faster than many keyboard entries or mouse clicks. I have found very little in the keyboard or even the mouse world that is faster than what I could do with a pencil. That has been one of the draw backs of some automation.
Now, that said, I don't see this as being used by the radar controller unless of course they don't have a planner. I see this as an interface to the computer and nothing more. The computer and long term conflict probe are working under the covers as it were and posting all of the data on whatever sort of interface you decide to use. I liked what I saw with digistrips not because it looked like strips. It can look like ANYTHING as long as the data that I need is easy to read AND easy to manipulate. That is all that I care about. Don't get caught up in the "it looks like strips, that's why they like it." All I care about is getting to the data easily and doing something with it. Something that is going to save me time. I want it all updated automatically and then get the info passed on to others that will need it.
For GARP. The US right now isn't using RVSM, but it has nothing to do with ATC not being able to. It has to do with the user not being ready to use it. You have to remember that we have a LOT of aviation over here and most of it is General Aviation. Between the GA folks some of the older commercial aircraft ( All hushkitted or reengined.) and the frieghters, we have a lot of airframes that would need to be upgraded to be able to meet RVSM standards. The industry has not been rushing to embrace it for the most part due to the cost of doing so. We are expecting to go to it in the next few years, but it has nothing to do with the FAA not being ready to do it.
As to 8.33 spacing in the US, we don't see that as being the way that we want to go. That is a temporary fix. The folks in Europe knew that when they went to it. You are going to run out of freqs with this scheme in the next couple of decades and will have to come up with another new radio scheme to keep up. The FAA has been working on something called NEXCOM to meet our needs for the future. It is going to work on multiplex radio schemes which are used both in the military and emergency services in differing fashions. Again, the user here has many aircraft that would have to be outfitted and they have a very large voice on what they want... We try to listen.
Now, as to ancient equipment, well we aren't all that ancient anymore at most of our facilities. All 20 of our enroute centers or is that centres <G>? have the new DSR (Display System Replacement) system in place and operational. We are also in the process of replacing all of the 20 X 20 Sony color displays with the BARCO ISIS display. We are indeed still running on the older HOST software. It is long in tooth with the inherant problems with stuff written for 80K of core memory as well as the limitations of the Basic Assembly Language and Jovial. But it has been added to over the last couple of decades and it bears no resemblance to what came out all those years ago. Even being old, it still can do things that many facilities in the world today still can't do <G>.
We have a 20 minute conflict probe installed in 7 of our 20 enroute facilities and are making constant changes to it as well as the main display system along with electronic flight data. We also have a metering program that is installed in a few facilities and we are looking at being able to install it in more. We are also working on multicenter metering so that you can spread the delay to an airport over multiple centers, and hopefully eliminating holding at the destination airport if the delays don't get too long. I wouldn't call this ancient stuff <G>.
Then of course there is the tool that we use to look at ALL IFR traffic in the country. We can also see what is in the UK, Canada and Japan as we have given the system to those countries. We can then use this tool to better help guage impact to the system or any particular airport. Not to bad for an outmoded system.
regards
Scott
NERC Dweller;
When I watched the demo on digistrips and talked with one of the engineers, I found that they can make the data look like anything. It is just a graphic that can be changed.
As to what happens to the data. We already have facilities that have no paper nor any paper back up per se. Buy the time you stripped everything up, the planes would be gone <G>... All you are doing is taking the data from your computer and instead of printing it on a printer, you are putting it on a screen. The data resides in another processor with its own memory. The units that we use here have thier own battery backup, and it has been tested in real life when the flight data computer has gone belly up, and the only data left was the electronic data that we had in the conflict probe system. The data for historic purposes is all resident on tape. So that is not an issue.
What the US has been going towards is a keyboard and mouse system ( could be trackball ) for the tracker ( We call it a D-side ) with a display for both the data and also a graphic display is available is you want. The radar controller ( Executive in Eurocontrol terms) is going to go from paper strips to interactive data blocks ( that is starting its evolution this year. ) that will show and pass information to other controllers as well as be integrated with the flight data computer.
Hope that this answers some questions or muddies the waters some more <G>...
PS. I'll be out of town for another week again. Another trip to DC.
Now, that said, I don't see this as being used by the radar controller unless of course they don't have a planner. I see this as an interface to the computer and nothing more. The computer and long term conflict probe are working under the covers as it were and posting all of the data on whatever sort of interface you decide to use. I liked what I saw with digistrips not because it looked like strips. It can look like ANYTHING as long as the data that I need is easy to read AND easy to manipulate. That is all that I care about. Don't get caught up in the "it looks like strips, that's why they like it." All I care about is getting to the data easily and doing something with it. Something that is going to save me time. I want it all updated automatically and then get the info passed on to others that will need it.
For GARP. The US right now isn't using RVSM, but it has nothing to do with ATC not being able to. It has to do with the user not being ready to use it. You have to remember that we have a LOT of aviation over here and most of it is General Aviation. Between the GA folks some of the older commercial aircraft ( All hushkitted or reengined.) and the frieghters, we have a lot of airframes that would need to be upgraded to be able to meet RVSM standards. The industry has not been rushing to embrace it for the most part due to the cost of doing so. We are expecting to go to it in the next few years, but it has nothing to do with the FAA not being ready to do it.
As to 8.33 spacing in the US, we don't see that as being the way that we want to go. That is a temporary fix. The folks in Europe knew that when they went to it. You are going to run out of freqs with this scheme in the next couple of decades and will have to come up with another new radio scheme to keep up. The FAA has been working on something called NEXCOM to meet our needs for the future. It is going to work on multiplex radio schemes which are used both in the military and emergency services in differing fashions. Again, the user here has many aircraft that would have to be outfitted and they have a very large voice on what they want... We try to listen.
Now, as to ancient equipment, well we aren't all that ancient anymore at most of our facilities. All 20 of our enroute centers or is that centres <G>? have the new DSR (Display System Replacement) system in place and operational. We are also in the process of replacing all of the 20 X 20 Sony color displays with the BARCO ISIS display. We are indeed still running on the older HOST software. It is long in tooth with the inherant problems with stuff written for 80K of core memory as well as the limitations of the Basic Assembly Language and Jovial. But it has been added to over the last couple of decades and it bears no resemblance to what came out all those years ago. Even being old, it still can do things that many facilities in the world today still can't do <G>.
We have a 20 minute conflict probe installed in 7 of our 20 enroute facilities and are making constant changes to it as well as the main display system along with electronic flight data. We also have a metering program that is installed in a few facilities and we are looking at being able to install it in more. We are also working on multicenter metering so that you can spread the delay to an airport over multiple centers, and hopefully eliminating holding at the destination airport if the delays don't get too long. I wouldn't call this ancient stuff <G>.
Then of course there is the tool that we use to look at ALL IFR traffic in the country. We can also see what is in the UK, Canada and Japan as we have given the system to those countries. We can then use this tool to better help guage impact to the system or any particular airport. Not to bad for an outmoded system.
regards
Scott
NERC Dweller;
When I watched the demo on digistrips and talked with one of the engineers, I found that they can make the data look like anything. It is just a graphic that can be changed.
As to what happens to the data. We already have facilities that have no paper nor any paper back up per se. Buy the time you stripped everything up, the planes would be gone <G>... All you are doing is taking the data from your computer and instead of printing it on a printer, you are putting it on a screen. The data resides in another processor with its own memory. The units that we use here have thier own battery backup, and it has been tested in real life when the flight data computer has gone belly up, and the only data left was the electronic data that we had in the conflict probe system. The data for historic purposes is all resident on tape. So that is not an issue.
What the US has been going towards is a keyboard and mouse system ( could be trackball ) for the tracker ( We call it a D-side ) with a display for both the data and also a graphic display is available is you want. The radar controller ( Executive in Eurocontrol terms) is going to go from paper strips to interactive data blocks ( that is starting its evolution this year. ) that will show and pass information to other controllers as well as be integrated with the flight data computer.
Hope that this answers some questions or muddies the waters some more <G>...
PS. I'll be out of town for another week again. Another trip to DC.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: this side of the hill
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scott,
Tx a lot for the explanation. It answered quite a few questions. I like it when people don't just answer with yes or no but also give a why when they provide an answer.
Rgds
Tx a lot for the explanation. It answered quite a few questions. I like it when people don't just answer with yes or no but also give a why when they provide an answer.
Rgds
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: South Coast, UK
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LLampoo
The action you take with writing is not really mediated by anything else; with mouse and keyboard you are manipulating some agent of language, without any associated proprioceptive ( ) feedback (unless you are a skilled typist). This type of feedback lets you know when you've done something wrong, even while you are still doing it (how many of us have written something and realised it was wrong before we'd finished it, without looking at it, just through the .feeling of writing it?).
I'm not that good a touch-typist (50wpm) but can type faster than I can write and get this "Proprioreceptive feedback" when typing as well as writing. Personally, I can talk and type far easier than talk and write. Plus, if you touch type you can type while looking at the screen, or something else entirely. How many people can write blind?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: 43° 40' 47" , -80° 25' 28"
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi CB9002;
At 50 wpm I'd say you were a better typist than 90% of the world!
Although it has to be said that typing is an increasingly common skill. And you're right, a skilled typist does get that proporioceptive feedback (and if we say that 90% of the world isn't skilled...). However, I think we'll have to disagree on some things. I can also type without looking at my fingers, but that's not the case with many. But admittedly many/most ATC inputs are numerical, so you only have to memorise the positions of 10 (ish) keys.
I still maintain my point about the additional complexity of finding a field with a mouse first, then moving hand(s- big mouse!) to keyboard to type. Not a problem for you? Bit of a pain and an added task for me.
And as for writing without looking: I can do that...the only problem being it ceases to follow a straight line after about 3 words.
At 50 wpm I'd say you were a better typist than 90% of the world!
Although it has to be said that typing is an increasingly common skill. And you're right, a skilled typist does get that proporioceptive feedback (and if we say that 90% of the world isn't skilled...). However, I think we'll have to disagree on some things. I can also type without looking at my fingers, but that's not the case with many. But admittedly many/most ATC inputs are numerical, so you only have to memorise the positions of 10 (ish) keys. I still maintain my point about the additional complexity of finding a field with a mouse first, then moving hand(s- big mouse!) to keyboard to type. Not a problem for you? Bit of a pain and an added task for me.
And as for writing without looking: I can do that...the only problem being it ceases to follow a straight line after about 3 words.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately the term "electronic strips" doesn't really mean very much, as it depends how the information display has been generated, and many units have very different systems.
There are two key areas, the Human Machine Interface (HMI) and the system capabilities. the two should be carefully "married", and this is frequently not done. If there is no decent "system" behind the scenes, then having electronic strips doens't do much for the controller. However, if the HMI is not effective then you can't easily enter or see the information.
Very few "electronic strips" have been well implemented and are often a copy of paper strips - this is not a good idea, and it comes from the fact that commercial designers do not understand how a controller uses his data.
Much work was done in the late 1980s and early 90s in international ATC research centres to identify how electronic displays (not electronic "strips") could be used in ATC. Regrettably much of this useful work was not followed up. Some units, such as Maastricht, have implemented some of the ideas, although have still fallen short of the ideal.
There is a useful web site (look here) which provides a free working ATC radar screen with integrated data display, Short Term Conflict Alert. Medium term Conflict Detection, and fast input of ATC clearances. You can also create your own ATC sectors to make your own evaluation of the effectiveness of the system, and you will find a selection of scenarios from around the world. Since it runs on a PC, it can only provide a demonstration of the ideas in a single sector, however, it can give you a taste of what can really be done in the real world, providing you have the right designers.
There are two key areas, the Human Machine Interface (HMI) and the system capabilities. the two should be carefully "married", and this is frequently not done. If there is no decent "system" behind the scenes, then having electronic strips doens't do much for the controller. However, if the HMI is not effective then you can't easily enter or see the information.
Very few "electronic strips" have been well implemented and are often a copy of paper strips - this is not a good idea, and it comes from the fact that commercial designers do not understand how a controller uses his data.
Much work was done in the late 1980s and early 90s in international ATC research centres to identify how electronic displays (not electronic "strips") could be used in ATC. Regrettably much of this useful work was not followed up. Some units, such as Maastricht, have implemented some of the ideas, although have still fallen short of the ideal.
There is a useful web site (look here) which provides a free working ATC radar screen with integrated data display, Short Term Conflict Alert. Medium term Conflict Detection, and fast input of ATC clearances. You can also create your own ATC sectors to make your own evaluation of the effectiveness of the system, and you will find a selection of scenarios from around the world. Since it runs on a PC, it can only provide a demonstration of the ideas in a single sector, however, it can give you a taste of what can really be done in the real world, providing you have the right designers.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GroundBound....
Yes, all very impressive stuff and it's pretty obvious a lot CAN be done. However I would disagree with your assertion that electronic strips are:
Why not? It's an interface that we (the user) are familiar with and one that is PROVEN to work. An interface that builds on that would seem like a good idea. Evolution, not revolution with all it's attendant risks. (Sounds like a Boeing vs. Airbus discussion doesn't it!)
I have spent many HOURS with ATC system specialists endeavouring to help them understand just what an Air Traffic Controller does and how he does it. Generally they find it very difficult because most of them (Engineers / HF) come from backgrounds where everything can be quantified. ATC is not (always) like that.
Rgds BEX
Yes, all very impressive stuff and it's pretty obvious a lot CAN be done. However I would disagree with your assertion that electronic strips are:
often a copy of paper strips - this is not a good idea
I have spent many HOURS with ATC system specialists endeavouring to help them understand just what an Air Traffic Controller does and how he does it. Generally they find it very difficult because most of them (Engineers / HF) come from backgrounds where everything can be quantified. ATC is not (always) like that.
Rgds BEX
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bex,
Well, there is a lot to discuss about "strips".
There is no common "strip" in ATC. Some units use a single strip, others use multi-strips. Strip formats (size, content and layout) differ from unit to unit, and from function to function (e.g. area to tower). Indeed some units have never used strips, but have used a rolling paper graphic plotter (although this was only workable within certain geographical limits).
What we can determine is a "strip" performs certain functions - it provides basic flight plan information, it is a conflict detection mechanism, it is a notepad for clearances but which also serves to update the conflict detection data, and it can serve as a reminder (strip cocking).
However, strips have problems - they cannot easily handle traffic which does not proceeed along predefined strip points, it takes a lot of effort to learn how to use them, and with increased traffic, the strips have become almost unuseable and are often not updated. What is written on a strip is visible only to the controller(s) who have immediate access to them, and changes to data must be manually forwarded (telephone) . The fact that some units have cameras to make the strip data available to other working positions only goes to highlight the limits of strips.
In the days of pencil and paper, strips represented the only way (more or less) to record and update information. However, at radar units (especially dark ones) strips were not used - there was the edge-lit display, showing the callsign, time and FL at specific predetermined (strip) points.
The strip is not sacrosanct (although some controllers feel that way!), and there is much evidence that a better way is needed. However, what must be recognised and preserved are the functions which the strip provides. It is this analysis of functions and the replacement by workable alternatives which is the key. I cannot see how being able to move a strip on a screen with your finger provides an improvement to the deficiencies mentioned above. The deficiencies have to be tackled by finding the right way to present and update the information in a timely and useable manner, which will update all displayed information to all controllers who need to know, including forwarding to other units.
There is much more that could be said, but I shall constrain myself to that for now.
And no, I am not an engineer, and my ATC Licence held ratings for aerodrome, approach control approach radar control, area control, area radar control, and PAR.
Well, there is a lot to discuss about "strips".
There is no common "strip" in ATC. Some units use a single strip, others use multi-strips. Strip formats (size, content and layout) differ from unit to unit, and from function to function (e.g. area to tower). Indeed some units have never used strips, but have used a rolling paper graphic plotter (although this was only workable within certain geographical limits).
What we can determine is a "strip" performs certain functions - it provides basic flight plan information, it is a conflict detection mechanism, it is a notepad for clearances but which also serves to update the conflict detection data, and it can serve as a reminder (strip cocking).
However, strips have problems - they cannot easily handle traffic which does not proceeed along predefined strip points, it takes a lot of effort to learn how to use them, and with increased traffic, the strips have become almost unuseable and are often not updated. What is written on a strip is visible only to the controller(s) who have immediate access to them, and changes to data must be manually forwarded (telephone) . The fact that some units have cameras to make the strip data available to other working positions only goes to highlight the limits of strips.
In the days of pencil and paper, strips represented the only way (more or less) to record and update information. However, at radar units (especially dark ones) strips were not used - there was the edge-lit display, showing the callsign, time and FL at specific predetermined (strip) points.
The strip is not sacrosanct (although some controllers feel that way!), and there is much evidence that a better way is needed. However, what must be recognised and preserved are the functions which the strip provides. It is this analysis of functions and the replacement by workable alternatives which is the key. I cannot see how being able to move a strip on a screen with your finger provides an improvement to the deficiencies mentioned above. The deficiencies have to be tackled by finding the right way to present and update the information in a timely and useable manner, which will update all displayed information to all controllers who need to know, including forwarding to other units.
There is much more that could be said, but I shall constrain myself to that for now.
And no, I am not an engineer, and my ATC Licence held ratings for aerodrome, approach control approach radar control, area control, area radar control, and PAR.