What do you know about SACTA???
 

That's the question. What do you pedal guys know about SACTA???

SACTA

Sistema Automatio de Control del Trafico Aéreo (Automated Air Traffic Control System) integrating all ACC, TMA and Control Towers in a coordinated and automated manner.

This system has been conceived in close collaboration with Aena with a view to speeding up ATM procedures, allowing the capacity and flow of air traffic to be increased with maximum levels of safety.

SACTA is a unique system that integrates all Air Control Centres (ACC), Terminal Control Centres (TMA), Approach Control Centres (APP) and Airport Control Towers at national level, exchanging data with overseas systems by means of international standards. This makes the system an unarguable point of reference for the future "Single European Sky".

The fundamental elements of this system are the Flight Data Processing System (FDPS), the Surveillance Data Processing System (SDPS), the Meteorological and Aeronautical Information Processing System (AMIS), the Dynamic Support and Simulation Sub-systems (ADS), the Supervision Sub-system (SS) and the Voice Communications System (VCS).

More info here:

SACTA

Did I pass ???

Guess you deserve an A+ :D
What about its implementation throughout the UK???
Is it installed and running at any facility yet?

Not expected in the UK (operational) much before Winter 2010.

Development and training versions will appear before that in various locations (CTC near Southampton, Prestwick Centre, and Manchester Centre).

Go to the top of the class and have yourself a gold star P RAD!!

louby

P RAD I'm very impressed, you get a big cigar :) I'm working on a bit of it at the moment.

BD

P Rad, you really do need to get out more!!

Google is your friend ..... :ok:

Plus I have used the system in a few simulations. It had a few failings but was easy to use and intuitive.

It will probably be a heap of crap once the NATS engineers get their hands on it and give us something they think we want instead of what we actually asked for. :(

As one of the NATS Engineers I can assure you we always try deliver what ATC asked for, if it was only what they wanted. I spend my life trying to get "the right answer" for what to deliver but ask 5 ATCOs get 6 opinions which will change the next time you ask!

Too true Goldfrog, but there does seem to be a juggernaut of an engineering empire building a head of steam on the CASPIAN project, many of whom I detect have their own personal agendas and ideas of what the project should be, ATC just being seen as a minor player and an irritant in their aspirations. Of course, it is incumbent on ATC to specify the system functionality they need correctly in the first place, so removing the ability of anyone to give us something which is not suited or wanted for the ATC task. There's a lot of work gone in to that part of the project so far, but I'd be a fool to claim we have everything 100% baselined and cast iron, not least because the aviation world is constantly getting busier, methods of operations are changing and evolving, as is technology.

There are some very clever and innovative people in NATS Engineering who should be at the forefront of helping adapt the things in SACTA for the benefit of their ATC colleagues (and ultimately the pilots and passengers they serve). But there's also some who always want to reinvent the wheel and tamper too much with something simply because it 'wasn't invented here'. So turning our Commercial Off The Shelf procurement policy in to a joke and once again ensuring that everything we get is of gold plated Rolls Royce status, along with the resultant massive time and resource costs that entails, when what the customer (be that ATC or airlines) wants is something which is simple, does the job, is cost effective, and is reliable.

Gonzo

If it speaks OLDI, it is compatible. If not, then I see the options are that EFPS/SACTA is adapted accordingly, or EFPS is junked :p

Please don't think that this project is engineering driven or run because there are a lot of ATC people onside and on the project who want this to be ATC oriented.
unfortunately what the ATC user perceives to be simple, does the job, is cheap etc. at the front end doesn't necessarily have the same aspects on the engineering side of the glass. Its always a compromise with the exception of safety.

BD

And how many are actually valid, currently operational ATC people from the whole spectrum of NATS ATCUs ?

I don't recall ANYONE on my watch (or the watches I spin with) being asked to get involved from the start.

History tells us that when projects go wrong in CAA / NATS it's because nobody asked the REAL end user what was required at the begining and called them for their opinions when it was too late to do anything.

BEX

End users are being consulted at Manch, ScATCC, TC and AC. Slow start at LACC because of difficulties in getting people together.

BD

No change there then... Unfortunately this lame excuse has been trotted out too many times before. It is also Truly indicative of managements very poor record of "commitment" to long term projects in favour of short term-ism.

History repeating itself?

BEX

I'm sorry Bex but I don't understand your carp. Its at least 6 years until this is due to be rolled out at Swanwick. There is time for the ATC 'need' to be ascertained and this is being done. CASPIAN1 will be rolled out at Prestwick first and whats learnt there will be incorporated in CASPIAN2 for Swanwick.

In my experience a difficulty with Swanwick is due to the focus on the introduction of iFACTS. This doesn't mean that the rest of the company is not trying its level best to deliver a product designed for the controllers. The workstation is already designed and as the processors will be remote they're more like simple desks than the bulky monsters currently in use.

BD

Once again, History repeats itself. Virtually the self same justification was trotted out durring the NERC fiasco. The end user WAS NOT consulted at an early enough stage (i.e. the begining). The result? :ugh:

BTW we are STILL waiting for Departure CCTV in the Swanwick ops room, something many of us asked for durring the NERC development phase... but by the time any OPERATIONAL people got invloved it was all too late. I know, cos I was there.

It seems from an end users viewpoint that NATS project managers have learned very little......

. No change there then either :rolleyes:

BEX

I was asked to look at SACTA versus EFPS for Tower suitability as an operational ATCO - and my views were listened to. I know NATS' reputation for not involving operational staff, but in this case I know they did!:D

PS for Gonzo - I was told that it should integrate with EFPS without any problems!:ok:

The result is a system (fully aided and abetted by the staff who operate it of course :) ) which moves a sight more traffic than West Drayton ever did or could.
I think your concern is more about how you're going to interface with the system than about what the wiggly amps are doing down the back. Lessons have been learnt since NERC and Human Factors are now involved every step of the way.
So was I and we've had this debate before. It wasn't put in because a certain operational manager decided it wasn't required. Now you've been operating without it since 'O' date thus proving (to senior management) that you can do the job without it.
Over the next few years I sincerely hope you'll find that PM's have learnt a lot from the mistakes of NERC. The transition onto iFACTS should (I hope) give you the first indication that end user acceptance and buy in is very important to projects. This should be the stepping stone onto CASPIAN2/SACTA/iTEC.

BD