Does anyone actually know what the deal is/had their letter yet? I think not, remember that this is a rumour site ;)

BD

Wake up BD smell the coffee :E

They have all had their letters which are in the rubbish bin.

Sorry, I seem to have blundered in here by mistake. I thought this thread was about Scottish Airports EFPS. Must have been mistaken.:rolleyes:

Yeah this thread is about posturing, try here :)

BD

Fuzzy 6988 What you're describing isn't facilitated by EFPS (nor the ACC EFD) but these electronic tools are a keystone building block to that sort of data sharing and NATS are planning to introduce it (although some years away). However what service you get will depend on whether independent (non NATS & MOD) service providers are willing to invest in the infrastructure.

BD

BDiONU - that's great. Thanks.

I'm curious to get Scottish controllers' evaluation of EFPS after 2 (?) years in service.
I'm also curious to know what system you use for approach control.
Cheers.

EFPS is still poor in approach. Works a treat in the tower as it cuts down the phone calls. I still need pen and paper in approach as the system is too cumbersome for free callers. It hasn't really gained us any capacity, but was just an excuse to cull ATSA's.
I went on a visit to the area centre a while ago and was listening to the guys moan about EFD. However EFD is a far superior and advanced system than EFPS, it even has the ability to write freehand. I guess the airports got the sh**ty end of the stick again.

Agree with Hootin. I was on the same visit and EFD is absolutely amazing compared to EFPS. EFPS looks like it was knocked up on Visual Basic/Excel over a weekend. :ok:

As I've said elsewhere, the paper strip never needed an upgrade. It always did what you needed it to do. Same can't be said about EFPS. It makes what used to be easy things difficult.

But paper means that the computer systems and tools never know what you're doing and are unable to provide any support, automation etc. You need to weld man and machine together somehow.

I'm fairly sure they key point of air traffic control is NOT to weld man and machine together.
Personally, I think the EFPS that went into Scottish was woeful. If you're going to 'go electronic' why on earth try to replicate what paper does better? Either make a new system with as much added wizardry as possible that actually does new useful better things, or do nothing. Spending millions creating an electronic version of paper with most of it's drawbacks and none of it's benefits seems crazy.

"weld man and machine together somehow"

Maybe so, but EFPS is NOT its finest hour. If I can do things better with a paper strip and a pen there is NO benefit to me as an ATCO from having an electronic system. Yes it has got rid of some phone calls but not nearly as many as was expected. At my regional airport there has been no capacity increase from having it in Approach, it has no clue how to do and count circuits and doesn't do overflying or IFR training traffic simply. Perhaps I am a dinosaur but I'd have paper strips back in a heartbeat.

Ohoh....our company has worked on an electronic flight strip system for the better part of 15 years and we still haven´t implemented it in our biggest center and another approach unit. The units working with it haven´t noticed any measurable increase in capacity.
I´ve recently found an old memo adressed to the flight data assistants about ten years ago, stating that most of them would be jobless within the next three years. A lot of them found themselves new ones and guess what...we are seriously short of FDAs and started training new ones a couple of years ago.

Traffic levels have increased by about 70% over all these years, we´re still doing paper and doing it fine!

The epitome of excellence in ATC management....

Any busy units around there working stripless and willing to give tours?

In our cases, the development of EFPS had nothing to do with upgrading, or introducing an improvement or an advance in technology.

It was to get rid of staff and save money. If you believe there are any other driving forces, then you are delusional.

Was EFPS designed to be an approach tool, a tower tool or both? I wonder if the same system is used by Canadian air traffic controllers in their approach and tower units.

As I see it, most often capacity issues in approach and tower units are related to runway capacity or geographical issues, so I'm not surprised that moving to a paperless system hasn't brought about any capacity increase.

Still, by allowing a crosscheck between the controllers' inputs and the pilots' inputs (via enhanced mode S), and route adherence monitoring in the air and on the ground (coupled with an ASMGCS) those systems should bring a safety gain. And then there should be a benefit in sharing more data with adjacent sectors (see fuzzy6988 's post above).

I think the idea of electronic stripping is to actually get the benefits of feeding the system with the clearances you give without changing much work methods. The gap in work methods between a paper strip system and a stripless system looks a bit scary...

It seems that most ANSPs go for electronic stripping for tower control and for a stripless system for terminal control. I'm still trying to get a confirmation of this (thread).