EFPS - Writing on the strip
 

A question from a simulation, training and software guy to the world of ATC...

If you have/are working at a unit that has made the transition in your tower from paper strips to EFPS, and have requested the ability to write freehand text on strip, have you found this tool useful?

Or as I would suspect, has the product you are using made the ability to write on an electronic strip redundant?

Any thoughts, comments or feedback on this would be welcomed.:ok:

We can write comments, it's definitely needed as the software can't handle everything that might come up.

Yes, it's needed. I'm afraid EFPS is far less flexible than a paper system.

Gonzo

So can you confirm that you do have the ability to write freehand on an EFPS strip?

We will be the first unit to introduce EFPS in approach and are far from happy with the system on the radar side of things. However we do not have any ability to write freehand on any strips, they are all pop up boxes with a key pad, and whats more we are unaware of this possibility. The ability to write for instance a freecall VFR callsign could solve a lot of our problems. :hmm:

Depends what you mean by 'freehand'.

There is a 'remarks' box on the FDE, on ours it appears to the right of the callsign/type/squawk box, on the upper half of the FDE.

You can enter whatever you like here, and it colours the box yellow. You enter text via the qwerty keyboard popup; we added quite a few shortcut buttons, such as '1 ENG', 'MEDICAL', 'PAN', 'LTMA' etc etc, so I guess you'll have similar.

I do not envy you guys having to cope with freecallers!!!!! We've managed to limit our 'freecallers' by making airlines 'book out' their towing movements with Apron who enter it into EFPS so we should have a strip waiting for us when the tug crew call.

<<they are all pop up boxes with a key pad,>>

Doesn't this increase the controller workload if he/she has to key-in information? It's one reason why Computer-Assisted Approach Sequencing was rejected at Heathrow many moons ago. Too much time was spent using a keyboard to input info which in a wholly human environment the controller knew anyway!

Is EFPS yet another case of technology for the sake of it or does it really have significant advantages over the old-fashioned system?

HD, yes. In a busy GMC session it's very difficult to keep up with inputting clearance limits.

I've heard rumours of approach based EFPS having proper "freehand" text entry, as in you write on the screen and the computer recognises it. However having seen various handing writing recognition programs in use, as well as using EFPS, I assume any implementation of this would be a disaster. :}

The Frequentis Smartstrip product allows you to make freehand markings on the strip using the device's stylus. Within NATS we intend to use that only for the controller's notes and don't currently expect to try and and convert those scribbles into meaningful input for the FDP system.

Hi Hootin!

Is it technically possible to create a freehand text entry system? Absolutely.
Will it happen at a NATS unit in the near future? Definitely not.

We asked for something similar from the outset, and it went straight into the 'way too difficult' pile. Reasons included;

1. having a system that recognises many different handwriting styles (and the fact that handwriting styles change over time).
2. the copious data entry errors that occur would have been a nightmare (think about how **** your signature looks when you sign for those dodgy parcels on the delivery guy's hand-held device).
3. oh, and the small matter of cost!

All of our entries are pop-up based. It's not always ideal, but three years down the line since O-date, it's interesting to see the speed at which ATCOs manage the pop-up boxes.

See you soon for a pint of Summer Lightning! Lovely!

With the current technology it would be impossible to produce a freehand recognition system where the likelihood of corruption on key fields is anywhere near the level needed for a safety case.

We have recently made the switch to EFPS.
It is a Frequentis system and the displays are Wacom tablets, and our version includes a writing tool, in the form of the above-mentioned stylus, a device about twice the bulk of a ballpoint pen.

It is very difficult to write neatly. If the strip is enlarged, and then the writing carefully applied, an acceptable result can be achieved. The distraction involved in performing these actions often makes it not worthwhile.

There is a four-colour option, and it is more akin to writing with a crayon than a pen. In addition, there is a parallax error, because the writing surface is a plexiglass-type screen maybe 3 mm above the actual strip. When the stylus has been recently calibrated, it is reasonably accurate - along the line of calibration (top left to bottom right: there are only 2 calibration points) provided ones head doesn't bob around too much. (And, of course, aerodrome controllers don't move around at all, do they?:ugh:)

Exacerbating this is the minor detail that the strips are considerably smaller than the paper ones, so there is a lot less room for writing, and the layouts for where stuff has to go is different. Accuracy is required with the stylus to open the correct item on the strip. Miss it, and you might end up having to close a dialogue box, and using the "undo" function to make the correction.

I believe quite a lot of the inherent problems with using this system rather than nice, simple, reliable, tactile low maintenance relatively inexpensive paper strips could be partially mitigated were the writing tool considerably better in function. (Precision, definition, no parallax.)

It also randomly stops writing on the odd occasion. For no discernible reason. Maybe out of memory for the particular operation? Moving the strip/re-enlarging it solves this problem. It is then just a simple procedure to glance at the strip board, then the radar, then maybe look out the window, and re-acquaint oneself with the traffic picture and ones prior train of thought so that the safe movement of lumps of aluminium might continue.

There are some things E-strips does reasonably well. Handwriting is not one of them, and we mainly use it for rather simple symbols, such as a line/arrow combination, or a H in a circle, that sort of thing.

It is easy to clone strips on the system, or create new strips. Usually faster than handwriting them. If it was not necessary to look out the window from time to time, it would enable one to perform almost as efficiently as the paper strips did.

Another aspect that most controllers seem to find frustratingly limiting is the serial way information is required to be actioned. A strip cannot be accessed while a dialogue box for any other operation is open. One process at a time, worked through to completion, then on to the next thing. Not so good in the dynamic and (in the past) somewhat free-flow multi-task, reactive environment that aerodrome control is.

Maybe I'm a bit set in my ways, but to me it's like a spoilt child: it takes much more than it gives. And that opinion appears not to be limited to just the older controllers.

But to answer your original question, without the writing tool, controllers would be far more limited in the way the system presents information, and I think it would actually be verging on "unacceptable risk" to use this system without one.

It takes me all my time to do brain training on my DS Lite!

Captain S

Pints of Old Growler on me!

If the EFPS works at LHR we are sure we can handle it here. It is a proven system at a far busier unit.

Approach radar is another matter. Stupid things like a compass rose that pops up to input headings, but the rose does not contain all headings so you must +/- 5 or 10 degrees. It must have sounded a good idea to someone but we have found we should not be doing even basic arithmetic nor input incorrect headings to the ones verbally issued whilst busy vectoring, and instead a simple numeric keypad would be far simpler. It was decided at the Radar User Group between the Scottish Airports. Interesting due to our tight manpower issues our rep isn't even a Scottish Atco nor has ever been valid on radar.

We don't like all the layout on Approach as we have not had much input in its design but it is being insisted, like Common strip Display, that all airports have the same layout / way of operating. But we do not operate the same as PF and god knows how PD operate with all their Heli movements. Again it sounds good on paper but in reality.....

It is only now near the end of training, as people have got more experience with the system, that we can spot its faults and inadequacies and basically we are told in a lot of cases that it is too late or already decided.

:rolleyes:

From our experience down here we've gradually broken away from 'every airport mustbe the same'. Each unit has to be able to tweak the adaptation to suit themselves.

Imagine a world........ok, imagine an approach control unit without any strips whatsoever. What! Preposterous! Impossible! Yet many Canadian, US, and other approach units function perfectly well without strips. Strips date back from non digitized radar, when indeed they served a useful function.

It was brutal, when arriving in DXB, to have to go back to writing on paper strips. A complete waste of time and energy, according to all who have lived in strip-less nirvana!

Maastricht used mini-strips for a number of years before going stripless back in the 1980s.. A scribble pad for such info as headings is still used, however it is now possible to update Flight Plan info directly into the system.

FWIW a number of controllers from Maastricht who were involved in the development of the New ODS there spent several weeks at Swanwick whilst that was still iunder development. Our universal view was that the paperless strip system was outmoded, even then. Interestingly enough, nobody from Swanwick bothered to come play with our system. NIH at work?

Hootin an a roarin

When are you going stripless? Another Approach/mini TMA unit down south was originally planned to be using EFS by the end of March but due to delays are now looking at mid May. Apparently there are a number of problems with the EFS and other systems. Most of the kit they use at the moment is actually more capable and in some cases more advanced than what they are getting.


Sim God

The EFS system from ParkAir does have the ability to freehand write but it doesn't stand out very well or get passed on to any other position.

OA32

We go stripless in 3 weeks if management get their way. There are plenty of controllers not ready to go live and very uncomfortable but I believe it will be pushed through whatever the potential risks. :ugh:

Thanks all :ok:

I do not want to mention which systems are specificly being looked at on this forum at this time, but we are also interested in data production to stimulate other systems like lighting, RIMCAS, AFDAS etc etc as well as to produce revenue generators and KPI monitoring for the airport as a whole. (this comment may spark a whole other can of worms):\ :mad:

You have all given me insight into my origional question though; it depends who you are and what your background and exposure to different systems is.

Its all valid stuff, thanks for the thoughts. :D:O

That's just one of several conclusions you could draw from the responses.
It also depends a great deal on the thought that goes into the system, how it is introduced, why, and what training takes place.
And quite a few other aspects.

Tarq,

Could you please expand your statement? Ta:suspect:

Just quickly, because it's approaching the witching hour and I have an early start,
The way you wrote what I quoted implied that that is what you took from the replies. Which is valid. But I hope it is not all that you took from them.
Maybe I'm reading too much into it; for me it's become a somewhat emotive issue (in case you didn't notice.)

Fear not! I am not a newbie at this game..

I have been through this process more times than I care to remember and its always painful, and usually the older ATCO's are resistant to change (human nature). My belief is we must look at these new systems and see what they can bring to the table and look at if the older way of doing things should be challenged, or even phased out... :ok:

I firmly believe writing on Estrips is worthless, mainly due to the limitations of the technology (HMI). However there are so many benefits to EFPS for an airport and a regional/national ATM as a whole that it cannot be ignored as the future. Also, go ask the average 21 year old ab initio to write on paper strips vs using EFPS and I am pretty sure you know what response you will get.

I know it hurts. :\

^simgod^ I'm a little bothered by the seemingly flippant way you dismiss paper strips: there are a lot of advantages to using paper strips, benefits to memory recall etc, which potentially are lost when electronics come in. Understanding that is a step towards mitigating it: ignoring it is a step backwards.
Both systems have advantages & disadvantages, unfortunately, too often a rush towards the advantages of EFPS has ignored the pitfalls, & swept the benefits of paper under the carpet. Older "resistant to change" ATCOs may just be the ones who can see those flaws, by using something called "experience"?
To paraphrase: "...because 21 year olds don't like it?" That's not a great arguement, tbh: the 21 year olds I deal with have no problem with either, provided they are trained in the appropriate way.

= older ATCO IMO

In my experience most of the older controllers were for the change, one less thing to do. A lor also depends on the complexity of the airspace being controlled - in this case it was the Belgian UAS, when use of paper strips, one per reporting point or conflict point, would just lead to a logjam of paper and plastic, a transit through an 80 n.m. wide sectot requireing at least 4 strips. An interim step was to introduce 1 mini-strip per sector, per flight. This ran for several years, then in parallel with the strips an electronic display was introduced which bore no resemblence to the old paper format. Use of the paper strips became optional and eventually everybody was keen to see them go. The good news was that the organisationhad stockpiled tons of boxes of perforated paper, useless for anything other than scratch pads for controlers.

I was very resistant to the change initially - paper to efs - but having worked with it for a while now in a moderately busy aerodrome environment I would have to say that I wouldn't go back.

I still use the "writing freehand" function quite a lot and would NOT like to see it go as it is too handy and gets used quite frequently.

mainly it is for the unexpected calls from ground vehicles , tugs etc when busy on ground. 1 tap on a seperator strip and then a freehand callsign - a quick reminder so I can make up a more permanent strip if I require it or an easily deleted item if not required. It is not for interunit coordination or anything - only my own info - so writing style etc is irrelevant.
sometimes we get safety officers swapping jobs around the feild and as the callsign field cannot be edited on these it's easier to hand amend it without having to completely rework up another - it is easy to hand amend back again when he gets back.

on delivery it is easy to hand annotate a quick self reminder on certain strips that may require different handling or particular information to be passed or an extra HOLD etc.

On aerodrome - well I thought I would be using this all the time for those itinerant calls and vfrs etc that come up at short notice .. I'm a grumpy crusty old fart resistant to change for the sake of change ... well. within a very short time I found that I hardly ever use the function on this position, it's totally a matter of upping the skill set and you soon find that it is just as fast to tap in a callsign and amend the strip later if required.

still there is one funtion that it is invaluable for

message from ADC to Tower Data .... "coffee- white- none... cheers":ok:

EFS - use it, like it, wouldn't go back... but still consider the freehand function invaluable for usefulness and flexibility.

I'm still trying to understand fully what are perceived to be the advantages of EFS over paper strips. If your EFS is linked to the FDPS, then sure, I see the advantages in not having to co-ordinate verbally, both internally in an ATC unit (Tower/Approach) and externally with your ATC centre (Approach/Area) and also communicating information to/from airlines and airport operators. But don't you need everyone to be linked into the EFS eg airlines and airport operators for passing stand allocations, flow restrictions etc?

I'd be interested to know how many of those units that have installed EFS have linked it to the FDPS.

I'd be interested to know how many of those units that have installed EFS have dispensed with the need for assistants.

On the beach

Not sure about Aberdeen but I know of one APS unit at which the EFS will be linked to the RDP/FDP/Stand allocation and Airport information screens. They are also phasing out the assistants on the basis of what the systems will be capable of, if they dispense with all assistants remains to be seen. I should point out the company supplying the system have not produced EFS for the Approach/TMA function before so the unit controllers are being used as guinea pigs.

OA32

Mmmmm! Let me think, I wonder where you are talking about? :E

Why you need to write strips?! What you have to write down on it? Can't you move to a stripless system?!
We have EFS but no one cares them. All the things you can do on the EFS can be done also on the radar screen on the lable or in the inbound list.

Who said anything about fear?
Frustration, we can talk about that, maybe.

Been through a few myself, and it's absolutely not always that painful. Some of the tech changes I've seen go through have been, by and large, a pleasure to work with, after the bugs were ironed out. Unfortunately that has not been the case with many of the recent ones.
We work in a profession where change is frequent and ongoing. Learning and study is required throughout the career. To view it as painful is, I believe, unhealthy. Sometimes it can be fairly challenging, however. It is human nature, but you seem to not know controllers that well. We (older controllers) have learned over quite a long time what constitutes change for changes sake, and change that is actually beneficial and required, seen the many blurring of lines between those, and sometimes become a little cynical of the reported reasons for said change. You might be surprised to find some of the older controllers are actually surprisingly adaptable. By your emoticon choice, your mind is already made up, then.
I'll tell you something, I challenge the way I do things, and the tools I use to do them, old or new, every bleeding day. My livelihood depends on it. And maybe a bit more besides that.

And you base that on.....?
Even with the poor definition of the writing tool, I would not want to be without it.
Case in point: Today we had an emergency. A/c came back with a fire warning. Without the writing tool, it would have been possible to create the information required to be displayed, if' we'd had a couple of spare minutes to do so, and had nothing else to do in the interim. We had neither of those luxuries. Without the information displayed in some form, quite an element of risk is introduced. Especially when immediate decisions need to be taken, amidst multiple distractions. Maybe there are. What are they, then? And at what cost? No, don't bother answering that.And the value of the opinion of an ab-initio, who has no mastery of the job, in regard to a new shiny toy is that s/he might bring a new and previously unconsidered view to the topic? Or did you have another point to make with that statement?
I find your response insulting, because it is assumptive, patronizing, and shows you to be closed to input. Or maybe selectively closed. Why did you even ask the question, if you already think you know the answer? The question was in regard to a control tower environment. Many of the a/c and other traffic dealt with by tower controllers do not appear in any radar list.

Quote:

---

I firmly believe writing on Estrips is worthless

---

Are you an ATCO SimGod??? What do you base this belief on - do you have an understanding of how ATCOs actually do the job, why they do it that way (legalities/MOO etc)?

Quote:

---

Why you need to write strips?! What you have to write down on it?

---

Where do you work pdcta?

There are many places where verbal coordination is still required, and always will be because 2, 3 or more controllers have aircraft flying through the same piece of airspace, airspace that is the AOR of only one of those controllers. In order to give any instruction to the transiting aircraft, coordination needs to take place.
It is not unusual for a climb/descent etc to be subject to 2 or 3 (or more) conditions... these need to be written down. They need to be written down on the strip, not a scratch pad, because as we all know (I would hope), the strip is a legal document.

Coordination pertinent to any executive instruction is part of the requirement for strip marking. If you have an incident and you have not marked your strip properly, you can expect to be pulled up for it.

Make a habit of it, and you could find that you no longer hold a license.

If the suggestion is that to introduce electronic strips, this coordination will no longer be able to take place (I think everyone realises and accepts that there will be a change in method of operation with the introduction of EFPS - that is inevitable), then the capacity/efficiency fo those sectors will reduce.

It is up to management and the airlines to decide if the reduction in capacity is acceptable...

It is NOT the remit of someone who is not an ATCO, but who is involved in projects, to unilaterally decide that the MOO will change.

As some might guess from my user-name, I started in ATC a lonnnng time ago. I was a manual strip-writing assistant at London Centre in the early 60's when it was black huts on the north side of LHR. I did chinagraph ATC and DF and 'real' GCA, raw radar in both Terminal and Area, and spent a few years at LATCC.

Oh yes ... and blame me for the touch-screen comms system at LATCC, and the Visual simulator at Shawbury. ;)

HOWEVER ... all the cool technical developments over the last [OMG] half-century have a few minor problems. It's called failure.

In the old days [yawn, yabber etc.] the worst thing that really happened was your chinagraph pencil broke, or your ballpoint ran out of ink. Since then I've seen the chaos that ensued at LATCC when the Strip Printer system crashed, or the glazed look on a trainee's face when track labels or Mode C failed. I've seen too many controllers completely bereft of ideas, or spatial awareness, when systems they have relied on have failed.

One good thing about a manual flight strip is that it is virtually immune to tech failure. The worst that can happen is that you drop the holder on the floor. The best thing is that when the comms system fails you can throw it across the room to someone who needs it.

ATC suffers from the engineers' "art of the possible". In the process it has, IMO, lost the simple art of controlling aircraft.

[now running for cover] ;)

Hootin an a roarin

I'm sure you are thinking of the right place. I neglected to say that while the EFS will be linked to the RDP there will be no interaction available through the labels.

pdcta

You can't program rules in EFS for every situation as it would lead to complicated coding/rules which would no doubt lead to the software being less stable and more susceptible to failure. As Tarq57 has already said The free writing option gives you a useful tool for those unusual situations and would no doubt be quicker than fumbling through the box menus for something that may not even be there.

Padova ACC, Italy. We manage the north-eastern part of Italy... to understand: above the alps, Venice, Verona, Florence, Bologna! We share the borders with Vienna, Ljubljana, Zagreb, Zurich, Munich, Milano, Roma and Brindisi.
In Italy we use EFS since the mid 90s, I think. We still use paper strips in the TWRs, procedural APPs and Flight Information Centers. All other units (ACC and radar APP) are with EFS or totally stripless.
Anyway... we cannot write anything on our Electronic Strips. They just show us callsign, FL, fixes and estimates, coordinated exit FL and other info as 8.33, RVSM etc. We have a free text field but it can contains only 7 (or maybe 8) characters. So, useful just to take note about Mach/speed restrictions. Everything else can be done on some dedicated field on the EFS or hooking the blip on the radar and opening the relative options from a Menu on the radar screen.
Executive controller works with a "full radar" picture. Planner Controller works with a smaller radar picture with on the same screen the Electronic Strip Bay, inbound list, flight directory etc.
We only watch at the EFS when we receive any approval request and we still don't have the flight on the radar... so from the EFS we can highlight on the radar the flight trajectory, open the FPL etc. Once the flight appear on the screen we can do everithing on the label too.
In Milano, for example, they are full stripless. Also the planner controller works with a full radar picture on the screen using some additional "inbound estimates windows" instead of the EFS.

We have something similar too... but we do not write anything. Phones are recorded, as well frequecies, radar and all the inputs we give into the radar screen (cleared FLs, re-routings, revisions, dep clearance, inbound release, fpl change, requested FLs, holding orders, oldi messages, exit flight level coordinations, release, transfer of control etc).
Really, cannot imagine what we can need to write on a paper strip!

We do not have flight data specialists or assistants anymore. After the EFS our sector capacietes incresed... a lot!!
We can modify everything with some click... how can you think to reduce the sector capacity when you reduce your "manual" work?!

I remain firmly in Gonzo's corner.

Technology should not dictate what an ATCO can, or cannot, do. If a controller/assistant has an operational need to input text on a FPS, then technology should facilitate that and NOT limit it.

When I was the desk officer at NATS, responsible for the specification of the LATCC touch-screen plasma-panel comms system, I had endless arguments with the Tels Engineers about the number of channels that could be in use at any time. Their view was that a controller would only need 2 RT frequencies and 2 landlines at any one time. HELLO? I fought that fight for 2 years, non-stop: I hope it eventually worked out?

Technology is the SERVANT, not the Master. OK? :ugh:

Teoretically you're right, but practically, technology limits what we can do all the time. And with electronic strips connected with flight data systems, limits can be actually less.

Thanks all, now we are getting to the nuts and bolts of it. I can see many advantages to both sides now that I have stirred up the bees nest and people are really talking. I thank you all for your input and have realised that I will probably never find the right answer as there are so many that are correct based on what situation you are in, and what role you need to do.

I guess I will just have to focus on what the guys here require. Interestingly those who have previously worked on EFPS seem to be mostly in favor of switching, but we need to make sure that the training and integration is not dismissed as a minor issue and we allocate plenty of time and resources to this.

Thanks again!:D

It sounds like (although I could well be wrong) pdcta uses the SATCAS 2000 system in which the electronic strips can be displayed on the same screen as the radar feed. The screens aren't necessarily touch capable which is why they don't have the free write feature but would have a keyboard for data entry, you can also input headings/levels through the radar labels. Most other systems are separate from the radar screen and use a wacom tablet touch screen for interaction so free writing is available. It is obviously safer in terms of redundancy in having the EFS as a separate system so you shouldn't lose both radar feed and strip information at the same time.