Electronic Strips
 

With the introduction of electronic strips getting ever closer, does anybody know what they look like or how they are supposed to work and what effect will they have on the role of our Assistants?

I can only speak from personal experience of the Oz system; it fundamentally changes the way you do the job. You stop looking at strips and look almost excusively at the data blocks on the a/c. It has some plusses, but a lot of negs. Redirecting your attention to the scope sounds good, however you become almost totally reactionary as little planning can be done on e strips. At first, you write everything down, then input data to catch up. This could lead to huge workload issues. 'Feeding the elephant'. After about a month live you get comfortable not writing anything down, inputting straight to data. It actually is faster and better- AS LONG AS EVERYTHING IS ON THE RAILS. As soon as anything unusual happens, you are in big trouble. The system, like all computers, is very inflexible. If you have to create a plan on-the-fly, the number of mandatory data fields channels your att- not good in atc. You basically have to call for immediate assistance, no grabbing a blank and scribbling details. Similar with rerouting, depending on what tools they give you. Either way, formerly a simple matter, rerouting takes concentration.
I could go on for ages, but I'll let others more eloquent.
The majority of our assistants were sacked.

The whole idea of EPS is to replace expensive ATSA's (assistants). The 'job' is secondary to cost savings which will be substantial.

Not as substantial as you think. Most ATC units that use electronic strips usually have two ATCOs to each radar position (one planner for data input and one active controller). This requires a greater number of ATCOs. Those units that do not use this setup (eg, Germany)still use ATSAs for data input.

I`m glad that we still have our good oldfashioned strips. I can´t imagine how I should work with electronic strips on a busy sector. What do you do on a feeder position where you sit alone?

With the current speed of progress it will be a long time until we introduce this system in Germany... :)

Anyone using the copperchase/watchkeeper system for this??

eo

As a slight aside has anyone noticed how the Electronic Stips part of the NATS Intanet site is securely password protected - for some reason?

Hmmmm :(

[ 18 August 2001: Message edited by: niteflite01 ]

I should have mentioned the myth of cost saving. The capital cost of the equipment was calculated at 150 years worth of assistants saved. And that capital cost is outlayed now - not over 150 years. Watch your accountants squirm to justify that! And you were wondering where your bonus went. Check at the 'alter of ideology'.

Does anyone use electronic strips in an environment where traffic just freecalls out of the blue?

We deal with quite a lot of this traffic (mainly VFR) & I can't see it being anywhere near as quick as just handwriting a strip as you go.

Sometimes in the heat of the moment you just make do with the info you have. (might only be a callsign & a level). The idea of compulsory fields without which you can't proceed sounds like a big step backwards. Unless as someone said there will be more ATCO's enslaved to the system.

I hear that no-one at the unit which is to be the UK trial for electronic strips has been to see any of the systems under consideration working. Not even the unit management.

Talk about buying a pig in a poke.

Spotter- in oz they changed the rules so that without a plan in the system you get no service. It is not geared for pop-ups. (or failures, emergencies, wx diversions, holding, atc etc.)

Spotter, if the Eurocrats get their way with Mode S there will be nothing unknown flying -you will just have to unfilter it on the radar... :confused:

We have two centers right now that are more or less stripless. Both Memphis and Indianapolis Centers are using a new tool called URET (user request evaluation tool). It is a conflict probe that also has been given tools that will allow it to serve some of the purpose that we use strips for. It allows our D-side (planner) to look into the future and see what is coming and what needs to be done. The good news is that as long as the aircraft is actually on its route, the conflict probe looks 20 minutes into the future to see how the route looks.

Controllers who have used it have liked it for the most part. Not in a small part due to it allowing you to do away with paper strips. As to inputing flight plan info. It allows you to make flight plan data changes with just a couple clicks of the mouse. It is actually easier than using the old NAS stuff.

As to VFR's. Those are easy with our current NAS program. We hit the VP key (VFR plan) and then type in the aircraft type, airport of landing and the aircraft CID (computer id number). That's it. It is now a tracked aircraft in the system. We also do the same thing with IFR's that pop up and we have no info on them. We then just change the altitude to show what they are requesting. You can also go back in later and change the route of flight if it is anything other than direct to the airport. It all takes place in a few seconds.

regards

Hey Ruddy Turnstone its a good job this forum is anonymous.

Z :rolleyes:

That one worked then! ATSA's are seen as being an easy target by 'management' (I do use that term as loosly as a good curry, 6 lagers and a couple of dozen plums. Technology will replace anything if you let it. There will be no controllers one day. The US 'Command Centre' is, in my opinion, as start. ATSA's do a great job as many ATCO's have testified on these forums. EPS will not be there when the crap hits the whirlygig as it will probably have just failed itself!

;)

I suspect that once real life hits NERC, the assistants will be as glad as the managers to get rid of PFSs - we too will be far to busy at the pachyderm commissary, performing "other duties as directed by the T & P" to strip up!

Don't be so impressed with the Command Center. They are a show piece that wouldn't be missed if they went away...

Scott,

Watched a programme about it on TV recently. I liked the comment "If you view the Command Centre operatives as officers then the controllers are the infantry" that would not go down well in some quarters. The TV programme did a really good job of selling the idea. Whats the problem with it?

There's nothing wrong with it in concept. The problem is that they are just an extra level who don't know what is always going on at the local level. When they do get moving since they are an extra level it just takes longer to get things done.

Now that said. They are good to break ties in arguments between facilities, but some of the decisions that are made there are pretty boneheaded at times. My opinion is that no one there should be there any more than two years and should all come from the field from an active controlling position. This normally doesn't happen... They lose too much perspective as to what goes on in the trenches.

regards

Ferris & Spotter - we use electronic strips where traffic pops up - it's no problem as we have a default flight plan entry screen - when you call it up it opens with the cursor in the callsign field, you type in the callsign and hit the enter key twice and bingo - the FDPS computer creates an "airfiled" VFR plan with a discrete SSR code allocated - once the driver airframe copies that and dials it into his transponder you get a full data block on the screen - takes about 30 seconds all up.
Paper is a pain.

Delta Whiskey, thanks, that is the first positive comment I've seen on electronic strips. Sounds like that would cater for our free calling traffic OK.

You sound like you are happy with your system. Is it intuitive to use? Keyboard/Mouse/etc?

Do you do the same amount of "strip marking" as you did with paper?

In our approach setting we as a matter of course would mark the strip with the following:
R - radar identified (followed by a / when transferred to director)
I/V/SRA etc - type of approach
Runway
Q when QNH passed
levels (usually 70, 6A, 5A, 4A, 3A, 2.2 sometimes more steps)
VFR as required
RCS/RAS/RIS/FIS
headings (usually at least 3)
speeds (up to 4)

Is this similar to yours? What system do you use?
Does the display show old data (previous assigned headings/levels/speeds) etc or just the latest update?

Lots of questions I know, but no-one on the unit has seen any of the systems under consideration working.

Spotter...and any one else who is interested..

I attended a demo of the Swiss EFPS system that NATS is considering.(please dont think that makes me an expert!) I have to say having seen and had a "play" with it that I was surprised at the ease of use. It appears to be well thought out and is radically different from other such proposals i have seen over the last 20 years.

For example, instead of "writing" in a departure or landing time, the Electronic Strip has a small "clickable" box which you just click (mouse based system) and it automatically inputs the system time...I reckon its quicker than a pen.

Generating random flight plans is a bit more complicated but the software contains templates of common flights and several clicks bring up the required Electronic Strip.

The system also reduces coordination in that you (again!) click on strip at the appropriate point and it for example, says to the relevant sector "Hello I am coming to you!" (if you get my meaning!) Similarly, requests for Opposite runway directions can be built in and be done with a click or 2, with the response a clicked (getting tired of typing that word) Yes or No.

Headings and levels are also quick with the ubiquitous click on say, heading, which produces a pop-up menu with a list of headings and you then click on the apropriate one, ditto for levels.

The Swiss ATCO doing the demo said that when it went live at Zurich, they were prepared with standby printers etc...but they have never been used (I think its 7 years or more the system has been running now)

The future is just a "quick click" away....

Spotter,
Most of the stip markings you would use end up on the caft label eg,
R Rwy in sight
V Visual
Max Max speed
etc,
The Oz TAAATS system is pretty labour intensive and the keyboard and operating system is quite different to your PC. In the tower we still use paper strips but we have to feed the TAAATS beast for TCU & En-route.We got rid of our assistants when it came in.
Is it better than the old system? Not many people would be upset if it disappeared. :rolleyes:

Having read the above posts, can I just say that this seems to be lightyears ahead of the Nerc UK system that we are all 'familiarising ' ourselves with at the moment. But I guess ours was designed in the 1980's.
There is apparently a "son of Nerc" kept in a locked cupboard and not allowed out until it's dark!! His claim to fame is that he does not need paper strips.

Spotter
We use roller ball to "designate" SSR tracks or targets if you will, and then a custom keyboard with full QWERTY keys and number pad and about a dozen and a half specific function keys such as "modify" "hand" "accept" and so forth. Once you've designated the aircraft you're interested in you whack the appropriate function key, change the data in the SSR label using the keyboard, e.g. cleared level and hit "enter". The label then reflects your voice instruction to the aircraft and others can see what you're doing which cuts down inter sector coordination.
All the above is radar control = there is a planner who runs a bit of a paper war with printed strips, but he too spends most of his time eyeballing a radar display - the strips are mainly for disaster recovery if we suffer the "black hole syndrome" - a blank set of screens. With the strips we hope to be able to remember who was out there!
We may have been at X purposes in the electronic strip matter - we work 90% from the SSR label on a radar screen - I personally use a jotter pad to remember headings and speeds assigned but a lot of my coleagues simply give a "turn left 5 degrees" type of vector and don't bother with specific headings.
This is getting mighty long but on our Oceanic Control System we do use true electronic strips and a mouse/windows system. The strips are really only aide memoirs - show nav equip, positions and ATA/ETAs coordination carried out, levels and speed. All are updated by the computer automatically in response to HF and/or datalink positon reports, and clearances/coordination composed in a separate window. As you perform tasks the computer changes the strips to reflect what you've been doing.
If you've got this far you're doing well and have a high boredom threshold !! :rolleyes:
I guess our strip marking is pretty relaxed compared to the examples you gave.
Cheers

I find it interesting to see that in the US they dumped the electronic coordination because it increased workload and did not give the expected capacity increase and replaced the "support controller's" screen with a large paper flight strip board in order for that controller to spot conflicts and perform the coordination function now carried out by our CSC's. Please note everybody that the PFS display is in front of the non radar controller, not like NERC. The US are now looking at conflict probing tools in order to rid themselves of PFS. At NERC there is no medium term conflict detection to assist planners. There should be, according to the original specification, but it was quietly dropped when the boffins said "too difficult".

There are a number of people on this thread who are claiming that what we have must be what we want because it was designed by ATCO's. The problem is that there was an awful lot of "you can't change that without a safety arguement" because the project was driven by accountants. I know that there has now been a huge overspend, but believe me, when 1996 was the anticipated opening date, anything which cost anything was banned by the bean counters.

The other problem is that the original team of ATCO's who got together to define MMI and procedures have now returned to operational duties, where they have had little influence over the direction of the project.

Z :confused:

Zip;

If any of you want to come over to see what our stuff looks like, just hop a jump seat and I'll show you around...

regards

Thanks Scott,

Are you coming to the UK on your vacation?

Bex & I (and others) would love to buy you a pint!! :) :) :) :) :)


Z

[ 27 August 2001: Message edited by: ZIP250 ]

The stripless systems are wonderful for discussion - I've been involved since 1983 so I have a lot of scars! I would suggest that you have a look at www.eurocontrol.int/hmi. It has some good ideas and gives a reasonable feel for the subject. There will be another web site in a couple of months at www.ATC-HMI.com where you will see some alternative ideas. Keep the discussion going - it is probably the most important for the controller in the field. Stripless does work if properly designed.

Douglas;

Which side of the partition were you on at the ATCA convention <G>...? The big display with stripless on the forefront and then digistrips hidden behind the partition. <G>

ZIP;

We will be spending a little time in the London area, but not a whole lot. We are doing one BIG trip this time <G>. Andy Amor in enroute and Mike Turner in the TMA have our schedule...

I do however want to come back sometime later this year or early next year to see NERC working <G>... Depends on being able to get time off from work to go, as well as Andy having a spare couch <G>.

regards

Hi Scott

I was the one demonstrating the proposed Tower Head Up Display which answers my two basic operational requirements - 1 readable in bright sunlight - 2 does not affect field of vision. Maybe I should put this on the site as an additional forum subject. I will be demonstrating the latest model at ATC Maastricht next year on my own stand as I retire to take over a friend's consultancy company. I'll probably see you in Washington DC at the ATCA show in November.
The web site I mentioned on the previous message will also include the HUD for controllers to comment upon.

The stuff we design is "designed by controllers for controllers" with assistance from other necessary expertise.
Doug

To Ahh-40612

The previous design to NERC was EDDUS, the Electronic Data Display Update Sub-system. This was cancelled in 1986. It spawned the Eurocontrol ODID group which developed into what you see on the Eurocontrol HMI web. The real son of EDDUS is happily resident in Malta. Coordination is either automatic or single click. NERC design was meant to be a completely fresh look.

Yours ex E watch

Urrrggghhh ... looks like the writings on the wall for us assistants. Any ideas on what a poor ATSA who loves his job and wants to stay in air traffic should do? :confused:

BTW - Are stripless environments all used in parts of the world where there is a lower volume of traffic being worked for a longer period of time IE. NZ & the pacific? Or are there any in fast moving busy TMA environments like London and would they work there??

Well, the Thales Eurocat2000 stripless enviroment (strips are an option)is used in Australia. While not super busy Sydney has a sustained movement rate of 80 per hour, hour on hour. This rate is artificially capped capped and simulations have shown that about 110 per hour is capable. There is an associated secondary airport 12nm and a military at 25 nm which are all handled by the TCU. The electronic strip display is not seen as a contributing problem. There are no strips in the TCU's or Enroute but they are used in the tower. On the introduction of the system 95% of the Flight Data Officers were made redundant.

LoLevel

It would appear that your system design and operational procedures need tidying up a bit. Why are you getting pop ups? Why, if you get pop ups, is there not a specific frequency for these pop ups to file on? Why are we discussing this after the operational implementation? This should have been covered during the early stages at "safety case" level prior to defining the operational requirements. Did your system have operational requirements or did you buy "off the shelf"?
Everything should start with an examination of the current system weaknesses and strengths since if you don't do this you have no future measure of comparison to ensure that you avoid such designed in problems. This is all basic stuff - or should be.

What LoLevel said is technically correct, however the Flight Plan creation that is mentioned is generally done at the flight planning stage. Pop Ups here in Sydney are handled by a planner position, with one planner serving between 5 & 6 "Executive" positions. The idea of creating flight plans while say working an approach position would be irresponsible not only from a system but a personal level. I assume LoLevel is a centre controller and could enlighten us to the enroute scenario which is certainly more of a pain with regard to "filed in flight".
The planner position would be closer to the assistant position in that it has some coordination responsibility. It is always manned by a licensed controller who is co rated on the associated executive position.

Ummm

Trickey, this automatically finishing/canceling a live flight plan, sounds like a variable system parameter needing a bit of tuning up. I would really need to almost talk it through to be able to identify the problem, but knowing the system that you have, it really should not cancel flight plans randomly or early. No I'm not a number cruncher - I hold an old ATC Licence from Aus - V119. However I've been involved with an upgrade of your system recently and although the data updating process is a bit painful, it worked.

Just another thought. Had a chat with some people re the pop up and cancelled plans. When a flight plan is filed, the activation pre your boundary may be according to the times quoted on the original plan. If the aircraft is late, it may be outside the parameter where the system expects the track to be activated. Therefore it may automatically cancel the plan. You need to take note of a couple of these plans that do not appear, get the original with the times at your boundary and see if a pattern emerges. Re the real pop ups, I agree, you cannot mess about with other peoples safety, however maybe a bit of pilot education would be useful, preferably over a beer at a local controller/pilot forum. Even if it only reduces the problem, it may be worth it.
Sorry not to be more precise about your disappearing plans, but at a distance it is difficult to accurately identify the possible alternative answers.
To others on the electronic strip forum, this shows how wonderfully flexible the old paper strips were, BUT, entering data on an electronic strip/data line does give information to all interested parties, after all, that written on a paper strip is known only to the writer at that moment. We are probably not 100% there yet, but with fora like these, it certainly helps to identify the problems.