EFPS at Stansted
 

Can somebody shed any light on its progress. I have asked the question on the NATS forum - but got diddly squat back.

Must assume that the biggest bang to hit ATC airports is going as smoothly as .....

I could tell you, but I'd have to kill you.......
I would like to start a related competition.
looking for a new set of four words for the acronym EFPS.
have a couple of choice selections myself but I will save them to show u all up !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Electronic FLOP Process Starter.

nice try, looking for better though....

Enormous F***up Provokes Stupidity

Enormous Payoff: F***ing Smart!!!

It's not working, then?
watp,iktch

Electronic F***up Preposterous Scale

Who got me started on this???

As I understand it, EFPS will 'go live' at EGSS in the middle of next month. If you wish to see examples of successful EFPS installations in VCR's go to Zurich and/or Toronto. This thread follows many other in 'ATC Issues' in that a small number of outspoken ATC's [ I assume the contributors work in ATC], seem to enjoy slagging off changes and NATS in particular. NATS is one of the best ATS providers around, their staff and management consistently deliver superb service to their customers. I worked for NATS for 40 years in ATC and am proud that I worked for them. They were a good company to work for. NATS ATC terms and conditions of employment are some of the best in the world.

I believe that the change to Electronic data displays to replace the FPS is long overdue and has/will bring major advantages to Controllers including safety improvements and workload reduction. e.g The primary task of a VCR controller is to look out of the windows to observe the traffic he/she is providing a service to. Thus any feature which reduces the need for the controllers head to be down and eyes to be 'in the office' must be a safety advance. EFPS will do just that.
A mouse click can record instantly any transaction and transmit that transaction detail to any number of destinations, wherever they may be. i.e. The departure radar controller can be made aware instantly of the actual departure sequence prior to line-up. All actions and times can be accurately and invisibly recorded for record and performance monitoring purposes. One could go on.

I am sure that the Safety Case that has been produced by NATS for the EFPS at Stansted will have covered all the safety issues very comprehensively. Change in ATC, like life is inevitable. The majority of changes I have experienced during the last 40 years have been for the good. I am sure that good old 'Heathrow Director' will agree with me. So I wish NATS at Stansted success with EFPS and look forwards to reading about the projects progress. :D

This is precisely what most of us are worried about regarding EFPS. For the past few years every piece of kit that's been introduced has required more 'head down time'.

Yes, I admit there are some ATCOs who resist change for the wrong reasons, but can you blame them sometimes? A few months ago I was showing a few visitors around from a well known ATC technology supplier. One of the engineers was asking me about the surface movement radar, which has labels for transponding a/c. I explained that it was a challenge to get new trainees who've not known anything else to look out the window, rather than just concentrate on the radar and strips. He said to me that surely that was the way forwarrd? That in a decade or so time it was his dream to build an airport ATC facility with no windows, and it would all be done on Mode S radar displays, and then could be co-located with Terminal Control.

Sometimes people get caught up in developing things just because they can.

The thought that EFPS will deliver more head up is a huge mistake. It will force controllers to be more inside the office for very simple reasons. The fact that one is not able to physically touch the strips anymore has a huge impact on STM (Short Term Memory) You will forget data quicker. This will force you to look at the strip over and over again, hence more head down. Where we used to be able to know what what was on the strip after a glance, we now will have to process information in quite a different way. This takes away processing capacity from our already limited system. I am talking Human Information Processing now. Also the fact that you will not be able to physically put the strip where you want will have its consequences. Situation Awareness will decrease, which will force the controller to go back inside the office again. Hence EFPS creates more head down time then PFPS.

Having just made the adjustment from a paper strip environment to using EXCDS (as EFPS is known as here in Canada), it's like anything new. Takes a bit of getting used to, but the functionality IMHO is very good (this is from an Approach side of things).

Are they implementing both mouse/keyboard input as well as touch screen?

26left
 

Sorry to come down to Earth, but operational controllers don't go on jollies to Zurich and/or Toronto, only the suit-and-tie brigade.
I cannot share your view that a mouse-click is simpler and quicker than the stroke of a pen which can be achieved almost sub-consciously and without direct eye monitoring; likewise I cannot share your view on the rationale of NATS' safety cases....they are purely to achieve the end result and are not transparent to the workforce that will be affected.
I can however sympathise with the multitude of ATC technology and equipment providers, must be darned difficult to find a profit out of selling paper strips, and frustrating as hell to know that the low-tech strip works.
Everything "actas" said is right, and London Area Control Centre at Swanwick has retained the paper strip which works in perfect harmony with the electronic side of the operation. For Area work I can write on a strip every second, each one a different aircraft; the electronic alternative requires hooking and diverting attention from the prime task....resulting in a capacity decrease of 30-40% when busy......and believe me.......we get really busy!

EFPS
 

EFPS is produced by NAV Canada. They develop new products with ATC by delivering limited functions and then working with ATC to refine them and then adding more functionality.

In this way ATC don't get hit by all the change in one lump and they also get involved with the process which means ATC get a tool that is more likely to work the way ATC want and need.

The current ADIS system is at end of life so something had to be done to replace it and that something has to cater for the here and now and the next ten years or so. So change is inevitable and EFPS is a lot better than the other contenders.

Well, I, and the majority of my colleagues, are not at all confident with the new technology programmes.

In the past year or two we've had a Runway Incursion monitoring system (RIMCAS) active, which we are required to have switched on (fair enough). However, this system is STILL faulty. The alarm goes off quite regularly. In one forty five minute session of departures today it went off ten times, with the system believing there were two aircraft taking off in close formation and thus conflicting with eachother. This is causing a human factors problem in that it goes off with such regularity that nodoby actually takes a lot of notice anymore, even if it alarms for the proper reasons!

The tower supervisor is required to log all faults on this system on the RIMCAS fault sheet.

Our new ATM regularly fails to convert the squawk into a callsign. This happens maybe ten to twenty times an hour.

The tower supervisor is required to log these faults on the ATM 'fail to convert' fault sheet.

Our new ATM has an approach monitoring function (AFDAS), both height and azimuth, and regularly shows a/c are low/high/left/right/going backwards on the approach. This happened maybe once or twice an hour.

The tower supervisor is required to log all faults of this type on the ATM/AFDAS fault sheet.

Our new ATM often fails to display a/c for several seconds, ie. a/c drop out of radar cover, including the trail dots. Sometimes they pop up ten miles away from their actual position. This is why we are back to the stone age with Approach having to advise us of the order of landing.

The tower supervisor is required to log all faults of this type on the ATM/AFDAS fault sheet.

It's now been decided that the ATM is so :mad: that it's effectively been taken out of service completely, but because it's been a bit of a fudge, we are not required to increase to minimum four miles spacing as the Part 2 states if the ATM is U/S.

Add the above to the airfield lighting fault sheet, and three of four other fault sheets I've forgotten, it's very rare to actually get any other tasks done on the sup's desk. Last cycle I had a thirty minute period as supervisor where I was just logging faults one after another and got no other task done, even the latest weather was still hanging out of the fax machine.

It's quite ridiculous! :{

Further to the posts by 055 and actas, I shall not have to get to grips with EFPS, but agree with all that they say. Another aspect, I have always felt, is that in an emergency situation (including an unexpected missed approach), it is very easy to move manual strips, cock them out, scribble on them etc, but with an electronic system, an inappropriate proportion of the controller's time would be taken up by updating the electronics - or, more likely, concentrating on the traffic and the electronics getting ignored.

Excuse me being cynical. Is the real reason something to do with the management thinking that if the EFPS are implimented then NATS can reduce the number of ATSAs in the VCRs and save money. The fact that it is, on balance not needed or wanted by the operational staff and/or potentially less safe is neither here nor there.

General feeling is that yes it will allow a reduction of VCR atsa numbers, not a good idea.

Just as a side note the new VCR at Heathrow has no contingency for strip bays, ie. EFPS is the only system that has been allowed in the new desks. Wonder what will happen if EFPS gets abondoned??

I don't think that abandonment of EFPS is your biggest headache. Your problem, once it is installed, is going to be "what happens when (not if!) EFPS goes t*ts up?

I understand that your EGLL ATSAs have no input into virtually anything to do with the new tower, including a contingency for EFPS failure, which is when you, the controller, may very well be expecting just a little bit of help from your one and only ATSA. It might just be prudent to get them involved before the event , rather than during.:hmm:

Connex, believe me, I don't think many ATCOs have had input either!

As one who has made the transition from paper to electronics, I have to say that although some of your concerns are valid, many are not. When the system was installed here there was for a time a paper back-up provided in case of a failure. I don't think they were ever needed.

The tower here is staffed by controllers only. There are no support staff, but the electronics do away with most of their task anyway, so why have them just in case? So much coordination can be achieved without resorting to using the telephone. We have a separate apron function who use the system and so stand allocation etc is done electronically. Airborne times, landing times and a host of other data is transmitted automatically (and much invisibly) without any input required from the controller.

One click or touch of the screen and the times are sent to whoever else needs to know them and is capable of receiving them. I don't spend any more time heads down than I used to. Instead of writing data in a box, I just click or touch and it's done.

The time taken to build FDEs (strips) was one concern I read about. The system has the ability to have "quick-write" FDEs (for checkers and regular users etc) available in their own "NEW" page. By the time the person for whom I'm building the data, tug, vehicle or aircraft has finished speaking, the FDE is built and in its place in the display and I am able to carry on. It's much faster that handwriting and you know it's going to be legible!

The mistake that could be made is trying to integrate a stand alone system without making use of its capabilities in other agencies such as Approach control and the airport operators. If you install this system as just a strip display, you are only using a fraction of its qualities and frankly, wasting time and money. Why have somebody phoning down airborne times when it can be done automatically and safely?

Anyone at Manchester remember the VCR-ACC camera trial? All the effort that went into that only for it to be canned. You can have a mimic of the tower controller's display and see exactly what's coming, on what heading and in what order, on a screen that is perfectly readable and doesn't shake! That's got to be progress.

The system should be installed with ATCO input, but what you get isn't the final fit. It can be endlessly adapted to suit changing requirements and/or procedures as looneykeycode alludes to.

2 sheds

Your fears about emergency situations or go-arounds I don't think are valid. You can cock the strip (yellow or black here). You can coordinate a heading silently with Approach. What you feel the need to scribble, doesn't have to be scribbled on a strip. We're not completely electronic, we still have paper available, although some people's pens were replaced with crayons for their own safety!

Gonzo

We too have RIMCAS with some false alarms. We have a Tower Radar that occasionally doesn't convert. It also has a warning function for parallel approaches, but it works! We don't get as anal as NATS does about stuff that may have glitches. It's not very productive to have someone behind a desk filling in log sheets is it? What you need to ask is why doesn't it work, not how many times doesn't it work? Then either get it fixed or get your money back and buy something that does work.

Change shouldn't be feared. Yes jobs will be lost but that's true in the modern automated world. How many buses still have a conductor? Are they less safe? Yes things can fail. It's as true in aviation as in any other walk of life. The professionals that work within it though, are very capable and are well trained to cope when things fail. The benefits of this system far outweigh the perceived threats and failings.

To the best of my knowledge;

- ATCO's have, and are being consulted, on the process and the functionality of the system. The three EFPS units are represented (mostly by experienced, operational ATCO's) and the implementation teams at the units are constantly being updated and included

- HF have made an assessment of the system and given it the nod

- EFPS is being prejudged. It's yet to go live at STN, and you never know, it may work....

If you feel you're not being consulted, what, apart from using an anonymous bulletin board, are you doing to find out what is fact and what is fiction? It's obvious there's a lot of mis-information about, and want it or not, EFPS is coming.

And Cossack's right, change happens. We have to get used to a new way of displaying our flight data, just like we did when we left DAT&S or moved to another unit. Some people aren't so lucky, they have to get new jobs.

Believe me, if EFPS works and is 'user friendly', then I'm all for it.

Many Heathrow ATCOs are worried because of the problems we've had here with the introduction of new kit in the last few years. It really doesn't give one confidence. Additionally, Stansted and Gatwick can keep putting off the introduction of EFPS until it's a decent system, but we're working to a deadline with the new tower. We've been told that Gatwick have 'dropped out', and that we'll be next after Stansted.

Our new ATM, as delivered, was very, very poor. Our previous, ancient ATM didn't have problems converting callsigns. Our previous, ancient ATM didn't allow aircraft AND their trail dots to drop off the screen for several seconds at a time. The same was true with the VCCS as delivered. It was laughable.

I don't have a problem with EFPS as a concept. I have reservations about it's implementation at Heathrow. The past record isn't good. We must have six or seven different types of LCD screen in the tower, and each has it's own button/menu/submenu/select process to decrease the brightness and contrast for night time. There's such a big variation that it's impossible to know which buttons to press in which order to get the desired result. Thus you end up with your 'head down' looking at the screen and those fiddly buttons along the bottom for literally a minute or so getting the screens changed. And if you don't get it done while there's still ambient light, then there's no chance of figuring out which buttons to press in the dark. Is it just me, or is it unreasonable to expect someone to have enough common sense to manage to buy the screens from the same manufacturer and range so the menus and buttons were all in the same place?

Cossack, we need to be anal about it because if Ops don't get a sheet with all the faults on it they don't believe us! In fact after a year or so we stopped reporting RIMCAS faults, nobody bothered to do so because everyone knew they kept ocurring. Someone in Ops was surprised recently when someone mentioned the RIMCAS faults still happening; they assumed the problem had gone away!

Is the mighty Point 7 still in ops?

I'm no great fan of NATS and the way they work but on this I support Gonzo completely.

If a controller is asked to use a piece of equipment to enable him or her to control and separate aeroplanes it should work reliably. The first time there is an incident because the equipment works incorrectly and misleads the controller the person who carries the can is the controller.

The people who put the controller into that position will always have an answer ... usually that the controller is the one with the licence and is responsible for not using any faulty equipment.

Jer, he is, on a permanent basis. I hope it won't inflate his ego to say that perhaps things will improve...... :D

A guy from NATS dropped in sometime last month to test the system on one of our MD-11's that had the new phase 3 ACARS, but it didn't work. May have progressed since then. Funny thing was he (the NATS guy) didn't have a ID validated for STN so the BAA refused him entry. Instructions were carried out by two airfield ops rangers via mobile phone whilst the NATS bloke sat in the car park! Don't you just love STN security!

Gonzo has hit the nail on the head.

the heathrow VCR is just a clutter of different systems. OK, the new tower will be aesthetically more pleasing, with everything laid out in a more organised way, but thats not the issue.

What Heathrow has in terms of different technologies and equipment types is like having an office consisting of microsoft windows 3.1, windows XP, Apple Mac, Linux, VHS and DVD.

NOTHING is integrated at all. menu functions, commands, controls, etc are all accessed in a different way.

ATM
VCCS
SIS
TACT (whats tact?)
SMR

are all different in their operation.

Even the flatscreen monitors have different menus and controls

Not only is this a headache for controllers, but the Tels people have trouble remembering how each system operates, which causes delays when something needs fixing.

Lets not have new technology just for technologys sake! Heathrow's new VCR needs an integrated technology package that everyone can become familiar with in a short space of time.

I feel for the lighting operators. The new lighting panel is going to be yet another headache for everyone concerned.

What makes me laugh is that the actual airfield lights will still be the same old lights that are currently oh so reliable and well maintained. it seems that by plugging a jazzy new high tech interface into the vcr will suddenly fix the airfield lighting. (rather like buying a new keyboard for your PC when the motherboard fails!)



:zzz:

Gonzo

I agree reporting action needs to be taken, but for how long? If you buy a new car and it doesn't work as advertised, you take it back. Does the dealer then say I don't believe you, make a log of what goes wrong?

A year or so! WTF! If something is not working for that long and your management can't or won't do anything then 1261 it and refuse to use it. See how long it takes to get fixed then. If you need more arrival space because the radar doesn't work, then get it. Don't roll over and accept it. If you do, you're your own worst enemy and have no grounds for complaint.

Why does NATS not seem to get a good deal when it buys new kit? For years I've heard stories of how new equipment was bought but doesn't work as it should and years later its still there. SMRs with masked areas etc.

The new tower wil give you the opportunity to get a more harmonised work environment with displays that match. If NATS transplant systems from the old into the new, you're not going to gain much more than a new building.

I agree. What has been bought has a proven track record in many Canadian towers and Terminal units. It does work. It is user friendly. Does it interface with what is being used by NATS now? Not sure. Will it interface with what NATS will use in the future? For your sakes, I hope so.

Just going on runour, but that's the problem with Stansted at the moment. When they plug it in to HCS, it all falls over!

Mis-information, as I said, is rife.

LGW haven't dropped out will start training in January. They are working to a dead-line too as they're already starting to re-deploy their ATSA's.

But you're quite right when you say that the success of EFPS depends on its implementation. LGW have a simulator that is beyond anything I have seen in NATS and ALL THE EQUIPMENT HAS BEEN STANDARDISED. Same VDU's, same menus, and the same equipment in the same location in each position. That has been down to the hard work of ATCO's who have volunteered to get involved, Tels, Ops, and believe or not, Unit Management, who have provided the resource for the refurbishment.

Perhaps the LHR Tech Com (or any interested ATCO) should pop down to LGW to see how they're doing things...? It could, and probably would, answer a lot of questions

I'm sure we could do you a deal on a replacement for HCS!:D

I was at work the other day and saw 3 pallets of nice new 20inch NEC LCD monitors (which we already use). There were about 30 of them. New toys in time for Christmas!

We've got some NECs too, but there are three different types that I can remember, and everything is in a different place!

Why does everything have to be push button menus? Surely an LCD screen with two knobs (steady!) for brightness and contrast would be far better! Like I said, sometimes it seems that progress occurs 'because we can'.

I know of a rusty old sub that needs a new home. Sunk the Belgrano.......Proven technology.......

But what if it let in water?
We'd have to log it and after a couple of years of grumbling do nothing about it! ;)

Is there anything that doesn't make HCS fall over?

All joking aside, everybody's remarks about the fallibility of HCS/NAS is actually the reason why the ATSAs should be taking a look at backup scenarios for EFPS. If EFPS is to be linked in any shape or form to NAS then the potential for calamity should be self-evident.

This would be of particular importance to EGLL, primarily because ATCO control of this airfield presents a far more complicated overall scenario than at any of the others. If the ATCOs have lost their primary source of information, the info on EFPS - linked to the ever-so-reliable NAS - then where is the info going to come from, and in what format, so as to allow the job of controlling the live traffic to continue?

The ATCOs will have their hands full - so who's going to be tasked with providing some sort of backup/info supply if it isn't the ATSAs?

To all those who have expressed a view that this is just ATSA scaremongering, and EFPS is a reliable piece of kit, I would only say that, in the case of NAS, you should all look at the track record. If EFPS is in any way linked to NAS, then emergency contingency most certainly should be on the agenda, and especially for the new EGLL tower.

Hindsight can be a wonderful thing - it can also be very painful.

Cossak

The reason people stopped reporting the RIMCAS faults was because when we did we were told either its being worked on/its the new airbuses they dont have the right transponders/its virgin's equipment that is at fault.

When you are constantly reporting something and nothing gets done to fix it people tend to just say sod it and put up with it. Thats part of the problem with UK ATC, we just get on with it despite sub standard equipment, lack of staff, low morale. Our own worst enemies yes, but experience has taught us that in the end no-one really listens in NATS. And if they are listening the tend to tell you off for speaking out.

Gonzo check your pms.

I can report (as long as you keep it to yourselves) that it looks very much like EFPS will become operational in the very near future. All those involved seem very confident that they can pull it off (even some of the ATCO's !!) No doubt it will take some getting used to and we will get caught out now and again but progress marches on with or without us............wish us luck. ps. there is a back up system involving some hi tech system involving long narrow strips made from a reconstituted wood product, There is a machine which imparts the flight information onto these strips and they can then be placed in front of the controller organised in vertical metal racks...it will never catch on and lets hope we dont have to go back to it too often........

Heres the thing about EFPS,
There is actually NO improvement on the system we use already. When given a demonstration in the last week by one of the Nats gravy train brigade we were shown what would happen in the event of a go around.
"What we teach with this" she said " is to sort out the traffic and then get back to the strips",
Hang on a second,
I thought the whole point of a strip display is to give an accurate illustration of what is going on!
Even during the messiest go-around at EGLL I can still have a quick glance down and have a fairly good idea of who is where.

Heres a quick test, try without looking at it to use the calculator on your PC, just try to write a three figure number ( a heading for example!). Then try to write the same 3 figure number on a piece of paper with a pen you are already holding. Which is quicker?

Conclusive proof that EFPS reduces "out the window" time.

I am far from being your old dinosaur ATCO but this EFPS is a nightmare, what really bugs me is that there is no improvement on the system we have. There are no hints, no alarms if you stuff too many things on the runway, nothing that I think will help me with what I am doing.

However SRG has no idea what goes on in a busy tower today they have been bought too many good lunches by those shoehorning this into place, who in turn had that Canadian hospitality and felt obliged to buy it. Voila! certification!

So its coming, its useless, it is actively reducing safety, enjoy!
The s:mad: t will only hit the turbofan when BAA and the airlines realise that the hourly movement rate at EGLL has halved!

eddyboog,
You appear to have made an assumption (!) that New Technology = Improvement for the Workers.
Actually, the equation is New Technology = Cost Savings for management.
Its a wee bit more complicated as 'Hangers-On', 'Free Lunches' (part of 'Gravy Train' that you have ID'd), 'beancounters', 'Jobs for boys', 'Stuff You' and other variables are involved, but left out for clarity.
Yours cynically,
Bigears

Is the rumour that i heard at a coffee establishment this morning true that EGSS movement rate was reduced when the same traffic situation was replicated on EFPS as compared to using the well tried and well trusted paper strips??