Automation in ATC
 

I've been working on ATC systems for over 30 years. During all of that time everyone has agreed that full automation is the way forward but no-one has found a way to make it safe. I offer my own solution on my website www.sensus-dp.demon.co.uk for PPRuNe readers. There's even a working demonstrator! The arguments for this New Model for ATC are irrefutable and support is building rapidly. Do check it out and comment.

NewModel,


I have not had time to fully absorb all the information on your website and you have obviously put in a considerable amount of time and research into your work. Many of the points you raise are already being addressed with projects like iFACTS. The implementation of Mode S will also improve productivity.

The systems currently in use are capable of "paperless" control but Flight Strips remain in use at the moment to ensure that the UK does not rely on technology too quickly. Failures still occur and the Paper system is a very important fallback. If you have a failure without backup there will be carnage.

There are many studies ongoing at the moment within Europe to improve matters but I wish you well in your efforts.

Widger,

Thanks for taking the trouble to look at the site. You may know me if you've worked at Hurn. There has been some truly excellent work done on FACTS but there has always been the need for other components to make up a full complement of tools for a future Flight Data Processing System. My proposal is for an integrated and unified ATC solution that removes the need for such separate tools and provides other benefits. The New Model works the same way from ground movement to oceanic and is so simple to understand that a beginner can operate it. It tackles the problem of failure by providing multiple independent processors. It keeps the controller in the loop. If there is a failure that knocks out a processor and the database then another processor can be used. The new traffic solution might not be identical to the old one but it will be workable and safe. Looked at from the right perspective we just don’t need strips any more. And conflict tools can’t manage flows or provide insights into timely route optimisations to save fuel. The New Model really does work but I’ll happily address any specific questions posed in this thread.

Similar to iFACTS but good luck in your lone endeavours ;)

BD

Widger FYI paperless systems have been in use for a very long time. At Maastricht, for example, since the late 1980s.

Ongoing development work at Bretigny s. Orge parallels a lot of what I saw on NewModelATC's site during a quick browse through, However after more than 35 years in ATC, quite a few spent in the development of systems, I tend to shudder and move on when someone says their arguments are irrefutable or that theirs is the only way forward.

I remember endless arguments between ATCA in the States and a pilot who was convinced his vision of Free Flight was the only way to go. (Scott Voigt knows lot more about this:ok: )

Controllers are a very conservative group, so if you are looking for support I suggest you remove some of the polemic statements if you are soliciting their support

Whatever happened to Captain Michael Baiada ? :)

Hopefully Biada is busy with something else or finally figured out we were right <G>...

As to paperless, in the US more than half the centers are more or less paperless with a conflict probe built in to the data display.

regards

Scott

Thanks Scott , that was the guy. he used a considerable amount of bandwidth in various chatrooms. Usually along the lines of if the FAA give me x million dollars I can prove that it works

Thank you to those who have taken the time to look at my site. BDiONU, I don’t think The New Model is really that similar to iFACTS. I have seen the reports from the FACTS work and I am aware of the background to the interim implementation. Is Rob W still responsible? For those that don’t know the work there’s a good outline at:

Airport International iFACTS Article

The New Model differs in that conflicts are eliminated by the system as soon as they are detected so that only the best conflict-free RT advisories are presented to the controller. There are therefore no windows to look at and evaluate and no problems to solve. I have tried to explain the logic behind this on my website.

Lon More, yes, there is an overlap between Eurocontrol’s work and mine but did you see the illuminating quotes on the first page of my site? I have a lot of support from individual researchers whose names I must be discrete about. My apologies if my assertions are controversial. I just hope we are all searching for improvements to the system and that my ideas are a useful contribution to a public debate. Controllers are emailing me from as far away as the USA and Australia.

And Scott Voigt, as for Free Flight, I think it was a worthy proposal that failed because there was no credible evolutionary path by which its final goals could be reached. It depended on too much changing at once. I actually favour a ground-based ATC concept but that’s a discussion for another thread. The New Model can be implemented within a single sector or across a whole ATCC and the aircraft need never know. Therefore there is an obvious evolutionary path to the future with the New Model.

As a final thought for this post I believe that the new imperative for ATC (after safety) is to show that traffic is being handled optimally from an environmental point of view. That means that trajectories must now be planned and continuously adjusted by computers to minimise CO2 emissions. In the UK the train drivers and the firemen handled the transition from steam to electric and diesel traction rather poorly and our railways have been a disaster ever since. I have confidence that present day air traffic controllers will want to manage the transition to automation more competently.

Funny you should mention this NewModel, as here in Canada, one of the latest mantras has been leaving aircraft on STARs for managed FMS approaches to every extent possible. There has even been one company (those working here will know who I am talking about) that have submitted for approval their own arrivals, all in an effort to obtain the most efficient use of their aircraft. All fine and dandy if they are the only aircraft in the sky, however in the middle of a sequence, it ain't gonna happen.

NewModelATC
 

Rob W has been sacked and iFACTS has changed considerably from your days (assuming you're the person who set this up last year http://www.dmaviation.co.uk/atmmain.htm).
Lots of simulations have been run, lots of work is going on in NATS (in conjunction with Praxis).

BD

LonMore,

Maastricht may well not use paper, but they sure as hell do in the UK!

Widger
 

But yea olde days of paper strips in UK are numbered :D

BD

Is that destination 22?

That'll get the unions going!

have a nice wet weekend everyone....blammm! Crikey what was that?

NewModel etc...

An interesting concept, and one worth studying in detail... but still only a concept.

Not sure about the statement "full time automation is the only way to go". Full time automation isn't always flexible enough. Most of time, yes, but not always. That's why there are still pilots on todays very automated flight decks.

Not sure about the weather avoidance FAQ either. Real time info on Cb activity is not always available, nor are individual pilot reactions to Cb activity (see the uk over the last few days).

Metering for TMA / airfield arrival streams. Hmmm.. there is such a wide variety of variables e.g. a/c performances, wind, wake vortex, rwy closures, preferential rwys (continue here for as long as you like) that I have difficulty seeing an automated system cope safely without human intervention . Which may be what you are getting at, but saying that full automation is the only way to go suggests otherwise.

And for those that allow it, what about VFR arrivals? How do they fit?

Don't get me wrong, there are some good ideas here and I am not Luddite enough to dismiss them out of hand.

Paperless operation in the UK? Yes, it will happen. Usual caviats though. Involve the end user at the BEGINING of the project, and get all the advice you can from those that are already without paper about the problems and advantages. Act on the advice / input.

Rgds BEX

Bexil160,

Thanks for those constructive comments. I am indebted to you and others who have taken the time to visit my website. I believe the New Model does address all of the issues that you and others have raised. Naturally, any shortcomings in the explanations are entirely my responsibility. There is no sarcasm intended in that statement.

Full automation isn’t necessarily obvious but your analogy is almost perfect. I would have said a modern aircraft with autopilot, autoland, fly-by-wire controls, FMS, FADEC and so on is indeed fully automated in that the crew issue instructions and the system carries them out. In the same way the New Model will always require a human operator and even in the demonstrator there is the opportunity to ignore or override advisory instructions. However, I believe the New Model does represent the first ever proposal for an ATC tool where the system is expected to calculate the complete traffic solution. The demonstrator was produced to show that the algorithms are not particularly hard.

Some controllers feel that they may not be able to retain the mental ‘picture’ if they are not actually controlling the sector. My informal investigations show that, if anything, the mental picture is actually enhanced by monitoring a concise and complete list of RT advisories. The controller can then focus on any problem areas while the system continues to look after the more straightforward parts of the sector. It is part of the mathematics of the New Model to show that this independence is a property of a well designed piece of airspace.

For space reasons may I deal with metering, strips and VFR in a future post?

You also suggest crucially that the users should be consulted at the beginning of the project. I am sorry I may not have spoken to you personally but I have actually spent a great deal of time sitting with controllers and pilots. My managers opposed this approach. The New Model represents the fusion of what is needed, what is possible and what is wanted. Many controllers told me I was the first engineer who had ever come and asked them and I treasure the several friendships I have established.

But, if there are any controllers out there who feel they have not been heard why not post your requirements for a future ATC system here? This is one engineer who does want to listen. If a few appear and there is interest I will publish the essence of all the requirements that were expressed to me by practicing controllers and pilots over 30 years. That post will be shorter than this one.

Thanks again to everyone for taking time to look at this thread.

P.S. Would Bexil160 be a sector and a standing agreement?

Hello,

a very interesting web site even though, to be honest, I didn't read everything.

Your model is similar to a french project called ERATO (En Route Air Traffic Organizer) that has been developped since the early 90's by The CENA.

http://www.tls.cena.fr/divisions/CCC/ERATO/?L=en
(web site in english but that page only in french).

I am sure I saw such a system at Bretigny Sur Orge in the mid 1990s. EURO ATC2000 or something it was called. Looked very impressive handling a traffic sample which was 400% higher than the maximum experienced in the demonstrated sector at the time. It was all a bit last minute though with all executions left to the last possible minute to ensure that the data it was number crunching was the most accurate and efficient possible. It had lots of climbs and descents to achieve separation rather than vectoring. There was also an Airbus sim next door where pilots 'flew' in the trial using datalink to receive their clearances.

I guess they must have found insurmountable difficulties since I have never heard anything more about the project.

NewModelATC
 

The whole premise of this thread is based on a lie.
"everyone has agreed that full automation is the way forward"
Who is everyone:-
Employers that want to shed staff?
Manufacturers that want bucks?
Can't you people understand that sometimes the simple {and cheap } things work well......sorry there's not much profit in a paper strip.
How do I know?....I AM a controller, and I don't mean a "desk" either!
Whenever Mr Free-lunch meets Mr Expense-account we end up with the biggest bag of worms imaginable; just remember that although your tame rocket-scientist/brain-surgeon types nod furiously in agreement it will be the foot soldiers that have to make it work eventually.

New Model;

Yes I can see that the controller sitting there and overseeing can see more of what is going on, sort of like the handoff person who is not having to talk can generally see more of what is going on since they are not focusing on individual aircraft all the time, however the problem lies in not seeing all the traffic by being involved. It more of the problem of not being involved and STAYING involved in the traffic picture. In studies with both pilots and controllers, human factors folks have seen that we humans are TERRIBLE at keeping the picture on things when we aren't activly engaged in doing it. Just sitting and watching our attention wanders from time to time if we are not activly engaged in what is going on, which we aren't if we are just watching the machine do it. I see this as a huge problem in the future with the types of traffic levels we are talking about getting into.

Oh, earlier I gave you some places to go and talk with folks about human factors <G>. I just got back from doing some work with the FAA human factors folks... Boy are they doing some neat stuff <G>...

regards

Scott

Compte Roller

Yes, The New Model draws on the conclusions of projects such as ERATO and CORA which propose advisory information. Many of us were exposed to these ideas and others during the production of the eFDP Requirement Set. The New Model was created because many of these projects were conceptually incomplete owing to their fixed terms of reference. The New Model acknowledges these projects as having demonstrated that the fundamental ideas of automation are sound.

PPRuNe Radar

I’m not sure exactly which system you are referring to. EATMS became ATM2000 but that was a very broad set of specifications. It is perfectly possible to run sectors at high capacities under simulated conditions. At ATMDC it has been shown that controllers can handle twice their normal workload without any tools at all. Of course, safety in the real world would not be guaranteed. I have run the New Model at three times the SWE sector capacity and four times current levels is not difficult to imagine if the VHF channel is simulated with near-perfect quality. There are no particular difficulties at all, never mind insurmountable ones. Just, at the moment, a lack of will.

055166k

In the USA, the UK and in Europe I believe that most people who are trying to improve ATC are looking at more rather than less automation. ANSPs that are arguably ahead of us (Nav Canada and Airways New Zealand) depend on automation. I am well aware that many projects can seem very badly formulated by the time the user is asked to take over. Unfortunately, there are users (you) and there are engineers (me) but both sides have their own managers with their own agendas. I think Swanwick (which does use some strips) proves that cheap strips do not lead to cheap systems. And, having worked for suppliers throughout Europe I can say for certain that a manufacturer loves nothing better than to sell an old system with a new badge. R&D costs money. But I’m listening, and the PPRuNe forum has enabled us to discuss these issues directly. The New Model for Air Traffic Control is not owned by anybody and I can be certain that it meets the requirements for Eurocontrol’s future European Flight Data Processing System. It is now in the public domain so that the end user (the controller) does have a chance to speak.

Scott Voigt

I’m pleased to see the US view expressed. I’m very aware of the human factors issues. At this stage I can only say that I have not identified an example of beneficial automation being rejected because of human factors. It is well know that crews go to sleep on the flightdeck. Supposedly ‘what’s it doing NOW’ is often heard on the voice recorder and the Cali B757 accident could be said to have been CAUSED by automation. In the UK our main railways are signalled fully automatically and train drivers have very little to do. Our worst accidents in recent times have come about because of the interface between the human being and the automated system. And yet, despite all of these problems, automation has actually increased the safety of our transport systems. I conclude that we will use more automation and that it is up to those of us who think we understand the issues to help in managing the risks.

Has anybody tried running the downloadable demonstrator? Has anybody noticed how little it would cost to build a small prototype network to cover the London TMA?

I have had a quick look at the concept, to be followed up with a more thoughtful look when I have a bit of time.
I was involved with EDDUS in 1983 until cancelled. The son of EDDUS is working operationally in Europe. We always involved the controllers and some 70% of the new design was theirs. The radar data block used in Bretigny was developed from EDDUS.
Just one initial thought. The system may be better for the addition of variable translucent windows and the ability to directly address traffic underlying the active window.

New Model;

One thing that I didn't mention that bears mentioning. One thing that I find in simulations that isn't taken into account is that things work much better in the sim <G>. Pilots always do what you tell them to do without question, and do it NOW! The planes all fly wonderfully and slow or speed up fast. They also make very nice turns and fairly quick turns. None of this is real. So it does make the simulation much easier. There is also almost never any weather in the sim to take advantage of chaos <<G>>. Until we do these things, we are not really testing the system in the real world.

regards

Scott

If I can tag on to Scott's reply...

I've seen lots of ideas on computer management of traffic for decades now. The general concept may work in an enroute environment where the vast majority of traffic is IFR with known, defined flight paths.

In the terminal environments where I've spent my career, I just see no way for a computer to anticipate all the user's needs. I want to see a computer than can anticipate where a pipeline patrol, police copter, medivac copter, sightseeing or VFR training flight will go next. How would a computer figure the trajectory of a T-38 that wants multiple approaches followed by a couple overhead patterns? How would a computer sequence an FMS equipped Boeing with a VHF nav/com only Cherokee or Cessna?

I guess the point being that even if a computer can separate and sequence to a point 30 miles from the airport, it doesn't solve the problem of getting the aircraft on and off a crowded runway, over a blocked taxiway, to an already occupied gate....

:confused:

Vector;

"I've seen lots of ideas on computer management of traffic for decades now. The general concept may work in an enroute environment where the vast majority of traffic is IFR with known, defined flight paths."


I see that you've never worked in a center <G>... Military folks doing strange stuff, practice approaches, students, photo ships etc... They are indeed not all on rails.

regards

Scott

Sorry Scott, didn't mean to imply that all Center sectors were that way, only that I could only imagine such a system working in that kind of sector. Where does that exist? Greenland? :p

CUNIM,

I thought EDDUS was relatively successful for an ATC project. The system was originally proposed as single computer to replace NAS and the Locus 16s and to act as a common database for military and civil users. Echoes of the huge Linesman/Mediator project from the 1960s. The usual specification problems arose and a fairly major reorganisation left NAS in place and the minimalist EDDUS serving the new MASOR (military area services). NAS and EDDUS never spoke to each other but EDDUS was paperless from its introduction. Getting Tandem machines to talk to DEC machines was a nightmare. Does this fit your recollection? And as for translucent windows – absolutely! I just haven’t bothered at this stage for the demonstrator.

Scott Voigt,

Having worked on both sides of simulators I agree that the ‘perfect’ quality of the representation can give misleading results. In an earlier post I noted that a crystal clear voice channel could enable a 33 per cent increase in capacity. The New Model Demonstrator uses two weather and performance models. One is used for trajectory prediction and the other to drive the simulated aircraft. Tests have been conducted with large differences between the parameters in each model. The results match what one would expect for a stormy day; the overall traffic solution changes quite frequently but the next RT advisory is always a good one. I have studied noise and stochastic processes for military systems but I don’t think anyone will want to know more about the maths involved!

I can’t actually see any human factors links – did you intent to include some?

Vector4fun,

I haven’t forgotten the unusual traffic that makes up most of the difficulties in ATC. I was actually in TC observing when the aerial photographs were being taken for the multimap www.multimap.com database, mostly from 6,000 feet. The frenetic shouting across the room was quite something. Because all aircraft in controlled airspace must have a flightplan we can start with the assumption that the system is able to allocate airspace resources as necessary. Surveillance data and controller inputs will assist in making the allocation as efficient as possible. After that, the problem is simply one of testing possibilities and evaluating the results. And computers are now very, very good at doing that. The New Model Demonstrator completely recalculates a solution for the London TMA SWE sector with one new arrival per minute for the next 25 minutes in about one second. I can post again (or PM me) if you’d like a detailed explanation for your examples but for the moment could I just say that the calculations would be very similar to those performed at CFMU for slot allocation. For the approach sequencing part of the problem FAST here and in the USA is getting better all the time.

Scot and Vector,

OACC FDPS I and the new ATOP handle traffic automatically. The ocean has quite a lot going on, air-to-air refuelling, submarine hunting and air-sea rescue amongst other things. FDPS I operated both organised traffic and so-called random traffic. Even moving blocks of airspace could be reserved. It changed the tracks twice a day, handled supersonics as a matter of course and acquitted itself pretty well on the black day of 9/11. None of this is intended to take anything away from the hard working controllers. The New Model an honest attempt to offer something useful that builds on previous experience.
Anybody from Africa reading this thread and looking for a solution?

This illustrates where we begin to differ. That may be true where you are, but it's absolutely not true in the U.S. I need not, and in fact, rarely do file a flight plan for VFR flights in the local area, whether it be controlled airspace or not. I must contact ATC in certain instances, but there is no requirement I file a VFR flight plan any time except for operations around D.C. and certain other Security zones. My only "plan" when departing in my Skyhawk often involves only heading a certain direction initially, and then I go where whim takes me. That's still possible in much of the U.S. (Thank God!) :ok:

I can assure you that I am far, far from being a "maverick" in this regard. VFR Flight Plans in the U.S. are pretty much strictly for SAR purposes only, and almost never are forwarded to ATC. They reside at the Flight Service Stations. I dare say most pilots I know do not file VFR flight plans for local flights. Only for cross-country flights, especially in thinly populated areas. Even then, it's usually not a requirement.

NewmodelATC

Yes the problem was probably too soon for the computers and displays at the time, but the success was due to the controllers having an input - I had the veto, but never used.

I will be away for a few days in Libya, but when I get back, I'll have a play with your concept. Funny to ask whether there was a possibility for a solution in Africa - I'll come back to that as I hope to be involved there.

Not critiquing your solution NewModelATC, but as a Human Factors bod, I will address your comments about beneficial automation. Until we find some way to measure cognition AND account for variability between people, the Human Factors argument will never beat the accountants' arguments. As a consequence, a lot of ill-thought-out automation is developed and, worse, crippled by cutbacks during development (something you'll know about and be seeking to circumvent by presenting your model).

We need to stop automating or implementing technology for technology or automation's sake. Just because we can is not the reason we should. Until someone can demonstrate that a machine can apply knowledge flexibly to new problems, automation should support the human operator, not replace him/her.

Like I said though, I'm not critiquing your system, which I haven't looked at in any detail. Just a general philosophical statement. If you want your HF looked at, I'm available for consultancy work and my fee is...;)

New Model;

FAST basicly isn't being used in the US. We looked at it a while back and did a lot trials with it. We decided that it wasn't doing any better than the controller, and for it to work all the time and do it really well was going to cost a LOT of money for a pay back of only one or two aircraft an hour at best. It was dropped so that money could be better spent elsewhere. These days there isn't even money around for the GOOD and NEEDED programs <sigh>. It is looking rather grim here aviation wise. I keep hoping that things will turn the corner, but between chapter 11 companies keeping prices artificially low, not enough new runways, soaring fuel prices and our problem with our govt. spending more than we have and sending a LOT of it overseas, we aren't going to see any help in the next few years I am afraid.

regards

Scott

Airspace as a Resource, VFR Flights and RVSM
 

vector4fun,

My apologies for making such a poor job of explaining the New Model’s approach to VFR flights and my thanks to you for clarifying some details of US practice. Even in the UK the use of controlled airspace does not require a flightplan. I had in my own mind the flight data record or system flight plan in the computer which is often created initially from the filed flightplan. But, even without a filed plan, we can say we know something about each track even if it is only its last position report. In the New Model Concept it is RESOURCES that matter so that every known flight is given airspace and time according to its needs and capabilities.

In calculating trajectories the New Model effectively calculates the PROBABILITY that separation will be lost and then allocates sufficient resource for that figure to be acceptably low. A prototype algorithm exists even in the demonstrator to do this. Therefore, the New Model Concept takes every known factor into account and can allow for things like navigation performance, wake turbulence in the air or the possibility of level busts, engine failure and cabin depressurisation.

That probably sound a bit complicated but what it means for VFR flights is that the less the system knows about them the more airspace resource they are likely to be allocated. I believe the New Model to be unique in proposing this approach for use in Air Traffic Control Centres. CFMU already does it in Europe for slot allocation.

I have also argued that airspace should be freely available if there is no competition for it. Why define fixed airspaces that are empty during some periods? I was very pleased to see that Brazil has allowed non-RVSM aircraft to use its RVSM airspace during the night. See Flight International 22 February 2005. My own vision is for this idea to be extended to all types of airspace and even ultimately for most boundaries to be removed.

Strangely, most of this is exactly how the human controller already works!

P.S. Scott, Can you give us an update on CTAS?

OK, supposing we look at the two elements of ATC discussed here seperatly: seperation and traffic managment.

How about using technology in the aircraft to guarantee seperation (at least to the degree that humans now do so) with some sort of next generation TCAS. This airborn seperation software is backed up by a ground-based, automated seperation service, much like that proposed by NewModel. Then, we needen't be too alarmed if an airborne system or two is on the fritz...the ground-based system will back it up. Likewise, if the ground based system is out, the airborne one is still keeping 'em apart.

Next, develop the ability to select optimum routes provided by an automated collaberation between advanced FMS equipment in the aircraft and advanced URET automation on the ground. The plane picks its own optimum route, taking into account all factors including weather, economics and time to destination, then "runs it by" the URET. If not approved by URET due to whatever reason - traffic, airport congestion at eta, whatever - the plane's equipment looks for the next best route, and so on and so on.

If either airborne or ground-based equipment fails, be it route selection or seperation, the system is not that adversly affected.

How's that sound ?

:D

ATCEA;

If you are going to base your separation on the URET conflict probe, you are going to scare a LOT of people...

regards

Scott

atcea
 

What you suggest sounds very much (if not identical) to the Free Flight trials I had some involvement in (as a Controller Guinea Pig) at the ATC research centre in Amsterdam. This was being conducted on behalf of NASA about 8 years ago.
They actually had a model of Eurocontrol airspace with about 300 aircraft flying through it all separated by a TCAS type device and all on their own navigation. Looked great, although I wondered what would happen if the TCAS on 1 aircraft failed? ;-)

Last I heard the US were going to trial it in Alaskan & Hawain airspace but there were problems. Not least over funding of the kit required in all the aircraft!

BD

The New Model at ATCA in Texas
 

My thanks to everyone who has posted to this thread. Readers may be interested to know that I was invited to present my paper “A New Model for Automation in Air Traffic Control” at the ATCA Conference in Texas this week. The paper is now available on my website. I had many comments in support of the approach from USAF and RAF personnel as well as from operational FAA controllers.

The conference plenary sessions were full of references to NGATS (Next Generation Air Transportation System), NEO (Network Enabled Operations) and SESAME (Single European Sky ATM Master-Plan for Europe). Unfortunately, none of these programmes are starting out with a clear Concept of Operations. They all intend to define what they have to do during the first phase.

The conference (significantly in my view) did not talk about the controller’s role in any future system, about emissions and global warming or about how developing areas outside the USA and Europe would be able to afford the massive costs. Even in the Europe and the USA there are significant difficulties in funding ATM development and operation.

I submit again that (even with the need to address important issues such as human factors) the New Model is the only fully consistent Concept of Operations for the ATM system of the future with a place for the controller. I commend it again to those of you who are controllers as it was designed after speaking with many of you in the UK and Europe. Whatever reservations you may have I think it offers the best future for all of us.

Hi Scott, a couple of questions. Are the stripless systems still fed by NAS and how much was the increase in traffic experienced in the two years prior to the Atlanta Olympics? This infor would be really useful.

Thanks...

I am Canadian and my employer Nav Canada has apparently sold one of our systems to NATS. It's called EXCDS(Extended Computer Display System) and replaces strips. Anyone know if it's operational yet over there? We've had it in towers for close to a decade now and are control centres for something a bit less than that amount of time.

Apache43,

It's operational at Gatwick and Stansted.

Supposedly it will be operational at Heathrow in November 2006.

Luton are also slated to receive it.

The New Model at Farnborough 2006
 

There was quite a lot of interest in this when I first posted. Since then I've presented a paper at the ATCA Conference in Texas and recieved many messages of support from active controllers. I have also been asked to post information on any future events. So, next week, the New Model will be on public display at the FARNBOROUGH INTERNATIONAL AIRSHOW 2006. Hall 2 Stand C32. The concept has attracted media interest and should feature in FLIGHT DAILY NEWS on the first day. There's a lot on the ATC agenda at the moment: CO2 emmisions, UAVs, ULJs, A380 wake turbulence and NATS for sale as well as the traditional safety and capacity. The New Model provides a robust answer in all of these topic areas. If you're reading this and will be at Farnborough then come and see the demonstrator in action. Do mention PPRuNe. I won't ask for your username. In fact, I'll give one FREE entrance ticket to a currently qualified and active controller chosen at random from those who send me a CONSTRUCTIVE comment by email (address on the website) or PM in the next few days. Hope to meet some of you there!