something going on?
 

is something going on?

I heard that London Radar (?) is having a few problems...........

Just heard that Manchester and london not accepting traffic, except arriving gatwick and heathrow traffic????

Yes.

Swanwick is now operating in manual mode.

Grubby.

and no departures from anywhere for a while?

I am seeing departures from Gatwick and Heathrow as we speak.

Can confirm that a few outbounds have just left Gatwick in the last 10-15 mins:)

And plenty of inbounds over the North Sea and the Channel.

Would that explain the low flying biz-jet around 4.30pm (Falcon 2000) that whistled over one's castle in the sarf-west London area ? Most unusual and not more than 1500 agl. Looked to be heading towards a final app to LCY.

Regards


SHJ

London City is operational by my view... I can't see anything from Heathrow. Most likely as it's easterlies atm.

Regards,

R..

ok thx for info

18:06hrs

No real build up of pax in the LHR CTA terminals yet.

My staff report all quite quiet so far, wasn't a busy day generally though.

AD

Funny old World innit!? -

Demise of the Air Traffic Pension scheme announced on one day, Air Traffic computer failure 24 hours later!

Never mind, I expect all you well motivated staff will be pulling out the stops to help the Company out of this latest crisis.

expediteoff.
Despite your rather sarcastic post, I can assure you that we, (and I use the Royal We because I am long out of the loop ) will be pulling out all the stops to get the system up and running as soon as possible.

What are you trying to suggest ??

I am assuming that this computer 'glitch' was giving Area Controllers inaccurate or perhaps no altitude readouts next to flights at high level on their screens. Arnt NATS currently recruiting for new Air Traffic Engineers.................:eek:

ClassicWing

A quick look at your posts shows that you failed the personality test for entrance to NATS and your last post shows why. Run along now.....

FDP Walla, Given the context of you reply i am assuming that you are a NATS employee, and you, therefore, will no doubt be able to correct my dire inaccurate assumptions with the textbook answer. After all an assumption is not statement of fact.
:ok:

As you prob know this is all over the bbc now, I wish sometimes they would butt out dramatising every little glitch into a huge drama! Any updates at all not that I have a long list of a/c waiting lol :ok:

Its a big deal. BA have cx a lot of their short haul. thousands of passengers have been badly disrupted and delayed.

Wasn't there a major software update last night??

Fyi From Nats
 

Interruption to the air traffic control serviceAir traffic control operations returned to normal at 7pm tonight after a fault in one of the systems that feeds the controller workstations at the London Area Control Centre.

Restrictions were imposed on the number of aircraft entering UK airspace through London Area Control sectors – airspace above 24,000ft above England and Wales - and those taking off from major UK airports. This maintains safety whilst controllers operate with manual systems at reduced capacity; it does mean, however, that flights incur delay.

Scottish airspace, Manchester Area airspace and Manchester and London Terminal Control airspace operated normally throughout.

Ian Hall, NATS’ Director Operational Performance, said: “Safety has not been compromised at any stage and we sincerely apologise to those who have been inconvenienced this evening. We are working closely with airlines to increase capacity this evening to help minimise delays and impact on the rest of today’s schedules.

“NATS handles nearly 2.5m flights a year and our systems are incredibly resilient. We take every step to avoid any problems but are always aware, that in maintaining and updating highly complex systems, we can experience difficulties.

“We do sincerely apologise for inconvenience to travellers.”

System now fully electronic again, normal flow rates applied.

Company says "Evening staffing levels have been adjusted to provide additional capacity throughout the evening"

i.e. Staff are being given time in lieu and AAVAs to stay beyound their normal shift end.

VL

Supposed to be going to Munich this afternoon. The CTOT got to 2340z for a 1630z departure. Start-up delays about 90min at LHR. Glad to be sent home.

They are trying to preserve the nightstopping and longhaul services, but did some pax being directed straight from departures to arrivals to be re-flighted in the transfers area.

I know little about the UK's ATC systems. However, occasionally (no more than once a year) we see a system failure that means the chaps have to revert to a manual mode. If we look ahead to the two centres (Swanwick & Prestwick) working on the same platforms, surely it would be worthwhile having two separately procured sets of software working in parallel (something akin to the airliner separately developed engine control programs)?

No criticisms, just a bit of sat-at-home-slippers-on thinking.

I had one lined up, was just about to clear him when the call came through.

The assistant I spoke to said it was a code/callsign conversion failure.

I really hope that NATS didn't impose a 50% flowrate because they couldn't cope with 4233 on the screens instead of BAWxxxx.

But in the absence of any other information its the best we have to go on.

Fail active, dual fail passive, automatic changeover, RAID, real-time back-up....
Ah where did all those notions go?

All anathema to the bean-counters I suppose.

CJ

"I really hope that NATS didn't impose a 50% flowrate because they couldn't cope with 4233 on the screens instead of BAWxxxx."

If they did it was to ensure safety, simple as.

Calm down, Calm down, Mr Grubby, I'm only suggesting that - "It's a funny old World innit!".

Those "still in the loop" are no doubt still working at 110% to ensure that the Company pull through this latest hiccup, irrespective of the impending drastic cut to their terms of employment.

(You shouldn't be so touchy you know )

I don't know what caused it as I wasn't in today, but it sounds like a poisoned flight plan issue. We've had them before and I know a lot of work was done to remove the logic that can cause it, but they can be VERY difficult to diagnose on the spot.

Due to some of the data flows and synchronisation issues there is a very limited amount of time to restore full electronic co-ordination before we are forced in to a manual mode of operation.

Once this time has been passed then unfortunately the traffic volumes have to be driven down to the point where manual and electronic systems can be synchronised again.

I'm guessing the delay in recovery was partly due to the fact they wanted some assurance that when they lifted the restrictions the thing wouldn't fail again...

..as I say - I've not been there today so this is a bit of guess work on my part

cb9002
If you'd ever worked:
a) 'raw' SSR data i.e. no code/callsign conversion, with the associated increase in head-up/head-down time to your strips, and
b) the volume of traffic in the LTMA and airways,

then you'd realise that it's actually a very big deal indeed!

I also wasn't there so can't confirm if it was a CCC issue or not.

Rossy's non standard type and routing?

Thanks goodness they still have ATSAs to help out on the wings

Gawd help us when iFACTS arrives and the ATSAs are at the job centre!

Yeah, the poor old ATCOs will just have to feed the 50p's into the meter themselves!:}

50p's? It's NATs. One bob bits only please. Still it's step up from the old steam powered system.

and from the original post
Chip maker broke again?

Saved again by the good old fashioned paper strips and salt-of-the-earth assistants who retain a lot of the old manual skills. Not a lot goes wrong with a piece of paper.
I'd love to see the safety case for the new system that will be bolted on to the creaking patchwork mess of the current computer; which has to have down time at least once a week as a poster has already highlighted.
Draconian safety restrictions were lifted [at least on my sector group] as soon as we could accommodate extra traffic safely.....in fact we sought out traffic and got them in the air as quickly as we could using any route and level with capacity available.......London terminal and Manchester were superb in the finest traditions of what is left of the old National Air Traffic Service [pre-nats] tradition.

Having been at the thick end of it yesterday in TC I can say that everyone worked their socks off to maintain a flow of traffic. ATSA's were brilliant as usual when it hits the fan (which is thankfully not often)

Was nice to have someone from Dav coming through to give a big :ok: to the Mids guys once it had all calmed down. Surprised they knew how to get to the TC Ops room :E:E:E....

Spamcan

One thing I dont understand, the NATS statement said something about 24,500 feet. Surely with the lowering of the DFL that should be 19500. Or do the civil sectors still have the lower / upper boundary at FL240?

QUOTE
Thanks goodness they still have ATSAs to help out on the wings

Gawd help us when iFACTS arrives and the ATSAs are at the job centre!
UNQUOTE

From what I hear, if an ATSA hadn't been 'interfacing' with the system and done an amendment incorrectly, the system wouldn't have fallen over in the first place!:p

Well done everyone for keeping it safe and delays to a minimum in difficult circumstances.

Not so simple.
 

We still have them. But if some odd bit of data tickles a bug in the primary, then it will tickle exactly the same bug in the secondary.

Someone suggested having two separately developed ATM systems. That would cost considerably more than twice as much because they would have to synchronise precisely despite working differently. Experiments with independently developed software suggests that independent teams tend to make similar mistakes. In this case they would have to be working to a very detailed specification, which itself would be error prone. In short, its not that simple.

Even if it worked, it would make no financial sense to NATS given the current level of penalties for delay. In fact it probably wouldn't even make financial sense to the aviation industry as a whole; having a few planes delayed every year or so would actually work out cheaper.

Nice to see the blame-free culture is alive and well!:hmm: