I have a question regarding Datalink....

Does the system provide each cockpit of all movements within a certain range?

Any reponses greatly appreciated

Fourthreethree,

Datalink has been in use over the Pacific for years. Why do the Europeans have to re-invent the wheel all the time? Is this just a contest to see who can urinate the furthest up the wall?

No one. Which is precisely why it is not a job that should be done by a human. The process needs to be automated. There are enormous volumes of data processing involved - something that computers do exceedingly well but which even the most highly trained humans do rather poorly.

You continue issuing instructions to aircraft that are flying an RA????

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Prepare for another Lake Constance disaster!

Was it? I haven't seen the accident report on the Delhi midair, so I noticed that possibility as the drama unfolded in the reconstruction. But the subsequent dialogue didn't seem to support such a misunderstanding -- the radio operator queried and corrected the pilots about the descent below FL150, so he at least was in no doubt. Is the report available online?

No stones BIK_116.80, just an acknowledgement that there's more to designing safe communication than the language in which the words are spoken.

You may now descend with the thread... :-)

Oh dear oh dear.

No. Read my words before opening your mouth next time. I do give advisory traffic information and suggest avoiding action. Did I mention the word "instruction"? No. The avoiding action I gave on both occasions was a turn to the traffic not involved in the TCAS debacle.
Apology accepted.

Notice you skipped over my point re: safety and datalink. You argue against yourself quite well there. Yes datalink could work faster than a human. As far as I'm aware thats not under discussion. The point is that if it fails, and it will then the controller needs to be able to take over, which would not be possible with your scenario.

Finally, CPDLC had a predecessor, PETAL, which was used also for years, and much was learned from it. Europe are not "reinventing the wheel" as you put it, but Eurocontrol along with many other organisations, are putting a great deal of time, effort and money into a huge project which is seen as the future of ATC.

Are you seeing things?

Perhaps if you kept the planes a bit further apart they wouldn't be getting RAs?

Dry Feet,

http://www.eurocontrol.int/dgs/publi..._interface.pdf

http://www.ainonline.com/issues/07_0...an2005p83.html

BIK,

Re-inventing the wheel? Don't think so. Operational trials over Europe since 95. For once that Europe is leading the way it should be told or if you want to hear it from the FAA itself :
According to one FAA official, “In the past, we used to be able to show the Europeans that we usually had the better arguments for change, and the technology to back us up. But over the last few years they have developed powerful and well prepared positions and technical capabilities that we are finding increasingly hard to counter.” Some Washington insiders believe that the September ICAO Conference may turn into a watershed event, where the traditional U.S. leadership in ATC affairs could find itself seriously challenged

garp

merci monsieur

Bik

Chill out man!! I think that your inflammatory posts are getting people's backs up. On the one hand you say "that's your opinion" then you jump on anyone proffering an opinion that differs from yours. Calm down dear, it's just a forum.

On the subject of datalink, I don't think that anyone can be in any doubt that it IS the future. Whether we like it or not, eventually all controllers will no longer fill the role that we have now, but we will act as system monitors and only intervene when things get out of hand. I'm not talking about next Wednesday, but in the future it will happen, it has to. How else are we going to reduce controllers workloads sufficiently to accomodate the massive predicted increases in traffic?

Datalink will remove a lot of "chores" that do not have massive safety bearings (initial flight plan clearances, changes in routings etc.) and allow controllers to concentrate on keeping planes apart. WHEN the technology allows then maybe we can start to let it take over a bit more but there remains a lot of work to be done.

So BIK, enter into the swing of things. Casting aspersions on someone's ability to keep planes apart ain't professional (unless it is Jerricho, widely known to be useless;) ). If you re-read the chaps' post it was a FALSE RA anyhow.

P7

BIK 116/8 for info on what is being done in Europe on CPLDC go to www.eurocontrol.int and search for DALI
After you've read that lot come back and tell us we're reinventing the wheel.

EGPF Ffyer the French pilot was talking merde. The National Authority lays down which languages can be used where. Normally to be found in the AIP.
At one time Belgium still insisted that Maastricht UAC used French as well as English in the Brussels sectors. This despite no requirement for the controller to have French as a language.

Many states (inc. Germany still?) have frequencies allocated to their own language, normally only for VFR.

Five official languages (plua American) It doesn't require fluency, but just understanding the words, climb, descend and turn, may be enough to save your life.

For many reasons,with 4-3-3 on TCAS. Unfortunately it does not provide situational awareness but seems to be encouraging the opposite.
Take as an example a reporting point where 3 inbound routes converge for Amsterdam, EEL. Take an inbound flight descending to fl260 to cross EEL at level. After the usual, do we have to start down now, do we have to be level at EEL (Really, it's on the tape)
descent commences 4.500 to 5000 fpm. Passing FL265 the aircraft levels off then starts to climb and turn !!! Reason TCAS alert on traffic maintaining FL250. Pilot starts to bad mouth ATC.
Unfortunately this is happening more and more, together with questioning of instruction to turn,: traffic info then given response is ,"We see him on TCAS"

Lon More. more than just an Atco

Garp and Point 7 hadn't seen your post when I started

Or maybe if certain pilots learned to use their TCAS it would also help. As heard a few days ago......

Maas "XYZ123 descend FL300"
XYZ123 "Er Maastricht confirm we have traffic on TCAS 1000 feet below?"
Maas "Negative sir traffic is 1000 feet above "
XYZ123 "Ok, roger descending FL300"

:confused:


Point seven

Cheers, glad to hear people in here can read, I was starting to wonder....:ok:

On the subject of Datalink, although I have no experience of it, I can't see that it can be quicker than verbal commication.
I imagine that from the time that I decide I want to give an instuction in my head, I would have to:-
click on an a/c, select the type of instruction, click on climb or descend, click the desired level, select any level by restriction, confirm the instruction and then send. The pilot would then have to see the instruction and then send an acknowledged reply which I would then also have to see.
How would that be quicker than saying " C/S descend FL250 level by LOGAN" , "Roger descending FL250 Level by LOGAN, c/s"

Please correct me if that is not how it works.

On the subject of fully automated ATC, when will we learn that humans are NOT good system monitors. Our concentration levels always lapse when we are asked to do boring and monotonous tasks like checking that a computer is doing it's job properly.

History is littered with disasters caused by this very fact.

Humans are far better when they have to think about what they are doing, formulating plans and activley problem solving. Sure we make mistakes, but we are also in a far better position to spot and correct those mistakes if it is us that have made them!

Slippers,
You are writing what thousands of colleagues are thinking. How will Datalink help me in my day to day work and will it make my life easier?
It is vital to understand that the present use of Datalink is purely strategic and not tactical. The difference being that strategic use includes non-time critical, routine communications and that tactical use covers basically all the rest where the speed of transmission and receipt are critical for the safety of the a/c.
The idea is to share tasks on a sector suit. This implies that two controllers are on the sector. One executive and one assistant. The tasks that can be done by the assistant are route clearances, squawk changes, frequency changes, confirmations of requested levels etc. Quite some extra frequency time can be offered to the executive in this way. One superb extra feature is the "check mike" instruction in case of a stuck mike on the freq.
As you can see there are benefits to the system and it's needless to say that things will improve in the coming years. Still I'm convinced that voice will remain essential with the present ATC systems for the coming decades.

OK, two observations from a low-time PPL...

First, I don't understand this datalink idea - how does a text message on a screen allow a commercial pilot to gain situational awareness of what other aircraft are doing? If messages for other aircraft are also displayed, surely there is a much greater risk of "mis-reading" an instruction intended for someone else, especially if the messages are scrolling upwards as new ones are received. I'm also rather nervous about the pilot using his eyes to receive clearances - his eyes should be looking for other traffic and/or monitoring the instruments. In most flying the ears aren't heavily used, so are ideal for getting instructions into the brain. Perhaps I'm missing something????

Second, on the subject of controlled airspace, I'm going to make myself very unpopular with a lot of GA pilots. I personally have no objection to their being controlled airspace over the whole of the UK from surface to orbit PROVIDED that all aircraft (including GA) have an equal right to fly through the vast majority of it with nothing more than a radio and a Mode-C transponder. OK, so some vintage types with no electrical system may have problems complying with the "radio+Mode-C" bit, but it's not unsurmountable even for them. I'd expect something like 95% of airspace below FL100 to be class-E or class-D with comprehensive secondary radar cover and staffed to provide RIS/LARS to all, with class-C (or even class-B) airspace around the busier airports. Hmmm - sounds a bit like the US.... Who knows - it might even improve the standard of R/T from GA pilots!

MD

Hey BIK, what's your malfunction. Suggesting "if you kept your planes further apart.....etc" is way out of line. I invite you (and I'm sure other ATCO's would agree here) to come and watch a radar of a very busy Terminal environment, where there are so many pressures of using minimum separation standards.

I'm sure you would get mighty p*ssed off if somebody told you how to do your job.

(Of course, we don't bother telling P7 how to do his, cause you can't improve on perfection, can you? Oh, and stop reminding people how much I suck............they know!)

I do have a question reference datalink. Let's look at an final approach situation where the a lander suddenly burst a tyre and spills it on the runway. What will happen to the 6 jets following. How will missed approach/breaking off instructions be issued? I'm intested in hearing BIK's thoughts on this one!

Just as an aside as well about technology supposedly making our lives easier, look at thetrial of FAST (Final Approach Spacing Tool) by LHR approach. Playing that things rules was dangerous, and many people showed better landing rates than the machine (apart from me, eh P7?).

BIK,

Avoiding Action is rarely used because we've let separation erode.
It is mainly used outside controlled airspace because of pop up traffic or fast moving military traffic whose intentions we do not know and starts to do a dirty dive right towards your aeroplane, if you like I can refuse to provide you with a Radar Advisory Service and just give you a Radar Information Service (or if I'm really busy giving avoiding action to IFR traffic under a Radar Control Service in Class E airspace against pop up traffic 12 o clock 1 mile no height information) I could give you a Flight Information service and let you try and sort things out yourself against primary radar returns or that fast moving military traffic you've no chance of seeing.

We do a bloody good job stopping aeroplanes banging into each other, a darn sight better than any computer could do via datalink.

Flyer it'll be you lucky day if I ever tell 6G to orbit and follow you from dumbarton, when I do, I'll expect the biggest bottle of single malt you can get your hands on ;) ;) ;)

MD

Bit of a problem there the number of LARS units in ever decreasing, controller shortages and cash may not be available to upgrade the present system - would the GA comunity like to pay more for the service?

Regards

Pie

You know, I'm not sure that we all watched the same programme! I got the distinct impression from watching 'that programme' that I didn't exist for a start. ATC seems to be split between 'civil' area ATC and NV, NT, SH and PD approach. Ummmm, so what about all those so beautifully red-shaded bits on your map BBC where ATSOCAS are provided (generally) by military units, be they terminal or area????
33 nms to get round to P18? Can't increase the cost overheads that much. The problem occurs not so much when you get pilots who obviously don't have that great a grasp of English, but pilots who don't have a clue what TOS they're being provided, or even that they're off-route. If civil airlines are going to 'persuade' their pilots to fly IFR in class G airspace, they should at least ensure that the pilots are briefed effectively as to THEIR and my responsibilities to their transit. Should some of these guys really be allowed to fly in class G? Do their passengers know that they're doing it??

Considering the journalist was making a point about language he should be proud of the best malapropism I've heard for years when he said the young indian chap was "ambiguous" about getting on the Saudia flight!

Refering to whowhenwhys post, I'd always assumed (as SLF) that if I was on a civil airliner, flying a scheduled flight, that I would be safely protected within controlled airspace with an ATCO watching over me.

It was quite a shock to see that there are civil airports that don't (or didn't) have protected routes.

As someone who once wanted to be an ATCO this has been an illuminating thread, possibly more illuminating than last nights program. Thank you to all.

dd

As another SLF, thanks guys for your comments - it has broadened my point of view seeing the professionals' response to the programme.

Most of you will probably have missed the subtitle for the deaf which converted "situational awareness" into "situation unawareness" :bored:

TV

Pie Man replied to me:
Perhaps we should treat the airspace above the UK as a national resource for the use of all, much like the roads are. Or at least as they used to be until the government introduced tolls, congestion charges etc.

My problem at the moment is that I see myself paying a large and increasing amount in taxation, both direct and indirect, yet I really don't see a large and increasing improvement in the quality of the country - schools, hospitals, roads, ATC staffing levels, you name it, I bet there have been cuts in the last ten years (and in the ten years prior to that, and...). Something, somewhere is going badly wrong. My personal feeling is that the root cause is that there are too many people looking out for their own little empire and too few looking out for the good of the country as a whole. I'm not trying to point the finger at any individual or group here - my comment is a general one aimed at almost everyone, including myself. The end result is that there are too many people making too much money at the expense of society rather than for the benefit of society.

What I feel is needed is a strong lead towards a more selfless way of thinking about things: taking aviation for an example (this IS PPRuNe after all!) why should the air traffic service around Heathrow be paid for by the users of Heathrow? BAA don't own the airspace. NATS don't own the airspace. The people of the country own the airspace, and they all get some benefit from it, whether through holiday flights or freight imported by air and sold in the shops at low prices. Therefore everyone should pay for the technical facilities and controllers who make the use of the airspace possible, through national taxes.

Too radical? Probably :( I guess there's nothing for it - I'll just HAVE to get a Green Card and go live in the States! ;)

Cheers,

MD.

In one part of the programme a civil pilot who had had an Airprox with a military aircraft stated "as I was flying through the Vale of York", he might well of started off by saying "as I was swimming off the Great Barrier Reef with a pork chop tied round my neck". When will these people realise that if you fly around an area that has a large concentration of fast jets in it you may well meet one sooner or latter. The fact that its not controlled airspace is irrelevant. If the UK military adopted the same rules as the US or Australians and introduced controlled airspace that was regulated by the individual military airfields or area units, the same aircraft could have been doing the same thing provided, in the pilots view, he was still VMC. We have all been stung by an ac popping out of low level but that is exactly why ATCROCAS were written to provide advice and information and not to guarantee separation. If you don’t want this type of service don’t fly in that airspace, it may mean a slightly longer trip but it would also mean that you wont see any sharks. :E

I have to say having watched as an SLF, and hopefully a future Miltary Pilot (I'm in the Cadets atm), that I was surprised at the amount of empahsis putting the blame on the Fast Jets, when aircraft are transiting through airspace that is 'off the beaten track' and regularly used by those aircraft especially in areas of high usage by them (e.g Kinloss/Lossie & Wash Area).

there's blame for incidents, but the way it was shown seemed a tad harsh.

Jordan

Well what about all the passenger aircraft on Advisory routes that our pointy headed friends with their arses on fire seem to ignore ? THAT is an accident waiting to happen. Tornados out of Lossie and Leuchars, other NATO fastjets, controlled? by AWACS who have no concept that these are civil aircraft and that the civil ATCO is trying to avoid them. It's bad airmanship from the military.

What if someone were to fly an aircraft outside the ATZ of an RAF base but inside the MATZ without bothering to speak to the RAF ATC ? Same idea !! So why can't mil jets do the smart thing and recognize Advisory Routes, and get a radar service before crossing.

That would be a good topic for a program, but of the course the BBC never bother to venture (too far) north of Hadrian's Wall.

CPDLC.
Have to agree with BIK116.8 on this, so far as it's use in the Pacific is a great improvement. OVER HF. However, the oz experience showed that where VHF is available, it is far more preferable to use that. It is much faster. But I can certainly see the day where CPDLC will be used in preference to VHF. You know when that day will be, BIK116.8? The day they take human pilots out of the loop. So be careful what you wish for. You may be a rabid controller-hater, but guess what? All that vitriol you spit at us (computers will be able to do it better than you etc) applies equally to pilots. So when we are both out of a job, with the ATC computer directly feeding sequencing instructions into the onboard FMS, you'll be able smile smugly and say "I told you so!". Be careful what you wish for.

ps. What language would you like the CPDLC instructions to arrive in? English, French, Basic, Java.............

PH-UKU,

We are well aware of the advisory routes and get our traffic info from London Mil. (AWACS???) You say it's 'an accident waiting to happen'. Well, it hasn't happened because we know where the traffic is and avoid it.

One doesn't get to become a pilot in the military without knowing one's @rse from one's elbow. A mil pilot who displays any tendencies of 'bad airmanship' would not remain in the military for long. The only 'bad airmanship' here comes from civvie halfwits taking shortcuts across well known (and well publicised) mil AIAAs, then complaining about an airprox. And on the subject of GA idiots in MATZs with no R/T call, it happens on a daily basis.

BIK_116.whatever

I'm sure that Datalink works very well over the Pacific where there is probably 1 aircraft per zillion square miles, nice little toy for the boys to experiment with without having to use nasty HF.

That system will not translate to Europe or the coastal USA without MUCH work, there are more aircraft airborne there at any time than exist in Oz in total, and in about 25% of the area, all going in different directions, climbing and descending to different destinations. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the work and experience will prove useful in defining the final solution, and I am in no doubt that Datalink will form a very large part of our lives at some point ahead in en-route environments, but as to translating it to terminal ops, then that is a step further. Let's cross one bridge at a time.

Ah, I get it now, you are from Oz and possibly an ATC person - you ALREADY think you fly the aircraft, ne c'est pas [French, for your benefit].

Language requirements for R/T are in Annex 1 and Annex 10.

The requirements have just been updated and now encompass pilots as well as air traffic controllers.

ferris makes a good point which I fully endorse.

Maybe we should all just get our brains embalmed in a comfortable pot of goo with a drip feed of Stella Artois and let the computers do everything.

16 blades, you are wrong. Might I suggest you take a visit to ScOACC and ask them what happens on the advisory routes.

(edited to say, radar707, I trust that an 18yo Dalwhinnie will suffice ;) )

ModernDinosaur,

You mean an Air Traffic service provided by, and funded by the UK Government? A Civil Service, so to speak? That rings a bell......I'm sure I've herd of that before somewhere! :rolleyes:

If I am correct ......and I reckon I am ...he DOES fly the aeroplane...he IS Australian ....and he must have had a kicking from a bunch of ATC's when he was young because he LOATHES the idea of ATC and fails to see why he can't go where he wants when he wants at the level he wants(duffy 3 BIK!!) ......We have crossed swords before over various topics.He is entitled to his opinions and I know some ex UK atc staff who ARE trying to sort out a workable data link system...but in all honesty I think it is an enroute tool across oceans/deserts/africa as imho I think it will take pilots OUT of the situational awareness loop.s it not easier to listen to instructions rather than read them all the time?

Next episode details...

"Crowded Skies
Sun 10 Aug, 9:00 pm - 10:00 pm 60mins

In 1977 the world's worst ever air accident claimed the lives of some 583 people when two aircraft collided in thick fog on a runway on the island of Tenerife. Unable to see through the fog, the air traffic controller responsible for guiding the jets didn't even know they'd collided. In 2001 a remarkably similar accident occurred at Milan, when again, two aircraft at the airport collided in heavy fog. This programme asks how, 24 years after the catastrophe that was Tenerife, history was able to repeat itself with the tragic loss of over a hundred lives?"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctwo/listings..._4224_62800_60


LXGB

Gonzo asked:
At least then we knew our tax money was going to provide a useful service. Now we have less idea where the money goes and a less useful service (not through any fault on the part of those at "the sharp end" I hasten to add).

Is this what they call progress?! :ugh:

MD

I'm very ambivalent about DataLinking's usefulness and value.

For one thing, as the programme pointed out, there are many systems under trial, none of which are compatible with any others.

Furthermore, its usefulness will be circumscribed by how many aircraft in a sector are fitted with the necessary equipment.

Next, it will actually reduce situational awareness since you will "hear" no instructions to other aircraft.

Finally, since situational awareness will be degraded quite considerably, there is no ability to question an instruction that appears erroneous.

PH-UKU makes the point of advisory routes in scotland and mil fast jets. As the responsibility for the vast majority of these advisory routes have been turned over to Millitary ATC ie Lossiemouth I cant understand what he is talking about. civil ac quite merrily ply there trade up and down them in the safe knowledge that controllers used to dealing with unidentified conflicting traffic are looking after them. The amount of times I have seen civil sector controllers wait until the last miniute to find out what is going on is the real scary issue.

Vale Of York
 

The program had both ligitimate and sensationalised points -lets face it, though, if it didnt it wouldnt have made on tv.

I thought the problem of aircraft flying through the Vale of York being at risk from unpredictable military traffic was wrongly attributed to ATC, surely if the airlines chose to fly outside of the airways system they are the ones putting passengers at risk. They could rectify this by sticking to the airways. The capt they interviewed should be thanking the controller for giving him avoiding action and reviewing his decisions while making a flight plan

Jack-Oh, civil controllers don't wait until the last minute, we provide a service as do the military controllers, and i don't want this to turn into a civil v military slagging match because we all do the same job, albeit slightly differently.

the fact is that outside CAS, form Scottish, you will only get a RIS, from Glasgow, you will generally get a RAS (again subject to terrain safe level restrictions), my understanding (and it is very limited) from Scottish Mil, you wil get a RAS subject to level and then a RIS.

Outside CAS, anybody can fly with/out a radio or transponder and can do whatever the hell they like.

We controllers have to do our best to stop the aircraft we do and do not KNOW about bumping into each other.

Maybe if more pilots chose to actually call an ATC unit for a service then the less work the Airprox board will have to do.

I will never understand why pilots choose to fly in known areas of high intensity military traffic (Vale of york for example) and not contact a relevant ATC unit. (Is Linton still open???)


Our job is all about safety, inside CAS (A-D) it's fairly easy, E is a class unto it's own and always will be, outside controlled airspace we can only do our best to advise traffic we are working and pass the relevant traffic information or avoiding action depending on the service being provided.

But just how many pilots know the difference between RIS and RAS and their responsibilities.

or for those flying in the Scottish TMA (Class E) are aware that it is technically an unknown environment?????

Radar, Linton is very much open, and still used for the RAF training purposes.

Jordan

TheRev:-

You miss one major point the programme was trying to make, which is that there are a significant number of regional airports in the UK that have very limited or non-existent access to the airways, and that we have to go off-airways to get to and from those airports.

Were all airlines to keep to controlled airspace at all times, the operating costs of many routes would immediately make them totally unviable as a commercial prospect.

As the person interviewed, who skippered that flight through the Vale of York, yes, I could have told the company that I didn't intend to fly that route, and intended to route down the NORCA to GASKO and then head off to STN. They would probably have decided they could function quite nicely without my assistance. In my (fairly long) career I have had a few airmisses. The instance discussed in the programme was one of the hairiest, and was caused by a foreign mil. pilot who didn't understand the rules of operation of UK airspace.

My backside was saved by a Pennine controller who was very much on the ball (as they always were) who gave me a very good service. I thanked him at the time for his very professional service, and sent another message of thanks through our ops later.

I suggest that you save your criticism of airlines and pilots for a time when you have accumulated a little knowledge of how the system works.