Enquiry regarding use of ATIS
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: EPKT
Age: 44
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wojtus, as an ATCO what is your preferred method of updating an ATIS?
Observing existing ATIS installations, it greatly depends on local work configuration.
If there's a separate local supervisor position, he can edit the whole ATIS with dedicated screen and keyboard - or via application on general-purpose computer. It depends on space available on his desk. If ATIS needs to be edited by ATCO or his assistant, it should be adapted to operation environment - both by hardware and interface means.
Basically, only a few ATIS parameters should be set by ATC - runway configuration, LVPs, transition level etc. The weather part should be operated by weather people (or weather computer
), while the location of bear colonies and monthly grass cutting schedule should be set by airport authority.As there should be not too much parts of ATIS editable by ATC, touch-panel is a good solution. Most actions should be performed by selecting values from the list. For special occassions, on-screen keyboard may be available (as in PDAs).
I like the idea of current ATIS text displayed on ATC position, with highlighted changes from previous edition. Audible signal for each designator change is also helpful. It could be also integrated with AWOS displays.
As for automatic weather updates - it's great idea to allow small changes (which do not fall into ICAO definition of "significant change") within one ATIS designator. But you'll need good lobbying to make it legal. Good luck anyway!
Guest
Posts: n/a
In the UK a few yeas ago a couple of airports tried out 'dynamic data' ATIS broadcasts - I don't know whether they are still in operation in the same way.
There were a number of issues. As I recall, the broadcast letter was changed whenever a weather element changed through a significant amount from the last METAR - pilots who did not understand the system were concerned when they happened to hear two broadcasts with the same identification letter but differing (albeit only slightly) data and this undermined confidence in the system.
There were also problems with the QNH but I think this stemmed from an incorrect algorithm which considered the QNH to be changed when the the calculated value changed even if the ambient pressure had not changed by one whole hPa (as specified by Annex 3 to qualify as a significant change).
The RVR was broadcast and updated each time the ATIS message was compiled. The main problem here was that the controllers saw this as a way to avoid having to transmit changes in RVR but the pilots didn't want to have to listen to the ATIS as they made their way down the approach just to pick up changes to the RVR (although, of course, this does not comply with the SARPs on transmission of RVRs anyway).
Speaking as a controller I have to say that I've never understood the pilot view of 'more up-to-date is best' when it comes to MET data and AIS. If the MET is being reported in accordance with Annex 3 and transmitted in accordance with Annex 11/PANS-ATM, the pilot will be made aware of any significant change well within any operationally significant period of time. Providing more data has often simply been a source of confusion in my experience (although that's probably because the additional data was not expected).
As you say, John, the root of your 'problem' is what ICAO says. Although it's not easy to get changes I suspect the world is ready for some modifications to permit dynamic data to be broadcast on ATIS (for whatever it's worth!) - the best route is through your national Met Authority...but I'm sure you know that.
You'll also know that there are - or, at least, have been - some ambiguities in the relevant ICAO texts. These include, unless it's been changed in the latest amendments, the seeming contradiction that ATIS broadcasts the latest METAR, that D-ATIS should broadcast the latest available information, and that ATIS and D-ATIS should contain the same information. If this incongruity remains, a little bit of creative interpretation could solve your problems!
There were a number of issues. As I recall, the broadcast letter was changed whenever a weather element changed through a significant amount from the last METAR - pilots who did not understand the system were concerned when they happened to hear two broadcasts with the same identification letter but differing (albeit only slightly) data and this undermined confidence in the system.
There were also problems with the QNH but I think this stemmed from an incorrect algorithm which considered the QNH to be changed when the the calculated value changed even if the ambient pressure had not changed by one whole hPa (as specified by Annex 3 to qualify as a significant change).
The RVR was broadcast and updated each time the ATIS message was compiled. The main problem here was that the controllers saw this as a way to avoid having to transmit changes in RVR but the pilots didn't want to have to listen to the ATIS as they made their way down the approach just to pick up changes to the RVR (although, of course, this does not comply with the SARPs on transmission of RVRs anyway).
Speaking as a controller I have to say that I've never understood the pilot view of 'more up-to-date is best' when it comes to MET data and AIS. If the MET is being reported in accordance with Annex 3 and transmitted in accordance with Annex 11/PANS-ATM, the pilot will be made aware of any significant change well within any operationally significant period of time. Providing more data has often simply been a source of confusion in my experience (although that's probably because the additional data was not expected).
As you say, John, the root of your 'problem' is what ICAO says. Although it's not easy to get changes I suspect the world is ready for some modifications to permit dynamic data to be broadcast on ATIS (for whatever it's worth!) - the best route is through your national Met Authority...but I'm sure you know that.
You'll also know that there are - or, at least, have been - some ambiguities in the relevant ICAO texts. These include, unless it's been changed in the latest amendments, the seeming contradiction that ATIS broadcasts the latest METAR, that D-ATIS should broadcast the latest available information, and that ATIS and D-ATIS should contain the same information. If this incongruity remains, a little bit of creative interpretation could solve your problems!
From the pilot perspective some ATIS broadcasts are far too long winded and verbose! In the environment of high traffic density we need both pilots (on a 2 crew operation) to be monitoring the ATC frequency, especially during climb and descent to mitigate potential level bust. Some ATIS have poor DOC so that it is impossible to copy same prior to descent due interference from other ATIS/ATC on the same frequency. (Example EMA ATIS which is blasted out by, I think, CDG when approaching from the South).
Perhaps we should start a league table for the worst and best examples of ATIS broadcasts! I won't mention certain States that give ATIS broadcasts in their mother tongue as well as English!
Perhaps we should start a league table for the worst and best examples of ATIS broadcasts! I won't mention certain States that give ATIS broadcasts in their mother tongue as well as English!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New Zealand
Age: 77
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wojtus, yes we considered offering to your country but the qualification conditions were quite daunting! If I recall correctly one of the conditions to participate in the public offer was to have sold 3 ATIS systems in the last 3 years at more than a million dollars each! I cannot imagine what the purpose of such a stipulation might be but we can do a very nice ATIS unit for about $20,000!
Thanks for the comments regarding input methods and especially the touch panel etc.
If the client still uses strips we print the text of the current ATIS for each of the positions that need it. Our ATIS workstation shows changed ATIS in a different colour on the display. Where the client has specified non-automated updating of ATIS our display will show in colour when current instrument readings differ from the current ATIS and when specified ranges are exceeded.
I am rather disappointed that we were effectively precluded from making an offer to your country as I remember a visit some few years ago and I rather proud of our product! Our ATIS is in use by your neighbours in CZ.
Yes, I must see who I can lobby to get some flexibility into the ATIS formats.
Thank you for your comments.
Thanks for the comments regarding input methods and especially the touch panel etc.
If the client still uses strips we print the text of the current ATIS for each of the positions that need it. Our ATIS workstation shows changed ATIS in a different colour on the display. Where the client has specified non-automated updating of ATIS our display will show in colour when current instrument readings differ from the current ATIS and when specified ranges are exceeded.
I am rather disappointed that we were effectively precluded from making an offer to your country as I remember a visit some few years ago and I rather proud of our product!
Our ATIS is in use by your neighbours in CZ. Yes, I must see who I can lobby to get some flexibility into the ATIS formats.
Thank you for your comments.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New Zealand
Age: 77
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spitoon, I did not know about the 'dynamic data' ATIS broadcasts. I can see how things like the QNH and RVR would have led to a lot of debate! However I have a feeling that the solution lies in the intelligent use of 'significant change'.
When my ideas are a little clearer I think I will lobbying both our national met and national civil aviation authorities for inclusion of 'dynamic data' in ATIS broadcasts. Probably along the lines of two distinct parts to the broadcast, one part being current instrument readings and the other part a format ATIS according to the Annexes, I am not sure how I will cope with those who insist on inclusion of the METAR winds in the ATIS part!
Thank you for your comments.
When my ideas are a little clearer I think I will lobbying both our national met and national civil aviation authorities for inclusion of 'dynamic data' in ATIS broadcasts. Probably along the lines of two distinct parts to the broadcast, one part being current instrument readings and the other part a format ATIS according to the Annexes, I am not sure how I will cope with those who insist on inclusion of the METAR winds in the ATIS part!
Thank you for your comments.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New Zealand
Age: 77
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FureFlyBob, I know spectrum allocation is a problem in parts of the world but still that sounds like really poor frequency planning!
Over verbose ATIS broadcasts seem to be a universal problem!
A table for good and bad ATIS and VOLMET would be interesting though I fear I would be sorely wounded if any of our clients came up on the duffers list!
Over verbose ATIS broadcasts seem to be a universal problem!
A table for good and bad ATIS and VOLMET would be interesting though I fear I would be sorely wounded if any of our clients came up on the duffers list!
As a pilot, I would have no interest in real time wind or RVR data. When I listen to the ATIS I write it down, but in "processing" the wind information, I simply think "Is it weak or strong (i.e. will I have to work hard or not) and, if it's strong, is it near any limit?" Any further detail I would find irrelevant.
What would help is if you alternate each letter change with a male and a female voice. That way I can log the ATIS before descent, say half an hour out, then on descent when I check for a change I only need listen for a change in voice, rather than wait for the letter to repeat.
What would help is if you alternate each letter change with a male and a female voice. That way I can log the ATIS before descent, say half an hour out, then on descent when I check for a change I only need listen for a change in voice, rather than wait for the letter to repeat.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Best to add DLK availability to all ATIS installations. It is much more save in a two pilot operation in busy airspace. Nothing like having one sitting out to get the ATIS and call ops for 15 minutes because he cannot understand the ATIS in one go and it is damn long to boot while the other has to fly singlehand. Clicking a few buttons on the CDU and getting a current ATIS (and automatic new printouts whenever it changes) saves a lot of valuable time, plus its automaticly documented.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also the Health and Safety warnings get me a bit like "Increased Bird Activity in the Vicinity..." whens it's the middle of the night (do they get that many owls near the runway?).
If there is any significant increase in bird activity the CAA require us to inform the pilots. The ATIS is the only practical way....The warnings usually carry on into the night because someone cannot be bothered to delete them.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: London
Age: 55
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At Bristol ATC in the UK, the automated ATIS updates every two minutes directly from the equipment - therefore the wind for instance is the two minute average, usually a maximum time of within the last two minutes - no waiting for 30 minutes here to be updated! I assume the larger airports work like this with automation so when it says 1131 and then 1132 in next automated readout you really can hear the change.
