Air Traffic Control at the beginning of the 21st Century

Articles appear at regular intervals about the latest developments in Air Traffic Control and the computer tools becoming available. This article, by contrast, considers the countries where the States have little recourse to research facilities and knowledge bases. In fact, these countries can be a significant limitation to the many flights having to traverse their areas.

What is needed to provide a safe, orderly and efficient ATC service? Well it can be reduced to a radio, a telephone, a biro and some paper, and this is similar to many the facilities that exist today. As long as ATC is poorly budgeted, such limited facilities will continue to be the norm in many parts of the world. The question should be put as to what is minimum acceptable fit of equipment, what legislation needs putting in place, what level of training is necessary and now how to implement an efficient Safety Management Service. The rest of this article is devoted to investigating means to provide affordable and safe ATC services without bankrupting the airline industry.

The first thing a Civil Aviation Authority of a State needs when contemplating a modernisation strategy is to know what is actually necessary to improve traffic capacity, realising that all the computer tools available on the market need not necessarily provide the answer. It is also probable that the person chosen as the project manager will not have done this type of project before since ATC development projects only re-occur perhaps once in ten years or more. Where can this manager find some assistance in navigating this complex problem?

What significant areas are to be explored before starting to make decisions? The first, and probably the most important is finance, is this to be locally funded or is recourse to a bank needed. If the banks are to be involved, then a certain methodology for developing requirements and for international tender action will be required. The author has seen many States take decisions prior to obtaining bank finance, then finding out that the decisions taken negate the bank’s ability to finance the project. These States are then forced to take out loans at quite high levels of interest.

The next significant step is to understand precisely just how the ATC system works at present. This foundation stone of “safe operation” is the measure of change and will determine the complexity of “difference” between the current and the new system proposed. Relatively little difference means little complexity, therefore little training or safety implications. Large differences mean potential implementation problems, training concerns and significant safety questions; additionally this will probably require new legislation and certainly new ATC procedures. This stage is often forgotten and the resulting implementation delay can be seen worldwide.

It is at this stage, some form of review of routes and control sector’s workload should be initiated to clarify the way forward. During this phase, a series of “safety cases” should be prepared for each proposed significant change. Of course, not all countries have the benefit of drawing upon research centres that have such facilities for fast-time and real-time simulations.

It is at the Safety Case stage that the first formal proposal may be made to senior management in order to clarify the next steps. The definition of Operational Requirements will specify the precise needs of the controllers in the future system, and it is at this stage that some form of real-time simulation is essential if a successful implementation in to operational reality is to be guaranteed. This again requires some form of research facility.

Once the operational requirements have been clarified, the technical requirements will need addressing as a preparation for the tender action. It is important that during the operational requirement stage, communications with those responsible for the technical requirements be kept informed and their comments noted, and where deemed necessary, acted upon.

Tender Production

As can be seen from the initial steps described above, much detailed work is needed to arrive at the stage where International tender action may be initiated. The description of the project must be clear to ensure that the companies responding have the necessary information to comply with the wishes of the project team. Whilst compliance with all the aspects of the system’s functional requirements would be welcome, it is unlikely that this state of affairs will be achieved and the companies will have alternative suggestions in their response. For a country without recourse to independent advice, this alternative suggestion may be difficult to quantify as compared to a perhaps different alternatives proposed by the competitors.

Contract Award & Implementation

Once the CAA makes its choice and awards the contract, a new relationship appears, the success of which can result in a successful implementation, or can result in partial failure. This relationship develops between the supplier’s staff on site and those members of the project team involved on a regular basis. This is quite a normal development as the human interaction increases with time. This is where having a neutral intermediary or referee can be useful to both parties where difficulties arise due to unforeseen circumstances since ATC is one of the most complex and sometimes subtle industries.

During the implementation process, the question of fine detail arises, which if not previously specified in the Call for Tender documents can mean additional costs. Do you need colour definitions for your radar label? Would you confirm your flight progress strip layout? Does the electric supply come directly from the mains or through the battery backup? These questions should already have been annexed to the original documentation.

System Testing

During the later stages of the implementation process, the supplier will require a factory acceptance test where they will demonstrate just how the system works together with its compliance with the specifications. There is sometimes a surprise at this stage when it is discovered that a misunderstanding has produced a system component that is unacceptable to the purchaser. This is often due to a mistranslation due to both parties having to use a common, but not mother-tongue language, as the basis of negotiation and explanation.

At the closing stages of implementation, the system will require to be tested for operational acceptance prior to the final acceptance. It is often only at this stage that the controllers get to handle the system in a practical way. If no controller interests have been involved during the whole process, it is quite likely that fundamental disagreements will arise at this stage, endangering the operational implementation date.

Conclusion

The processes described above give only a relatively simplified view of the sheer attention to detail demanded of a project manager for an ATC system development. When considering that for many managers, this will only be one task out of several that command daily attention, it is not surprising that the systems implemented are either too functionally rich or do not meet some aspects of operational need and leave the airline stakeholder to foot the bill without gaining the safe and efficient system hoped for. The early use of an independent specialist can prove a long-term saving, ensuring a sufficiently functional system, smoothly introduced with controller support.