Air Traffic Management

It has been a long time since I last wrote on this blog. I thought no one was reading it, but I was wrong. So here I am again!

This time I have been thinking about the training progression for student air traffic controllers and wondering whether it is the most efficient manner to train students.

Surely it follows a logical flow: It starts with mainly theory and gradually evolves into practice. The logical theory behind this is that a student needs to know the theory before he or she can practice.

But is this efficient?

What I mean is that: is teaching theory before practice an efficient way?

The major difficulty and failure area for student air traffic controllers lies with the skill capacity needed to control aircraft. A significant number of students, even after sophisticated screening during selection seem not to have the required capacity to control aircraft. Equally  true, ATC training seems not to have yet found the right methods to teach anyone who is willing and motivated to become an air traffic controller the necessary skills to do the job. An innate level of the skill set is still a pre-requirement.

Since the difficulty is with the skill, why do we wait a few months before we start training for this area?

Is this not a waste of time?

Why should we not be able to discover at an earlier stage whether or not the student has what it takes to make it?

Why do we waste a few months of our resources and money, and of the students time when we could do it earlier?

So the question is: is a few months worth of theoretical training necessary before the student can start to practice?

For me the answer is no.

In a simulated environment, one could easily create a basic set of rules [that do not condradict the real ones] that could be quickly taught to the students for them to start practicing. For example, the full phraseology is not necessary, basic commands such as climb, descend, turn, proceed, etc. could be taught in a few hours.
Similarly the complexity of route structures, letters of agreement, advanced procedures, the encoding and decoding of route points and location indicators, etc. could also come later. We could easily teach students that this aircraft represented by this symbol needs to go from A to B via C and D, it will enter the sector at Level 250 and needs to exit at Level 300, etc. Students would need to keep 1000 feet separation between aircraft and 5nm between two which have less than this vertical separation minimum

The theory would then come after an initial period where in the student would have demonstrated that most probably [one can never be 100% sure, but at least there is a better indication than with our current training path] he or she has the innate skill necessary to successfully complete training.

I think if we did this, we would be saving ourselves money and time.

We would also be saving the students’ time.

Share on Facebook

We in ATM are compelled at creating acronyms for out projects. Here is my contribution to this!

My colleague and I got recently interested in how simulations in general are being used in ATM.

Introduction:

What we discovered is that apart from the obvious suspects, such as simulating traffic for personnel training and real and fast time simulations to validate airspace configurations tools and procedures, the ATM community is using simulations for quite a number of other reasons, such as:

• Emission modelling with reference to environment and ATM
• Direct and indirect environmental impact of airport operations around airports
• Probabilistic or mathematical simulators
• Modelling simulators to test air traffic flow management operational feasibility and performance assessments.
• Etc.

But what seems to still be missing and in my opinion needed is to develop a simulation of the whole ATM system with perhaps an angle of attack aiming at the humans in the system.  The idea is to replicate SIMS City or The Sims with ASS.

This would be a relatively complex project in which the variables, margins, interactions and possibilities of the main components of the system need to be described within the simulation. The architecture of the system is already described in projects such as OATA  Overall ATM/CNS Target Architecture another acronym.

Then the various human actors in the system could take up a role and then have to interact with the other humans and with the automated part of the system.

What is the aim?

The aim of this simulation platform would be to teach and sensibilise various actors on specific areas of their roles and also to get them appreciate the roles of others.

Once mature, it could also be used to test the introduction of new sub-systems and how other parts, humans and non humans react to this.

What would be the areas covered?

The system could be built in a modular approach with a core module revolving around ATC ops and the others building up from it [of course other approaches could be envisaged]

• The ATC system “ including teamwork, interaction with the machine, controlling traffic, hierarchy, interaction with engineers, etc.
• The SWIM [System wide Information Management]
• Flow Management “ both central and local and interaction with ATC
• Safety Management, including Safety Management and Investigations
• Technical: System maintenance, new enhancements, etc.
• Etc.

Would it be the only system to be simulated?

By means no, systems such as the military [e.g. working inside a submarine, or going to field missions] or the Nuclear Power System have already been simulated.
The cost benefit seems to be favourable to fields in which the system is complex and that it is less risky / laboruous / costly to train and trial on the real system than it is to develop a simulated system.

The cost of such an endeavour could be consequent, however the benefit of having the ATM System being simulated will have a lot of benefits such as:

• Better appreciation of roles and responsibilities by those involved.
• A great training tool to let students appreciate the needs of other aspects of the system.  E.g. To describe the role of the safety manager to a controller.
• A test bed for the introduction or changes in sub-system elements.
  Better appreciation of the dependencies and the complexities of the system.

Conclusion:

Various simulation tools are used in various ATM fields.
A holistic ATM System Simulation tool does not exist yet. The way technology is evolving, this is not science fiction any more and a number of industries have made the leap to describe their system in a simulated environment with operational success and clear benefits.
Not to be overwhelming, the development of the system should be made in a modular form.

So who is in to define with me the needs and specifications for this?

Share on Facebook

Simulation sessions for ATC initial training [and I am not talking of part task training exercises] have most of the time, at least in the organisations that I am familiar with, been a one – on – one exercise where a student has a dedicated instructor.

Surely this is good for parts of this training where individual attention is required, however I think that in some other parts, we could do with a reorganisation of the training.

I notice that most of the times students know what they should be doing, they just do not have enough skills to do it effectively yet.  I also notice that most of the times students are harsh critics of their perfromance and of that of others.

So why not create sessions where there is one instructor to a number of students who do a simulator run.  After the simulator run, instead of the few minutes briefing which follow between the instructor and his student, a facilitated session is organised instead.

In this session the instructor, who would have never the less observed the students, and with the aid of a script, and some knowledge of facilitation processes, would start asking questions to the students for discussion.  The instructor would take a facilitator role, and the students would say what they felt during the exercise and ask their fellow students for help.

The facilitator would moderate this exchange of knowledge and information if he thinks that a statement is for example wrong or if a student is unfairly criticising himself or another.

I think that this method wold bring the following advantages:

1. It responsibilises further the students, who become a little bit more masters of their training.  They learn because they have to think on how to improve and not just being told by their instructor.
2. It also a fosters team building where the students instead of having an individual relationship with their instructors, are in group learning.  They will discover that they have to help each other to succeed, just like in real life.
3. Thirdly it frees instructor time – less instructors for some simulation sessions.

I think that this is a method worth experimenting with.  Maybe some ANSPs are already doing this?  I would be glad to receive feedback on this subject…

Share on Facebook

Tower Simulator Picture embedded from: http://www.airport-technology.com/

Recently someone asked me my opinion on how stringent the use of high fidelity simulators should be during the pre-OJT phase of ATCO training.

They quoted part of the EUROCONTROL European Licensing Manual Guidelines to implementation from 2001 :Â

It is appropriate to those busy units where there are insufficient light traffic periods to allow early stages of practical training to be safely and efficiently conducted. Simulators used for this type of training will therefore be of the high fidelity type that accurately reproduce the look and feel of real life situations in all respects. Not only must the visual representation be accurate but also the data displays, switches and controls must accurately reproduce the working environment.

My opinion is to look at the EUROCONTROL  European Manual of Personnel Licensing – ATCO from 2004 where on page 3 there is written:Â

It is intended that the words ‘must’ and ‘shall’, as used within each requirement will be complied with. So if we read what is written about pre-ojt and simulators we find the following:Because all operational ATC Units are different, student air traffic controllers and/or trainee air traffic controllers will require specific Unit Training in addition to the Initial Training before commencing On-the-Job Training (OJT). Unit Training may vary from the student/trainee air traffic controller being required to become familiar with the local area and Unit procedures to complex courses using high fidelity simulators to prepare for high traffic levels and/or complexAndUnit procedures.Â

Pre- On-the-Job Training

The phase of locally based training during which extensive use is made of simulation, using site-specific facilities, to enhance the development of previously acquired routines and abilities to an exceptionally high level of achievement to prepare student air traffic controllers and/or trainee air traffic controllers to commence On-the-Job Training.

8.4.4.1 Requirement

Pre- On-the-Job Training must adequately prepare student air traffic controllers and/or trainee air traffic controllers for On-the-Job Training.Â

So what is the requirement on the pre-OJTI phase? Â

In my opinion, the obligation that you have is that Pre OJT must adequately prepare students for OJT.Â

It is for the ANSP to prove, within the UTP, to the regulator that it is adequately preparing them. The guidelines about high fidelity is there to avoid ANSPS thinking that they can use part task trainer type, or very basic simulators during pre-OJT.  Since students need to be prepared for OJT, would a PTT provide adequate preparation??Â

So I would not put the ‘accent’ on the 100% accurate representation that a hifi sim has of the real environment.Â

I would put the accent on how adequately pre-ojt prepares for OJT.Â

If the answer is yes and that you can prove it to the regulator via evidence found in the UTP, then in my opinion, you should have no problem. Of course one should not take ‘short cuts’ and reverse the argument and say that since it is not a requirement, they could use basic simulators or simulators which are very different from the real environment.Â

But the bottom line is the following: Does the ANSP consider that all the training including the objectives and the methods and media that are used in pre OJT adequately  prepare the students for OJT?  If yes  can you prove it to the regulator?  If yes, does he agree? If the answer to all this is yes, then the pre-ojt in my opinion is ok.Â

If not, then the ANSP would have to review the problem areas….Â

Share on Facebook