stachour@sctc.com (Paul Stachour) (06/24/91)
mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman) writes: >Another interesting story is the one from Thomson-CSF, a French company >that builds air traffic control systems in Ada. The Copenhagen Airport >one is, I think, up and running, as is one in Kenya. The Netherlands and >Switzerland versions are under development. I'll post more details as I get >them. The bottom line is: if you're scared of Ada, don't fly into Europe in >a few years. >Mike Feldman When I was in Germany, I attended a "German Ada Expo" in Jnauary, 1990. An individual who had participated in building the the Koberhagen ATC was there. At that point, it had been running for six months, and (according to him) there had been NO outages or major erorrs traced to the Ada software. Sorry, my procedings are packed, so I can't give a better reference. ..Paul -- Paul Stachour SCTC, 1210 W. County Rd E, Suite 100 stachour@sctc.com Arden Hills, MN 55112 [1]-(612) 482-7467
mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman) (06/24/91)
In article <1991Jun24.134926.11913@sctc.com> stachour@sctc.com (Paul Stachour) writes: >mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman) writes: > >>them. The bottom line is: if you're scared of Ada, don't fly into Europe in >>a few years. > When I was in Germany, I attended a "German Ada Expo" in Jnauary, >1990. An individual who had participated in building the the >Koberhagen ATC was there. At that point, it had been running for >six months, and (according to him) there had been NO outages or >major erorrs traced to the Ada software. I hope it was clear that my "bottom line" was sarcastic. I find myself wondering how the Europeans managed to develop a working, installed ATC system in Ada while the FAA system just drags along. The European airports seem progressively to be adopting versions of the Thomson system. Taken as a whole, European air traffic is not signficantly less voluminous than American traffic - Paris, London, Amsterdam, and Frankfurt are _very_ busy places, and they'd all fit into the American East. A recent posting expressed concern that the FAA system will never be completed. What's holding it up? Maybe we should just adopt the European system (if it were politically possible, which I'm sure it's not). Can anybody enlighten us here? Where are we going wrong? Mike PS - speaking of transportation, I caught a snippet last week at WAdaS that the French high-speed rail network (otherwise known as TGV) is using a bunch of Ada these days. Can anyone confirm or refute?
stachour@sctc.com (Paul Stachour) (06/25/91)
mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman) writes: >I hope it was clear that my "bottom line" was sarcastic. I find myself >wondering how the Europeans managed to develop a working, installed ATC >system in Ada while the FAA system just drags along. The European airports >seem progressively to be adopting versions of the Thomson system. Taken as I was told (take this as unsubstantiated, not fact) that one of the reasons that the Copenhagen Air Traffic Control System worked as well as it did is that it was: a) automated to all of Denmark b) depended upon telephone handoffs from other countries (no worry about machine-to-machine updates in-sync, losses, etc.) Please note that updating just the Copenhagen ATC for Demark is very different from updating all of the USA. It's maybe like doing Boston only. Wishing I had more info, ??Paul -- Paul Stachour SCTC, 1210 W. County Rd E, Suite 100 stachour@sctc.com Arden Hills, MN 55112 [1]-(612) 482-7467
wdo@INEL.GOV (william d orr) (06/26/91)
>>mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman) writes: >> > >I hope it was clear that my "bottom line" was sarcastic. I find myself >wondering how the Europeans managed to develop a working, installed ATC >system in Ada while the FAA system just drags along. The European airports >seem progressively to be adopting versions of the Thomson system. Taken as >a whole, European air traffic is not signficantly less voluminous than >American traffic - Paris, London, Amsterdam, and Frankfurt are _very_ >busy places, and they'd all fit into the American East. > >A recent posting expressed concern that the FAA system will never be >completed. What's holding it up? Maybe we should just adopt the European >system (if it were politically possible, which I'm sure it's not). >Can anybody enlighten us here? Where are we going wrong? > >Mike Mike I am not defending the FAA system on this but there are several fundamental differences between stateside air traffic control and that in Europe. The system that the FAA is envisioning will reduce the number of enroute air traffic control centers (now called ARTCC) by at least a factor of 3. With each Area Control Facility not only handling the traffic of 2 to 5 ARTCC enroute facilities but also the terminal traffic of almost all terminal facilities as well. The goal here is to allow the ACF to also replace most terminal Radar Approach Control facilites as well. To meet this goal will require a lot more than just new software but also implem entation of new technology in data links directly to airborne aircraft control systems to replace verbal commands that are now given to pilots by radio. Add to this new software to automate such critcal elements as aircraft separation by altitude, airspeed and automated sequencing of aircraft in the terminal area and you have a monumental task for any computer system in any language. Compare our environment to that of Europe and you see the ICAO air traffic control structure to be quite simialar but still different. In ICAO most countries have few enroute facilities to interface (often only one or two) vs the many we have in the states. So the enroute air traffic structure tends to be more similar to terminal to terminal air traffic using enroute procedures than the system we use where several to many enroute facilities will handle most enroute aircraft. I also have no idea whether the current air traffic control upgrades in Europe are also combining enroute and terminal facilities as our National Airspace Plan intends to do. I suspect not. After 20 years as an air traffic controller in our military both stateside and overseas, I see the NAS plan to be a logical but very ambitious plan. Perhaps the NAS plan may be a little too abitious even though it's implementation has slipped from the year 2000 to at least 2010. I hope these details are enlightening and wish to add my belief that both the US and ICAO systems are needed and I am very glad that they are under way Bill ========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip =========== Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever, implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. No specific reference constitutes or implies endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.