Nav Canada new radar system kaput

Bigskycanada · Post by **Bigskycanada** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:08 pm

Posted in Atc forum but Ill put it here as well.

A littly birdy tells me Nav Canada shiny new all singing all dancing radar system that has been in development for years and was introduced into Winnipeg Acc last month had a major glitch on Thursday and they have turned it off, going back to their old system.
They sure kept that quiet.

grimey · Post by **grimey** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 5:35 pm

Yea, so quiet it was even mentioned in the NOTAMs.

lilfssister · Post by **lilfssister** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 5:57 pm

You mean that NEW radar system that's already been up and running in other ACC(s) for quite a while?

Pygmie · Post by **Pygmie** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 6:34 pm

Yah, it's not as if the system is running in 2 other ACCs or anything. . .

It's not like CAATS is an incredibly complex system that requires extensive testing and certification. . .

And it's not like they're going to be doing another test of the system later this year, once the summer traffic and summer weather slows down. . .

Because if that was the case, you'd pretty much look like an idiot. . . Oh, wait. . .

Bigskycanada · Post by **Bigskycanada** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 7:38 pm

Your logic sucks.This system has been what 20 years in the development and this is the best that can be done.Im not the idiot.You are for defending the thing.

SierraPoppa · Post by **SierraPoppa** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 9:12 pm

Bigskycanada wrote:Your logic sucks.This system has been what 20 years in the development and this is the best that can be done.Im not the idiot.You are for defending the thing.

A village somewhere is missing it's idiot.

Check your messages.

bigsky · Post by **bigsky** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 9:31 pm

Pisses me off more that the guy that started this forum has my ID..
Like get something original dude !!!

zzjayca · Post by **zzjayca** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 2:46 am

lilfssister wrote: You mean that NEW radar system that's already been up and running in other ACC(s) for quite a while?

Maybe you should ask the CONTROLLERS what they think of it?

Pygmie wrote:Yah, it's not as if the system is running in 2 other ACCs or anything. . .

It may be running in two other centres, but it isn't running well in those centres.

Pygmie wrote:It's not like CAATS is an incredibly complex system that requires extensive testing and certification. . ..

Exactly! How about doing the testing BEFORE you use it on live traffic. CAATS makes Windows 98 First Edition look stable.

Pygmie wrote:And it's not like they're going to be doing another test of the system later this year, once the summer traffic and summer weather slows down. . ..

GREAT IDEA!! Cause if the system can't handle the volume and complexity of summer traffic, lets eliminate the problem by not testing it on high volume and high complexity.

Pygmie wrote:Because if that was the case, you'd pretty much look like an idiot. . . Oh, wait. . .

I couldn't have said it better myself.

zzjayca · Post by **zzjayca** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 2:54 am

grimey wrote:Yea, so quiet it was even mentioned in the NOTAMs.

There is a big difference between a NOTAM issued for the ORD and keeping it extremely quiet when Nav Canada's billion dollar system crashes because it can't keep up with Winnipeg ACC's traffic.

Winnipeg was CAATS first true test. Moncton has 20 positions running on the CAATS servers, Gander 14. Winnipeg has 62 and Winnipeg is the smallest of the remaining ACC's.

If CAATS can't handle Winnipeg it sure as hell won't be able to handle Edmonton, Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto.

charlie_g · Post by **charlie_g** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 7:02 am

It is not a new radar system, it is mainly automated processing of flight plans. The base radar processing did not change.

I don't know that anyone has gone out of their way to hide it's removal -- it just happened on Saturday morning.

zzjayca · Post by **zzjayca** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 7:11 am

charlie_g wrote:I don't know that anyone has gone out of their way to hide it's removal -- it just happened on Saturday morning.

The removal did happen early Saturday morning. However, the system crash (it was a crash inspite of management calling it an anomaly) happened Thursday evening. I have yet to hear any of my pilot friends say their companies had been informed of the reason for the ground stop in CYWG Thursday evening.

Bigskycanada · Post by **Bigskycanada** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 7:14 am

So more come out about the system.Anyone defending it actually used it?Im guessing zzjayca and he speaks very highly of it.Now you really look like an idiot pygmie.What crap you going to come out with now?

Pygmie · Post by **Pygmie** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 7:36 am

Alright, I'll be the first to admit when I'm wrong. . .

I haven't used the system yet, and obviously if people who have been using the system have such negative things to say about it, there must be more problems with it then I thought.

My appologies for coming out swinging, I just hate when people start posts just to cause shit, which in this situation might not actually be the case. . .

charlie_g · Post by **charlie_g** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 8:23 am

Pygmie wrote:Alright, I'll be the first to admit when I'm wrong. . .

I haven't used the system yet, and obviously if people who have been using the system have such negative things to say about it, there must be more problems with it then I thought.

My appologies for coming out swinging, I just hate when people start posts just to cause shit, which in this situation might not actually be the case. . .

There were some oversights in the system that I found to be remarkable, given how long the bloody thing has been in development. Some stuff was really nice, but there were other aspects that begged the question: "How the hell could they have missed *that*??!!!"

Not unlike any other major software project/system in that respect...

Dockjock · Post by **Dockjock** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 9:13 am

NavCan should be subject to fines, penalties, or restitution to the users of their service. It's a regulated monopoly with zero oversight. Ground stop? Oops, sorry airlines....hope that didn't cost you 'too' much money. Lost your flight plan? Again, big oops but nothing else. 10 minute spacing out of YEG (in VMC no less) due to "system capacity"? Crazy. Down to single runway operation in YYC after an evening of storms and mega traffic backups? Well hey, go to your alternate or hold for another 20 minutes. No consequences- it's CRAZY.

charlie_g · Post by **charlie_g** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 9:47 am

Dockjock wrote:NavCan should be subject to fines, penalties, or restitution to the users of their service. It's a regulated monopoly with zero oversight. Ground stop? Oops, sorry airlines....hope that didn't cost you 'too' much money. Lost your flight plan? Again, big oops but nothing else. 10 minute spacing out of YEG (in VMC no less) due to "system capacity"? Crazy. Down to single runway operation in YYC after an evening of storms and mega traffic backups? Well hey, go to your alternate or hold for another 20 minutes. No consequences- it's CRAZY.

That would work well -- using the funds of a user-funded system in order to pay fines. So the users end up covering the fines imposed on the operator, since the users are the sole source of funds for the operator. Restitution might work better.

10 minute spacing probably had something to do with en route capacity, and not the weather conditions at the airport. VMC doesn't mean jack at FL310 400nm back from the airport. The staffing problems in Edmonton ACC are well known, long-running, and are in the process of being addressed.

grimey · Post by **grimey** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:10 pm

zzjayca wrote:
grimey wrote:Yea, so quiet it was even mentioned in the NOTAMs.
There is a big difference between a NOTAM issued for the ORD and keeping it extremely quiet when Nav Canada's billion dollar system crashes because it can't keep up with Winnipeg ACC's traffic.

From the airlines' point of view, it's a back end system which they rarely see any direct effect of. Provided that they're notified of any delays resulting from its being placed into or being taken out of service, what does it matter? Obviously the cost matters, but whether the ACC is being run on CAATS or the old system doesn't, provided it works.

My post wasn't about its effectiveness, it was about whether there was any sort of notification about it. There was. It wasn't front page of the Globe and Mail, but if you looked for it, you knew it was going on.

Lommer · Post by **Lommer** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:42 pm

"How the hell could they have missed *that*??!!!"

Out of curiosity charlie, what kind of functionality was missing? I dunno anything about the back end of ATC, but am always curious to learn more.

FamilyGuy · Post by **FamilyGuy** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:25 pm

Most cats only have 9 lives....