Remote towers might be the answer.

[AdamFrisch]

Saab and the Swedish CAA have had a pretty long evaluation of rTWR operations and next year two smaller airports in the north will go operational. One in Australia will also go online next year. It's basically a HD 360 degree view link piped to a remote center where the controller can control multiple airports.

I was thinking this would be ideal for constant-disruption-yet-can't-let-go-and-trust-pilots-with-separation-must-cling-on-to-ancient-operations-and-lacklustre-opening-hours-control-mania that is rampant in Europe and the UK. Gang all the southern airports together using this system for off hours and we could get some true utility out of these black holes at night.

I bet a single ATCO could do Bournemouth, Manston, Shoreham, Lydd, Farnborough, etc after 9pm.

[Jodelman]

We have telephone call centres outsourced to India - why not do the same with ATC centres?

[flybymike]

I suppose the concept might increase the chances of IAPs becoming permitted at airfields where ATC would not normally be operating.

[FantomZorbin]

We have telephone call centres outsourced to India - why not do the same with ATC centres?


That was the initial idea for Eurocontrol at Maastricht. However member nations were a bit touchy about sovereignty of the airspace below its present base level.

[IO540]

We have telephone call centres outsourced to India - why not do the same with ATC centres?

You are kidding?

Indian call centres are 99% script monkeys who are completely useless for all but the most basic stuff.

No company which gives a damn for customer service, or its reputation, uses then these days.

[Roff]

Radar maybe but tower NO NO NO....
Never heard something so silly in all my life..

Also relying on pilot's for there own VFR separation and mixing that with IFR
is deadly

[Genghis the Engineer]

I can't see the problem myself - set of wrap around cameras + radio, linked via a secure internet connection, and as said why not have half a dozen sleepy airports overnight run by a single controller somewhere like Swanwick.

Important, of course that everybody knows that is the case - one possible fix is that the controller uses a callsign along the lines of "Farnborough Relay", and that the service is only A/G.

But, if it opened up a lot of runways currently not useable out of hours in the UK, maybe for a small charge, I'd be very in favour.

G

[IO540]

You need to ask yourself what you actually want to solve.

For VFR, you don't need anybody anywhere. A common frequency works just fine in the USA.

For IFR, specifically for scheduling traffic onto an IAP, there are various options (including a common frequency) but, even for light GA, the Europeans will not settle for anything less than the gold plated full ATC solution, with either procedural or radar separation. And that already exists; most radar controllers cannot see the traffic they are controlling out of the window, so they can be absolutely anywhere (just as long as you don't run the VOIP links via TalkTalk (http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=3186390&page=2) ;) ).

But the real issue is paying for the controller desks. In the UK, this is simply not going to happen. The funding for even one desk covering the southern UK, doing approach control for say a dozen GPS/RNAV approaches to places like Goodwood, is not going to happen. Ever. An H24 desk, radar controller ATCO salary, is going to cost a substantial part of a million quid.

This mandatory-ATC stalemate is going to ensure that GPS approaches remain all but worthless to GA in the UK. There have been attempts to suggest that the UK CAA sets up a "low cost" controller in a "hut" somewhere, providing a procedural service, covering a bunch of these approaches at "purely GA" airfields, but the politics would be utterly impenetrable.

The "remotely controlled" towers bit is, I think, a redherring since a common frequency would do just fine.

[GeeWhizz]

We've already got an H24 A/G service. It's called London/Scottish Information. They should be able to provide you with similar information to field based A/G operators.

The main issue I can see with remote ops is the airfield authority permitting the control and use of its airfield, remembering that not all airports are controlled by NATS. I fail to believe anyone will entrust their multi-million £ infrastructure to an A/G or FISO. In essence I suppose it could work VFR only, but for such a small gain it becomes implausible.

Furthermore, reasons for airports closing at night range from little revenue generating traffic, airport manning including ATC, RFFS, baggage handlers, etc, noise abatement, emergency diversion availability, the list goes on.

[IO540]

I think the biggest reason by far is wages.

The runway and the buildings sit there quite happily all night. The cost of heating the tower and an office downstairs is not much, similarly the cost of runway lights and if you want to be seriously forward thinking you can have PCL on those ;)

GA airfields everywhere, with instrument approaches, struggle under the weight of ATC salaries, and the fire crew salaries. The former one cannot do anything much about - it is a direct toss-up between salaries, and operating hours. The latter one can be trimmed considerably by e.g. not allowing AOC operations, but then you lose some juicy bizjet traffic (which may or may not matter). It's very tricky.

[englishal]

Also relying on pilot's for there own VFR separation and mixing that with IFR
is deadly
That is exactly what you have in numerous US airports - A remote radar controller, sequencing IFR traffic into non towered airports (where VFR traffic might be). Works very well, you can fly a precision GPS approach and once visual you negotiate your own landing.

I can't see a problem with it because if weather is below VFR minimums then there won't be any VFR traffic and if it is above minimums you'll be visual well before DH/MDA.

[IO540]

I can't see a problem with it because if weather is below VFR minimums then there won't be any VFR traffic

That's true, but the USA has an extra trick up its sleeve in their Class E down to 1200ft, which makes "cowboy VFR" illegal, whereas in Europe that isn't the case. Also the USA has the very accessible IR... it's all a nice package.

[AdamFrisch]

I mean, where DO you land with a GA aircraft in the London area after 9pm without paying £500 in handling? Impossible, due to all this nonsense. We're not talking Blackpool here, but supposedly the financial hub of the world.

The rTWR thing would at least economise it.

[Johnm]

Wanaka in New Zealand manages to mix commercial and a wide range of GA on Safetycom and it's quite a busy little place.

[dont overfil]

Sounds like a good idea but I bet it would still cost more than what would be paid to an AG operator.:sad:

I'm sure I read somewhere recently that a similar system has restarted somewhere in the USA.

It was previously used by just one airport and a hub and was very low tech

GeeWizz. London and Scottish info are 8.00 'til 20.00.

D.O..

[IO540]

I thought London Info were H24.

Isn't there an ICAO obligation for an H24 FIS?

[FlyingStone]

Isn't there an ICAO obligation for an H24 FIS?

Probably there is, but remember - you can get Flight Information Service from ATC, not just from FIC - and that what most people do at night.

[mrmum]

According to the AIP ENR 2.1:
Scottish Info. on 119.875 are 0800-2000, but the other Scottish and the London Info. freq's are H24. Interestingly, it still says they provide a FIS rather than a basic service.

[rodan]

Not really, in the UK we still have the ICAO mandated FIS, it's just sub-divided into the Basic, Traffic and Deconfliction Services. Together they comprise the UK Flight Information Services.

[2 sheds]

... and the clue is in the callsign!

2 s