PPRuNe Forums


ATC Issues A place where pilots may enter the 'lions den' that is Air Traffic Control in complete safety and find out the answers to all those obscure topics which you always wanted to know the answer to but were afraid to ask.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 20th May 2017, 19:59   #41 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 347
Quote:
Originally Posted by GASA View Post
I believe the airport wants to get rid of the tower and use the space for something else.
Am I missing something? If that's the main reason, couldn't they just build a new tower on top of a terminal expansion?
jackieofalltrades is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th May 2017, 20:16   #42 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Nonny Mouse View Post
Good Egg always talks sense, management always does

Do the majority of controllers at City believe that this is a step forward? Who knows, I don't suppose any of them have been asked or consulted!!!!
No early go for you Nonny!
good egg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 20th May 2017, 20:29   #43 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 1,757
jackie,

I read somewhere that the space presently occupied by the air traffic control tower is needed for a new 'lounge'.

Mind you, if Brexit happens and all the banks move to the EU, Wapping International Airport will be much less-busy.......And ideally-suited for r-TWR operations.

This could be the basis of NATS' thinking?
ZOOKER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th May 2017, 20:41   #44 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: 29 Acacia Road
Posts: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZOOKER View Post
NATS' thinking?

landedoutagain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th May 2017, 20:50   #45 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackieofalltrades View Post
Am I missing something? If that's the main reason, couldn't they just build a new tower on top of a terminal expansion?
But that would cost the airport more money!

I think LCY are going along with the digital/virtual/remote option so they can have the discounted 'guinea pig' rate from NATS.
peter__griffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th May 2017, 20:56   #46 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 85
I'm a professional pilot and I've been brilliantly looked after by the people in all the various ATC categories for more than 40 years.
I'm an old school pilot (obviously), and I think it's a terrible idea. Progress? ....
ajd1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th May 2017, 21:56   #47 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajd1 View Post
I'm a professional pilot and I've been brilliantly looked after by the people in all the various ATC categories for more than 40 years.
I'm an old school pilot (obviously), and I think it's a terrible idea. Progress? ....
It depends what you see by progress. Anything that adds to an ATCO's situational awareness is a plus in my book. It's also a plus in my book that the tower controllers will have more interaction with the approach controllers (and vice versa).
good egg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 20th May 2017, 22:03   #48 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Samsonite Avenue
Posts: 1,434
With the number of manufacturers of remote tower equipment potentially increasing in number, how costly would it be to transfer from one manufacturer to another? Sensor and camera technology could be unique in design along with its interface with how the data is presented to the controller.

Any ATC service provider who was looking at taking LCY, would face a choice of embracing the current Saab equipment that is installed, which would be cheaper but could this pose a problem if the other service provider is perhaps accustomed with equipment from a different manufacturer?

Would the remote tower equipment at LCY belong to NATS or the airport? If it's the latter then could that perhaps add a further cost to any service provider that may ever look to knock NATS off their perch at LCY?
Mister Geezer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th May 2017, 22:24   #49 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 1,757
"It's also a plus in my book that the tower controllers will have more interaction with the approach controllers (and vice versa)."

Well that statement certainly nails you down as a member of 'management', good egg.

Because that's how it generally was back in the day, when approach and aerodrome controllers were co-located in the same building, oh, and cross-valid on both functions.........Before 'management' started meddling with it.

You couldn't make this up.
ZOOKER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th May 2017, 22:55   #50 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: jersey
Age: 67
Posts: 852
Well said, Zooker.
kcockayne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th May 2017, 23:48   #51 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 347
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZOOKER View Post
This could be the basis of NATS' thinking?
There's an oxymoron if I ever saw one!
jackieofalltrades is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 03:43   #52 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZOOKER View Post
jackie,

I read somewhere that the space presently occupied by the air traffic control tower is needed for a new 'lounge'.

Mind you, if Brexit happens and all the banks move to the EU, Wapping International Airport will be much less-busy.......And ideally-suited for r-TWR operations.

This could be the basis of NATS' thinking?
Could you do remote banking in Europe from ..... London?
Islandlad is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 03:47   #53 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by good egg View Post
It depends what you see by progress. Anything that adds to an ATCO's situational awareness is a plus in my book. It's also a plus in my book that the tower controllers will have more interaction with the approach controllers (and vice versa).
Or even become the approach controller. Now that could be a good idea.
Keep the technology simple and have them in the same building. LCY new third tower to be located in Dockland close to the runway .... BBC News report 2047

Zooker .... I did just make it up

PS has good egg just taken up sailing?
Islandlad is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 06:32   #54 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: River Thames & Surrey
Age: 68
Posts: 6,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Islandlad View Post
Or even become the approach controller. Now that could be a good idea.
Already happening at some airfields where the tower controller is now allowed to vector traffic for the ILS at certain times, supposedly when it's not busy (but how long will THAT rule last?)
chevvron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 11:20   #55 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZOOKER View Post
"It's also a plus in my book that the tower controllers will have more interaction with the approach controllers (and vice versa)."

Well that statement certainly nails you down as a member of 'management', good egg.

Because that's how it generally was back in the day, when approach and aerodrome controllers were co-located in the same building, oh, and cross-valid on both functions.........Before 'management' started meddling with it.

You couldn't make this up.
Ah Zooker, there are plenty of good reasons why the approach functions for the bulk of TMA airfields were clumped together.

I'm presuming (I may be wrong here) that you see some logic in bringing those two functions closer together again?

Indeed cross-validation over the two functions seems eminently more practical again...given that they would be housed in the one location.
Such opportunities would be welcome, assuming the terms & conditions were right.

However, I doubt there will be a huge push for such a move any time soon. Crawling before walking springs to mind.
good egg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 12:05   #56 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 72
Posts: 8,035
When the move of the radar units to LATCC took place I don't think any operational ATCO saw benefits, even less when new controllers were posted in. None had dual validations; some had only one rating! What a way to run a group of major airfields? Still, the important thing is the bosses got their whopping bonuses!
HEATHROW DIRECTOR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 12:08   #57 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by HEATHROW DIRECTOR View Post
When the move of the radar units to LATCC took place I don't think any operational ATCO saw benefits, even less when new controllers were posted in. None had dual validations; some had only one rating! What a way to run a group of major airfields? Still, the important thing is the bosses got their whopping bonuses!
So how is this now viewed by operational ATCOs?
Occams Razor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 12:11   #58 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 824
Quote:
...........any four-pixel moving dot that could be anything from a passing helicopter to a drone* – the system can automatically zoom in and track it, with a pop-up inset window on the video cityscape."
(my asterisk)

* What about seagulls ?

The servo motors on those cameras are going to wear out quickly !
Uplinker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 16:05   #59 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: T.C.
Age: 49
Posts: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by good egg View Post
Ah Zooker, there are plenty of good reasons why the approach functions for the bulk of TMA airfields were clumped together.

I'm presuming (I may be wrong here) that you see some logic in bringing those two functions closer together again?

Indeed cross-validation over the two functions seems eminently more practical again...given that they would be housed in the one location.
Such opportunities would be welcome, assuming the terms & conditions were right.

However, I doubt there will be a huge push for such a move any time soon. Crawling before walking springs to mind.
Ah good Egg the naivety of the young!!!mwhen the approach functions were moved to West Drayton in 1993 (Gatwick and Heathrow), Satnsted 1995, Luton around 1998ish,the reasoning was anything but sound.

Controllers with 2 validations, tower and radar, suddenly had 1, the approach controllers, and there were loads of us ending up doing split shifts until a plan was decided. Cross validations, of course, but again there was no planning, and still isn't. Essex radar should also do Luton, and gatwick should do thames, alas the mix is somewhat befuddled with some Gatwick doing Hearhrow, Luton and gatwick, Essex and Thames.

The advantage of approach in the same room as TMA? Well the big advantage at west Drayton, was that I got to play cricket for LATCC, and the comfy chairs in the rest room were better. Down here at Swanwick the advantage is living in the New forest!!!
Nimmer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 16:12   #60 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 1,757
Good point, Uplinker,

Without checking MATS Pt.1, I'm fairly certain that bird activity still constitutes 'Essential Aerodrome Information'?

Especially in an 'estuarine' location such as EGLC?
ZOOKER is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.


1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1