LCY Remote Tower
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Equipped with binoculars, you strain to determine where Helimed would be out of the window. You look at the ATM, then back to the window, then back to the ATM, then back to the window. You spend 10, 20 seconds to just spot it, and inform SVFR. It comes over to you, but you need to spend an unequal amount of time keeping it visual, more than you need to because it would take precious seconds to re-acquire it visually if you loose it.
Now imagine that there's a box drawn on the window, around Helimed, telling you exactly where it is, so you don't have to spend any time at tracking it unaided. Just the odd quick glance and you know exactly where it is.
Is that not a benefit?
Good egg may have gone someway towards convincing me that "digital towers" are a good thing. But, why do they have to be part of a "remote tower" operation ? Why not just apply the benefits that they provide to a TWR situated & manned on the aerodrome concerned ?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because City want to demolish the current one, and don't want to spend money/sacrifice land to build another one.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They don't have to be remote. Hence the term "digital tower".
In theory, I guess, you could have HUDs with the same information over a traditional tower's glass windows. But then, depending on where you are looking at it from your perspective is skewed.
A solution for that would be to use cameras and display eqpt and no windows.
From there it's a question of cable length and susceptibility.
Then you hit additional opportunities to reduce costs, both as Gonzo mentioned for the airport and for potential pooling of ATCOs at a remote centre.
Remote facilities will not suit all airports. Digital towers, I suspect, would provide benefits for most.
In theory, I guess, you could have HUDs with the same information over a traditional tower's glass windows. But then, depending on where you are looking at it from your perspective is skewed.
A solution for that would be to use cameras and display eqpt and no windows.
From there it's a question of cable length and susceptibility.
Then you hit additional opportunities to reduce costs, both as Gonzo mentioned for the airport and for potential pooling of ATCOs at a remote centre.
Remote facilities will not suit all airports. Digital towers, I suspect, would provide benefits for most.
OK so City tower is done remotely from Swanwick.
But City Airport owners then decide it's still not cost effective and maybe a change of ANSP is called for.
Who owns the 'kit'? Can it be moved to another location? Where could it be done from if not City itself? If done from a room at City, does the room have windows in the walls? If you can see out of this room at City, why bother with all this expensive stuff, why not let the controllers look for themselves directly at the airfield?
But City Airport owners then decide it's still not cost effective and maybe a change of ANSP is called for.
Who owns the 'kit'? Can it be moved to another location? Where could it be done from if not City itself? If done from a room at City, does the room have windows in the walls? If you can see out of this room at City, why bother with all this expensive stuff, why not let the controllers look for themselves directly at the airfield?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chevvron, I imagine that the first few points are covered by the ANSP contract for City Tower.
Your subsequent points, well, they're covered in posts above. Digital tower technology potentially gives you the ability to provide more information to the ATCO. But to do that effectively you might need to remove windows from the picture, pardon the pun.
To overlay data on top of visuals, you've got a few methods:
-Plot it on top of a video feed displayed on screens
-Project it on to windows a la HUDs (not viable where more than one person is operating due to parallax.
-Equip each operator with a personal HUD/Helmet mounted display (medical restrictions? Comfort? Serviceability of equipment? How do I know I'm seeing the same data/view/functions as the person I'm co-ordinating with? How is that recorded for investigation? Even more hurdles with this one).
Your subsequent points, well, they're covered in posts above. Digital tower technology potentially gives you the ability to provide more information to the ATCO. But to do that effectively you might need to remove windows from the picture, pardon the pun.
To overlay data on top of visuals, you've got a few methods:
-Plot it on top of a video feed displayed on screens
-Project it on to windows a la HUDs (not viable where more than one person is operating due to parallax.
-Equip each operator with a personal HUD/Helmet mounted display (medical restrictions? Comfort? Serviceability of equipment? How do I know I'm seeing the same data/view/functions as the person I'm co-ordinating with? How is that recorded for investigation? Even more hurdles with this one).
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do you need all this complicated kit to do what is, in essence, a fairly simple job.
Why do you need to overlay 'data' on top of visuals? It doesn't matter if it's on windows, screens, or a HUD/Virtual Reality Hat.
What data will be displayed?
The controller has still got to look down at the strips/EFD display to update it, and consult the ATM as to the local traffic situation/distances from touchdown/turns onto track, etc.
If someone can't work out/remember the identity of the a/c they can see out the windows, which are under their control, could i suggest that they may be in the wrong profession?
If you can't see out of the windows, chances are you'll be in LVPs, and working from the EFD Panel/ATM/A-SMGCS screens anyway?
There's something I read about incorporating 'heat-sensing technology' too. How can you positively identify an aircraft based on an infra-red camera spotting a few flames? What are the EGT limits which will ensure identification is maintained?
I hope I'm proved wrong, but this seems to be the over-complication of a fairly straight-forward task, for the benefit of managers, share-holders and accountants......With the possibility of 'information-overload thrown in, too boot.
Why do you need to overlay 'data' on top of visuals? It doesn't matter if it's on windows, screens, or a HUD/Virtual Reality Hat.
What data will be displayed?
The controller has still got to look down at the strips/EFD display to update it, and consult the ATM as to the local traffic situation/distances from touchdown/turns onto track, etc.
If someone can't work out/remember the identity of the a/c they can see out the windows, which are under their control, could i suggest that they may be in the wrong profession?
If you can't see out of the windows, chances are you'll be in LVPs, and working from the EFD Panel/ATM/A-SMGCS screens anyway?
There's something I read about incorporating 'heat-sensing technology' too. How can you positively identify an aircraft based on an infra-red camera spotting a few flames? What are the EGT limits which will ensure identification is maintained?
I hope I'm proved wrong, but this seems to be the over-complication of a fairly straight-forward task, for the benefit of managers, share-holders and accountants......With the possibility of 'information-overload thrown in, too boot.
Last edited by ZOOKER; 30th May 2017 at 21:13.
Ok. Good, concise answer. Thank you. So, this happens to be the case at LCY, but at other aerodromes will not the temptation be to do it because it can be done - linked to obtaining maximum utilization of staff i.e. one ATCO performing TWR at various locations. Good egg has a far more difficult task to persuade me (not that I matter) that this can ever be a good idea !
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zooker.....
Please accept this in the spirit in which it's intended!
Why did we introduce radar? Procedural was perfectly good, and any controller worth his or her salt could keep the picture in their heads. I mean this new-fangled radar is so unreliable. It'll never catch on. Picks up cars, buildings, weather, anaprop, I can hardly tell if there's an aircraft there at all!
Why did we introduce SSR? Primary radar was perfectly good, any controller worth his or her salt could keep the picture using primary. And any, half the time pilots enter the wrong codes any, and the other half of the time the Mode C readout is wrong! It'll never catch on.
Why did we introduce code-callsign conversion? Raw SSR codes were perfectly good. Any controller worth his or her salt could keep the picture using the codes. I mean they're even written on the strip! I keep yelling at my radar trainees to look at their strips, not the radar.
Why did we introduce labelled ground radar systems? Primary SMR was perfectly good. I controlled before A-SMGCS introduction and GMC was fine, even in low vis. Anyone good enough could keep the picture in their heads. And now we'd probably even put spacing on inbound if it failed, in good visibility! Shocking I tell you. Good controllers don't need a ground radar!
Why did we introduce Mode S Vertical Stack Lists? Any radar controller worth their salt can manage the stack using their strips.
Why on earth does our electronic strip system automatically highlight any aircraft positioning to other LTMA airfields so that the controller doesn't forget to co-ordinate before start? When I trained we had paper strips and any GMP controller worth their salt would just remember!
And why does our electronic strip system automatically highlight certain flights by certain aircraft types on certain routes which require release by radar? Any GMP controller worth their salt could remember all the 'release subject...' flights, surely?
Why have we just introduced a pushback indicator on the Lighting panel? Surely any controller worth their salt could keep the picture of GMC in their head......surely any good controller wouldn't need a back up in case they forget that they have just routed an aircraft along a taxiway on to which they have also just approved a pushback.
Please accept this in the spirit in which it's intended!
Why did we introduce radar? Procedural was perfectly good, and any controller worth his or her salt could keep the picture in their heads. I mean this new-fangled radar is so unreliable. It'll never catch on. Picks up cars, buildings, weather, anaprop, I can hardly tell if there's an aircraft there at all!
Why did we introduce SSR? Primary radar was perfectly good, any controller worth his or her salt could keep the picture using primary. And any, half the time pilots enter the wrong codes any, and the other half of the time the Mode C readout is wrong! It'll never catch on.
Why did we introduce code-callsign conversion? Raw SSR codes were perfectly good. Any controller worth his or her salt could keep the picture using the codes. I mean they're even written on the strip! I keep yelling at my radar trainees to look at their strips, not the radar.
Why did we introduce labelled ground radar systems? Primary SMR was perfectly good. I controlled before A-SMGCS introduction and GMC was fine, even in low vis. Anyone good enough could keep the picture in their heads. And now we'd probably even put spacing on inbound if it failed, in good visibility! Shocking I tell you. Good controllers don't need a ground radar!
Why did we introduce Mode S Vertical Stack Lists? Any radar controller worth their salt can manage the stack using their strips.
Why on earth does our electronic strip system automatically highlight any aircraft positioning to other LTMA airfields so that the controller doesn't forget to co-ordinate before start? When I trained we had paper strips and any GMP controller worth their salt would just remember!
And why does our electronic strip system automatically highlight certain flights by certain aircraft types on certain routes which require release by radar? Any GMP controller worth their salt could remember all the 'release subject...' flights, surely?
Why have we just introduced a pushback indicator on the Lighting panel? Surely any controller worth their salt could keep the picture of GMC in their head......surely any good controller wouldn't need a back up in case they forget that they have just routed an aircraft along a taxiway on to which they have also just approved a pushback.
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Location
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the main problem with all this is putting the virtual tower in swanwick. What happens when London city want to chuck nats? Can they just reroute the feed somewhere else and keep on working?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was about to reply to Gonzo, but GASA has raised a good point.
How will future EGLC ATCOs undertake aerodrome familiarisation runs?
Surely, there are plenty of locations adjacent to EGLC where this facility could be located?
Gonzo, most of what you list above are improvements to the ATCOs task. No problems with any of that......But I'm yet to be convinced on this one.
When vertical stack lists were introduced at my unit, I rang approach, who were sitting 20 feet away and asked them to set up the VSL for the XXX Hold.
"Sorry I can't", was the reply......."Why not?", I enquired.
"Because it belongs to 'NERL', and NSL won't pay for us to have it", came the reply.
Accountancy rules, apparently.
How will future EGLC ATCOs undertake aerodrome familiarisation runs?
Surely, there are plenty of locations adjacent to EGLC where this facility could be located?
Gonzo, most of what you list above are improvements to the ATCOs task. No problems with any of that......But I'm yet to be convinced on this one.
When vertical stack lists were introduced at my unit, I rang approach, who were sitting 20 feet away and asked them to set up the VSL for the XXX Hold.
"Sorry I can't", was the reply......."Why not?", I enquired.
"Because it belongs to 'NERL', and NSL won't pay for us to have it", came the reply.
Accountancy rules, apparently.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, as I've noted upthread, it will be interesting to see how familiarisation with the real world environment will be maintained.
Zooker, I think many of us are 'yet to be convinced', including me, but let's not just dismiss it out of hand and hark back to the days of bandboxed GMC with paper strips and no radar, when men were men etc etc.
Not aiming this at you personally by the way.
Controllers as a bunch are cynical, and I'm one of the most cynical out there, believe me. However, when faced with a new development/technology, many just seem to turn away from it (it'll never work! bah humbug!) rather than asking themselves "how could this work? How could we use this to improve the ATCO task?"
Such as the example I quoted above about highlighting low level traffic, or perhaps displaying WIP on the visual picture, and providing warnings if aircraft turn towards it or cross an imaginary line? Or providing instant 'deemed separation' by drawing a vertical line on the screen.....as long as the aircraft stay their respective sides of the line, they are considered separated. Etc etc.
We live in interesting times. Why not experience them first before judging, that's all I'm saying.
Zooker, I think many of us are 'yet to be convinced', including me, but let's not just dismiss it out of hand and hark back to the days of bandboxed GMC with paper strips and no radar, when men were men etc etc.
Not aiming this at you personally by the way.
Controllers as a bunch are cynical, and I'm one of the most cynical out there, believe me. However, when faced with a new development/technology, many just seem to turn away from it (it'll never work! bah humbug!) rather than asking themselves "how could this work? How could we use this to improve the ATCO task?"
Such as the example I quoted above about highlighting low level traffic, or perhaps displaying WIP on the visual picture, and providing warnings if aircraft turn towards it or cross an imaginary line? Or providing instant 'deemed separation' by drawing a vertical line on the screen.....as long as the aircraft stay their respective sides of the line, they are considered separated. Etc etc.
We live in interesting times. Why not experience them first before judging, that's all I'm saying.
Gonzo, all the points you raised were good. And I certainly ran into all of them during the progression of my ATCO career. But, although this equipment does enhance the assistance to performance of the ATCO's task, it surely also makes it harder to actually do the job safely in the case of multiple TWRs being controlled by just the one ATCO. I do not think that new equipment (as you mentioned) introduced in the past served to make the task harder for the ATCO.
I can accept that it does enable this "multiple TWR controlling" to be done, but I seriously doubt that , in an overall sense, that in doing so it is enhancing safety.
I can accept that it does enable this "multiple TWR controlling" to be done, but I seriously doubt that , in an overall sense, that in doing so it is enhancing safety.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gonzo,
Not taking it personally at all, just all good fun, and, as you say, "We live in interesting times".
Safe controlling. as always.....And get some JCBs in to build that new runway, you'll be able to control it 'digitally' from Swan Wick.......And do EGLCZT on your breaks.
Not taking it personally at all, just all good fun, and, as you say, "We live in interesting times".
Safe controlling. as always.....And get some JCBs in to build that new runway, you'll be able to control it 'digitally' from Swan Wick.......And do EGLCZT on your breaks.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
......but the worst thing about remote/digital/virtual/whatever towers? No more sunset photos that the Daily Telegraph can nick without asking permission and print, blown up to almost half a page.......
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok. Good, concise answer. Thank you. So, this happens to be the case at LCY, but at other aerodromes will not the temptation be to do it because it can be done - linked to obtaining maximum utilization of staff i.e. one ATCO performing TWR at various locations. Good egg has a far more difficult task to persuade me (not that I matter) that this can ever be a good idea !
My view is that digital towers offer safety benefits for controlling, some of which are detailed above.
Multiple validations at a remote centre are an endgame concept which throws up all sorts of issues. Issues which will be faced once more than one suitable aerodrome operation has moved to a remote centre. As yet this scenario is hypothetical...LCY (the first aerodrome) isn't due to "move" until late 2019. Will others follow? When? Will ATCOs have the capacity to maintain validations at 2 aerodromes?
Each aerodrome has its own peculiarities despite efforts to push for "standardisation" (i.e. trying to push a one-size-fits all ethos) across them.
Sure Aerodrome Control responsibilities are the same, but rules are applied differently at different airports for good reason - a simple example of this is the variety of definitions in MATS Part 2s regarding what constitutes "runway vacated".
In this regard I don't think it's as simple as comparing it to multiple radar validations where, by and large, the same rules apply. There would also be equipment issues - radar workstations are, by and large, the same...I doubt the same can be said for remote tower workstations due to the operational differences and equipage of individual aerodromes.
There are obvious safety risks with the concept of multiple aerodrome validations but are there any safety benefits? I'm yet to see anything that suggests there are/will be. The only driver I see for multiple validations is cost. So I too am unconvinced about that concept.
In short I believe digital towers have safety benefits and, as yet, I see no safety benefits in multiple aerodrome validations.
Join Date: May 2017
Location: singapore
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?