LCY Remote Tower
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see any safety benefits in aerodrome controllers doing approach radar control and aerodrome control simultaneously good egg. In fact, for all of my ATC career it was illegal to do so.
But I see it's gradually being 'shoehorned' in.
And I bet someone down at the 'Ministry Of Bright-Ideas' has already worked out that you could easily put the APS picture on one of the big 'window-screens'.
But I see it's gradually being 'shoehorned' in.
And I bet someone down at the 'Ministry Of Bright-Ideas' has already worked out that you could easily put the APS picture on one of the big 'window-screens'.
Last edited by ZOOKER; 1st Jun 2017 at 16:06.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see any safety benefits in aerodrome controllers doing approach radar control and aerodrome control simultaneously good egg. In fact, for all of my ATC career it was illegal to do so.
But I see it's gradually being 'shoehorned' in.
And I bet someone down at the 'Ministry Of Bright-Ideas' has already worked out that you could easily put the APS picture on one of the big 'widow-screens'.
But I see it's gradually being 'shoehorned' in.
And I bet someone down at the 'Ministry Of Bright-Ideas' has already worked out that you could easily put the APS picture on one of the big 'widow-screens'.
What are the safety risks AND how have they been mitigated?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How naive do you think the airport is? Do you not think they will have explored this topic? I'd suggest that they have and are satisfied with whatever provisions have been made.
We could all postulate about possible outcomes of switching ANSPs but any arrangements are highly unlikely to be made public. They'd be set out in contractual agreements between the two parties.
We could all postulate about possible outcomes of switching ANSPs but any arrangements are highly unlikely to be made public. They'd be set out in contractual agreements between the two parties.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Going deeper underground
Age: 55
Posts: 332
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the subject of controlling endorsements at multiple units, many moons ago at RAF Linton on Ouse, I held 14 of the available 18 endorsements as the Unit operated 4 aerodromes: Linton, Topcliffe, Dishforth and Church Fenton. My Blue Book had Linton Tower, Ground, Talkdown (PAR and SRA), Departures and Zone; Church Fenton Tower, Ground, PAR and Approach/Director; and Topcliffe Tower, Ground, Approach/Director and SRA (on ACR 430). The only ones I didn't have were Linton Approach, Director and Supervisor, and Dishforth Tower.
I had no bother staying current as there was plenty of traffic but most of that traffic was Tucanos and Fireflies flying academic training sorties, so there was little variety other than the swarms of gliders and GA that used to monster Fenton Approach.
I do not like the sound of controllers being expected to control different remote towers simultaneously at all, so I see little saving in manpower terms, but I see no reason why they could not control different towers from the same location at different times within the limit of their licences. Imagine a tower controller operating in the Scottish Highlands; he/she could control both ends of all the short island-hops in sequence from, say, Prestwick. The savings will come in reducing the required infrastructure at aerodromes.
Once they sort out the bandwidth and display issues, I could work from home!
I had no bother staying current as there was plenty of traffic but most of that traffic was Tucanos and Fireflies flying academic training sorties, so there was little variety other than the swarms of gliders and GA that used to monster Fenton Approach.
I do not like the sound of controllers being expected to control different remote towers simultaneously at all, so I see little saving in manpower terms, but I see no reason why they could not control different towers from the same location at different times within the limit of their licences. Imagine a tower controller operating in the Scottish Highlands; he/she could control both ends of all the short island-hops in sequence from, say, Prestwick. The savings will come in reducing the required infrastructure at aerodromes.
Once they sort out the bandwidth and display issues, I could work from home!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two aspects regarding Digital tower implementation:
1. Rules / Regulations - i.e. the rule for reduced separation in the vicinity of an aerodrome - ATCO has both aircraft in sight. Now an electronic device is to be used and not glass windows. EASA has already looked at some words to try and manage this change, ICAO is doing the same but with a different approach, but does any electronic display method, with or without additional tools, equate to the same as glass windows? Maybe a bigger question, if electronic tools are added to the "visual" can the ATCO use those added tools to provide reduced separation? (As Gonzo showed a potential usage in post #133) We already have pilots reporting when asked to report visual with other traffic - "I see him on my TCAS!"
2. Complexity - So we presently have glass windows (needs cleaning occasionally) and the controller's eyeball.
Digital towers - LCY glass window is to be replaced with 14 fixed cameras and 2 mobile cameras with power sources - computer / data transfer to another location - computers / data retrieval at this new location / display methods at new location (14 for a 360 by the looks of it). All of these have points of failure in them, so increase risks. Anyone who has worked with ATC simulators my appreciate how often display devices can have issues or fail. All of this to replace the simple glass window, without any fancy add on tools, before the controller's eyeball. Sounds like an increased risk of failure to me - lots of expensive mitigation measures required to reduce the risk, yet still the possibility exists. Unfortunately the long term costs of all this added electronic and mechanical complexity still appears to be less than either land or staff costs.
I would have rather seen money spent on an "augmented reality" idea of Google Glass be introduced into existing towers - with all these useful digital tower tools to be as overlays to supplement the ATCOs safety, whilst not changing the window view - but all of this would have just been extra cost, therefore not so interesting to people interested in saving money.
LCY have specific ideas for the land that the normal glass tower takes up, so they want this to happen. Other areas of the world have introduced remote towers to specifically to reduce staff costs at remote / quiet airfields. However I understand that Dubai World Central was looking at digital towers for when more runways were to be built - looking to be the first "Tower-less" airport in the world!!
Can we stop it happening, probably not. Should we raise every safety concern we have, based on our experience - absolutely. But views of risks will vary from ATCO to ATCO, so some see this as a great step forwards, whilst others are more cautious or even anti.
It all sounds great if all this added complexity works - time will tell. Just maybe not so good for our working terms and conditions in the long run.
1. Rules / Regulations - i.e. the rule for reduced separation in the vicinity of an aerodrome - ATCO has both aircraft in sight. Now an electronic device is to be used and not glass windows. EASA has already looked at some words to try and manage this change, ICAO is doing the same but with a different approach, but does any electronic display method, with or without additional tools, equate to the same as glass windows? Maybe a bigger question, if electronic tools are added to the "visual" can the ATCO use those added tools to provide reduced separation? (As Gonzo showed a potential usage in post #133) We already have pilots reporting when asked to report visual with other traffic - "I see him on my TCAS!"
2. Complexity - So we presently have glass windows (needs cleaning occasionally) and the controller's eyeball.
Digital towers - LCY glass window is to be replaced with 14 fixed cameras and 2 mobile cameras with power sources - computer / data transfer to another location - computers / data retrieval at this new location / display methods at new location (14 for a 360 by the looks of it). All of these have points of failure in them, so increase risks. Anyone who has worked with ATC simulators my appreciate how often display devices can have issues or fail. All of this to replace the simple glass window, without any fancy add on tools, before the controller's eyeball. Sounds like an increased risk of failure to me - lots of expensive mitigation measures required to reduce the risk, yet still the possibility exists. Unfortunately the long term costs of all this added electronic and mechanical complexity still appears to be less than either land or staff costs.
I would have rather seen money spent on an "augmented reality" idea of Google Glass be introduced into existing towers - with all these useful digital tower tools to be as overlays to supplement the ATCOs safety, whilst not changing the window view - but all of this would have just been extra cost, therefore not so interesting to people interested in saving money.
LCY have specific ideas for the land that the normal glass tower takes up, so they want this to happen. Other areas of the world have introduced remote towers to specifically to reduce staff costs at remote / quiet airfields. However I understand that Dubai World Central was looking at digital towers for when more runways were to be built - looking to be the first "Tower-less" airport in the world!!
Can we stop it happening, probably not. Should we raise every safety concern we have, based on our experience - absolutely. But views of risks will vary from ATCO to ATCO, so some see this as a great step forwards, whilst others are more cautious or even anti.
It all sounds great if all this added complexity works - time will tell. Just maybe not so good for our working terms and conditions in the long run.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You make a lot of valid points. Just curious...do you mean "added complexity" - from an ATCO perspective? Or from a system perspective?
Last edited by good egg; 31st May 2017 at 14:03.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(At some civil airfields ATC are permitted to treat a landing aircraft as "vacated" the moment the tail has cleared the active runway....at others it won't be considered "vacated" until the tail has cleared the runway stop-bar.)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
good egg,
I can't answer post 153 as I have no access to the relevant documentation. I suspect that the MATS 2 for EGPF may contain some of the answers though.
Distraction is one of them
The history of ATC is littered with incidents caused by distraction.....Or by pairs of eyeballs not being in place to look at things said eyeballs should have been looking at.
If EGLC need to demolish ATC to build another parking stand, why don't they fill in that bit of the dock south of the runway, instead of demolishing one of the 'nerve-centres' of the airport?
That stretch of waterway, filled in with clay and aggregates, would provide possibly 20 additional a/c stands. It's hardly a great destination for shipping, with several car-parks on the south bank and a taxiway-loop/runway on the north bank.
Raw material supply shouldn't be a problem......They're always tunnelling under London, (amazing the city is still standing.........., actually), and there will be more clay/rocks on offer when they build the new R/W over at Gonzo's place.
Surely NATS should be working with it's customers and "thinking outside the box"?.......Planning ahead?
I can't answer post 153 as I have no access to the relevant documentation. I suspect that the MATS 2 for EGPF may contain some of the answers though.
Distraction is one of them
The history of ATC is littered with incidents caused by distraction.....Or by pairs of eyeballs not being in place to look at things said eyeballs should have been looking at.
If EGLC need to demolish ATC to build another parking stand, why don't they fill in that bit of the dock south of the runway, instead of demolishing one of the 'nerve-centres' of the airport?
That stretch of waterway, filled in with clay and aggregates, would provide possibly 20 additional a/c stands. It's hardly a great destination for shipping, with several car-parks on the south bank and a taxiway-loop/runway on the north bank.
Raw material supply shouldn't be a problem......They're always tunnelling under London, (amazing the city is still standing.........., actually), and there will be more clay/rocks on offer when they build the new R/W over at Gonzo's place.
Surely NATS should be working with it's customers and "thinking outside the box"?.......Planning ahead?
Last edited by ZOOKER; 1st Jun 2017 at 16:08.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neptune 262,
Some good points.
I would argue that in a modern, surveillance equipped tower, 'RSVA' is an outdated concept.
To do 2.5nm spacing (delivered to 4DME - as soon as the leader gets to 4MDE that starts to reduce) I need to be visual with the follower at 6.5DME.
This implies that being visual with both aircraft provides an added level of safety. However, when looking at a pair of aircraft heading virtually straight for me, I cannot tell if they are 2.7nm apart or 2.4nm apart, nor if they are closing or diverging. However, I can do that if I look at my surveillance system.
Some good points.
I would argue that in a modern, surveillance equipped tower, 'RSVA' is an outdated concept.
To do 2.5nm spacing (delivered to 4DME - as soon as the leader gets to 4MDE that starts to reduce) I need to be visual with the follower at 6.5DME.
This implies that being visual with both aircraft provides an added level of safety. However, when looking at a pair of aircraft heading virtually straight for me, I cannot tell if they are 2.7nm apart or 2.4nm apart, nor if they are closing or diverging. However, I can do that if I look at my surveillance system.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have you seen/studied the airport's master plan?
"why don't they fill in that bit of the dock south of the runway"....They are. (In actual fact it will be the same construction type as the East Apron, which added 4 stands to the airport).
"That stretch of waterway, filled in with clay and aggregates, would provide possibly 20 additional a/c stands." ...Great idea Zooker - you are such a visionary!
Just a shame the airport thought of it a long time ago (and finally received planning permission for it last year) or you could've sold them that idea...
"Surely NATS should be working with it's customers"...ummmmm, mind-boggling that you think NATS isn't. From the airport's own press release I quote "NATS, the UK’s leading provider of air traffic control services, endorses the decision to replace the existing 30-year old control tower with a digital tower".
I always try to entertain other people's point of view Zooker, but you make it really, really hard to take anything you say seriously.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The east-end of London seems to have more 'Master-Plans' than you can shake a big stick at........I can't find the airport one.
If EGLCZT is 30 years old, why wasn't the potential future growth of the airport spotted and acted-on back in the day?
There's a list of 10 "key features" that 'digital towers' would have, on the NATS public web-site.
All but 2 of them already exist in the 'analogue models'.
If EGLCZT is 30 years old, why wasn't the potential future growth of the airport spotted and acted-on back in the day?
There's a list of 10 "key features" that 'digital towers' would have, on the NATS public web-site.
All but 2 of them already exist in the 'analogue models'.
Last edited by ZOOKER; 1st Jun 2017 at 16:10.
@ Zooker
Back in the 70's & even the 80's, I don't think anyone envisaged the massive growth that has occurred in the East End. The Docklands Light Railway opened in 1987 with 11 EMUs & 15 stations along 8 miles. Today there are 145 EMUs & 45 stations along 24 miles. I reckon EGLC would be even bigger if it wasn't for the environmental impact......
p.s. I visited the VCR in 2012 - I would quite liked to have ended my career there :-)
Back in the 70's & even the 80's, I don't think anyone envisaged the massive growth that has occurred in the East End. The Docklands Light Railway opened in 1987 with 11 EMUs & 15 stations along 8 miles. Today there are 145 EMUs & 45 stations along 24 miles. I reckon EGLC would be even bigger if it wasn't for the environmental impact......
p.s. I visited the VCR in 2012 - I would quite liked to have ended my career there :-)
Last edited by Eric T Cartman; 31st May 2017 at 19:46.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see the added complexity from a system perspective - lots of physical items that can potentially fail - or extra layers of potential swiss cheese (for Reason fans)!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neptune 262,
Some good points.
I would argue that in a modern, surveillance equipped tower, 'RSVA' is an outdated concept.
To do 2.5nm spacing (delivered to 4DME - as soon as the leader gets to 4MDE that starts to reduce) I need to be visual with the follower at 6.5DME.
This implies that being visual with both aircraft provides an added level of safety. However, when looking at a pair of aircraft heading virtually straight for me, I cannot tell if they are 2.7nm apart or 2.4nm apart, nor if they are closing or diverging. However, I can do that if I look at my surveillance system.
Some good points.
I would argue that in a modern, surveillance equipped tower, 'RSVA' is an outdated concept.
To do 2.5nm spacing (delivered to 4DME - as soon as the leader gets to 4MDE that starts to reduce) I need to be visual with the follower at 6.5DME.
This implies that being visual with both aircraft provides an added level of safety. However, when looking at a pair of aircraft heading virtually straight for me, I cannot tell if they are 2.7nm apart or 2.4nm apart, nor if they are closing or diverging. However, I can do that if I look at my surveillance system.
The difference now is the "visual" part (as understood to be glass window and eyeball) is being replaced by an electronic display and eyeball.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Going deeper underground
Age: 55
Posts: 332
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just out of interest, were there many differences between how each airfield operated? Obviously each airfield layout is different but are the practices across them more similar than the diversity amongst civil airports? E.g. (as I cited earlier as an example) does the application of "runway vacated" vary between the fields you held simultaneous endorsements at?
(At some civil airfields ATC are permitted to treat a landing aircraft as "vacated" the moment the tail has cleared the active runway....at others it won't be considered "vacated" until the tail has cleared the runway stop-bar.)
(At some civil airfields ATC are permitted to treat a landing aircraft as "vacated" the moment the tail has cleared the active runway....at others it won't be considered "vacated" until the tail has cleared the runway stop-bar.)
As in my original post, the types were limited to what the School operated but Linton would get a more diverse clientele (the Harrier OCU would do its fnial exercise based out of there, which made things interesting). In most cases the big differences were limited to the rwy hdgs and the immediate surroundings.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would say that RSVA is still very useful in some tower operations, it depends on the nature of the traffic and airspace. Yes, maybe for predominantly IFR traffic into a busy airport, RSVA is not that used, but for others with mixed mode traffic, it is a tool that ATCOs still utilise.
The difference now is the "visual" part (as understood to be glass window and eyeball) is being replaced by an electronic display and eyeball.
The difference now is the "visual" part (as understood to be glass window and eyeball) is being replaced by an electronic display and eyeball.
If so, in Class D they are not provided with separation per se so RSVA is a bit of a misnomer.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Going deeper underground
Age: 55
Posts: 332
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just out of interest, were there many differences between how each airfield operated? Obviously each airfield layout is different but are the practices across them more similar than the diversity amongst civil airports? E.g. (as I cited earlier as an example) does the application of "runway vacated" vary between the fields you held simultaneous endorsements at?
(At some civil airfields ATC are permitted to treat a landing aircraft as "vacated" the moment the tail has cleared the active runway....at others it won't be considered "vacated" until the tail has cleared the runway stop-bar.)
(At some civil airfields ATC are permitted to treat a landing aircraft as "vacated" the moment the tail has cleared the active runway....at others it won't be considered "vacated" until the tail has cleared the runway stop-bar.)
As in my original post, the types were limited to what the School operated but Linton would get a more diverse clientele (the Harrier OCU would do its final exercise based out of there, which made things interesting). In most cases the big differences were limited to the rwy hdgs and the immediate surroundings.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts