Originally Posted by
2 sheds
- Academic whether it is technically "remote" or not - it is remote from its logical, historic location!
- You know where an aircraft joining overhead is when the pilot reports overhead - it is in the overhead!
- However, in a proper tower, you can move around to peek outwards and upwards if necessary.
- In another 20 years or so, somebody will re-invent the traditional tower with all its advantages, as a promotion vehicle for that new management generation.
2 s
- Academic for Cranfield, yes. Not academic for many other control towers where relocation is an issue.
- I agree wholeheartedly with your point about the overhead. Where I would take issue is the design phase. IF there is less view than in a conventional tower then your point has merit. BUT I would suspect that any company in this field (in this case SAAB), and the ANSP, and the CAA, would not countenance a worse view than any existing tower - including the ability to “peek outwards and upwards”...
- As for 20 years time...I don’t know what the future will bring...much as I didn’t know 20 odd years ago that we’d be discussing remote/digital towers. I’d suspect (barring some sort of technological warfare) that digital towers are here to stay - whether remote or not. The possibilities of “digitalisation” will rule, in time. Data, data, data. Decision-making? AI. Takes the human risk element out (pretty much). First it’ll be “tools to assist the controller”, then “progressing” to remove/mitigate the human element. Cost matters. Esp when you need to add a visa to visit your nearest neighbours...(oops, that’s another thread!)