Originally Posted by
2 sheds
HB - could you elaborate on those last three claims?
2 s
Use of Remote Tower Technology negates the requirement for a dedicated ATS facility, with the 'not VCR' integrated into any office space you like, reducing building maintenance and operating costs. With COTS equipment that gets through a safety case, capital expenditure can be further reduced. It is my understanding that some airports have adopted RTT for their contingency facilities. As use of these facilities develops, I believe it is inevitable that they will switch from a contingency role to routine ops, allowing airports to remove their old ATS buildings and make more productive use of the space. With modular systems, they could be moved between locations, e.g. normal to contingency (subject to regulatory approval), offering more flexibility. To save staffing costs, you could even contract out services that are uneconomic to run (e.g. out of hours operations, low traffic airports) to adjacent ANSPs to run.