Originally Posted by
good egg
The location of the digital tower is something that I'd expect the airport customer to be heavily involved in. I doubt an airport would take the decision to site it remotely without exhaustive analysis and with due regard to redundancy and resiliency (much like the ANSP).
I'm not sure you understand the operation at the airport in question - I'd be amazed if one ATCO was sufficient to deliver the required airport capacity and punctuality safely.
As an ATCO of 37 years standing, I think I have a pretty good idea of what is involved ATC wise at EGLC. The point of my previous post was that, if this technology can be utilized remotely i.e. at NERC, why can it not be used at the aerodrome itself ? Indeed, why should it not be used at EGLC to the benefit of the TWR controllers there ? What, exactly is the pressing need to move the ATC TWR controllers to a remote location; why should the benefits only accrue at that location ? If you need 1,2 or 3 ATCOS to do the job at EGLC then you need the same number to do the remote tower at NERC.
Or, am I missing something ?