LONDON CITY - 2
Thread Starter
Presumably the runup to the election will see an interesting selection of charter operators through the Jet Centre, if not the main terminal. Nothing too expensive thought - a third hand ATR42 seems to be the sort of thing.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought the "leaders" preferred to use trains to show solidarity with the working class, maybe an occasional "battle bus"...
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saw a piece on BBC news. What is the world coming to?
London City first in UK to get remote air traffic control - BBC News
London City first in UK to get remote air traffic control - BBC News
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a very busy and very particular and demanding piece of airspace. Seems a very strange place to pilot this.
Btw what happens if NATS and LCY part company. LCY can't outsource a control tower they don't have. Is this NATS power playing to keep the money rolling in? GIP owned EDI and LGW have both left NATS and given ATC out to third parties recently. Same owner as LCY.
Btw what happens if NATS and LCY part company. LCY can't outsource a control tower they don't have. Is this NATS power playing to keep the money rolling in? GIP owned EDI and LGW have both left NATS and given ATC out to third parties recently. Same owner as LCY.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GIP owned EDI and LGW have both left NATS and given ATC out to third parties recently. Same owner as LCY.
From wikipedia:
Later in 2015, Global Infrastructure Partners which owned 75% of the facility, put it up for sale, with the agreement of Oaktree Capital Management which holds the remaining 25%.[25] A sale to a consortium comprising Alberta Investment Management Corporation, the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan and Wren House for £2 billion was confirmed in February 2016.[3] The sale was completed on 10 March 2016.[26]
Thread Starter
The remote control arrangement was being substantially criticised, and in fact parodied, by multiple radio news commentators as soon as it was released.
One said, quite reasonably, that LCY is particularly prone to fog, and what remote video arrangement could be better than the Mk 1 eyeball on the spot at such times - for myself, I wonder what camera will pick up the HEMS helicopter from the Royal London Hospital coming low across the rooftops and over the airport, as it regularly does. Or the unauthorised weekend Cessnas coming by. Or one of the tightly-manoeuvring aircraft just breaching the live runway line or turning towards the wrong taxiway.
Another commentator just said "that's the last time I use it then". On mainstream news radio. How can LCY have done something that causes that to be said.
I presume that it is perceived to be cheaper. With the rebuilding of the main terminal building a new tower is otherwise presumably needed, and the owners have decided that the associated money is better diverted into their Canadian teachers' pension plan funds than spent on sensible safety provisions at the airport.
It's not quite apparent which radio is to be replaced. Thames Radar, City Approach, or City Ground. Or all three ?
One said, quite reasonably, that LCY is particularly prone to fog, and what remote video arrangement could be better than the Mk 1 eyeball on the spot at such times - for myself, I wonder what camera will pick up the HEMS helicopter from the Royal London Hospital coming low across the rooftops and over the airport, as it regularly does. Or the unauthorised weekend Cessnas coming by. Or one of the tightly-manoeuvring aircraft just breaching the live runway line or turning towards the wrong taxiway.
Another commentator just said "that's the last time I use it then". On mainstream news radio. How can LCY have done something that causes that to be said.
I presume that it is perceived to be cheaper. With the rebuilding of the main terminal building a new tower is otherwise presumably needed, and the owners have decided that the associated money is better diverted into their Canadian teachers' pension plan funds than spent on sensible safety provisions at the airport.
It's not quite apparent which radio is to be replaced. Thames Radar, City Approach, or City Ground. Or all three ?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One said, quite reasonably, that LCY is particularly prone to fog, and what remote video arrangement could be better than the Mk 1 eyeball on the spot at such times - for myself, I wonder what camera will pick up the HEMS helicopter from the Royal London Hospital coming low across the rooftops and over the airport, as it regularly does. Or the unauthorised weekend Cessnas coming by. Or one of the tightly-manoeuvring aircraft just breaching the live runway line or turning towards the wrong taxiway.
Another commentator just said "that's the last time I use it then". On mainstream news radio. How can LCY have done something that causes that to be said.
I presume that it is perceived to be cheaper. With the rebuilding of the main terminal building a new tower is otherwise presumably needed, and the owners have decided that the associated money is better diverted into their Canadian teachers' pension plan funds than spent on sensible safety provisions at the airport.
It's not quite apparent which radio is to be replaced. Thames Radar, City Approach, or City Ground. Or all three ?
Another commentator just said "that's the last time I use it then". On mainstream news radio. How can LCY have done something that causes that to be said.
I presume that it is perceived to be cheaper. With the rebuilding of the main terminal building a new tower is otherwise presumably needed, and the owners have decided that the associated money is better diverted into their Canadian teachers' pension plan funds than spent on sensible safety provisions at the airport.
It's not quite apparent which radio is to be replaced. Thames Radar, City Approach, or City Ground. Or all three ?
LCY is prone to fog, that's true, for a few days a year - and that is not going to change with or without a digital tower.
Arrivals are unlikely to land, or indeed attempt a legal approach, in fog due to the limits of the Instrument Landing System and the respective minima of each airline operator/aircraft involved. Departures may occur (subject to departure minima). When in these conditions the tower controller uses procedural separation - because, using the Mk I eyeball, he/she can't see the aircraft. That wouldn't change with a digital tower (unless IR technology is incorporated - and I didn't notice any mention of that in any press release).
Re: HEMS...according to various releases the camera definition is better than the human eye. That, combined with labelling of aircraft, should surely make it easier to pick up the medical helicopter? Similarly the Cessna, or other aircraft types.
Sounds like sensible safety provision/enhancements.
I don't follow your comment regarding which radio is to be replaced - please expand.
As far as I know, the most complex airport where a remote tower has been used is Ornskoldsvik in northern Sweden.
I've flown as a passenger from Ornskoldsvik - it's a tiny airport with about 75,000 pax per year in the middle of nowhere (the town is 25 mins drive from the airport with 30,000 people and the whole region has very low population density) with less than 5 departing passenger flights on most days.
Has a remote tower been trialled at any airports busier than Ornskoldsvik but quieter than London City ?
Not against the concept of remote towers but I know that as any form of new technology is scaled up to solve a problem many times more complex than where it was deployed previously, unexpected problems come to light.
After Ornskoldsvik I would have expected the vendors of this technology to be trialling at an airport of between 500k and 1m pax per year before going for a city centre airport with 4.5m pax per year
I've flown as a passenger from Ornskoldsvik - it's a tiny airport with about 75,000 pax per year in the middle of nowhere (the town is 25 mins drive from the airport with 30,000 people and the whole region has very low population density) with less than 5 departing passenger flights on most days.
Has a remote tower been trialled at any airports busier than Ornskoldsvik but quieter than London City ?
Not against the concept of remote towers but I know that as any form of new technology is scaled up to solve a problem many times more complex than where it was deployed previously, unexpected problems come to light.
After Ornskoldsvik I would have expected the vendors of this technology to be trialling at an airport of between 500k and 1m pax per year before going for a city centre airport with 4.5m pax per year
Last edited by davidjohnson6; 20th May 2017 at 12:28.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a couple of decades there will be loads of driverless cars, the airline F/O will be replaced by shared ground operators, and there will be digital towers in many places.
It will happen and we all will accept them as normal; so let's not fight it but just work to ensure they are effective and safe. You can argue whether they will be safe in 2019, but be sure you will have accepted them by 2029. It's just inevitability.
New technologies always have pros and cons: a driverless car doesn't get drunk, doesn't speed and allows you to do other things whilst travelling; inevitably they will make a lot of driving jobs unnecessary. But where are the telephone switchboard operators, TV repairmen, milkmen, Flight Engineers today? or the 10,000's that worked in factories building cars etc that have been replaced by robots?
The challenge is for Govts and employers to create the new jobs of tomorrow.
And remember the relentless drive for efficiency and lower cost (of everything) is driven entirely by you and me; consumers default to the least cost purchases most of the time, otherwise EZY, RYR, Amazon and Sports Direct (as examples) wouldn't have prospered so much. We demand cost savings every time we buy on the net today, and in doing so we are killing off our own jobs for the medium term. We are to blame.
It will happen and we all will accept them as normal; so let's not fight it but just work to ensure they are effective and safe. You can argue whether they will be safe in 2019, but be sure you will have accepted them by 2029. It's just inevitability.
New technologies always have pros and cons: a driverless car doesn't get drunk, doesn't speed and allows you to do other things whilst travelling; inevitably they will make a lot of driving jobs unnecessary. But where are the telephone switchboard operators, TV repairmen, milkmen, Flight Engineers today? or the 10,000's that worked in factories building cars etc that have been replaced by robots?
The challenge is for Govts and employers to create the new jobs of tomorrow.
And remember the relentless drive for efficiency and lower cost (of everything) is driven entirely by you and me; consumers default to the least cost purchases most of the time, otherwise EZY, RYR, Amazon and Sports Direct (as examples) wouldn't have prospered so much. We demand cost savings every time we buy on the net today, and in doing so we are killing off our own jobs for the medium term. We are to blame.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point here is it seems unlikely to really save money. Just because something is possible doesn't mean we should do it IMHO.
LCY is a huge step up from what remote ATC was proposed and developed for.
LCY is a huge step up from what remote ATC was proposed and developed for.
Thread Starter
It's been a sight more than "a few days a year" over the past winter. Do you have any familiarity with LCY ops ?
Well if that was the case LCY wouldn't exist, everyone would be off up the M11 to Stansted.
And remember the relentless drive for efficiency and lower cost (of everything) is driven entirely by you and me; consumers default to the least cost purchases most of the time, otherwise EZY, RYR, Amazon and Sports Direct (as examples) wouldn't have prospered so much.
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I definitely with V12 with what lies behind the relentless pursuit of technology. But who is capable, or should we even try to hold back the tide?
The real question for me is, does a remote ATC system enhance safety? If the answer is yes then fair enough. But if the answer is no, but it's more efficient (it saves money), then it should not happen in such a safety critical environment. To me, there is always an unforeseen risk in new technologies.
The real question for me is, does a remote ATC system enhance safety? If the answer is yes then fair enough. But if the answer is no, but it's more efficient (it saves money), then it should not happen in such a safety critical environment. To me, there is always an unforeseen risk in new technologies.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fog occurs relatively infrequently at LCY, despite its location next to the Thames/docks. Low cloud is another matter...