DFS selects remote tower technology

[LadyAtco]

DFS, the new providers of ATC at Gatwick will introduce remote tower control for Saarbrucken, Erfurt and Dresden. They will be controlled via cameras from Leipzig. A spokesman said DFS would train ATCOs to cover multiple airports thus saving manpower.

Is this the start of major job losses ?

What can ATCOs do to prevent DFS from taking away our jobs.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Thank God I'm out of it now......

[Angels-One-Five]

Nothing can be done.

We embraced Europe and deregulated our air traffic.
Unlike Germany. So DFS can keep winning contracts here and we can't touch theirs

[EastofKoksy]

I don't think any ANSP has tried having one controller provide tower ATC for more than one airport at the same time. Obviously technically possible but what about when the concept becomes reality?????

[sunnySA]

train ATCOs to cover multiple airports thus saving manpower.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]


I take it that this means being "rated" to work multiple airports, two hours Airport 1, break, two hours Airport 2, not working multiple airports at the same time. Could be wrong but that's my reading of it.

[LadyAtco]

Cost savings would come if one ATCO was working all three airports simultaneously in quiet times.

If there was only one movement every hour or two then the ATCO could switch cameras between airports to cover occasional movements.

[Scrotchidson]

What are the movement rates for these Airports, are they 24/7, do they have radar etc?

[Flitefone]

The recent press release from IAA shows the direction in Ireland: https://www.iaa.ie/news.jsp?i=531&gc=99&p=106&n=124&date_from=2000-01-01&date_to=2100-01-01

Expect to see consolidation for quiet and overnight periods to reduce the need for staff (the largest expense of any ATC provider) and help to combat staff shortages and leave coverage at some locations, which is a typical challenge in Scandinavia for example.

By the way I believe that some towers in Germany are outsourced to
AustroControl .

it is rather silly that DFS can operate Towers in UK and not vice versa for NATS. The EU open market is not open enough yet! Lobby your MP!

FF

[hangten]

This is an interesting topic and what interesting times lie ahead.

What are the movement rates for these Airports, are they 24/7, do they have radar etc?

I understand Dresden is the busiest of the three mentioned by DFS and last year had 30357 air traffic movements. Some other facts here, but it doesn't mention radar: Key data, traffic statistics - Dresden International Airport (http://www.dresden-airport.de/company/structure-facts-staff/key-data-traffic-statistics.html)

The Swedes have already begun down this road: Sweden opens first remote control air tower - The Local (http://www.thelocal.se/20150421/sweden-opens-worlds-first-remote-air-control-tower)

I think the point here about jobs is a really interesting one. If it is deemed possible to control more than one airport simultaneously then of course this will result in the amalgamation of positions. I can simultaneously control two runways but in the same environment, with the same constraints, rules etc. Is it a good idea when two airports can be so diverse? What about if they're relatively simple operations, as LadyAtco says with a movement or two an hour and one adjacent taxiway?

There is no doubt that cost is the driving force behind these changes but that doesn't necessarily mean less jobs. It's cheaper to employ 10 people on one site than 10 people on 10 sites (or even 2 sites). The big issue is: what is acceptable? Managers with budgets and ATCOs with safety accountability will have two different opinions here and it's important we stand up for ourselves. However, lets not be daft, if two people are employed to sit and control two movements an hour in two different locations do you really feel your job is justified?

The EU open market is not open enough yet! Lobby your MP!

And also your MEP. :)

[Denti]

Unlike Germany. So DFS can keep winning contracts here and we can't touch theirs

Not really true, DFS lost a few towers to austrocontrol already.

What are the movement rates for these Airports, are they 24/7, do they have radar etc?

DRS: ATC is H24, however no landing and takeoff allowed between 2100 - 0500, except scheduled traffic that which cannot take off and land between 2230 and 0430 with a grace period of 30 minutes. Has seen a severe reduction in traffic in the last few years. Last year, as mentioned, 30.370 movements.

ERF: ATC is H24, some restrictions exists for landings between 2200 - 0500, however most common types can land during that time. Has seen a severe reduction in traffic in the last few years. Last year 9.259 movements.

SCN: ATC is available 0500 - 2130, for delayed landings until 2300. Last movement figures i have are from 2013, 11.124 in total. That figure is about to raise somewhat as Zweibrücken Airport close by is broke and closed for scheduled traffic, available PPR.

All times are german local times as far as i can tell.

[deci]

The tower controllers will be cross-trained for more than one airport, enabling them to provide aerodrome control services for different airports from the remote tower centre. In this way, a more efficient and flexible shift planning will be possible. In addition, the three remotely controlled airports will have a common clearance delivery position.

DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH (http://www.dfs.de/dfs_homepage/en/Press/Press%20releases/2015/03.06.2015.-%20DFS%20selects%20remote%20tower%20technology%20from%20Freq uentis/)

[Scrotchidson]

Thanks Denti & Hangten! :ok:

[Tarq57]

The thing is, with this type of multi-sector operation, is that when all is going well, and the movement rate is low, it is quite probably possible to manage it safely.

Where I see it being particularly applicable is in the sort of environment the Swedes are using it; a shuttle service up the country stopping at two or three not-busy airports, and returning. The remote tower is "moved" up the country to cater for each arrival/departure. (The ATCO and the flight crew probably get to "know" each other quite well.)
This seems appropriate. Rather than staffing ~3 low-traffic units, one unit with one controller can man all three, barring exigencies such as a big increase in unexpected traffic. This is where reserve capacity needs to be available, realistically, and at short notice. (An extra work station or two, and staff to man them. This would, of course, partially negate some of the savings made. In fact, from what I've seen of software systems augmenting or replacing the human touch, it might even be more expensive.)

If something goes wrong (airborne emergency, diversions due weather, equipment outage/degradation etc) I could see a controller becoming very overloaded very quickly.

What would be the plan B for such a situation? Does anyone think the beancounters up near the top of the organization will have a good, workable plan?

There is an precendent for this sort of thing going wrong, unfortunately. IIRC the controller had his name leaked by the press and was subsequently murdered. Some of the managers of the organization he worked for received jail sentences in a subsequent investigation concerning the work practices.

OK, it was same-same but different, in that an area sector was combined with another area sector during light workload, but I could easily see something similar happening were one operator (controller) tasked to control more than one aerodrome at the same time.

[EastofKoksy]

Tarq 57

I can see a case for doing remote tower operations but I somehow doubt the contingency plans will prove to be very robust if put to the test, especially with one controller providing a service at more than one tower simultaneously. That method of operations is inevitable as the driver for all of this is substantial cuts in costs.

Nevertheless, I am sure the managers will get all the paper work approved by the regulators!

[kcockayne]

Koksy

How right you are !

One thing you can guarantee, the regulators will NOT protect professional standards.

How very strange !

[jmmoric]

Guess the next is a remote flight deck technology, where multiple aircrafts are controlled by only a few pilots that are able to switch between aircrafts depending on when a pilot (actually) flying is needed for the phase of flight.

Zoom down the runway, once airborne, press auto and from then on the control is handled by the computer, acting on the instructions given via datalink from the controlling ACC computer, and the pilots switch to the next needed aircraft.

Saving manpower all around, making us all either earning on the stocks, or cleaning toilets (whereby we have even less money to pay for the airfare, making the beancounters looking for even more ways to cut costs).

[kcockayne]

Well, when the SRG were regulating my old unit, they were very keen to point out that the major reason for their existence was to uphold professional standards. That's how they sold their existence to ATC & the Airport Authority.
It does not appear to me to be entirely the "raisin d'être" of their existence now!

[Satellite Man]

I dont really see - in terms of safety - any advantage in the remote tower

so many things can go wrong

[BigDaddyBoxMeal]

The fact that DFS can bid for ATC contracts in the UK is a slightly different debate to remote tower operations. Unless of course DFS are proposing they do EGKK remotely?

Anyway, isn't the UK's biggest ANSP also looking at remote towers?

[panpanpanpan]

As an end user, albeit as a private pilot, there is something comforting knowing the voice in my headset is local with local knowledge and their sole attention is on the task in hand. A somewhat different perspective if the voice is potentially hundreds of miles away yet clearing me to land whilst simultaneously involved in another task on another airfield.:ooh:

Purely from a cost basis I can see how the airport accountants will be in sheer delight at the thought of getting rid of those costly and troublesome ATC types but I can see one major pitfall, correct me if I am wrong.

The UK`s largest ANSP bids for the quieter regional airports with a remote contract promising all things to all people in the beginning. Risk assessments will be made to match the perceived risk and all boxes ticked, never mind the reality, just get the contract signed - take a loss if need be to get it. I don`t know what a standard ATC contract is, 5 years, 10 years? Local regional airport signs the deal at £X pounds and subsequently local infrastructure is dismantled, controllers dispersed to remote facilities etc. At the end of the contract the ANSP now says the price is £XXX - non negotiable. Result - local regional airport is royally screwed. No way back without huge expense to reinstate local ATC and the initial savings are history. I think its actually quite a clever move to entrap customers who once they give away their flexibility will find it near impossible to return no matter how much they protest.:ugh:

[Art E. Fischler-Reisen]

DFS are now doing ATC'ing, too?

Crikey, they have diversified; but at least it can be paid for over four years, interest free.

A case of sofa so good?

[samotnik]

"their own service"? How? Airport operator doesn't have its own ATC staff. The only people validated at that unit live in a different country and are not willing to relocate. There's no physical tower facility, and no remote tower technology available on hand to the airport operator.

[1Charlie]

Unlike radar and procedural sectors that can be combined during low traffic, I can't see how one tower controller could be able to scan the whole environment simultaneously. Switching between airports when there are aircraft operating at each seems unacceptable to me.

[hangten]

"their own service"? How? Airport operator doesn't have its own ATC staff.

The ATC staff are part of the contract, they come with it. Alright, it's not quite that simple* but essentially in the interests of competition if another company 'wins' a tender for contract then the staff are transferred across. That includes taking service 'in house'.

*actually it's very complicated - and can be complicated further by other agreements.

[LadyAtco]

The essential safety point has been totally overlooked here. When an ATCO clears an aircraft to land , take off or cross a runway, he/she does not just look at the runway (as a camera can only do). The ATCO scans the whole environment, looks for uncleared movements, unusual activity, stray vehicles, birds, wildlife, FOD, stray airborne aircraft and increasingly small UAVs.


The ATCO continually scans and observes the whole airport ATZ until the aircraft is clear of any potential danger. A camera or multiple cameras cannot do that.


Will that safety issue be taken into account by the beancounters ? NO

[manusa]

I just found this video is from a few years ago. The concept looks interesting...
https://youtu.be/Gqv8EECMXJM

[kcockayne]

I'm with LadyAtco; although the technology presentation is impressive.
Where I seriously object to the concept espoused is in the 1 controller multiple airport scenario. Even if this idea is restricted to VERY quiet airports I simply cannot accept that it is safe. There are too many considerations & variables involved to make this practice acceptable.
In my view, this is an example of the Regulators abandoning their responsibilities in order to appease airport operators etc.
I was schooled in the ATC "Fail Safe" philosophy. I cannot see how this scheme could possibly be Fail Safe.

[ShannonACC]

The recent press release from IAA shows the direction in Ireland: https://www.iaa.ie/news.jsp?i=531&gc=99&p=106&n=124&date_from=2000-01-01&date_to=2100-01-01

Expect to see consolidation for quiet and overnight periods to reduce the need for staff (the largest expense of any ATC provider) and help to combat staff shortages and leave coverage at some locations, which is a typical challenge in Scandinavia for example.

By the way I believe that some towers in Germany are outsourced to
AustroControl .

it is rather silly that DFS can operate Towers in UK and not vice versa for NATS. The EU open market is not open enough yet! Lobby your MP!

FF

IAA has this for Cork and possibly Shannon aerodromes for night time-ops. Unfortunately I'm not out of this business for a very long time, so I really hope that we aren't seeing technology taking over the job, looks like the piloting aircraft from the back isn't so far away now..

[Romeo_Fox]

Let me get this straight right from the start: I'm not 100% convinced of the multiple "remote-TWR" concept as it is presented right now

BUT

we're all creatures of habit and looking back a few decades proves how awfully wrong or even ridiculous our perceptions can be...

When steam locomotives were invented, doctors were warning the human brain could suffer damage as it is not made for traveling with such high speed

IBM chairman Thomas Watson said, there might be a world market for about five computers.

Not trying to prove a point, but maybe the generation of babies that's swiping through iPhone pictures might have a different view on that issue.

[3miles]

Let me get this straight right from the start: I'm not 100% convinced of the multiple "remote-TWR" concept as it is presented right now

BUT

we're all creatures of habit and looking back a few decades proves how awfully wrong or even ridiculous our perceptions can be...

When steam locomotives were invented, doctors were warning the human brain could suffer damage as it is not made for traveling with such high speed

IBM chairman Thomas Watson said, there might be a world market for about five computers.

Not trying to prove a point, but maybe the generation of babies that's swiping through iPhone pictures might have a different view on that issue.

Only sensible educated post here!

Rest sound like people who seen a TV for first time and wonder how they get the man inside the box.

Most of the statements about what an ATCO in a glass tower need to do actually is the limitation of the design of glass tower and the unsafe part, remote towers actually fix most of the problems with glass towers.

Multiple concept again - needs lot of work yet, but open thinking and not thinking in the silo of how would 3 glass towers be done - instead consider fact the technology does and allows presentation differently so the problems that perceived when only think of the now don't exist.

Any new technology that tries to replicate what you do now is pointless - it should change and improve things.

Comment reference SARG, actually their role is equally to improve standards not just maintain them - so perhaps they see an opportunity here to fix the issues we have in the old glass tower tech!

[Tarq57]

Only sensible educated post here!

Rest sound like people who seen a TV for first time and wonder how they get the man inside the box.

Most of the statements about what an ATCO in a glass tower need to do actually is the limitation of the design of glass tower and the unsafe part, remote towers actually fix most of the problems with glass towers.

Multiple concept again - needs lot of work yet, but open thinking and not thinking in the silo of how would 3 glass towers be done - instead consider fact the technology does and allows presentation differently so the problems that perceived when only think of the now don't exist.

Any new technology that tries to replicate what you do now is pointless - it should change and improve things.

Comment reference SARG, actually their role is equally to improve standards not just maintain them - so perhaps they see an opportunity here to fix the issues we have in the old glass tower tech!None of your arguments or suggestions address the basic issue of staffing in the event that things suddenly get very busy very quickly due to, say, an emergency, or multiple diversions due to unexpected weather.

It's not the tech per se I have a problem with; its how the average cost-driven ANSP is likely to want to utilize it.

[3miles]

None of your arguments or suggestions address the basic issue of staffing in the event that things suddenly get very busy very quickly due to, say, an emergency, or multiple diversions due to unexpected weather.

But where is any of that specific to remote towers? A single tower at night now doesn't contain the staff/positions seen during the day operation.

The key difference and research that's ongoing - is more about how you manage a remote tower centre. The view could be that say you had 3 airports remoted to a single centre - you may be able to, at low workload times have one ATCO control all 3 airports at same time(using new tech) however you'd still have in that building 3 ATCOs(as you need to give breaks anyhow etc) (same as most glass towers now at night) should your doom and gloom situation occur - the tech allows you to split it out and the 3 airports now controlled individually by 3 ATCOs. No different from any bandboxing that happens now in towers or centres.

Point to equally consider is to think about what you might be combining 1 ATCO may be doing 3 airports but that's 3 airports GMP, where the air and gmc still have a dedicated or multiple ATCOs still providing that element per airport.

Because of the way you could display the view(not limited to just replicating the non optimised tower view now - you could display two runways at two airports - no different from where some ATCOs control two runways now, but in that case they often required to turn their head to see both and actually can't look at both fully at all times, in remote tower the screen layout could allow you to see both at all times without turning your head,add in the digital safety nets that can detect incursions, highlight overlays on the image and even display surveillance data on the visual image, giving even more situational awareness without the ATCO needing to look down at a different screen or strips etc, you've improved the situational awareness, safety. But regardless of the technology it still comes back to a workload, and the management and choice to operate this way no different from desicions made now on bandboxing. All the technology does is give you another way to operate, same as radar fusion did - you couldn't bandbox sectors if each working position could only take one radar feed, mosaic radar allows you to technically see the whole country at a single working position, which if the WL was such one ATCO could bandbox sectors.

[Tarq57]

My "doom and gloom' (your words) situation has only happened to me personally about 40 times in my career, so far.

In most of those situations, I would not have wanted to have to handover a couple - or even one - other sector/s to a relief controller while trying to focus on the emergency requirement.

I don't have a problem with information saturation in the current environment. And we have quite a lot of info able to be displayed. Much more, however, and the human brain (or my brain, anyway) starts to become the limiting factor at processing it.

It's simply a case of more is less, sometimes.

But carry on pushing the fancy toys. One day, they will probably be cost-effective, and several more days down the track, fully automated. Controllers will really become software and system troubleshooters without the traditional skills, so much. I expect to be retired or dead by that time.

By then, fully automated flight decks (no human pilot) will have started to gain widespread acceptance. This matters not a bit to me. When I have a need to go places, by then, it will be on a ship, or maybe a train.

Or I'll walk. Or shuffle.

[ChickenHouse]

I am confused. Lately I heard not one report of German authorities forcing small airfields to move their "tower" to a location where the full airfield can be seen and now they toss the remote tower approach? How does this fit together, are these technologies covering total 360hor+180ver surveillance?

[ZOOKER]

Went to a presentation by the MAG Operations Director recently who indicated they are very interested in this.
Currently, they employ NATS at EGCC and EGSS, while EGNX and EGHH are staffed 'in-house'.
Interesting times ahead.

[obwan]

Does anybody know if ATCOs controlling at more than one VCRs are operating crosscoupled frequencies or are they on separate channels. Speaking as one has been required to work two different freqs. at the same time I can say it takes very little for workload to go through the roof and it is worth remembering that the tragedy at Uberlingen was in part caused by a controller working two different freqs. Having said that beancounters will win.:ugh:

[3miles]

There is no multi towers in operation yet - there a significant difference between individual multiple towers in one RTC(think approaches/sectors in swanwick) and multiple towers combined (oh think again sectors band boxed)

Hmmm nothing new really then! Except it now apparently unsafe - better close swanwick/Prestwick/most towers now then, as they all bandbox- difference is the tech they developing in remote towers will make this even safer.

Remote towers are one example where bean counters - and grumpy, resistant to change, negative ATCOs both actual win, cheaper, smarter and safer.

Just for interest the ATCO in the LFV tower also performs radar from the remote tower. Maybe they just more skilled/capable than some of those negative posters here.

[Gonzo]

While I'm all for developing new technology, it's not all 'win/win'.

I imagine that those ATCO jobs in those remote communities, in Sweden and elsewhere, whose airports are ripe for 'going remote', actually provide a lot of income into those communities. Jobs such as those enable skilled professionals to stay in their local communities rather than moving to the big city etc etc.

I know this is no different to any number of different industries over the years, but it should be acknowledged and handled correctly.

[kcockayne]

When radar positions are band boxed, the ATCO is doing just the one job. Granted that this is in a bigger area, overall, than if he is controlling just one sector, but it is still just one piece of airspace & his attention is not being distracted by events outside of his area of responsibility. But, IF an ATCO is controlling more than one aerodrome this involves him doing more than one job, & he might very well be distracted by events in his other area of responsibility.
In my view, you cannot compare band boxing of radar sectors with an ATCO doing Aerodrome Control simultaneously at more than one aerodrome.

[ZOOKER]

Spot on kockayne. And obwan is correct about working 2 frequencies at the same time. 'Playing the piano', (as it was known on our watch), was not fun.

[kcockayne]

I remember Mike Dalrymple, at EGPH, manipulating TWR, GMC, APP Procedural & 2 UHF Ground frequencies simultaneously back in 1973/4. Someone called it "Playing the mighty Wurlitzer Organ". A very apt description !

[kcockayne]

And very entertaining; although he couldn't get a tune out of it !

[evansb]

If the annual aircraft movements for DRS, ERF, and SCN are accurate, it is interesting to note the aforementioned aerodromes would not qualify for a control tower, manned or remote, in Canada.

[BDiONU]

Spot on kockayne. And obwan is correct about working 2 frequencies at the same time. 'Playing the piano', (as it was known on our watch), was not fun.No one ever used the new fangled 'çross coupled' radios?

[BDiONU]

I imagine that those ATCO jobs in those remote communities, in Sweden and elsewhere, whose airports are ripe for 'going remote', actually provide a lot of income into those communities. Jobs such as those enable skilled professionals to stay in their local communities rather than moving to the big city etc etc.The brief from the Swedes is that the ATCOs are happy to move back to civilisation. Instead of being stuck in the tower solo and only seeing others in their profession at shift change they now see others during breaks, which they can now get. There is other help around for problems etc. etc. Also they were having problems getting volunteers for some of the remote places.

[kcockayne]

BDiONU

You make a fair point. I think no one doubts that there are benefits for the ATCO in this technology, but it also seems to fly in the face of established & cherished safety principles. Certainly, not what I was brought up with !

[BDiONU]

it also seems to fly in the face of established & cherished safety principles. Certainly, not what I was brought up with !Hhhmmm, safety 'principles'change all the time as technology develops. As Gonzo (I think it was) said before we do not have engineers or navigators on aircraft any more and yet aircraft are more safe than they've ever been.
None of this remote towers stuff will be introduced until the people using it think it's safe, the bosses have been persuaded its safe, the stakeholders (airlines flying out of the airports using it) think its safe and finally the regulator thinks its safe enough to issue a licence to operate.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<No one ever used the new fangled 'çross coupled' radios?>>

Only for 35+ years.

[Gonzo]

BD,

Yes, I imagine it is the case for the very remote airports, but my point was more aimed at those that are not quite as remote as those already in progress

I wasn't clear.

[BDiONU]

There is some useful information which SESAR have done and put online which may help some people understand a bit more :)

Remote tower for single airport | SESAR (http://www.sesarju.eu/sesar-solutions/airport-integration-and-throughput/remote-tower-single-airport)

[BDiONU]

Yes, I imagine it is the case for the very remote airports, but my point was more aimed at those that are not quite as remote as those already in progressWell there would be a tipping point where these smaller airports are running on a financial knife-edge, ATCO costs being quite a large slice of the running costs. If it comes down to the wire would they close the airport as not being financially viable or keep it open if they could reduce the running costs, one option being to run the tower remotely.
It is not an easy decision to make I suspect.

[ZOOKER]

BD, yes, we had cross-coupling and used it, combining Air and GMC plus the 2 UHF vehicle channels.
What happened was our locally-based operators, (sorry, customers), didn't like coming down the ILS and listening to the all the GMC chatter, involving tugs, clearances, etc. Fair enough, a valid safety issue.
Unit management decreed that AIR and GMC were not to be cross-coupled, but failed to provide extra bods to man them.

[sirsaltyhelmet]

If ICAO DOC 4444 Chapter 7 can be met then what is the problem with "Remote" towers?

"7.1.1.2 Aerodrome controllers shall maintain a continuous watch on all flight operations on and in the vicinity of
an aerodrome as well as vehicles and personnel on the manoeuvring area. Watch shall be maintained by visual
observation, augmented in low visibility conditions by an ATS surveillance system when available. Traffic shall be
controlled in accordance with the procedures set forth herein and all applicable traffic rules specified by the appropriate
ATS authority. If there are other aerodromes within a control zone, traffic at all aerodromes within such a zone shall be
coordinated so that traffic circuits do not conflict"

[Satellite Man]

It is very interesting to see how the number of managers at ANSPs increases at the same time the number of ATCOs retiring and not being replaced increases.. one would think that there are more people sitting in an office at ANSPs headquarters doing nothing or pretending to work and less people doing the actual work that needs to be done

And.. surprisingly this is happening in many other big companies, not just ANSPs but in many other fields: management increases in number as the workforce decreases and the results or the production have to remain stable or grow.

[kcockayne]

Very true, Satellite Man.

[3miles]

Not sure how useful it is - SESAR are somewhat behind the drag curve still, they still doing R&D on technologies that already deployed and available to buy..

It's an insight to it yes, but read with a pinch of salts with some of the terms etc they use ...some of the SESAR documents are why some people still trying to understand rtwrs and not get its not some technology like a RDP, it's a service not a black box.

[3miles]

When radar positions are band boxed, the ATCO is doing just the one job. Granted that this is in a bigger area, overall, than if he is controlling just one sector, but it is still just one piece of airspace & his attention is not being distracted by events outside of his area of responsibility. But, IF an ATCO is controlling more than one aerodrome this involves him doing more than one job, & he might very well be distracted by events in his other area of responsibility.
In my view, you cannot compare band boxing of radar sectors with an ATCO doing Aerodrome Control simultaneously at more than one aerodrome.

Again depends how you utilise the technology...and equally like radar bandboxing will always still be driven by ability to maintain situational awareness and workload levels acceptable.

An ATCO in a tower now may be controlling multiple runways, including ground operations, that require the ATCO to turn their head, and be focused on one particular area...rtwr tech could allow all of those areas, along with safety nets, additional overlays etc to allow for a higher situational awareness than today, displaying the multiple runways both in front of the ATCO at the same time, rather than one potentially in a different direction in a glass tower, would mean they can monitor both at same time without the distraction, so on that principle it could be two runways from two airports.

Although in some cases multiple towers will be providing the full service to multiple airports(small sized area wise aswell as density) again it's about thinking more open, you may have a single "Air" ATCO providing runway control to two airports at the same time, while the gmc aspects may still have a dedicated ATCO for each airport. Rtwr just allows for new combinations of bandboxing, the principle is the same. Sometimes you bandbox air and gmc and gmp, sometimes just gmc and gmp, or different gmc positions...the point is in a remote tower world even those bandboxings for a single tower are likely to result in a better situational awareness as the images can be optimised/organised around the areas of responsibility an ATCO needs to see rather than the present day make do with the shared view you got.