NATS - Remote Towers

[T250]

Control without bounds: The rise of the digital 'remote' tower - NATS (http://www.nats.aero/discover/control-without-bounds/)

NATS busy championing Remote Towers in the UK, presumably for any UK or other airports.

Surprised there's no thread here already, NATS claim even the largest airport will/can be remote towered in future... :cool:

What's everyone's thoughts? Will we really see the likes of LHR and LGW controlled from a box room in Swanwick, and in terms of practicalities, what will be the set up of the ATCOs providing the service? NATS can provide technology, but are they also going to provide the new remote control tower 'room' for every airport across the country? :}

[EastofKoksy]

Like most things these days 'remote' or 'digital' towers are driven by the need for industry to sell its systems and the potential to reduce the costs of ATC services. It looks as if industry have been successful in persuading senior managers in ATC that this way of working makes sense.


On the basis that a controller can only perform one role at a time and still has to be trained for that role, I can't see much scope to reduce costs through staff cuts. However there is potentially a big saving if this way of working avoids the need to build a new tower.

[ZOOKER]

Will all those doing ADI/ADV from Swanwick/Prestwick be paid Band 5 and 4 salaries I wonder?

[GASA]

The savings on building new towers and apportioning land for them will be worth it to the airports. Plus I reckon they will cross train controllers so that they can be valid on multiple airports. But Nats needs to do this quick or else they might not have any airports left! And it's all about cuts, they'll try their best not to give anyone more money 😡

[Starlord]

There is a thread already. Here's the one I started two years ago:

http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/557710-remote-towers-uk.html

[terrain safe]

Have to say that I think crosstraining for different airfields will be very difficult. Heathrow has at least 6 different positions in the VCR, Stansted has 3, Luton 2/3 and they are all very very different not like approach units. Other things make it difficult too. Quieter units may be able to cross train but which ones?

[chevvron]

Have to say that I think crosstraining for different airfields will be very difficult. Heathrow has at least 6 different positions in the VCR, Stansted has 3, Luton 2/3 and they are all very very different not like approach units. Other things make it difficult too. Quieter units may be able to cross train but which ones?
Only those which do not have an attached APS section.

[Starlord]

https://youtu.be/C1vza1BqgbQ

Split screen mode proved to be workable. We can have EGLC on the top screens and EGGW on the bottom screens.

[kcockayne]

https://youtu.be/bDwzE4ISQU8

And here's the IAA video, also confirming the plan for one ATCO controlling more than one aerodrome simultaneously.

Recipe for disaster !

[General_Kirby]

Which airport will want to send a very important part of their infrastructure to a Nats office miles away? Once it's all set up they can't exactly change ANSPs easily can they. Good for Nats but for airports?

[ZOOKER]

I agree with kcokayne.
Many years ago, during night duties, we band-boxed Air and GMC onto 1 frequency at night, which involved cross-coupling 2 VHF and 2 UHF channels.
As nights became a bit busier, the airlines complained about having to listen to GMC stuff when they were on the ILS, resulting in both frequencies being kept open, but manned by 1 ATCO.
No-one, including the younger folks, enjoyed doing this. Two frequencies was often hard enough.......Let alone two airports.

Just out of interest, are there any area folks who operate 2 widely-spaced sectors simultaneously on different frequencies? I know EGGP do EGCN approach from Merseyside, but I don't know if they are licenced to do both at the same time?

[rodan]

Which airport will want to send a very important part of their infrastructure to a Nats office miles away? Once it's all set up they can't exactly change ANSPs easily can they. Good for Nats but for airports?

Exactly this. I expect NATS' interest in remote towers is primarily about locking customers in to a situation that would be prohibitively difficult and expensive to extricate themselves from if they ever wished to change service provider, or take ATC in-house.

All those staff cross-trained on other airports so it's impossible to pin down just who 'belongs' to which one, living miles away from the airport in question or where other ANSPs provide remote services from? Lovely jubbly.

It's a model that's worked well for NATS with the airports that are provided with approach services from LTCC, at least until Gatwick left the fold - but even then it was only Tower, can you imagine trying to untangle an approach sector from Swanwick?

[Gonzo]

Conversely, one could argue that it's easier to switch ANSP with a remote tower operation.

All the airport has to worry about is the big pipe that feeds data to the remote tower.

To switch ANSP one unplugs the feed from the socket labelled 'current ANSP' and plugs it in to the socket labelled 'new ANSP', who have set up their own remote tower.

From that simple, equipment-centric view it doesn't even have to be in the same country as the airport.

All the financial risk in terms of ATC equipment is forced on to the ANSP.

Interesting times ahead, no doubt.

[GASA]

Hit the nail on the head there. My main worry is that they might try to outsource ATC to another cheaper country using remote towers. There's already talk of using different country's area centres to provide cover if one country goes on strike. Airlines would love that!

[BigDaddyBoxMeal]

NATS not necessarily the first in the UK?

Jersey Airport is set to become the first provider of Remote Tower Service technology in the British Isles (http://www.jerseyairport.com/News/Pages/Technicaladvances.aspx)

Suppose if were all going to be sat remotely somewhere in 20 years, there's worse places than Jersey....

[jackieofalltrades]

Just out of interest, are there any area folks who operate 2 widely-spaced sectors simultaneously on different frequencies? I know EGGP do EGCN approach from Merseyside, but I don't know if they are licenced to do both at the same time?

I went on a famil trip to EGGP about 10 years ago. At that time they told me that the controller working EGGP wasn't permitted to work EGCN at the same time. And if I recall correctly the radar screens were set up so the controllers worked back to back, so they couldn't see both screens at the same time. (That may have changed since then)

[ZOOKER]

Thanks jackie'
It was always odd when I did the Wallasey Sector, and I'd usually be on the landline to EGGP Approach quite a lot.
Two hours later, I'd be on the East Sector, and you'd ring EGCN, and the same voice answered the phone!

[spekesoftly]

Perhaps the EGGP Approach Controller, having taken a break, then moved to the EGCN position and thought it equally coincidental to hear your voice again ZOOKER!

[ZOOKER]

Not at all spekesoftly.
We were great mates, mate.
I had to do all the area sectors apart from Sector 29..............Not bad for someone who was posted in as ADC/APS. :E

[ZOOKER]

If you went to your dentist, and he/she was performing a separate procedure, on another patient, at the same time as you were being treated, would you be happy?
Imagine if a heart surgeon, or a vet, was performing 2 operations simultaneously, and one of them went wrong........
NATS is keen on RPAS technology......But should a 'Drone Operator' control 2 separate RPAS units simultaneously?
Do you ever see a checkout operator, at TESCO, Waitrose or Sainsbury's, working 2 tills at the same time?.........No, I though so.

But it's O.K. for ATCOs.......Allegedly.

[kcockayne]

NATS not necessarily the first in the UK?

Jersey Airport is set to become the first provider of Remote Tower Service technology in the British Isles (http://www.jerseyairport.com/News/Pages/Technicaladvances.aspx)

Suppose if were all going to be sat remotely somewhere in 20 years, there's worse places than Jersey....
Speaking as someone who did 30 years at Jersey, I'd be very interested to see how that works out. A major part of the battle to get this established will be getting political support to allow outsiders into the island. But, if it isn't forthcoming, I suppose that it would give the present staff something to do. I don't agree with the principle of this type of operation, but the Airport is now an incorporated company charged with making as much money as it can. Who is worried about such inconsequential things as principles & safety anymore, when there is money to be made ? If I hadn't retired, this proposal would be occupying my thoughts intensely !

[kcockayne]

Further to the above; I ought to state that I have less objection to the use of this technology to overcome catastrophic scenarios where the permanent Tower is unavailable. After all, most of the Jersey ATCOs worked with the "assistance" of CCTV (facing the wrong way) for several years after the new terminal was built so as to remove the ability of ATC to actually see the main area of operations (apart from the runway) i.e. the southern apron. So, the experience is there already.
One question. What happens in low vis. conditions ? And we get some VERY frequent low vis! I can't envisage one ATCO doing two ADCs in VI's of 200 meters !

[Gonzo]

I don't think Jersey's intention is to control multiple airports.

[kcockayne]

I don't think Jersey's intention is to control multiple airports.

Yes Gonzo, having read the item again, that appears to be true. Although Les is hopeful of expanding its use other than as an "emergency tower" facility. However, with the new revitalized Airport company looking for business, the prospect must have occurred to them.
I hope that my more generalized comments are still taken seriously.

[Gonzo]

Yes Gonzo, having read the item again, that appears to be true. Although Les is hopeful of expanding its use other than as an "emergency tower" facility. However, with the new revitalized Airport company looking for business, the prospect must have occurred to them.
I hope that my more generalized comments are still taken seriously.
Makes sense.

If your contingency facility can get you to 100% capacity, why not use it all the time?

[kcockayne]

Makes sense.

If your contingency facility can get you to 100% capacity, why not use it all the time?
Fair point Gonzo. But they've only just built a new tower that cost £10m+ ,so I can't see them closing it down anytime soon.

[Gonzo]

That doesn't stop the MoD!!! :hmm:

[broken headset]

I have no knowledge of the plans in Jersey, but if they have recruitment and retention issues at Alderney and Guernsey maybe they could provide remote tower services from Jersey for those airfields?

There are pros and cons for remote towers but one of the major benefits for small aerodromes is the possibility of enjoying a better standard of controllers as there are less recruitment issues.

I know that is contentious, and there are a lot of good controllers at smaller aerodromes, but the job motivation, additional training and money the 'remote' controllers would receive should ultimately raise the competence levels of ATC personnel at small aerodromes across the world.

In a modern ATC environment I feel I am more removed from the Pilots and ground staff than ever before in my 15year career, (and it is a shame). Is it really a big leap from this to controlling remotely?

[2 sheds]

one of the major benefits for small aerodromes is the possibility of enjoying a better standard of controllers as there are less (sic) recruitment issues.
I know that is contentious,

You could say that... You could also say that that is somewhat less than diplomatic!

2 s

[BDiONU]

One of the big factors to be considered is the datalink. High quality cameras send masses of data so you need to be certain that you're going to get the quality of service you require from the cable provider. I would be dubious about connections from A country to B country because of the difficulties in agreeing just who is responsible for maintaining the service and finger pointing should it go horribly wrong.

[ZOOKER]

Much better to use windows BD.

No, not the thing Mr. Gates invented, the ones in the physical control tower that you look through. :ok:

[Dont Hang Up]

If you went to your dentist, and he/she was performing a separate procedure, on another patient, at the same time as you were being treated, would you be happy?

Not a great analogy as my dentist does precisely that! Generally flitting between rooms with three patients on the go - typically one in the hands of the hygienist, one waiting for the Novocaine to kick-in, one actually under her treatment.

The reality is that some of the provincial airports really need to look at this type of technology if they wish to remain economically viable.

Uberlingen was so long ago wasn't it?

Another bad comparison.

That is en-route control, not Tower. And the sharing or merging of sectors under quiet conditions is established practice in that context. The only thing Uberlingen demonstrated is that you have to do it correctly.

[Spambhoy]

If you went to your dentist, and he/she was performing a separate procedure, on another patient, at the same time as you were being treated, would you be happy?
Imagine if a heart surgeon, or a vet, was performing 2 operations simultaneously, and one of them went wrong........
NATS is keen on RPAS technology......But should a 'Drone Operator' control 2 separate RPAS units simultaneously?
Do you ever see a checkout operator, at TESCO, Waitrose or Sainsbury's, working 2 tills at the same time?.........No, I though so.

But it's O.K. for ATCOs.......Allegedly.

I've heard some bad analogies in my time.

Approach is in a darkened room with radar ? It could be your in garden shed for all it matters. The tech has made it wholly plausible, from a centre, for decades. There's half your tower gone in a blink. Savings to the provider and customer, huge ! Why ? Because ATCO's consider themselves beyond tech, which is hilarious. I could train a hybrid, in months, to do the job. Your time is up, as well as Tels and Admin, as has been proven in the last 10 years. My ATC colleagues are trying to leave, have left or are in despair regards their future. Hardly surprising, NATS went on a journey about 15 years ago, but forgot to take their people with them. NATS, in particular, dropped the ball and the Germans picked it up and scored a try. Well done UK LTD.

[GASA]

I work in a busy tower and radar unit. Apart from the radar itself we barely ​have any technology, and what little we have breaks often. I don't dispute that technology will eventually replace air traffic controllers, but there isn't any sign of creeping technology in my workplace. Unless it all happens at once but that would still require the ansp to actually invest quite a lot of money, which I've never seen them do. I'm not overly worried.

[Spambhoy]

I work in a busy tower and radar unit. Apart from the radar itself we barely ​have any technology, and what little we have breaks often. I don't dispute that technology will eventually replace air traffic controllers, but there isn't any sign of creeping technology in my workplace. Unless it all happens at once but that would still require the ansp to actually invest quite a lot of money, which I've never seen them do. I'm not overly worried.
Name and shame?

Or your nothing more than a trick cyclist or a fantasist ?

[GASA]

No name and shame. I like my employer! I probably wasn't clear. We have back ups, service is not interrupted due to the professionalism and great work of my colleagues. Just knowing how technology is and how it frequently breaks, think of any computer or phone or whatever, I'm not worried the job will imminently disappear. I feel like there would be some sort of technological disruption leading up to a big change like that and I've seen nothing of the sort.

[ZOOKER]

Spambhoy,

I was doing approach radar, from a centre, utilising daylight-viewing, in 1982. That unit also combined approach with tower, and area, (obviously), plus approach radar for another of the ANSPs contracts, which has since been lost.
Many of the ATCOs who worked at this unit were valid on all of these functions, and all the others did at least two of them.
The flexibility that this system offered those tasked with rostering 'b*ms on seats' was second to none.
Then accountants/managers got involved and it all went for a ball of chalk.

Also.........

"I could train a hybrid, in months, to do the job".

Please could you explain this statement to us?

[BigDaddyBoxMeal]

You have to admit though.... the new corporate image puts them in a fantastic position to thrive in this developing marketplace 😉

[kcockayne]

When I joined ATC, in 1971, I was told by a person I met who was in the computer industry that I would soon be out of a job, replaced by one of his computers. It didn't happen & I made it to retirement (38 years later). I accept that the pace of technology is increasing, & that computers will take over at some point. But, when? Another 38 years ?

[Piltdown Man]

A remote tower with pooled ATC has to be the way to go for smaller airports with few scheduled movements. Off the top of my head, places like MME, CAX, CAL, HUY etc. might benefit. It is quite reasonable for ATC officers to be properly paid and to have a proper career, but airfields like these can offer little other than being nice places to live. But a good career coupled with a superb location to live could created for ATCO's who want to work in this part of the industry. At the same time these airfields would get proper ATC at a reasonable price.

PM

[V12]

Lots of negative views here but they are coming; try not to be a Luddite.

Look at Dublin, which can now control Cork and Shannon.

Also Sweden which has fully embraced it for the remote northern airports; cost savings in recruitment, training, familiarisation, retention, and buildings is very significant. They help to ensure airports with few scheduled flights/day stay operational. Hard to justify the costs to import human ATCOs to live in the remotest of places to clear perhaps 10 flights per shift.

Australia uses Remote Towers for places like Alice Springs airport, which is controlled from Adelaide some 1,500km away. And how many capable, well paid controllers want to live in the Outback: if you think it's easy, you've never tried recruiting the numbers needed to fill a roster for such places.

These airports will prove the veracity of the technology, like the ETOPS Twins eventually tolled the death knell for the B747/A340's on the trans-oceanic routes.

[Piltdown Man]

Adding to V12's post, I think this will allow expansion of ATC services, not a contraction. It will allow airports previously unable to expand because of the cost of ATC services to now attract commercial operators who demand certain minimum levels of control.

PM

[confused atco]

Look at Dublin, which can now control Cork and Shannon.
Dont believe the hype :rolleyes:

[fujii]

Australia uses Remote Towers for places like Alice Springs airport, which is controlled from Adelaide some 1,500km away.

Not correct. A remote tower monitored in Adelaide was trialled in Alice Sprngs but never commissioned. There was a plan to use remote towers to enable quick establishment during the mining boom to cater for a rapid a increase in FIFO mine workers but the boom came and went and no remote towers were ever built.

[ATC Watcher]

Yep , do not believe the Press releases or read them very carefully . most claims are just trials , like the last one in Saarbruecken by DFS/Frequentis . 5 days ..
Norway is AFIS not ATC , etc...
That said the thing is coming , and big time. Half of the CANSO/ATC exhibition in Madrid last week was about Remote ATS ( yes not only TWRs, but APPs and small ACCs will be next )
Multiple OPS is the big issue, will be difficult to sell to us , but they will get there one day because without it there is no business case. Cost benefit is only showing with multiple simultaneous OPS. not just one to one remote unit. More expensive.
The thing that will slow this down the timescale is not Controllers but the current stable availability and cost of High speed data transfer on secure lines.

Last nail in the coffin : ICAO just announced that one hurdle on DOC4444 . ( the visual acquisition bit) was cleared. "visual " can now also be via a display.

[Nimmer]

NATS are thinking about a remote tower option for London City!!!

Discuss.

An airport with a difficult approach, varying wind conditions and weather phenomena, plus surrounded by tall buildings. An apron with limited manoeuvrability, and 400 plus movements a day.

Interesting.

[ATC Watcher]

NimmerAn airport with a difficult approach, varying wind conditions and weather phenomena, plus surrounded by tall buildings

Devil's advocate : those are for the pilots , the controller only ensures separation with other aircraft and vehicles on the RWY/maneuvering area.
And that can be done , and even enhanced (e.g. Infra Red cameras) with remote tower technology.
That said, the 400 Mvts a day bit is where the hurdle will be me thinks.

[good egg]

Nimmer

Devil's advocate : those are for the pilots , the controller only ensures separation with other aircraft and vehicles on the RWY/maneuvering area.
And that can be done , and even enhanced (e.g. Infra Red cameras) with remote tower technology.
That said, the 400 Mvts a day bit is where the hurdle will be me thinks.

I think the controllers do a little more than ensuring separation on the ground...

In any case, my main point, is why does the movement rate per day matter?
It's the same job, probably with a better view, probably with better situational awareness (assuming some of the additional tools are provided), the only real difference being that you're looking at screens rather than out of a window.
Whether it's 10 movements a day, 400 or 800 doesn't make a difference in my opinion.

[Gonzo]

Why does everyone think it's the ANSPs pushing this? Where does an ANSP stand if the airport who pays them wants the tower to disappear? Or wants to realise cost savings of combining ops with other airports on night shifts?

[pax britanica]

Speaking as a passenger-and we do have a a stake in this even if most don't have an interest , it would not worry me flying into an airport witha dozen movements a day if it was remotely controlled from some kind of hub unit so longas there were proper protectios in place for bad visibility etc .

I would asume that for busy places Gatwick LHR MAN its nevr going to hapen because of the scale of operations and the ground movements - look at the capacity at LHR and how it falls when LVPs in operation.

I dont think the telecoms side is an issue at all now although i accept that the often somewhat isolated position of smaller airports might make multiple physical links difficult but I would have thought that most locations could easily get two fixed line paths with a third by microwave or other radio link. In many cases now you can use LAN technology which gives good resilience but needs careful planning to make sure the actual physical carriage of the intermingled data is actually done on sperate links separate. Its not uncommon for companies to find that you buy a service from company A and a back up from company B that t when something goes wrong they both leased the lines from BT and they are in the same cable.

What would worry me though is the issue of bonus driven perhaps not real 'industry' managers (in UK we specialise in non specialist managers to our great national detriment) just pushing the boundaries that little bit too much just to improve this years 'numbers' over last year, So for me it is the worry that the 'business opportunity' will at some point trump safety in some meeting when no one there has ever actually spoken into a mike

PB

[Gonzo]

Pax,

Thanks for your view, interesting to get the passenger's thoughts.

I would asume that for busy places Gatwick LHR MAN its nevr going to hapen because of the scale of operations and the ground movements - look at the capacity at LHR and how it falls when LVPs in operation.

Interestingly though, the greatest constraint at busy airports in LVP is not the lack of view out of the window. It's the protection of the ILS signal to the required level; which involves ensuring aircraft are further away from the runway than in good weather, before giving the next landing clearance. We do this by using ground radar systems. We could do this task just as well in a room with no windows or visual camera feeds.

[Tarq57]

pax britanica, it's quite possible this could happen in other areas without a business case for remote towers to be made.

Some might say it already has.

[GASA]

The ILS protection problem will go away if airlines move to GPS approaches which are on their way. Remote towers might mean a few less controllers but most will still be there as they are still doing the job. Remote towers are just a new place to work not an automated system.

They probably work best as economies of scale though and it's a very fair point that it might be hard for airports to change provider if they wanted to in that situation. Also with nats losing contracts of late the market is getting fragmented.

[ZOOKER]

Where does an ATCO stand if it all goes 't*ts-up big-time' when he/she is controlling 2 towers at the same time?
"We could do this task just as well in a room with no windows or visual camera feeds".........Excellent, Gonzo. Just install the kit in your VCR, then you will have the best of both worlds. 100% coverage, as befits a 'Global-Leading' ANSP.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

The ILS protection problem will go away if airlines move to GPS approaches which are on their way.

Hmmm.. interesting.

[midhurst]

I would asume that for busy places Gatwick LHR MAN its nevr going to hapen because of the scale of operations and the ground movements - look at the capacity at LHR and how it falls when LVPs in operation.

There's a school of thought that Remote Tower might actually be possible at major airports - systemised, high volume operations, where the tower view is important but the Controllers have other ATM systems available, such as SMR and/ or MLAT.

[reynoldsno1]

V12 & Piltdown have it right. Horses for courses, and places like NZ & Canada will also embrace this development. The operational environment in the UK is somewhat different, but there are likely to be benefits from this technology.

[ATC Watcher]

Good egg: I think the controllers do a little more than ensuring separation on the ground...
Of course , and I did not say that either, maybe I should have put a comma before " and" but what I wanted to say was that how difficult it is to fly the approach is not part of the controller tasks.

As to the number of Mvts , yes it is a problem because it affect the concept of multi airport simultaneously controlled by a single controller . Remember that is where the benefits will be . Switching to remote from an existing concrete TWR is far more expensive.

Last bit to show our employers way of thinking : last week in Madrid CANSO introduced the notion of cross borders remote TWR operations. Digest slowly that one for a minute...

[Gonzo]

The ILS protection problem will go away if airlines move to GPS approaches which are on their way. Remote towers might mean a few less controllers but most will still be there as they are still doing the job. Remote towers are just a new place to work not an automated system.

They probably work best as economies of scale though and it's a very fair point that it might be hard for airports to change provider if they wanted to in that situation. Also with nats losing contracts of late the market is getting fragmented.
GBAS CAT III won't get you much more than we can get today out of the latest 32 element ILS systems in terms of mitigating sensitive areas.

Meanwhile airports are working on reducing their exposure to LVP by reducing or removing the cloud trigger, IRVR credits etc.

The business case for GBAS is not an easy one.

ILS will be the dominant landing system for the next 20 years, if not a lot longer.

[Gonzo]

"We could do this task just as well in a room with no windows or visual camera feeds".........Excellent, Gonzo. Just install the kit in your VCR, then you will have the best of both worlds. 100% coverage, as befits a 'Global-Leading' ANSP.

Yes, but again, what about if the airport wants to remove the tower, or is expanding and doesn't want to build a new one?

There are bits of kit that you could have in a remote tower operation that you either can't fit, or wouldn't work, in a VCR.

[Not Long Now]

Where did the idea of controlling 2 airports simultaneously come from? Several people seem concerned about that, and rightly so if it were to happen, which I'm sure will be on some office dweller's mind. At the moment though, the economies of scale for staffing in a single location rather than multiple isolated locations seems to be the driver, which also seems logical.
As for making it more difficult for an airport to change service provider, surely just feed data to a different location. A possible issue in conversion training if current provider is operating remote towers from single location as there are not necessarily any controllers with a vested life in the local area who may want to stay around, so a bit of a tougher negotiation on validation training pre or post handover, but otherwise can't see the issue.
Obviously, from a controller's perspective, it will doubtless end in a race to the bottom of the wages ladder, and the stereotypical "Bangalore call centre" option appearing on some bean counter's list...

[callum91]

Where did the idea of controlling 2 airports simultaneously come from? Several people seem concerned about that, and rightly so if it were to happen, which I'm sure will be on some office dweller's mind.

https://youtu.be/C1vza1BqgbQ
According to that video they have already simulated 'multiple remote tower operations' by controlling a real tower remotely at the same time as a simulated tower using split screen.

[Nimmer]

How does visual separation work when you are working remotely?

I am thinking about VFR helicopter crossings, also CAT A police helicopters that are frequently crossed ahead of IFR inbounds using the mark one eye ball.

Plus all,the other stuff which is done to keep,the movement rate high, wheels up departures, using the combination of the speed group table, SID routing and visual separation.

It's called a VCR for a reason.

[good egg]

How does visual separation work when you are working remotely?

I am thinking about VFR helicopter crossings, also CAT A police helicopters that are frequently crossed ahead of IFR inbounds using the mark one eye ball.

Plus all,the other stuff which is done to keep,the movement rate high, wheels up departures, using the combination of the speed group table, SID routing and visual separation.

It's called a VCR for a reason.

As I understand it you still used reduced separation in the vicinity with remote towers. You are still "visual" after all, it's just presented on a screen rather than out the window

[Gonzo]

Screen separation? One on one screen, one on another? Or maybe you draw a vertical line that appears on the visual display; one stays left, one stays right, they're visually separated?

[good egg]

Screen separation? One on one screen, one on another? Or maybe you draw a vertical line that appears on the visual display; one stays left, one stays right, they're visually separated?

That has been talked about, I believe, but in simpler terms keeping aircraft from "merging" just like out of the window seems sensible (rather like radar blips)...

[good egg]

Human depth perception is only effective over a few hundred metres, I believe. This is less than the distance from most control towers to the runway.
In the cases where reduced separation in the vicinity is applied these distances are almost certain to be greater than that so it makes no difference whether you are looking out of a window or looking at a screen depicting the view out of the window.

As for "wheels up" you will still see "wheels up" regardless of whether it's out of the window or via a screen.

[GASA]

I've heard 'screen separation' has been looked at for visual separation.

[ZOOKER]

It's interesting to note that the 2 NATS articles on their website which trumpet this technology are 'Digital Towers Land In The U.K,' and 'The Rise Of The Digital Tower'.
It's obvious that neither of these statements can actually be true.

What is also interesting is that, back in the 1980s, Compact Disc/Digital Audio was trumpeted as the future of music......I remember seeing it on 'Tomorrow's World', Judith Hann, or Michael Rodd telling us all about it.
Still have my CDs, and enjoy them, but it's amazing how many vinyl LPs I saw when I was out shopping this morning...........And that was just in our local Sainsbury's.

I believe KODAK have re-introduced Ektachrome 100, too.

Funny old world.

[Gonzo]

Yes, sure, you can still use film cameras, record players and even ride a horse and carriage or a steam train. There's always room for the niche, for those who partake for the fun of it.

Sadly for those who would like the status quo to remain, where it results being cheaper and/or more profitable to use new technology, That technology generally comes into use.

The vast majority of music consumers now use streaming services or purchase music online. The fact that you can still go into town and find a rare record shop and buy an LP doesn't mean that the music industry is going to abandon online sales or CDs.

Just as I'm sure in 30 years you would be able to visit the tower at Duxford and still find paper strips, a telephone or two and a few dedicated folks manning the radio.

[ZOOKER]

Can you remember 'Simmonds digital drum-kits, Gonzo.........

They "were the future", once.

"Cheaper and more profitable".........as opposed to "Safe, orderly, and expeditious"?

[good egg]

Can you remember 'Simmonds digital drum-kits, Gonzo.........

They "were the future", once.

"Cheaper and more profitable".........as opposed to "Safe, orderly, and expeditious"?

Showing you age Zooker....the objectives are now:
(1) prevent collisions between aircraft;
(2) prevent collisions between aircraft on the manoeuvring area and obstructions on that area;
(3) expedite and maintain an orderly flow of air traffic;
(4) provide advice and information useful for the safe and efficient conduct of flights;
(5) notify appropriate organisations regarding aircraft in need of search and rescue aid, and assist such organisations as required.

It's not too far from ye olde speake and if you can still achieve them whilst being cheaper and more profitable (or even managing to keep/extend existing ATC contracts) then so be it.
Cost of ATC services, whether we like it or not, is "a driver"...especially to airport customers, their boards, their shareholders. The simple fact is that everyone wants more for less, from passengers to airport authorities.
Change isn't always bad, neither are technological advances.

[ZOOKER]

Keep/extend contracts, good egg?

Like EGBB, England's second city?

Like EGKK, England's, and possibly, The World's busiest single-runway airport?

Like EGPH, The airport serving Scotland's Capital City?

WHOOPS !!

[GASA]

All the churning of contracts is probably good for atcos, more competition more money, and there is a shortage of controllers. Also the loss of contracts breaks up the benefit of remote towers being brought together under one roof.

[ZOOKER]

"and there is a shortage of controllers"

Good Heavens.......How did that happen?

[good egg]

Keep/extend contracts, good egg?

Like EGBB, England's second city?

Like EGKK, England's, and possibly, The World's busiest single-runway airport?

Like EGPH, The airport serving Scotland's Capital City?

WHOOPS !!

And why do you think those contracts were lost Zooker?
Cost perhaps??
That's the point. Do the same service for less, or make a huge saving for the airport customer on building a new tower/maintaining a crumbling old one.

[good egg]

All the churning of contracts is probably good for atcos, more competition more money, and there is a shortage of controllers. Also the loss of contracts breaks up the benefit of remote towers being brought together under one roof.

(Although digital towers don't have to be in a centre, of course...depends what the customer wants/needs.)

I'm not so sure how good contract churn is for ATCOs in the long-term. The new ANSP will generally need to reduce costs so it's hardly surprising when you see them advertising for ab initio ATCOs, offering lower pay and poorer pensions too no doubt.

I'd rather my employer kept me employed on same Ts & Cs by finding other ways (like digital towers) to save the customer money. It won't suit every contract I'm sure, but it's worth showing what you can do.

[LEGAL TENDER]

I'm not so sure how good contract churn is for ATCOs in the long-term. The new ANSP will generally need to reduce costs so it's hardly surprising when you see them advertising for ab initio ATCOs, offering lower pay and poorer pensions too no doubt.

Ehm... that happened in Nats nearly 10 years ago.. when current employees at the time voted in favour of much lower pay conditions and a change in pensions and T&Cs for the new starters.
It was the existing staff that voted for that, it wasn't forced upon them by a new ANSP!

#selectivememory

[Neptune262]

Last nail in the coffin : ICAO just announced that one hurdle on DOC4444 . ( the visual acquisition bit) was cleared. "visual " can now also be via a display.

ATC Watcher - Where is this announced by ICAO?

Thanks.

[ATC Watcher]

ATC Watcher - Where is this announced by ICAO?
Yes, by their Rep (a nice lady) during a public debate in Madrid ( CANSO WAC ) on Remote towers last week.

[ZOOKER]

I believe with at one of the airports I mentioned good egg, there were, sadly, other issues apart from cost, involved.

[good egg]

Ehm... that happened in Nats nearly 10 years ago.. when current employees at the time voted in favour of much lower pay conditions and a change in pensions and T&Cs for the new starters.
It was the existing staff that voted for that, it wasn't forced upon them by a new ANSP!

#selectivememory

I don't have #selectivememory at all. There are cost pressures everywhere, in both the regulated and unregulated parts of the business. It shouldn't shock you to hear that ATCOs, while being the biggest asset, are also the biggest cost (and future cost).

What would you do to balance the books? I'd be fascinated to know...

PM me if you want, or start another topic, but we do seem to be digressing from this thread's intent

[mgahan]

In written form is in SL 023/2017, albeit advance notice.

MJG

[Neptune262]

In written form is in SL 023/2017, albeit advance notice.

MJG

Thanks for that - found the document, makes interesting reading - it is requesting feedback by June 2017 - with an envisaged applicability of November 2018.