LCY Remote Tower

[Reverserbucket]

I hear LCY is to get the first digital tower in the UK in 2019. Manned from Swanwick and providing significant benefits and efficiencies. I suppose NATS will save a bit on London Weighting...

[chevvron]

Actually it will cost more for personnel IF this is true.
City is a 'Band 2 ' unit while Swanwick is 'Band 5' so the controller's salaries will be considerably more.

[Reverserbucket]

Interesting chevvron, I assumed it would be cheaper. Saab's got the tech contract I'm told.

[GASA]

They won't get band 5 money for nothing. I bet they either stay on their current band or they get band 5 if they volunteer to validate on a radar sector at TC. I say volunteer because I'm not sure if nats can move them and make them validate on radar, especially if they don't have an approach ticket.

[good egg]

They won't get band 5 money for nothing. I bet they either stay on their current band or they get band 5 if they volunteer to validate on a radar sector at TC. I say volunteer because I'm not sure if nats can move them and make them validate on radar, especially if they don't have an approach ticket.

Such an offer, I have no doubt, would interest controllers...given the lack of opportunity to do radar at any of the main London airports.
(In the mists of time) I'm sure there used to be an agreement about being able to do radar training after a period of time being valid at a tower-only unit...

[middles]

As I remember, there was an agreement that prevented having different banding on the same Unit. However, if the service was provided from the CTC, as is Western Radar, then the pay scale would be much lower.

[ZOOKER]

Where is the approach function for EGLC carried out from at present, and is there a list published of the significant benefits and efficiencies?

[Gonzo]

Zooker, devils advocate, perhaps one (the only?) hypothetical benefit would be 'because the airport wants one'.

[ZOOKER]

Good answer as always, Gonzo.

[hangten]

Having visited EGLC a couple of times, the airport is hugely constrained for space. Removing the tower from the apron area could free some up. Any extra cost could easily be offset by the airport by having an extra parking space, or another lounge, or both.

[GASA]

EGLC approach is done from TC so I suppose nats could try to move them there and get them dual valid. Maybe then train the approach controllers to do tower, more efficient use of staff. That would then make the contract very difficult to lose. Maybe a route they could go with other airports to safeguard contracts...

I believe the airport wants to get rid of the tower and use the space for something else.

[chevvron]

Who will work in the tower while the other watch is training on the telly? Even with recordings they will have to go live at some point. Can't be in two places at once.

I'm sure they have a plan....

Double up with half a set of non-NATS Controllers then move, then radar, then ....
Not just controllers
I believe NATS only supply controllers to LCY, the assistants being employed by the airport, so if they went to CTC (for instance) they would need support staff too.

[good egg]

Not just controllers
I believe NATS only supply controllers to LCY, the assistants being employed by the airport, so if they went to CTC (for instance) they would need support staff too.

What pish you talk! (Or, more PC, your beliefs are half-truths)

[good egg]

to make it easy you could set it up locally - get it up and running in parallel ... with the new 'tower' two doors down the street ... then throw the switch and move west to Swanwick in IT 'tower' 2 in 2019. It only needs a 'room' - the rest is IT.

Aye, sounds dead easy setting up 2 "digital towers", with all facilities available at both, including the display equipment, remote switching capability, and redundancies for both.
Perhaps it'd be best to leave it to "Bodie & Doyle" rather than come up with such "innovative" schemes...

[good egg]

Which one are you? Bodie or Doyle? I think the "innovative" scheme is doing it at all. I was just considering the how. I'm sure it will make great TV as a project to follow - training all those FISOs :E

Now I'm really confused...what FISOs?!?

[good egg]

Just pulling your chain.

You clearly work at City. It would be interesting if you are able to tell us a little about the project. It is a first afterall. 2019 is not far away if that really is the move date.

Yanking of chain accepted.

It's not my place to reveal details, I'm sure a co-ordinated release of information will be forthcoming in the public domain in the not too distant future...should the rumour be correct.

Rumour networks are great in certain aspects - like the open sharing and generation of thought-provoking ideas and concepts - but these are based on conjecture.
However there are also downsides to such discussions, particularly for those people whose work might be affected...uncertainty, upheaval, etc.
It's not for me to be a moderator to anyone's thoughts, that is up to each poster. I'd merely suggest that before typing people ought to consider the people involved - no matter what the subject is.
I try to. I may not always be as understanding of people issues as, perhaps, I should be, but at least I try.

[Gonzo]

I most certainly agree good egg.

The problem is that those who are involved in this sort of project are not going to answer questions about it, and that leaves the door open for those who think they have the measure of the situation.

Making blanket statements about what will happen doesn't help.

[Skipness One Echo]

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.

[Satellite Man]

Remote air traffic control preparing for takeoff at London City airport

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/19/remote-air-traffic-control-preparing-for-takeoff-at-london-city-airport


The sounds of the airport are also played over speakers, to make this virtual world more realistic - potentially noisier, in fact, than some insulated control rooms - after trials showed it helped controllers. “It sounds a bit silly pumping noise into a control room but it’s something they need to do the job,” Anderson added.


What a "genius" must have thought that having a noisier environment is going to make ATC performance better. Why do they think towers have sound-proofing?


"At night, the contours of the runway can be highlighted with graphics. In low light, visibility can be improved. And should cameras detect anything that is not authorised traffic – any four-pixel moving dot that could be anything from a passing helicopter to a drone – the system can automatically zoom in and track it, with a pop-up inset window on the video cityscape."


Yeah, assuming the cameras work of course.. that the video system does not fail.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<The sounds of the airport are also played over speakers, to make this virtual world more realistic - potentially noisier, in fact, than some insulated control rooms - after trials showed it helped controllers. “It sounds a bit silly pumping noise into a control room but it’s something they need to do the job,” Anderson added.>>

Really? What about major airfields where the Tower maybe some distance from the runway? I don't recall any extraneous noises at Heathrow Tower. If there were they were probably drowned out by internal noises.

[Gonzo]

Let's assume you are in the position of supplying your customer with a service, provided by your employees at location A.

Customer comes to you and asks you to consider how to provide a service from another location instead, because they would like to use location A for something else. There's nowhere to build near location A either as there's just not enough room on your customer's customer's land.

What would you do?

[Gonzo]

Skipness, one could argue it makes it easier to change ANSP suppliers. One day the data/video feed is going to ANSP A, but the next day you flick a switch and the data/video feed is going to ANSP B somewhere in Europe? Some ANSPs are working on remote tower centres....why wouldn't this be the ultimate conclusion?

Islandlad, not sure it's that expensive to set up a few standalone controller workstations. The camera tower and redundant data feeds are the more expensive bits to come.

[Not Long Now]

I agree that it may be easy to switch service providers from a technical front, just plug in a new cable, but...
Perhaps it's more as a means of protecting contracts? When Gatwick was lost, I imagine the incoming provider was relying on a certain percentage of incumbent controllers staying put due to family/life ties to the area. If your controllers are 'remote' there may be less likelihood of them wanting to remain in situ and be transferred to new employer, as they are no longer bound to the airport area, so unless the new provider intends to set up their remote kit near the current one (but then why not?) there may be less numbers looking to stay on, and so more numbers needed from the new contractor to find from 'scratch', so perhaps a less attractive bid to win...

[T250]

Hang on, Luton is the next crack in the empire isn't it? :hmm:

[Gonzo]

Islandlad, apologies, I must have misunderstood your earlier post. I assumed you thought the the setup 'launched' today was a fully operational facility and would be sitting idle for most of the next two years.

A few EFPS suites and some large monitors are not expensive. It's linking them into the wider world and the airport that I was thinking about as the main cost.

So I think we are agreeing.

[A Nonny Mouse]

I've heard that the beer in Berlin is nice!

[panpanpanpan]

Forgive me as an outsider but this is something I'm interested in from a technology viewpoint.

The one issue I would have is that technology is simply not 100% secure 100% of the time. Any human designed system can be hacked by another human and nothing will ever change no matter how smart and smug IT departments are.

[QUOTE]LCY .... with a 'tower' in Berlin .... would TUPE apply? Or any other airport. A serious point i think./QUOTE]

I can get my head around a UK tower being provided from UK soil as radar is at present but how would it work with UK tower services being provided from a non UK state? How would this ever get past a regulatory authority and how would any incidents be dealt with?:confused:

The other issue would be training, I understand you good ATC folks go through a fairly intense training program. How would something like this simply be transferred to another state without the full cooperation of the existing controllers?:confused:

[Onceapilot]

This is complete stupidity for a busy commercial operation. Let us face it, normal tower ops could be / is almost procedural. Flying is often done in very low vis. However, apart from the real benefit of local knowledge, being on-site and working locally, primarily visually, gives so much better direct information to the controller that, it should not be sacrificed.:ok: There is no problem with providing the controller with synthetic displays for low vis ops but, putting the total control out to some lowest bidder in their bedroom, totally vulnerable to the vagaries of IT is pure stupidity IMO.:(

OAP

[Nimmer]

Well said OAP. A remote tower operation for London City, or for any airport that operates at a high level of traffic is madness.

Yes for the highlands of Scotland, or remote areas of Scandinavia, deepest darkest Africa maybe, with 2 or 3 aircraft a day. But London City, as my daughter would say OMG.

Alas the finance department and contract managers are involved now, it's going to happen.

Only 84 pay slips to retirement, then it's holidays by cruise ships, airports and ATC could be dangerous places!!!

[NewquayJacob]

There was rumour that London City might go to ANS

[ZOOKER]

I'm with OAP.

In the Highlands, salt-spray, gale-force winds and blowing-sand would be major problems affecting the sensing technology. Plus getting the required robust, resilient, strong and stable digital communication-links to that part of The U.K....Bound to be fraught with technical problems......After all, where did 007 go to escape surveillance?............Scotland!

Also, post election/Brexit, Auntie Nicola will be very concerned about securing jobs for Scottish people.
Quite right too.

[good egg]

I'm with OAP.

In the Highlands, salt-spray, gale-force winds and blowing-sand would be major problems affecting the sensing technology. Plus getting the required robust, resilient, strong and stable digital communication-links to that part of The U.K....Bound to be fraught with technical problems......After all, where did 007 go to escape surveillance?............Scotland!


I'm pretty sure that's what safety cases and safety assurance are for. Each is tailored to the specific environment. The demands the environment places on equipment in terms of specification and maintenance will all be factored in.

[good egg]

<<The sounds of the airport are also played over speakers, to make this virtual world more realistic - potentially noisier, in fact, than some insulated control rooms - after trials showed it helped controllers. “It sounds a bit silly pumping noise into a control room but it’s something they need to do the job,” Anderson added.>>

Really? What about major airfields where the Tower maybe some distance from the runway? I don't recall any extraneous noises at Heathrow Tower. If there were they were probably drowned out by internal noises.

Sorry, just playing catch up after a few days off...

HD there are various situations where hearing the sounds from an airport provide additional situational awareness for controllers.

For some aircraft types in particular the timing of, and differences, in the sounds created when engines are spooling prior to take off can affect how a controller deals with a tight gap.

The sound of an engine "popping" could be the first indication of a problem (particularly in low visibility operations)...birdstrike on departure? Engine failure on take off roll?

There are many, many more examples when air crews will be prioritising aviating and navigating rather than communicating with ATC, and hence why sounds are important to alert a tower controller.

Just because the tower you used to work at was so far from the runway(s) that sounds were seemingly irrelevant doesn't mean that they couldn't be beneficial at your previous location, or indeed other locations.

I have no problem with people offering opinions, sometimes they can be insightful and thought-provoking and raise relevant points.
Experience is important, however I can't help but think that your apparent lack of experience/knowledge of other operations and new technology clouds your judgement somewhat. You seem to base most of your posts on your experiences at EGLL (understandably) without even contemplating how, and why, other operations may be different.

Perhaps a more appropriate response would have been "Why are airfield sounds important to your operation?" (with or without your additional experience of sounds at your former workplace.)

[Nimmer]

Safety cases!! Has anyone done a safety case for an ATCO sat in the tower at an airport?? Highly unlikely, as the situation doesn't need one!!��������

Safety cases can easily be manipulated to ensure the appropriate result is achieved.

Good Egg you do talk a lot of sense, and as you are a current City controller, and seem OK with this idea, then maybe it will work, I remain unconvinced though.

[A Nonny Mouse]

Good Egg always talks sense, management always does :)

Do the majority of controllers at City believe that this is a step forward? Who knows, I don't suppose any of them have been asked or consulted!!!!

[jackieofalltrades]

I believe the airport wants to get rid of the tower and use the space for something else.

Am I missing something? If that's the main reason, couldn't they just build a new tower on top of a terminal expansion?

[good egg]

Good Egg always talks sense, management always does :)

Do the majority of controllers at City believe that this is a step forward? Who knows, I don't suppose any of them have been asked or consulted!!!!

No early go for you Nonny! ;)

[ZOOKER]

jackie,

I read somewhere that the space presently occupied by the air traffic control tower is needed for a new 'lounge'.

Mind you, if Brexit happens and all the banks move to the EU, Wapping International Airport will be much less-busy.......And ideally-suited for r-TWR operations.

This could be the basis of NATS' thinking?

[landedoutagain]

NATS' thinking?

:mad:
:hmm:

[ajd1]

I'm a professional pilot and I've been brilliantly looked after by the people in all the various ATC categories for more than 40 years.
I'm an old school pilot (obviously), and I think it's a terrible idea. Progress? ....

[good egg]

I'm a professional pilot and I've been brilliantly looked after by the people in all the various ATC categories for more than 40 years.
I'm an old school pilot (obviously), and I think it's a terrible idea. Progress? ....

It depends what you see by progress. Anything that adds to an ATCO's situational awareness is a plus in my book. It's also a plus in my book that the tower controllers will have more interaction with the approach controllers (and vice versa).

[Mister Geezer]

With the number of manufacturers of remote tower equipment potentially increasing in number, how costly would it be to transfer from one manufacturer to another? Sensor and camera technology could be unique in design along with its interface with how the data is presented to the controller.

Any ATC service provider who was looking at taking LCY, would face a choice of embracing the current Saab equipment that is installed, which would be cheaper but could this pose a problem if the other service provider is perhaps accustomed with equipment from a different manufacturer?

Would the remote tower equipment at LCY belong to NATS or the airport? If it's the latter then could that perhaps add a further cost to any service provider that may ever look to knock NATS off their perch at LCY?

[ZOOKER]

"It's also a plus in my book that the tower controllers will have more interaction with the approach controllers (and vice versa)."

Well that statement certainly nails you down as a member of 'management', good egg.

Because that's how it generally was back in the day, when approach and aerodrome controllers were co-located in the same building, oh, and cross-valid on both functions.........Before 'management' started meddling with it.

You couldn't make this up.

[kcockayne]

Well said, Zooker.

[jackieofalltrades]

This could be the basis of NATS' thinking?

There's an oxymoron if I ever saw one!

[chevvron]

Or even become the approach controller. Now that could be a good idea.


Already happening at some airfields where the tower controller is now allowed to vector traffic for the ILS at certain times, supposedly when it's not busy (but how long will THAT rule last?)

[good egg]

"It's also a plus in my book that the tower controllers will have more interaction with the approach controllers (and vice versa)."

Well that statement certainly nails you down as a member of 'management', good egg.

Because that's how it generally was back in the day, when approach and aerodrome controllers were co-located in the same building, oh, and cross-valid on both functions.........Before 'management' started meddling with it.

You couldn't make this up.

Ah Zooker, there are plenty of good reasons why the approach functions for the bulk of TMA airfields were clumped together.

I'm presuming (I may be wrong here) that you see some logic in bringing those two functions closer together again?

Indeed cross-validation over the two functions seems eminently more practical again...given that they would be housed in the one location.
Such opportunities would be welcome, assuming the terms & conditions were right.

However, I doubt there will be a huge push for such a move any time soon. Crawling before walking springs to mind.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

When the move of the radar units to LATCC took place I don't think any operational ATCO saw benefits, even less when new controllers were posted in. None had dual validations; some had only one rating! What a way to run a group of major airfields? Still, the important thing is the bosses got their whopping bonuses!

[Occams Razor]

When the move of the radar units to LATCC took place I don't think any operational ATCO saw benefits, even less when new controllers were posted in. None had dual validations; some had only one rating! What a way to run a group of major airfields? Still, the important thing is the bosses got their whopping bonuses!
So how is this now viewed by operational ATCOs?

[Uplinker]

...........any four-pixel moving dot that could be anything from a passing helicopter to a drone* – the system can automatically zoom in and track it, with a pop-up inset window on the video cityscape."

(my asterisk)

* What about seagulls ?

The servo motors on those cameras are going to wear out quickly !

[Nimmer]

Ah Zooker, there are plenty of good reasons why the approach functions for the bulk of TMA airfields were clumped together.

I'm presuming (I may be wrong here) that you see some logic in bringing those two functions closer together again?

Indeed cross-validation over the two functions seems eminently more practical again...given that they would be housed in the one location.
Such opportunities would be welcome, assuming the terms & conditions were right.

However, I doubt there will be a huge push for such a move any time soon. Crawling before walking springs to mind.
Ah good Egg the naivety of the young!!!mwhen the approach functions were moved to West Drayton in 1993 (Gatwick and Heathrow), Satnsted 1995, Luton around 1998ish,the reasoning was anything but sound.

Controllers with 2 validations, tower and radar, suddenly had 1, the approach controllers, and there were loads of us ending up doing split shifts until a plan was decided. Cross validations, of course, but again there was no planning, and still isn't. Essex radar should also do Luton, and gatwick should do thames, alas the mix is somewhat befuddled with some Gatwick doing Hearhrow, Luton and gatwick, Essex and Thames.

The advantage of approach in the same room as TMA? Well the big advantage at west Drayton, was that I got to play cricket for LATCC, and the comfy chairs in the rest room were better. Down here at Swanwick the advantage is living in the New forest!!!

[ZOOKER]

Good point, Uplinker,

Without checking MATS Pt.1, I'm fairly certain that bird activity still constitutes 'Essential Aerodrome Information'?

Especially in an 'estuarine' location such as EGLC?

[good egg]

This chitchat is very amusing.

Do you not think that with each additional tool (on top of "merely" reproducing the visual image) that time will have been spent addressing all these (valid) concerns?
Is it likely that they'd have overlooked such obvious issues as birds during the design and testing phases?
I doubt it.

I can't help but think that the single consistent issue is reproducing the visuals on screens rather than looking out of the windows - with all the resiliency and redundancy necessary - even more so when this is located remotely (which brings in much wider issues, not least of which is staff relocation).

[ZOOKER]

Seems a 'letter-box' view....What about the overhead?

Are you 'BDiONU', good egg?

It's not that amusing, really.......

The safety of the travelling public, and those whom they have paid good money to travel over, are the issues here.

Who are "they", good egg?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Nimmer. Don't know if you came across this classic after the "split": I was at TC and AIR ARR rang about a go-around which was in conflict with a departure off the other runway. I told the controller to put the departure on a heading... "I can't do that; I don't have a radar rating".

At what was Europe's busiest airport the tower controllers couldn't issue headings!! I trust that this has been sorted out by now?

[Nimmer]

Yep, tower controllers without a radar rating, can issue headings when instructed by radar. There were a few interesting scenarios when we split off wasn't there??

All is good now though, of course.

[good egg]

Seems a 'letter-box' view....What about the overhead?

Are you 'BDiONU', good egg?

It's not that amusing, really.......

The safety of the travelling public, and those whom they have paid good money to travel over, are the issues here.

Who are "they", good egg?

Ummmm, what about the overhead? In a conventional tower the overhead is covered by a ceiling with zero opportunity to see what's going on...with this technology a PTZ camera can offer that view.

No, I'm not.

The point of this technology is that it offers superior safety, through better views and increased situational awareness for controllers.
Should we shun these potential improvements?

The "they" I referred to are the developers of the technology. They develop to a potential market, based on what that market's requirements are.

[kcockayne]

Ummmm, what about the overhead? In a conventional tower the overhead is covered by a ceiling with zero opportunity to see what's going on...with this technology a PTZ camera can offer that view.

No, I'm not.

The point of this technology is that it offers superior safety, through better views and increased situational awareness for controllers.
Should we shun these potential improvements?

The "they" I referred to are the developers of the technology. They develop to a potential market, based on what that market's requirements are.

Surely, then, these benefits from modern technology should be available to Tower controllers who are actually situated at the airport concerned. Why do they need to be situated at a remote site ? It needs one ATCO to perform ADC for the airport concerned whether or not he is sited at the airport. So, why bother to site him remotely ?

[good egg]

Surely, then, these benefits from modern technology should be available to Tower controllers who are actually situated at the airport concerned. Why do they need to be situated at a remote site ? It needs one ATCO to perform ADC for the airport concerned whether or not he is sited at the airport. So, why bother to site him remotely ?

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.

[T250]

Just a few thoughts:

- Most airports have 'back-up' or 'contingency' towers, what will be the contingency for this remote tower? And before you jump to say 'resilience of systems, secure etc. etc.' :zzz: what if for example someone flew a drone into the cameras? Or gained access to the structure housing the cameras and grafitti'ed them or even knocked the whole structure down? Sounds a bit farfetched but is it really too far from reality for today's nut jobs or eco-warriors?

- Why can't the 'remote technology' be applied instead locally. Apply all these new gizmos to the current glass for example of the existing VCR so in the event the whole thing fails, it can be turned off and raw view out of the window the old fashioned way comes back until hacker or drone or whatever has crippled the system has been removed.

- There was a worldwide hack of many systems a few weeks ago, one that crippled some NHS Trusts for a short period. Is this an acceptable risk that has also been factored in? Any human build system is not faultless because a human designed it :ugh::oh:

[ZOOKER]

One positive aspect of this system is the ability to replay the video in the event of an accident or incident.

How long would the 'visuals' have to be retained for?

What are the 'fallbacks' in the event of all the screens going blank?

[ZOOKER]

Just a thought,

Even if an airfield has no desire or intention to go to r-TWR ops, would it not be an idea to install a passive version of the panoramic camera system, purely for recording of accidents/incidents?

Every other aspect of aviation is comprehensively recorded for investigation purposes, why not add this?

[kcockayne]

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 ?

[good egg]

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 ?

I'm pretty sure all those questions have all been answered on the various threads relating to this topic on here.
Whether they are answered satisfactorily as far as you are concerned is a different matter.

[ZOOKER]

I think one of the main drivers behind this kcockayne is the managements desire to get ATCOs working more than one aerodrome simultaneously.

One of the videos I've seen on Youtube clearly shows the ATCO in Sweden with switches on the desk enabling her to select displays covering different airfields.

Also, I think either the IAA or the Dutch have run trials with 2 sets of screens stacked one-above the other, enabling 2 airfields to be controlled by one ATCO at the same time? Again, there is a video of this on the 'net.

I did read somewhere a discussion about what traffic levels/scenarios could be 'safely-worked' 'simultaneously'. For example, could you have 2 take-off or landings at the same time?

Personally, I don't see any of the above as 'enhancing-safety' at all.

[kcockayne]

Zooker, I completely agree with you. And this is the salient point of all this - to reduce staff by getting one ATCO to do two(or more) ATCOS' work. This MIGHT be acceptable at aerodromes with little traffic - but absolutely not at EGLC. This sort of situation ought to be the catalyst to get all ATCOS to stand up for professional principles & the safety of ATC by, ultimately, being prepared to go on strike.

[good egg]

Ummmmmm

Nothing in this proposition indicates anything of the sort?

Should that day come then those issues would have to be faced, and answered.

[kcockayne]

Ummmmmm

Nothing in this proposition indicates anything of the sort?

Should that day come then those issues would have to be faced, and answered.

So, what is the reason for doing it if it is not to save staff & money ? How can the aerodrome operator save money if the same number of ATCOS are controlling the traffic (regardless of where they are doing it from) ?

[good egg]

So, what is the reason for doing it if it is not to save staff & money ? How can the aerodrome operator save money if the same number of ATCOS are controlling the traffic (regardless of where they are doing it from) ?

This feels like Groundhog Day all over. Same answers (from me, my personal opinion) as above/as stated in other threads on this topic.
I don't know what the ultimate objective might be, if there is one. I can speculate, like anyone can. I could offer a ton of reasons why the current VCR is not fit for purpose "going forward" - for want of a better term!
But each battle should be weighed up on the pros and cons.
There's little point in limiting progress for the sake of it. Where the benefit outweighs the cost then progress should be made. When the benefit doesn't outweigh the cost then a line has to be drawn.
Where that line is is disputable on a subjective front. On an objective front it is more measurable.
Both measures are important, of course, but the balance of both - in particular with regards to safety should surely rule?
No airport, no ANSP, no regulator would accept anything less, and nor should it.
Safety is always the priority, despite market pressures.

Safety is assured on the probability of failure, and what the mitigations are for said failure - which is why current systems operate the way they do. Until a system is proved reliable it isn't accepted. Hence the time it takes for a system to be tested until it is proved reliable (and, that in the case of failure, the fallback measures are safe).

[ZOOKER]

"Going forward"

A splendid and ubiquitous 'management phrase' that tells is everything we need to know. :E

[good egg]

"Going forward"

A splendid and ubiquitous 'management phrase' that tells is everything we need to know. :E

And hence why I quoted it...
But hey, if you can't get that...

[Gonzo]

The world moves on, constantly.

"Ahh, procedural control...."
"Ahh, Primary radar..."
"Ahh, Secondary radar Mode A...."
"Ahh, Mode C"
"Ahh, Mode S"
"Ahh, datalink clearances"
Ad infinitum

The reasons for the City remote operation have been discussed in this and other threads.

It will be fantastic to see how these tools develop over the years. Looking forward to seeing how I can help make them work.

However, it will be interesting to see how the UTP for new trainees and valid controllers handle ongoing familiarisation with the airport itself, and how the relationship between controllers/ATC Ops and other airport employees (airside ops, ground crews etc) develops once there are 120 miles between them.

[ZOOKER]

120 miles........??

Is EGLCZT moving to Cornwall?

[good egg]

The world moves on, constantly.

"Ahh, procedural control...."
"Ahh, Primary radar..."
"Ahh, Secondary radar Mode A...."
"Ahh, Mode C"
"Ahh, Mode S"
"Ahh, datalink clearances"
Ad infinitum

The reasons for the City remote operation have been discussed in this and other threads.

It will be fantastic to see how these tools develop over the years. Looking forward to seeing how I can help make them work.

However, it will be interesting to see how the UTP for new trainees and valid controllers handle ongoing familiarisation with the airport itself, and how the relationship between controllers/ATC Ops and other airport employees (airside ops, ground crews etc) develops once there are 120 miles between them.

Yes indeed, closer links between tower and approach, extended links between tower and the airport (in this case).
Managing those changes in relationships is likely to be a big factor.
Bigger, I'd guess, than the relationship between an ALDIS lamp and a PTZ Light Signal gun...

[ZOOKER]

But Gonzo,

BK, down at airspace planning seems to think that NATS is going back to the procedural days..........'ATC Systemisation'?

[good egg]

But Gonzo,

BK, down at airspace planning seems to think that NATS is going back to the procedural days..........'ATC Systemisation'?

Crikey, that's a bit of a leap for this topic...perhaps a new thread would be more appropriate to voice your concerns?

[Gonzo]

than the relationship between an ALDIS lamp and a PTZ Light Signal gun...

Don't know what you're talking about old chap, we've managed without a signal lamp for years! You're stuck in the past! :}

[good egg]

Don't know what you're talking about old chap, we've managed without a signal lamp for years! You're stuck in the past! :}

:) Well, to be fair, there are airfields that don't rely on heavy jets (HD). And also airfields that use said equipment on a regular basis in order to (possibly) prevent unnecessary missed approaches (quite apart from regulatory requirements...)

[ZOOKER]

But do the ATCOs at said airfields control a/c at other locations..........Simultaneously, good egg?

[ZOOKER]

ATC is a bit like 'Space-time', good egg...........A continuum.

[kcockayne]

This feels like Groundhog Day all over. Same answers (from me, my personal opinion) as above/as stated in other threads on this topic.
I don't know what the ultimate objective might be, if there is one. I can speculate, like anyone can. I could offer a ton of reasons why the current VCR is not fit for purpose "going forward" - for want of a better term!
But each battle should be weighed up on the pros and cons.
There's little point in limiting progress for the sake of it. Where the benefit outweighs the cost then progress should be made. When the benefit doesn't outweigh the cost then a line has to be drawn.
Where that line is is disputable on a subjective front. On an objective front it is more measurable.
Both measures are important, of course, but the balance of both - in particular with regards to safety should surely rule?
No airport, no ANSP, no regulator would accept anything less, and nor should it.
Safety is always the priority, despite market pressures.

Safety is assured on the probability of failure, and what the mitigations are for said failure - which is why current systems operate the way they do. Until a system is proved reliable it isn't accepted. Hence the time it takes for a system to be tested until it is proved reliable (and, that in the case of failure, the fallback measures are safe).

I am sorry if I have constructed "Groundhog Day", but I didn't really see the earlier posts. I will endeavour to read them.
You say that nothing in this proposition indicates anything of the sort ie reducing staff by getting one ATCO to do two ATCOs' work. Maybe not, but I struggle to see the possible benefits & savings if it does not involve cutting staff.
As you say, "there may be a ton of reasons why the current VCR is not fit for purpose". But, why can't either a new VCR be built, or the remote operation be exercised from, within the LCY complex?
I don't wish to "limit progress for the sake of it", but the whole ethos of ATC, as I was educated in it, appears to be under threat here. Either principles have changed drastically, or these principles have been abandoned (apparently under cost pressures). If so, I cannot imagine why they should have been & I am surprised that a body such as the Guild Of ATC has not been active in trying to uphold them. Does it still exist ?
"Until a system is proved reliable, it isn't accepted". I have to ask exactly how was this proof obtained ?
It is difficult to assess the benefits from my viewpoint - although, I accept that things may have moved on since my day. If so, I guess that I will have to accept that I am just a dinosaur !

[good egg]

Zooker, I'm guessing you see this move (LCY to Swanwick) as a precursor for tower controllers simultaneously controlling more than one airfield/runway?
That is a valid concern - and one which would face fierce opposition I'm sure.
But there's no suggestion, certainly from what I've read/seen, that anyone is saying that LCY controllers would have to get dual-valid at a.n.other airfield and provide both services simultaneously.
Probably be better to stick to facts rather than fiction. Should such a hypothetical situation be the case then that's the time to challenge it.
As the case is, it's a question of whether a controller can operate using video rather than seeing out of a set of windows. That point has been proven (albeit at lower intensity airfields).
If it's safe to do it at low intensity airfields what's to prevent it being used at high intensity airfields?
A low intensity airfield might involve 3 aircraft an hour, but they could be concentrated in a 3 minute period - what's to prevent that same 3 minute period being replicated 20 times in an hour?
If it's safe to do it's safe to do.
It's the same job, regardless of the scale. If the equipment is fit for use, and the controllers are suitably trained, then the bigger question is why not, rather than why?

[ZOOKER]

Will this require a separate rating?...............ADI/ADV/ADS?

[good egg]

I am sorry if I have constructed "Groundhog Day", but I didn't really see the earlier posts. I will endeavour to read them.
You say that nothing in this proposition indicates anything of the sort ie reducing staff by getting one ATCO to do two ATCOs' work. Maybe not, but I struggle to see the possible benefits & savings if it does not involve cutting staff.
As you say, "there may be a ton of reasons why the current VCR is not fit for purpose". But, why can't either a new VCR be built, or the remote operation be exercised from, within the LCY complex?
I don't wish to "limit progress for the sake of it", but the whole ethos of ATC, as I was educated in it, appears to be under threat here. Either principles have changed drastically, or these principles have been abandoned (apparently under cost pressures). If so, I cannot imagine why they should have been & I am surprised that a body such as the Guild Of ATC has not been active in trying to uphold them. Does it still exist ?
"Until a system is proved reliable, it isn't accepted". I have to ask exactly how was this proof obtained ?
It is difficult to assess the benefits from my viewpoint - although, I accept that things may have moved on since my day. If so, I guess that I will have to accept that I am just a dinosaur !

Kcockayne, I'm an advocate of experience (believe it or not!).
There are lots of ways that sharing of experience helps...whether we're talking about valid ATCOs or trainees.
GATCO does provide opinions on such subjects...and I'm pretty sure they're opposed to simultaneous operations too, from what I've seen (quite rightly, in my opinion).

I am purely guessing here, but there are opportunities provided by co-locating APC with ADC. If APC is short, for whatever reason, by a controller what does that mean for arrival regulation to said airfield? What if ADC was short, for whatever reason, by a controller what does that mean for arrival regulation?
If the difference between the two arrival regulations is significant then maybe it'd be worth cross-validating controllers? Just a thought....

[good egg]

Will this require a separate rating?...............ADI/ADV/ADS?

I sincerely hope not - especially for the controllers involved - that would surely limit their (future) ability to transfer jobs to other (non-digital) airports.

I can't see why it would require another rating. It's the same job, with the same responsibilities, using the same skills.

As far as I know there's not a separate rating for it in Sweden.

[Uplinker]

According to Wikipedia, NATS is a private/public partnership, 49% owned by the UK Government. This means that whoever has the 51% stake will be keen to maximise profits, but the Government probably are too, to help reduce the Country's deficit.

Having a remotely operated Tower is presumably their beancounter's way of doing this - if they can make it work. They will have to pay for the technology once but will save thousands of pounds in London staff wages etc, year on year, and will no doubt roll it out to other airfields.

Instead of each Tower needing its own extra controllers to cover shifts, leave, and sickness etc, one set of spare controllers could cover several Towers controlled from the same room at Swanwick. I don't know the figures so am going to pluck some out of the air and guess at 10 controllers for a small airfield Tower - so say four Towers that used to need a total of 40 staff could be remotely controlled by a complement of say 20 staff at Swanwick?

My figures might be way off but the principle is what I am talking about.

Someone on this thread said the Met office now use remote sensing instead of experts 'on the ground', and I think their forecasts are worse than they used to be. Where I live, they are often plain wrong. I fear this will happen with NATS. En route controller frequencies are already getting busier and busier because more and more traffic is being controlled by fewer and fewer contollers, to the detriment of the service and flight safety.

No amount of cameras, automatic drone spotters and other gizmos can make up for the situational awareness that comes from actually sitting in the Tower with one's binoculars - seeing the Red Arrows cross your airspace, observing the storm clouds in the far distance, watching the police, ambulance or traffic helicopter and all manner of SA clues and cues that you just won't get in the same way on a couple of HD screens.

And of course, when the video links go down - and they will !! - What then ??

[good egg]

No amount of cameras, automatic drone spotters and other gizmos can make up for the situational awareness that comes from actually sitting in the Tower with one's binoculars - seeing the Red Arrows cross your airspace, observing the storm clouds in the far distance, watching the police, ambulance or traffic helicopter and all manner of SA clues and cues that you just won't get in the same way on a couple of HD screens.

And of course, when the video links go down - and they will !! - What then ??

But you will see the Red Arrows, the storm clouds and all the helicopters you mention!

Your point about the visuals failing is the important one. The redundancy and resiliency of the system is key. If the visuals did fail then the fallback is effectively LVPs - which would certainly affect capacity until the visuals became serviceable again.

Losing visuals and comms would effectively shut the airport. But then losing comms would effectively shut the airport with its traditional tower too.

[rodan]

What about depth perception? Is that just overrated?

[ZOOKER]

Related to depth perception is parallax.

[DaveReidUK]

And of course, when the video links go down - and they will !! - What then ??

The NATS rep interviewed on TV last week made great play of the fact that there would be no fewer than 3 diverse comms links between LCY and Swanwick to provide redundancy/fallback.

She omitted any mention of the obvious single-point failure modes, not least the camera installation.

[ZOOKER]

"But then losing comms would effectively shut the airport with its traditional tower too.

Not necessarily, good egg.

The airfield I worked at had an 'ECU', an Emergency Control Unit. It was a 'Portakabin', located a considerable distance from the control tower, from which an Aerodrome/Approach Control Service could be provided in the event of the main facility becoming unusable.

Many years ago, contractors had to remove asbestos from the control tower building and many of us provided Aerodrome Control from this facility for an entire week-end.

I believe EGLL has the digital equivalent of this facility today......In my book, an acceptable use of this technology.

Many years ago, a comms failure at EGNX resulted in one of the ATCO providing a very limited service using the radio in a light a/c parked in front of the tower.

[good egg]

That's great Zooker, but I'm fairly certain LCY doesn't have that facility.

[ZOOKER]

I'm sure they don't, but neither does the place I worked at........Said 'Portakabin' was wrecked in a gale, but hasn't been replaced.

[good egg]

I suspect that for all but the largest operations that there is little point in providing such a facility due to the reliability of the current facility and the prohibitive cost of setting up a spare one which would be used so infrequently.

[Uplinker]

My point about the visuals is that a few cameras displayed on a couple of flat screens does not give the 360 degree instant zoom in / zoom out and geospatial surround picture that the human eye/brain in tandem with instantaneous head movement does. There is also no depth perception available.

The human being in the actual Tower can simultaneously track all the local traffic, the approach and departure traffic and what is happening down on the ramp whilst taking in the weather conditions and any number of similar situational awareness cues.

Having to pan and zoom cameras all the time it is easy to get disorientated and miss the big picture.

As for video audio and comms links, well I was in that field for 16 years..........Good luck.

And this is all for what? To make controllers lives easier? To improve safety? To increase traffic flow?

NO. To make more profit, that's all.

[Gonzo]

ATC centres have managed with remote comms over many, many miles for years.

Indeed as have many airports, LHR tower uses two off-site Tx/Rxs.

Any ATC unit requires two completely separate and independent RT comms systems to function.

[good egg]

My point about the visuals is that a few cameras displayed on a couple of flat screens does not give the 360 degree instant zoom in / zoom out and geospatial surround picture that the human eye/brain in tandem with instantaneous head movement does. There is also no depth perception available.

The human being in the actual Tower can simultaneously track all the local traffic, the approach and departure traffic and what is happening down on the ramp whilst taking in the weather conditions and any number of similar situational awareness cues.

Having to pan and zoom cameras all the time it is easy to get disorientated and miss the big picture.

As for video audio and comms links, well I was in that field for 16 years..........Good luck.

And this is all for what? To make controllers lives easier? To improve safety? To increase traffic flow?

NO. To make more profit, that's all.

You've raised some concerns that you, and others, will hold about this technology.

Depth perception is regularly raised as a concern but depth perception is only effective over a relatively short distance (in the order of a few hundred metres). I'd suggest that, in a lot of cases, the control tower is further from the runway than this effective distance and, that even in cases where it's not, that trying to apply any form of separation based on depth perception from the tower is ludicrous.

Your views on multitasking are at odds with what has been learned on the subject over the years. Indeed the whole field of "human factors" has progressed massively. Some people will mock the field without ever reading or learning more about it but that is ignorance, whether conscious or unconscious.

Do you have any experience of operating a PTZ tailored for Air Traffic Control use? It's difficult to be objective about it if you haven't.
(Also, from experience, controllers don't use binoculars all of the time - they are used infrequently and only when something is required to be seen in more detail - so why on earth would controllers be "Having to pan and zoom cameras all the time"?)

Everything I've read, seen and heard from controllers who operate and who have tested digital tower systems has led me to believe, providing redundancy and resiliency measures are effective, that this is a positive safety step for airport ATC provision...and I'm not just talking about glossy press releases.
The consistent feedback I've had from those controllers are the improvement in their view over the airport and the improvement in their situational awareness. (Incidentally traditional tower mullions obscure the view of an airfield to some extent, depending on their siting, width, distance from the controller, etc...you may laugh at that, yet the blind spots these can create have been factors in ATC incidents and will continue to present a risk. That is just one of the ways, tiny it may seem, that digital towers can improve the overall view to the controller.)

Digital towers are not a cheap option. What they do open up is potential for "efficiencies down the line" (Mike Stoller, NATS Airports Director), i.e. pooling of multi-disciplined controllers with potential for more flexible staffing over a number of airports.
The unions are, rightly in my opinion, vehemently opposed to a controller simultaneously controlling more than one airport at a time - that scenario would open up a huge amount of issues. I'd also suggest that during a shift it may be inadviseable for a controller to plug in at Aiport A then switch (with or without a break) to plug in at Airport B. These are issues that are yet to be faced and will be subject to intense scrutiny.

[Uplinker]

I am not an ATCO, I am a pilot*.

Good luck with it: I just worry that this is being marketed as a great leap forward when the underlying reasons are surely to reduce manpower, i.e. your jobs.

And it cannot possibly be the same as a controller physically being there in the Tower.

If the remote digital tower was laid out like an actual tower, with giant HD screens surrounding the controller where the windows would be, then it might work, but the field of view for each 'window' would need to be from above the horizon to what? 45 degrees down? The human eye brain is an awesome combination: using processing and memory to build up a 3D 360 degree picture that appears simulultaneously zoomed in and wide angle**. A camera lens has to have a particular focal length at any one time, which limits this.

I would also have concerns about the low-light performance of the cameras and also how they dealt with highlights, such as the sun shining directly down the lens - again, the human eye/brain combination can cope with a huge contrast ratio that cameras cannot. As for zooming and panning, it was claimed that any 4 pixel object such as a helicopeter or drone could be tracked, how do you do that without zooming and panning?

*I have made it a point to visit the control towers of the airfields where I have been based (and some where I wasn't, e.g. The old EGLL Tower), and it is always a fascinating experience. I did fly in and out of London City between about 2002-2005, but there was never time on a turnaround to visit the tower there.

** If you have ever tried to take a picture of a sunset or the moon, you will know how different the sun/moon appears in the photo against how it seemed at the time to your own eyes.

[ZOOKER]

Good points Uplinker, and interesting to hear the views of an 'end-user', as modern business-terminology describes your profession.

Historically, 'monocularly' always de-barred an applicant from holding a Class 1 aviation medical.

I believe PPLs could/can operate with this condition, as their medicals are 'Class 3'?

Now, ATCOs have Class 3 medicals, so 'Monocularity may be acceptable for an ATCO Licence application?

The r-TWR system is essentially 'monocular.

And as a keen photographer myself, your bottom line is spot-on.

[good egg]

Historically, 'monocularly' always de-barred an applicant from holding a Class 1 aviation medical.

I believe PPLs could/can operate with this condition, as their medicals are 'Class 3'?

Now, ATCOs have Class 3 medicals, so 'Monocularity may be acceptable for an ATCO Licence application?


Funnily enough I wondered about that too. Don't know enough about the condition to know if it would be a problem for operating touchscreens etc.

[ZOOKER]

Also, the standards of colour-vision required for the ATCO medical are possibly a relevant factor?

How accurate are the visual sensors/displays in terms of colour-fidelity?

[good egg]

I As for zooming and panning, it was claimed that any 4 pixel object such as a helicopeter or drone could be tracked, how do you do that without zooming and panning...?

Thanks for your added detail.

A demo video of digital/remote tower capability - albeit some time ago - indicated automatic FOD detection warnings and the ability to automatically track anomalies without operator input.

I don't know the design spec for this project but I have seen various ways in which sun glare etc can be resolved...some are automatic adjustments others are manual (very similar in fact to lowering a blind!).

If advances in mobile phone cameras performance in low light are anything to go by then I doubt there'll be an issue with the sorts of high-end cameras selected for projects of this scope.

[vintage ATCO]

As a long time ATCO (retired 10 years), a current FISO and A/G Operator all over the place, I used/use binoculars a lot when operating - comes of being nosey but is the gear down, what is that aeroplane over there, is that something on the runway, etc. Presumably bins will just enlarge the pixels?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Uplinker - wise words indeed.

[ZOOKER]

High-end cameras and displays will obviously incur high-end costs.

Back in the 1960/70s, I worked at a non-state airfield which has a 3 storey ATC facility.

When the airfield opened, the 'low-level' VCR wasn't a problem, but as the terminals expanded, the view out of the windows became more and more restricted.

The last time I visited the VCR, prior to the introduction of a new, taller structure, the VCR looked like a TV studio control-gallery, and the ATCOs were not happy bunnies.

In the early days, one of the cameras was aimed into the rising sun, to look at the 28 holding-point, and it did an 'Apollo 12'. The tels guys who installed the system were not happy bunnies.

[Eric T Cartman]

Serves them right Z - they should have set it up like the TfL cameras that shut off when pointed at the MI6 building - I'm sure someone could write a prog to follow the sun :-)

I'll bet most ATCO's could tell a story about new kit that did something the boffins hadn't thought of. Just look how many software revisions there have been to Windows 10 already.

I can see remote stuff working at places like City, simply because there's only one runway & standard in/out tracks. However, If I look back to the days of the Flying College @ EGPK, the thought of it in use at those traffic levels worries me somewhat !

[ZOOKER]

Just thinking about the remote/digital tower concept in the light of today's problems that are affecting "The World's Favourite Airline".

According to some observers, today's problems could be the result of cost-cutting' and the outsourcing of 'in-house' IT systems.

Given the present trend at NATS for outsourcing, globalisation, alliances and cost-cutting, could such a scenario as has befallen BAW affect r-TWR ops?

At least when 9020 went pop, as it did, we could keep the service going, a bit.

Yesterday I watched the video from the 'EGLC Virtual VCR' at Swan Wick and I was stuck by the difference in image colour/contrast across the 'windows'.

The day before, the r-TWR system was discussed at some length, with 3 other retired NATS staff, with about 130 operational years between us.......And we still couldn't get our heads around it!

We agreed collectively that one day, about 20 years in the future, some management whizz-kid might think.....'Hang on, what if we put the ATCOs in a 'purpose-designed structure', which is actually AT the airfield?

[TCAS FAN]

Shame it never happened before I hung up my headset - might have had the opportunity to match our GM, and work from home!

[ZOOKER]

Nice work if you can get it TCAS.

the last AME I used did just that. His 'surgery' was in his front room. He said it's brilliant this set up, about the best job I've ever had......And, all my patients are usually in the best of health to boot!

[2 sheds]

Zooker - you forgot to mention the cheque for 250 quid for a half-hour's work!


Your point about a whiz kid in 20 years' time - I was just about to say exactly the same - in each case, essentially change for the sake of change, oh, and brownie points for personal advancement.


2 s


2 s

[ZOOKER]

He's a super chap 2s.

One year, I needed an audiogram, and he had to ask the man next-door to stop mowing the lawn while did it.

You can't beat having a cat wandering about while you're reading the eye chart.

[On the beach]

Failure is not an option -- it comes bundled with Windows. Just ask BA. :E

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Vulcan Lover. I agree regarding situatioinal awareness. Very early on in my career - like 50 years ago - my training officers insisted "Get your head out the window!" I fear that this new toy will take up more ATCO working time to the detriment of the task in hand.

[Gonzo]

I don't think you should knock it until you've tried it VL.

Have you visited the current City VCR?

[chevvron]

Vulcan Lover. I agree regarding situatioinal awareness. Very early on in my career - like 50 years ago - my training officers insisted "Get your head out the window!" I fear that this new toy will take up more ATCO working time to the detriment of the task in hand.
Likewise when I was a trainee at Glasgow about 45 years ago; I had a Heron inbound to runway 10 and was sitting there gazing at my strips when my mentor* said 'your Heron's crashed'.
Of course it hadn't but it could have been true.
*George later became Centre Superindent at Prestwick centre.

[good egg]

VL

I couldn't care less whether you believe me or not. Curious what theories of mine you were talking about though?

Cameras aren't replacing the human eye/brain, those will still be used intensively. Cameras will be used to maximise the field of view for controllers (more so than a traditional tower can). This view can then, "at the touch of a button", be overlaid with additional information to aid situational awareness - which you yourself have said is so important.
I agree wholeheartedly that situational awareness is a key factor, as is the ability to oversee the entire movement area during routine ops. (Situational awareness becomes even more important in other situations, such as low vis, when neither the view from cameras nor the view from a traditional VCR would be sufficient.)

You could argue that the existing view could be improved by building a new traditional glass tower at the airport - and I'd agree with you.
But that new tower wouldn't readily support the additional tools which are purportedly available and indeed the further tools envisaged and under development.

I'd reiterate that digital towers are not a cheap option (although, in most cases, I would expect the capex to be less than building all but the simplest traditional tower).
Providing their redundancy and resiliency are satisfactory then I believe digital towers are a better option, especially with a view to "future-proofing".

If the proposed digital tower at LCY is deemed a success (as judged on a variety of criteria - the most important of which is of course safety) it will be interesting to see what the uptake of digital towers is after the first few entrants into this brave, new world. It will also be interesting to see where other airports decide to locate them (on-site or remote). But those are choices, as indeed is building a traditional VCR, when a new tower is required.

The operating efficiencies envisaged "down the line" by the ANSP are, in this case, a long, long way off IMHO.

But only time will tell.

[chevvron]

Let's face it chaps and chappeses, good egg, however much experience he has, has apparently been brainwashed into believing remote towers are a good thing, which I admit they might be for less busy airfields, but most of us have the 'natural' scepticism and caution of an experienced Air Traffic Controller when it comes to such a radical change in the way we do things.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

I can't imagine having information overlaid on the field of view. This whole thing is going bananas... but I expect someone is doing very nicely out ot it!

[good egg]

Let's face it chaps and chappeses, good egg, however much experience he has, has apparently been brainwashed into believing remote towers are a good thing, which I admit they might be for less busy airfields, but most of us have the 'natural' scepticism and caution of an experienced Air Traffic Controller when it comes to such a radical change in the way we do things.

I'm sure every ATC technological development over the years has been challenged by ATCOs from the existing and previous eras. A difference now is that, alongside the painstaking detailed analysis undertaken by ATCOs as part of safety management, it's also done, haphazardly, via social media.
People have opinions and now have an easily-accessible outlet for them (me included btw).
I'm certain though that a lot of people type before they think/investigate - it's easy to do, especially if you have an emotive response to a subject and/or limited access to relevant information.

Challenge is good though. Every new technology should be challenged. New technology can introduce benefits and risks. No one should blindly accept that new technology is better - indeed it would be foolish too.

How much each person understands those benefits & risks - and their associated management and mitigation - will shape their opinion of the new technology.

I don't consider that I have been brainwashed. I have sought out information, asked questions, considered responses and made my own assessment.

My assessment and your assessment are different.

[good egg]

I can't imagine having information overlaid on the field of view. This whole thing is going bananas... but I expect someone is doing very nicely out ot it!

Really. Think of approach radar. Would you rather have just primary returns or would you rather have information on aircraft type, callsign, speed, altitude, destination, etc.?

[good egg]

Again, for radar, would you want a blank background? No maps, no extended centrelines, no danger areas marked?

[good egg]

No emergency squawk highlights, no STCA, no selected flight level?

[Gonzo]

I can't imagine having information overlaid on the field of view. This whole thing is going bananas... but I expect someone is doing very nicely out ot it!

HD, imagine doing Air Deps in marginal weather; SVFR is waiting and waiting for you to get Helimed visual.

Equipped with binoculars, you strain to determine where Helimed would be out of the window. You look at the ATM, then back to the window, then back to the ATM, then back to the window. You spend 10, 20 seconds to just spot it, and inform SVFR. It comes over to you, but you need to spend an unequal amount of time keeping it visual, more than you need to because it would take precious seconds to re-acquire it visually if you loose it.

Now imagine that there's a box drawn on the window, around Helimed, telling you exactly where it is, so you don't have to spend any time at tracking it unaided. Just the odd quick glance and you know exactly where it is.

Is that not a benefit?

[kcockayne]

Good egg may have gone someway towards convincing me that "digital towers" are a good thing. But, why do they have to be part of a "remote tower" operation ? Why not just apply the benefits that they provide to a TWR situated & manned on the aerodrome concerned ?

[Gonzo]

Good egg may have gone someway towards convincing me that "digital towers" are a good thing. But, why do they have to be part of a "remote tower" operation ? Why not just apply the benefits that they provide to a TWR situated & manned on the aerodrome concerned ?

Because City want to demolish the current one, and don't want to spend money/sacrifice land to build another one.

[good egg]

They don't have to be remote. Hence the term "digital tower".

In theory, I guess, you could have HUDs with the same information over a traditional tower's glass windows. But then, depending on where you are looking at it from your perspective is skewed.

A solution for that would be to use cameras and display eqpt and no windows.

From there it's a question of cable length and susceptibility.

Then you hit additional opportunities to reduce costs, both as Gonzo mentioned for the airport and for potential pooling of ATCOs at a remote centre.

Remote facilities will not suit all airports. Digital towers, I suspect, would provide benefits for most.

[chevvron]

OK so City tower is done remotely from Swanwick.
But City Airport owners then decide it's still not cost effective and maybe a change of ANSP is called for.
Who owns the 'kit'? Can it be moved to another location? Where could it be done from if not City itself? If done from a room at City, does the room have windows in the walls? If you can see out of this room at City, why bother with all this expensive stuff, why not let the controllers look for themselves directly at the airfield?

[Gonzo]

Chevvron, I imagine that the first few points are covered by the ANSP contract for City Tower.

Your subsequent points, well, they're covered in posts above. Digital tower technology potentially gives you the ability to provide more information to the ATCO. But to do that effectively you might need to remove windows from the picture, pardon the pun.

To overlay data on top of visuals, you've got a few methods:

-Plot it on top of a video feed displayed on screens
-Project it on to windows a la HUDs (not viable where more than one person is operating due to parallax.
-Equip each operator with a personal HUD/Helmet mounted display (medical restrictions? Comfort? Serviceability of equipment? How do I know I'm seeing the same data/view/functions as the person I'm co-ordinating with? How is that recorded for investigation? Even more hurdles with this one).

[ZOOKER]

Why do you need all this complicated kit to do what is, in essence, a fairly simple job.

Why do you need to overlay 'data' on top of visuals? It doesn't matter if it's on windows, screens, or a HUD/Virtual Reality Hat.

What data will be displayed?

The controller has still got to look down at the strips/EFD display to update it, and consult the ATM as to the local traffic situation/distances from touchdown/turns onto track, etc.

If someone can't work out/remember the identity of the a/c they can see out the windows, which are under their control, could i suggest that they may be in the wrong profession?

If you can't see out of the windows, chances are you'll be in LVPs, and working from the EFD Panel/ATM/A-SMGCS screens anyway?

There's something I read about incorporating 'heat-sensing technology' too. How can you positively identify an aircraft based on an infra-red camera spotting a few flames? What are the EGT limits which will ensure identification is maintained?

I hope I'm proved wrong, but this seems to be the over-complication of a fairly straight-forward task, for the benefit of managers, share-holders and accountants......With the possibility of 'information-overload thrown in, too boot.

[kcockayne]

Because City want to demolish the current one, and don't want to spend money/sacrifice land to build another one.
Ok. Good, concise answer. Thank you. So, this happens to be the case at LCY, but at other aerodromes will not the temptation be to do it because it can be done - linked to obtaining maximum utilization of staff i.e. one ATCO performing TWR at various locations. Good egg has a far more difficult task to persuade me (not that I matter) that this can ever be a good idea !

[Gonzo]

Zooker.....

Please accept this in the spirit in which it's intended!:ok:

Why did we introduce radar? Procedural was perfectly good, and any controller worth his or her salt could keep the picture in their heads. I mean this new-fangled radar is so unreliable. It'll never catch on. Picks up cars, buildings, weather, anaprop, I can hardly tell if there's an aircraft there at all!

Why did we introduce SSR? Primary radar was perfectly good, any controller worth his or her salt could keep the picture using primary. And any, half the time pilots enter the wrong codes any, and the other half of the time the Mode C readout is wrong! It'll never catch on.

Why did we introduce code-callsign conversion? Raw SSR codes were perfectly good. Any controller worth his or her salt could keep the picture using the codes. I mean they're even written on the strip! I keep yelling at my radar trainees to look at their strips, not the radar.

Why did we introduce labelled ground radar systems? Primary SMR was perfectly good. I controlled before A-SMGCS introduction and GMC was fine, even in low vis. Anyone good enough could keep the picture in their heads. And now we'd probably even put spacing on inbound if it failed, in good visibility! Shocking I tell you. Good controllers don't need a ground radar!

Why did we introduce Mode S Vertical Stack Lists? Any radar controller worth their salt can manage the stack using their strips.

Why on earth does our electronic strip system automatically highlight any aircraft positioning to other LTMA airfields so that the controller doesn't forget to co-ordinate before start? When I trained we had paper strips and any GMP controller worth their salt would just remember!

And why does our electronic strip system automatically highlight certain flights by certain aircraft types on certain routes which require release by radar? Any GMP controller worth their salt could remember all the 'release subject...' flights, surely?

Why have we just introduced a pushback indicator on the Lighting panel? Surely any controller worth their salt could keep the picture of GMC in their head......surely any good controller wouldn't need a back up in case they forget that they have just routed an aircraft along a taxiway on to which they have also just approved a pushback.

[GASA]

I think the main problem with all this is putting the virtual tower in swanwick. What happens when London city want to chuck nats? Can they just reroute the feed somewhere else and keep on working?

[ZOOKER]

I was about to reply to Gonzo, but GASA has raised a good point.

How will future EGLC ATCOs undertake aerodrome familiarisation runs?

Surely, there are plenty of locations adjacent to EGLC where this facility could be located?

Gonzo, most of what you list above are improvements to the ATCOs task. No problems with any of that......But I'm yet to be convinced on this one.

When vertical stack lists were introduced at my unit, I rang approach, who were sitting 20 feet away and asked them to set up the VSL for the XXX Hold.

"Sorry I can't", was the reply......."Why not?", I enquired.

"Because it belongs to 'NERL', and NSL won't pay for us to have it", came the reply.

Accountancy rules, apparently.

[Gonzo]

Yes, as I've noted upthread, it will be interesting to see how familiarisation with the real world environment will be maintained.

Zooker, I think many of us are 'yet to be convinced', including me, but let's not just dismiss it out of hand and hark back to the days of bandboxed GMC with paper strips and no radar, when men were men etc etc.

Not aiming this at you personally by the way.

Controllers as a bunch are cynical, and I'm one of the most cynical out there, believe me. However, when faced with a new development/technology, many just seem to turn away from it (it'll never work! bah humbug!) rather than asking themselves "how could this work? How could we use this to improve the ATCO task?"

Such as the example I quoted above about highlighting low level traffic, or perhaps displaying WIP on the visual picture, and providing warnings if aircraft turn towards it or cross an imaginary line? Or providing instant 'deemed separation' by drawing a vertical line on the screen.....as long as the aircraft stay their respective sides of the line, they are considered separated. Etc etc.

We live in interesting times. Why not experience them first before judging, that's all I'm saying.

[kcockayne]

Gonzo, all the points you raised were good. And I certainly ran into all of them during the progression of my ATCO career. But, although this equipment does enhance the assistance to performance of the ATCO's task, it surely also makes it harder to actually do the job safely in the case of multiple TWRs being controlled by just the one ATCO. I do not think that new equipment (as you mentioned) introduced in the past served to make the task harder for the ATCO.
I can accept that it does enable this "multiple TWR controlling" to be done, but I seriously doubt that , in an overall sense, that in doing so it is enhancing safety.

[ZOOKER]

Gonzo,

Not taking it personally at all, just all good fun, and, as you say, "We live in interesting times".

Safe controlling. as always.....And get some JCBs in to build that new runway, you'll be able to control it 'digitally' from Swan Wick.......And do EGLCZT on your breaks. :E

[towerguy]

going all digital is great, works wonders ---- just ask British Airways ........

[Gonzo]

......but the worst thing about remote/digital/virtual/whatever towers? No more sunset photos that the Daily Telegraph can nick without asking permission and print, blown up to almost half a page.......:}

[good egg]

Ok. Good, concise answer. Thank you. So, this happens to be the case at LCY, but at other aerodromes will not the temptation be to do it because it can be done - linked to obtaining maximum utilization of staff i.e. one ATCO performing TWR at various locations. Good egg has a far more difficult task to persuade me (not that I matter) that this can ever be a good idea !

Kcockayne, trust me I'm not here to persuade anyone about multiple validations (and certainly not about controlling more than one aerodrome simultaneously).

My view is that digital towers offer safety benefits for controlling, some of which are detailed above.

Multiple validations at a remote centre are an endgame concept which throws up all sorts of issues. Issues which will be faced once more than one suitable aerodrome operation has moved to a remote centre. As yet this scenario is hypothetical...LCY (the first aerodrome) isn't due to "move" until late 2019. Will others follow? When? Will ATCOs have the capacity to maintain validations at 2 aerodromes?

Each aerodrome has its own peculiarities despite efforts to push for "standardisation" (i.e. trying to push a one-size-fits all ethos) across them.
Sure Aerodrome Control responsibilities are the same, but rules are applied differently at different airports for good reason - a simple example of this is the variety of definitions in MATS Part 2s regarding what constitutes "runway vacated".
In this regard I don't think it's as simple as comparing it to multiple radar validations where, by and large, the same rules apply. There would also be equipment issues - radar workstations are, by and large, the same...I doubt the same can be said for remote tower workstations due to the operational differences and equipage of individual aerodromes.

There are obvious safety risks with the concept of multiple aerodrome validations but are there any safety benefits? I'm yet to see anything that suggests there are/will be. The only driver I see for multiple validations is cost. So I too am unconvinced about that concept.

In short I believe digital towers have safety benefits and, as yet, I see no safety benefits in multiple aerodrome validations.

[tanghao]

I read somewhere that the space presently occupied by the air traffic control tower is needed for a new 'lounge'.

Mind you, if Brexit happens and all the banks move to the EU, Wapping International Airport will be much less-busy.......And ideally-suited for r-TWR operations.

This could be the basis of NATS' thinking?

[ZOOKER]

I don't see any safety benefits in aerodrome controllers doing approach radar control and aerodrome control simultaneously good egg. In fact, for all of my ATC career it was illegal to do so.

But I see it's gradually being 'shoehorned' in.

And I bet someone down at the 'Ministry Of Bright-Ideas' has already worked out that you could easily put the APS picture on one of the big 'window-screens'.

[chevvron]

What happens when London city want to chuck nats? Can they just reroute the feed somewhere else and keep on working?
I already asked that at #137

[good egg]

I don't see any safety benefits in aerodrome controllers doing approach radar control and aerodrome control simultaneously good egg. In fact, for all of my ATC career it was illegal to do so.

But I see it's gradually being 'shoehorned' in.

And I bet someone down at the 'Ministry Of Bright-Ideas' has already worked out that you could easily put the APS picture on one of the big 'widow-screens'.

Feels slightly off-topic, but hey, I'll give it a go regardless...

What are the safety risks AND how have they been mitigated?

[good egg]

I already asked that at #137

How naive do you think the airport is? Do you not think they will have explored this topic? I'd suggest that they have and are satisfied with whatever provisions have been made.
We could all postulate about possible outcomes of switching ANSPs but any arrangements are highly unlikely to be made public. They'd be set out in contractual agreements between the two parties.

[orgASMic]

On the subject of controlling endorsements at multiple units, many moons ago at RAF Linton on Ouse, I held 14 of the available 18 endorsements as the Unit operated 4 aerodromes: Linton, Topcliffe, Dishforth and Church Fenton. My Blue Book had Linton Tower, Ground, Talkdown (PAR and SRA), Departures and Zone; Church Fenton Tower, Ground, PAR and Approach/Director; and Topcliffe Tower, Ground, Approach/Director and SRA (on ACR 430). The only ones I didn't have were Linton Approach, Director and Supervisor, and Dishforth Tower.
I had no bother staying current as there was plenty of traffic but most of that traffic was Tucanos and Fireflies flying academic training sorties, so there was little variety other than the swarms of gliders and GA that used to monster Fenton Approach.
I do not like the sound of controllers being expected to control different remote towers simultaneously at all, so I see little saving in manpower terms, but I see no reason why they could not control different towers from the same location at different times within the limit of their licences. Imagine a tower controller operating in the Scottish Highlands; he/she could control both ends of all the short island-hops in sequence from, say, Prestwick. The savings will come in reducing the required infrastructure at aerodromes.
Once they sort out the bandwidth and display issues, I could work from home!

[Neptune262]

Two aspects regarding Digital tower implementation:

1. Rules / Regulations - i.e. the rule for reduced separation in the vicinity of an aerodrome - ATCO has both aircraft in sight. Now an electronic device is to be used and not glass windows. EASA has already looked at some words to try and manage this change, ICAO is doing the same but with a different approach, but does any electronic display method, with or without additional tools, equate to the same as glass windows? Maybe a bigger question, if electronic tools are added to the "visual" can the ATCO use those added tools to provide reduced separation? (As Gonzo showed a potential usage in post #133) We already have pilots reporting when asked to report visual with other traffic - "I see him on my TCAS!"

2. Complexity - So we presently have glass windows (needs cleaning occasionally) and the controller's eyeball.
Digital towers - LCY glass window is to be replaced with 14 fixed cameras and 2 mobile cameras with power sources - computer / data transfer to another location - computers / data retrieval at this new location / display methods at new location (14 for a 360 by the looks of it). All of these have points of failure in them, so increase risks. Anyone who has worked with ATC simulators my appreciate how often display devices can have issues or fail. All of this to replace the simple glass window, without any fancy add on tools, before the controller's eyeball. Sounds like an increased risk of failure to me - lots of expensive mitigation measures required to reduce the risk, yet still the possibility exists. Unfortunately the long term costs of all this added electronic and mechanical complexity still appears to be less than either land or staff costs.

I would have rather seen money spent on an "augmented reality" idea of Google Glass be introduced into existing towers - with all these useful digital tower tools to be as overlays to supplement the ATCOs safety, whilst not changing the window view - but all of this would have just been extra cost, therefore not so interesting to people interested in saving money.

LCY have specific ideas for the land that the normal glass tower takes up, so they want this to happen. Other areas of the world have introduced remote towers to specifically to reduce staff costs at remote / quiet airfields. However I understand that Dubai World Central was looking at digital towers for when more runways were to be built - looking to be the first "Tower-less" airport in the world!!

Can we stop it happening, probably not. Should we raise every safety concern we have, based on our experience - absolutely. But views of risks will vary from ATCO to ATCO, so some see this as a great step forwards, whilst others are more cautious or even anti.

It all sounds great if all this added complexity works - time will tell. Just maybe not so good for our working terms and conditions in the long run.

[good egg]

It all sounds great if all this added complexity works - time will tell. Just maybe not so good for our working terms and conditions in the long run.

You make a lot of valid points. Just curious...do you mean "added complexity" - from an ATCO perspective? Or from a system perspective?

[good egg]

On the subject of controlling endorsements at multiple units, many moons ago at RAF Linton on Ouse, I held 14 of the available 18 endorsements as the Unit operated 4 aerodromes: Linton, Topcliffe, Dishforth and Church Fenton.

Just out of interest, were there many differences between how each airfield operated? Obviously each airfield layout is different but are the practices across them more similar than the diversity amongst civil airports? E.g. (as I cited earlier as an example) does the application of "runway vacated" vary between the fields you held simultaneous endorsements at?

(At some civil airfields ATC are permitted to treat a landing aircraft as "vacated" the moment the tail has cleared the active runway....at others it won't be considered "vacated" until the tail has cleared the runway stop-bar.)

[ZOOKER]

good egg,

I can't answer post 153 as I have no access to the relevant documentation. I suspect that the MATS 2 for EGPF may contain some of the answers though.

Distraction is one of them

The history of ATC is littered with incidents caused by distraction.....Or by pairs of eyeballs not being in place to look at things said eyeballs should have been looking at.

If EGLC need to demolish ATC to build another parking stand, why don't they fill in that bit of the dock south of the runway, instead of demolishing one of the 'nerve-centres' of the airport?

That stretch of waterway, filled in with clay and aggregates, would provide possibly 20 additional a/c stands. It's hardly a great destination for shipping, with several car-parks on the south bank and a taxiway-loop/runway on the north bank.

Raw material supply shouldn't be a problem......They're always tunnelling under London, (amazing the city is still standing.........., actually), and there will be more clay/rocks on offer when they build the new R/W over at Gonzo's place.

Surely NATS should be working with it's customers and "thinking outside the box"?.......Planning ahead? :E

[Gonzo]

Neptune 262,

Some good points.

I would argue that in a modern, surveillance equipped tower, 'RSVA' is an outdated concept.

To do 2.5nm spacing (delivered to 4DME - as soon as the leader gets to 4MDE that starts to reduce) I need to be visual with the follower at 6.5DME.

This implies that being visual with both aircraft provides an added level of safety. However, when looking at a pair of aircraft heading virtually straight for me, I cannot tell if they are 2.7nm apart or 2.4nm apart, nor if they are closing or diverging. However, I can do that if I look at my surveillance system.

[good egg]

why don't they fill in that bit of the dock south of the runway...?

That stretch of waterway, filled in with clay and aggregates, would provide possibly 20 additional a/c stands.

Surely NATS should be working with it's customers...

Zooker, good grief, your post just highlights how ignorant you are.

Have you seen/studied the airport's master plan?

"why don't they fill in that bit of the dock south of the runway"....They are. (In actual fact it will be the same construction type as the East Apron, which added 4 stands to the airport).

"That stretch of waterway, filled in with clay and aggregates, would provide possibly 20 additional a/c stands." ...Great idea Zooker - you are such a visionary!
Just a shame the airport thought of it a long time ago (and finally received planning permission for it last year) or you could've sold them that idea...

"Surely NATS should be working with it's customers"...ummmmm, mind-boggling that you think NATS isn't. From the airport's own press release I quote "NATS, the UK’s leading provider of air traffic control services, endorses the decision to replace the existing 30-year old control tower with a digital tower".

I always try to entertain other people's point of view Zooker, but you make it really, really hard to take anything you say seriously.

[ZOOKER]

Top post, good egg. :ok:

Sadly, the EGLC master-plan hasn't been high on my reading-list lately. Must check it out.

[ZOOKER]

The east-end of London seems to have more 'Master-Plans' than you can shake a big stick at........I can't find the airport one.

If EGLCZT is 30 years old, why wasn't the potential future growth of the airport spotted and acted-on back in the day?

There's a list of 10 "key features" that 'digital towers' would have, on the NATS public web-site.

All but 2 of them already exist in the 'analogue models'.

[Eric T Cartman]

@ Zooker
Back in the 70's & even the 80's, I don't think anyone envisaged the massive growth that has occurred in the East End. The Docklands Light Railway opened in 1987 with 11 EMUs & 15 stations along 8 miles. Today there are 145 EMUs & 45 stations along 24 miles. I reckon EGLC would be even bigger if it wasn't for the environmental impact......
p.s. I visited the VCR in 2012 - I would quite liked to have ended my career there :-)

[Neptune262]

You make a lot of valid points. Just curious...do you mean "added complexity" - from an ATCO perspective? Or from a system perspective?

I see the added complexity from a system perspective - lots of physical items that can potentially fail - or extra layers of potential swiss cheese (for Reason fans)!

[Neptune262]

Neptune 262,

Some good points.

I would argue that in a modern, surveillance equipped tower, 'RSVA' is an outdated concept.

To do 2.5nm spacing (delivered to 4DME - as soon as the leader gets to 4MDE that starts to reduce) I need to be visual with the follower at 6.5DME.

This implies that being visual with both aircraft provides an added level of safety. However, when looking at a pair of aircraft heading virtually straight for me, I cannot tell if they are 2.7nm apart or 2.4nm apart, nor if they are closing or diverging. However, I can do that if I look at my surveillance system.

I would say that RSVA is still very useful in some tower operations, it depends on the nature of the traffic and airspace. Yes, maybe for predominantly IFR traffic into a busy airport, RSVA is not that used, but for others with mixed mode traffic, it is a tool that ATCOs still utilise.

The difference now is the "visual" part (as understood to be glass window and eyeball) is being replaced by an electronic display and eyeball.

[orgASMic]

Just out of interest, were there many differences between how each airfield operated? Obviously each airfield layout is different but are the practices across them more similar than the diversity amongst civil airports? E.g. (as I cited earlier as an example) does the application of "runway vacated" vary between the fields you held simultaneous endorsements at?

(At some civil airfields ATC are permitted to treat a landing aircraft as "vacated" the moment the tail has cleared the active runway....at others it won't be considered "vacated" until the tail has cleared the runway stop-bar.)

Three of the four were part of the same Flying Training School (Dishforth was the odd one out, being Army Air Corps), so similar rules and procedures with only the aerodrome layout and SIDs/STARs being different. Plenty of commonality and a lot of military latitude with regards to runway occupancy (landing same speed or slower aircraft behind aircraft already touched down/just airborne) applied across all three.

As in my original post, the types were limited to what the School operated but Linton would get a more diverse clientele (the Harrier OCU would do its fnial exercise based out of there, which made things interesting). In most cases the big differences were limited to the rwy hdgs and the immediate surroundings.

[good egg]

I would say that RSVA is still very useful in some tower operations, it depends on the nature of the traffic and airspace. Yes, maybe for predominantly IFR traffic into a busy airport, RSVA is not that used, but for others with mixed mode traffic, it is a tool that ATCOs still utilise.

The difference now is the "visual" part (as understood to be glass window and eyeball) is being replaced by an electronic display and eyeball.

For "mixed mode" do you mean IFR/VFR interactions?

If so, in Class D they are not provided with separation per se so RSVA is a bit of a misnomer.

[orgASMic]

Just out of interest, were there many differences between how each airfield operated? Obviously each airfield layout is different but are the practices across them more similar than the diversity amongst civil airports? E.g. (as I cited earlier as an example) does the application of "runway vacated" vary between the fields you held simultaneous endorsements at?

(At some civil airfields ATC are permitted to treat a landing aircraft as "vacated" the moment the tail has cleared the active runway....at others it won't be considered "vacated" until the tail has cleared the runway stop-bar.)

Three of the four were part of the same Flying Training School (Dishforth was the odd one out, being Army Air Corps), so similar rules and procedures with only the aerodrome layout and SIDs/STARs being different. Plenty of commonality and a lot of military latitude with regards to runway occupancy (landing same speed or slower aircraft behind aircraft already touched down/just airborne) applied across all three.

As in my original post, the types were limited to what the School operated but Linton would get a more diverse clientele (the Harrier OCU would do its final exercise based out of there, which made things interesting). In most cases the big differences were limited to the rwy hdgs and the immediate surroundings.

[good egg]

I see the added complexity from a system perspective - lots of physical items that can potentially fail - or extra layers of potential swiss cheese (for Reason fans)!

Yes, the resiliency and redundancy of the system will be vital.

[good egg]

Three of the four were part of the same Flying Training School (Dishforth was the odd one out, being Army Air Corps), so similar rules and procedures with only the aerodrome layout and SIDs/STARs being different. Plenty of commonality and a lot of military latitude with regards to runway occupancy (landing same speed or slower aircraft behind aircraft already touched down/just airborne) applied across all three.

As in my original post, the types were limited to what the School operated but Linton would get a more diverse clientele (the Harrier OCU would do its final exercise based out of there, which made things interesting). In most cases the big differences were limited to the rwy hdgs and the immediate surroundings.

Thanks. One of my concerns about multiple validations of civil aerodromes is the difference in ATC operating procedures and definitions, e.g. "runway vacated", and misapplication.

[Gonzo]

Starlord, we do.

But what does it give me? How is it safer? A pair of aircraft heading away from me, I can't tell if they are getting closer to each other, I can't tell if they are getting further apart (until one of them turns). I get a better idea of that from my radar, with Mode S airspeed, groundspeed, Mode C altitude.

I look at them out of the window because I have to. I look at them on the radar to see their relative positions and speed, which surely is the safety critical thing.

That's what I mean by outdated.

RSVA developed as a concept when control towers had no surveillance capability.

[Nimmer]

A tower controller that looks out of the window, that is so last season!!!

[On the beach]

Being an old fashioned, retired bod who reads about these "new innovations" with a fairly open mind, I'm having a little trouble seeing how the remote operation of LCY brings any benefits.

You still have to have a controller, presumably controlling, albeit now from a dark windowless room, (that should make up for all those brilliantly dazzling sunrises and sunsets) on the sunny south coast. Whilst up at LCY all the "skills" that were inherent in said controller now have to be supplemented by lots of CCTVs with infra-red capabilities or whatever and at what cost? Oh, did anyone mention cleaning said CCTV lenses when they fog up or get crap on them at just the wrong moment?

Not one to stand in the way of progress, but where is the cost saving, if this is what it's all about? Where's the job satisfaction? Sounds to me like another idea pinched from an under-utilised airport in Northern Norway that some poor misguided management "yoof" decided he would use to make his mark on his steady progression to the top.

Thankfully, I'm now well retired (not before time, I hear some shout) but I do miss those beautiful sunrises and sunsets and the bonhommie, not to mention the professional respect, engendered by a wave or thumbs up after a "greaser" or a well executed cross-wind landing at the limits, or that not so good bouncer.

I can't say I envy the "new" tower controllers at LCY Swanwick. They will miss out on what were some of the most enjoyable experiences of my time in ATC.

Think carefully about what you consider to be progress and be sure your UPS works!

[Gonzo]

. Whilst up at LCY all the "skills" that were inherent in said controller now have to be supplemented by lots of CCTVs with infra-red capabilities or whatever and at what cost?

I knew LCY controllers were good.....didn't realise they could see into the IR band though! :}

[rodan]

One thing that needs consideration, what to do about the 200' spiders that will crawl across the lens without warning?

[Gonzo]

One thing that needs consideration, what to do about the 200' spiders that will crawl across the lens without warning?

Air knives!

[HershamBoys]

Question was asked of Remote Tower salespeople at Amsterdam and Madrid exhibitions. You blow a constant stream of warm air across the face of the lens, thereby removing said spides and web.

HB

[towerguy]

so now we need a hot air blower system (and backup) to all cameras, perhaps we could pipe it direct from head office - bound to never fail or run out that way!!!!

[SliabhLuachra]

so now we need a hot air blower system (and backup) to all cameras, perhaps we could pipe it direct from head office - bound to never fail or run out that way!!!!

Makes me think that they're building this all on some very weak foundations... I fail to see, after much perusal, the benefits of the remote towers. I'm always open to new ideas or procedures, and am often one to 'go with the flow' as my other half says but I don't buy it. Recently on a visit to a unit on the other side of the country I saw the R-TWR in operation, only to see the derrière of a bird blocking one of the cameras!! Just another mantra adopted by a new hot-shot in HR if you ask me..

[ZOOKER]

If control towers are 'a thing of the past', why have they put one on 'HMS Queen Elizabeth' then? Surely a digital VCR would would have the edge here?

Oh, and some planes would be handy, too. :E

[EastMids]

Whilst up at LCY all the "skills" that were inherent in said controller now have to be supplemented by lots of CCTVs with infra-red capabilities

No IR imagery - it was investigated but hot engine exhaust was found to look too much like fire, and aircraft parked on a cold apron left aircraft-shaped IR shadows after they taxied... So its visual imagery (via the cameras) supplemented by radar blocks etc, and all the other gizmos already available in a bricks-and-mortar tower.

[Skipness One Echo]

http://bit.ly/2zrdVt6

NATS tied in for a decade at LCY.

Typical PR fluff but it says they ARE building a new tower after all, if so, why on Earth use digital tech on a level for which it was never intended?

[Crazy Voyager]

I think that's a bit of an unfortunate wording.

From what I understand the new tower is not a control tower in the old fashioned sense, it is a tower to mount the cameras on. I would guess it has more in common with a phone mast or an electricity pylon than an old fashioned tower cab.

[Musket90]

Agreed CV - I understand those doing the digital controlling will be based at Swanwick.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

The blurb says: "...with significant benefits and efficiencies for the airport" I'd love to know what they are.

[The Many Tentacles]

It means they can put more stands on the airport and make more money. I don't see much beyond that

[ZOOKER]

There's talk now of 'band-boxing' 2 airfields using the same ATCO on a common frequency.

It's madness.

[kcockayne]

Well. that is what it really is all about. The last thing to exercise the minds of the people involved in these developments is ATC safety & integrity !

[off watch]

"Safety is our number one priority, certainly not shareholder's dividends !" said spokesperson Mr.Pinocchio ........

[Skipness One Echo]

In a real tower an ATCO can grab binoculars for a closer look at something, a fuel leak, damage visible etc. I assume this still happens? Does one lose the ability to get in close in real time (i.e. faster than looking for a zooming control and reimaging) when in a digital tower? Am thinking landing gear issue or panels open or missing....

[ZOOKER]

Airfield familiarisation runs will take considerably longer too.

[Crazy Voyager]

In a real tower an ATCO can grab binoculars for a closer look at something, a fuel leak, damage visible etc. I assume this still happens? Does one lose the ability to get in close in real time (i.e. faster than looking for a zooming control and reimaging) when in a digital tower? Am thinking landing gear issue or panels open or missing....

The screen resolution is high enough that you can use binoculars on the screen. It obviously won't be nearly as effective as a camera, but it is possible. My guess though is that after a few months on this system moving the zoom-camera around will be just as quick. Not to mention it can be locked to track an object, making it much more effective than a pair of binoculars to monitor something.

[ZOOKER]

I'm not sure normal binos will focus that close in anyway.

[sthomson]

So... it’s 2020... any update to the LCY digital tower operation / solution?

[mike current]

So... it’s 2020... any update to the LCY digital tower operation / solution?
I guess you'll find out when the time comes.
Brexit is happening next week and we don't know much about that either...

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

https://www.aviationnews-online.com/zone-europe/london-city-airport-to-pause-expansion/

Expansion paused, has the Digital Tower gone live yet?

[escaped.atco]

Genuine question - where do NATS stand if LCY now say they no longer need the digital tower or the expense associated with it? Is the on site airfield ATC facility still serviceable? I guess all airfields will be desperate to save cash, I don't think there are many who have spare cash to use on what is in effect a vanity project which has been sold to them by snake oil salesmen. I can't imagine digital towers being a massive priority for quite some time with airfields that have a perfectly adequate on site facility.

[brianj]

The digital VCR for London City was mainly conceived out of the airport plan to use the Control Tower site for stand expansion. If this expansion goes ahead and the Control needs demolishing, the cost of the digital VCR is supposedly equal to that of building a new Control Tower, if a suitable site can be found.

[DaveReidUK]

The digital VCR for London City was mainly conceived out of the airport plan to use the Control Tower site for stand expansion. If this expansion goes ahead and the Control needs demolishing, the cost of the digital VCR is supposedly equal to that of building a new Control Tower, if a suitable site can be found.

Yes, clearly it would be subject to the expansion going ahead, which is by no means a given.

[2 sheds]

The digital VCR for London City was mainly conceived out of the airport plan to use the Control Tower site for stand expansion.
i.e. for the wrong reason?:)

2 s

[chevvron]

Is it still intended that the controllers operating the digital tower for City will be at Swanwick?
I heard a rumour that this is also planned for Manston when it re-opens.

[DaveReidUK]

When Manston re-opens ?

[brianj]

Is it still intended that the controllers operating the digital tower for City will be at Swanwick?
I heard a rumour that this is also planned for Manston when it re-opens.

Planned for Swanwick. In time perhaps the London City controllers could be cross trained to remotely control other airports such as Southampton? Of course in 8 years time another ANS provider could win and take-over the contract and do it from anywhere....Germany, Ireland, Sweden but hopefully not China!

[escaped.atco]

If one good thing comes out of this pandemic, I really hope that the entire remote tower concept is postponed for many years. As an old grumpy ATCO who has seen a great deal of change over the years (and the majority of changes very good), this has to be the daftest change I have come across. Its been a case of inventing a solution for a problem that doesn't really exist, then presenting it as the saviour of ATC and the future for all airports. Anyone raising objections is scorned as a technophobe and old fashioned. Safety concerns are risk assessed and sidelined. The entire project is dressed up in a safety first package when the real concern is pounds and pence, although I suppose that covers all ATC these days!

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

So when is ATC at LCY scheduled to switch to digital? What’s the current timeframe and is it aligned with the original?

[2 sheds]

If one good thing comes out of this pandemic, I really hope that the entire remote tower concept is postponed for many years. As an old grumpy ATCO who has seen a great deal of change over the years (and the majority of changes very good), this has to be the daftest change I have come across. Its been a case of inventing a solution for a problem that doesn't really exist, then presenting it as the saviour of ATC and the future for all airports. Anyone raising objections is scorned as a technophobe and old fashioned. Safety concerns are risk assessed and sidelined. The entire project is dressed up in a safety first package when the real concern is pounds and pence, although I suppose that covers all ATC these days!
Excellent exposition, escaped.atco, of the Emperor's New Clothes saga that is remote towers!

2 s

[250 kts]

And only today, NATS are running a facebook poll on what is the greatest ever invention for ATC. The irony is that alongside radio and radar, they are pushing digital tower as a contender.

[middles]

Should be the 'Early Go List'!

[chevvron]

When Manston re-opens ?
My source says lots of negotiations ongoing by beancounters and other people with no working knowledge or experience of civil ATC but looking to do it on the cheap.
Reckons a possible candidate for the 'remote tower' would be ANS at Gatwick!!
Who will do APS I don't know.(ANS Edinburgh?)

[2 sheds]

Reckons a possible candidate for the 'remote tower' would be ANS at Gatwick!!
..and with what logic?
More likely to be Farnborough.

2 s

[mike current]

My source says lots of negotiations ongoing by beancounters and other people with no working knowledge or experience of civil ATC

Well last time I looked, ATCOs weren't investing hundreds of millions in disused airfields, so whether you like it or not, it's beancounters and investment groups that buy and develop assets.
To them ATC it's purely a tool that allows an airfield to operate. You shop around and you get the best deal available. Hate the game, not the player.

[chevvron]

Sounds like chevvron's waving a flag for SafeSkys (or whatever they're called these days) again!
The new owners of the brand name don't seem to be interested in ATC contracts; I got my info from a well informed source outside SafeSkys.

[chevvron]

..and with what logic?
More likely to be Farnborough.

2 s
Farnborough could do the APS using existing equipment considering the likely movement rate, however Southend would be a more likely candidate as Riveroak want 24/7 ops and Farnborough don't work those hours whereas Southend do.
As for a remote tower, Farnborough would be a non starter, there just isn't room to install all the huge 360 deg VDUs necesssary; it may look a huge building from the outside but about 3 quarters of the accomodation is occupied by the aerodrome authority, not ATC.

[Not Long Now]

Surely the key point of a remote tower is ‘remote’. The lack of space in the building is just another possible reason to have a remote tower.

[eglnyt]

.and with what logic?

Remote Towers is an emerging technology so you'll need a partner with expertise on call, willing to make some of their own investment in the remote part, ability to train and rate ATC staff and with access to a suitable site with the necessary network connectivity and security. ANS, through their parent company if necessary, have access to the first three and would probably be willing to set up the last as part of an attempt to enter that market in the UK. There is one other organisation in the UK that fits the bill but if you want it on the cheap you might want to be the launch customer for the market incomer.

Remote radar is far less demanding technology wise and well established with far more options but if I was placing an ATC contract for my soon to re-open airport I'd want a single contract with one supplier.

Of course if I was soon to re-open an airport in this market I'd probably not be throwing a lot of money at capital investment in a brand new remote tower unless either the physical tower needed a lot of money to return it to use or there was a significant incentive and that is definitely beancounter territory.

[Atcham Tower]

Is there any further news on the remote tower operation for LCY? Project on hold due the pandemic, perhaps.

[alfaman]

Is there any further news on the remote tower operation for LCY? Project on hold due the pandemic, perhaps.
On the contrary, up & running fine following transfer at the end of January. Good opportunity to transition & settle in, whilst the traffic is down.

[Atcham Tower]

Thanks Alfaman, they kept that quiet! Or at least I missed any publicity.

[oblivia]

Thanks Alfaman, they kept that quiet! Or at least I missed any publicity.

Here you go...

London City airport replaces control tower with virtual system
Air traffic controllers 70 miles away to oversee landings in UK first
April 29, 2021
https://www.ft.com/content/1c3d319f-6113-4949-b2c2-20d9270402de

London City has become the first airport in the UK to install a virtual control tower, putting all operations in to the hands of controllers based more than 70 miles away on the south coast of England.

Management at the 30-year-old airport has spent the past few years installing 16 cameras and sensors mounted on a 50m mast to provide a live 360 degree view of the runway, taxiways and aprons, as well as the surrounding airspace.

The feed is passed through fibre optic cables to the control centre operated by Nats, the country’s main air traffic manager, in Swanwick, Hampshire. The live footage, an audio feed and radar information is used to control aircraft on the ground at the airport and give them permission to take-off and land.

The new technology at London City was officially unveiled on Friday but has quietly been in use since late January. It was originally scheduled to go live in 2019.

Tower controllers rely on the human eye to manage aircraft movements on the ground and at the very start and end of flights, when aircraft are on final approach or about 30 seconds from the runway.

Air traffic controllers at Nats handle all other UK traffic. The Swanwick centre’s main roles are to manage all high-altitude aircraft crossing through English and Welsh airspace and handle all flights below 24,500 feet as they fly in and out of all of London’s airports, including City. Nats has a second control centre in Scotland.

The new system at City is built by Saab, the Swedish aerospace group, and has already been installed at some of Sweden’s airports. The technology allows controllers to magnify objects up to 30 times, and the screens can be overlaid with an “enhanced reality view” including information such as call signs, altitude and speed of aircraft.

“Digital tower technology tears up a blueprint that’s remained largely unchanged for 100 years, allowing us to safely manage aircraft from almost anywhere, while providing our controllers with valuable new tools that would be impossible in a traditional control tower,” said Juliet Kennedy, operations director at Nats.

The biggest challenge could be reassuring the public that removing sharp-sighted controllers from the airport is safe. But Alison FitzGerald, chief operating officer at London City, said the technology was “proven” and had more than a decade of research and live trials behind it.

“The system is designed to safely manage any equipment failures with backups available if required,” she said.

If one static camera fails then the image can be replaced by one of the mast’s tilting zoom cameras, while there are back-up screens at Nats in case of a failure there, she said.

She added that “two entirely independent, private fibre network connections carry the camera images”.

The 30-year-old analogue control tower in the London Docklands will be redeveloped as part of a modernisation plan at the airport, parts of which have been delayed by the financial impact of the pandemic.

Passenger numbers fell more than 80 per cent to 905,000 last year, a period when the airport was closed for three months.

The remote technology has the potential to significantly improve efficiency, and Nats has estimated it could cut costs of managing traffic into and out of an airport by 20 to 30 per cent if rolled out across several sites.

[DIBO]

A video showcasing London City Airport's remote digital Air Traffic Control Tower.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsoxL6tMG_I&t=2s

[chevvron]

Here you go...

London City airport replaces control tower with virtual system
Air traffic controllers 70 miles away to oversee landings in UK first
April 29, 2021
https://www.ft.com/content/1c3d319f-6113-4949-b2c2-20d9270402de

London City has become the first airport in the UK to install a virtual control tower, putting all operations in to the hands of controllers based more than 70 miles away on the south coast of England.


The new technology at London City was officially unveiled on Friday but has quietly been in use since late January. It was originally scheduled to go live in 2019.

Tower controllers rely on the human eye to manage aircraft movements on the ground and at the very start and end of flights, when aircraft are on final approach or about 30 seconds from the runway.

Air traffic controllers at Nats handle all other UK traffic.
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Cranfield the first?
And aren't there ANSPs other than NATS who handle some UK traffic?

[DaveReidUK]

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Cranfield the first?

sBQzI71QozI

[alfaman]

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Cranfield the first?
And aren't there ANSPs other than NATS who handle some UK traffic?
I think the original press release has been corrupted a little: the version I saw said "first UK major airport", which seems fair enough; take out "UK" & I think Budapest was 2017, although varying reports as to whether it's remote 100% of the time; take out "major", & Cranfield was first.

[chevvron]

That huge mast so close to the runway carrying the cameras must surely affect the iap minima.

[TCAS FAN]

That huge mast so close to the runway carrying the cameras must surely affect the iap minima.

Under normal circumstances probably yes as the mast (173 FT AAL) penetrates well in to the 09/27 Transitional Surface. However due to other obstacles, the resultant 5.5 DEG GP, and a very high DH for the ILS IAPs, no apparent change.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

How easy is it to look behind you at traffic following the river?

[chevvron]

sBQzI71QozI
Hermione Norris is a controller at Cranfield?

[DaveReidUK]

Sorry, don't understand the reference. Was she meant to be in the video? Maybe she got cold feet.

[Equivocal]

That huge mast so close to the runway carrying the cameras must surely affect the iap minima.Given the number of other obstacles around the runway, I wouldn't be surprised if it was sited and designed to be shielded by another big thing and so has no effect on minima.

[chevvron]

Sorry, don't understand the reference. Was she meant to be in the video? Maybe she got cold feet.
Looks like her on the title page.

[alfaman]

Sorry, don't understand the reference. Was she meant to be in the video? Maybe she got cold feet.
:ok:..........