First remote tower is now operational
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First remote tower is now operational
"The world's first remote air control tower has opened at Örnsköldsvik airport in northern Sweden, air traffic authorities have revealed.
"The first Remote Tower Services landing!," Sweden's Air Navigation Services (LFV) announced on Twitter, under a picture taken from the plane before it landed around noon (1000 GMT)."
Sweden opens first remote control air tower - The Local
https://twitter.com/luftfartsverket
"The first Remote Tower Services landing!," Sweden's Air Navigation Services (LFV) announced on Twitter, under a picture taken from the plane before it landed around noon (1000 GMT)."
Sweden opens first remote control air tower - The Local
https://twitter.com/luftfartsverket
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or, for larger airports, how about "A new beginning, where ATCOs have uninhibited views of the entire manoeuvring area, devoid of "blind spots"and additional tools which enhance situational awareness & safety. A beginning which doesn't reduce ATCO numbers because the manpower requirement remains the same"??
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
good egg,
You're talking out of your @rse.
Many years ago, I worked in a VCR where most of the airfield was only observable by CCTV cameras. The ATCOs, (Air Traffic Control Officers), were very unhappy with the situation.
The Aerodrome Authority built a new VCR, about 5 times the height of the original one, and 'All seem's to be alright with The World'.
People have jobs, planes are moving, And the airfield operator makes money.
In my book, that's a result.
You're talking out of your @rse.
Many years ago, I worked in a VCR where most of the airfield was only observable by CCTV cameras. The ATCOs, (Air Traffic Control Officers), were very unhappy with the situation.
The Aerodrome Authority built a new VCR, about 5 times the height of the original one, and 'All seem's to be alright with The World'.
People have jobs, planes are moving, And the airfield operator makes money.
In my book, that's a result.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Home away from home
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But this technology allows the same result without the need to invest more than a fraction of the money needed to construct a new tower.
It also allows standardised working positions between different airfielsd and allows a better utilisation of controllers. That presuming the regulators approve controllers to be valid on several remote airoprts, but I am sure that will happen (if it hasn't already). This is the stuff we can do today. Add on top of that several other possible improvements and efficency increases.
Yes building a really high VCR works, at least to an extent, but having been in several towers even the high ones often have blind spots. Heathrow is 90 meters and still has blind spots due to the height of T2 and T5. Amsterdam is also very high but they built a secondary tower for one of their runways so I'm assuming they have similar issues (although I have never been in the tower there sadly).
Remote towers are here already and I'd be very surprised if they wont be staying.
It also allows standardised working positions between different airfielsd and allows a better utilisation of controllers. That presuming the regulators approve controllers to be valid on several remote airoprts, but I am sure that will happen (if it hasn't already). This is the stuff we can do today. Add on top of that several other possible improvements and efficency increases.
Yes building a really high VCR works, at least to an extent, but having been in several towers even the high ones often have blind spots. Heathrow is 90 meters and still has blind spots due to the height of T2 and T5. Amsterdam is also very high but they built a secondary tower for one of their runways so I'm assuming they have similar issues (although I have never been in the tower there sadly).
Remote towers are here already and I'd be very surprised if they wont be staying.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crazy,
Who are "the regulators" of whom you speak and what do you class as a "remote airport"?
"standardised working positions between different airfielsd".
An interesting concept, but they're all different. Is it reasonable to expect one ATCO to carry around in his/her cranium the operational details of, say EGSS and EGGW?
I'm sure all of the controllers who will be remaining in employment, (but will undoubtably be delighted to know they are "better utilised"), will be as pleased as punch when they are faced with their tax-demands to provide employment benefits for those colleagues that rTWR has made redundant.
Just a thought.
Oh, and I note that in late 2010, your posts indicated you were involved in the NATS interview process. Can i take it then that you have about 3 years solo operational experience?
Who are "the regulators" of whom you speak and what do you class as a "remote airport"?
"standardised working positions between different airfielsd".
An interesting concept, but they're all different. Is it reasonable to expect one ATCO to carry around in his/her cranium the operational details of, say EGSS and EGGW?
I'm sure all of the controllers who will be remaining in employment, (but will undoubtably be delighted to know they are "better utilised"), will be as pleased as punch when they are faced with their tax-demands to provide employment benefits for those colleagues that rTWR has made redundant.
Just a thought.
Oh, and I note that in late 2010, your posts indicated you were involved in the NATS interview process. Can i take it then that you have about 3 years solo operational experience?
Last edited by ZOOKER; 6th May 2015 at 22:34.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Home away from home
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the term "remote airport" I meant an airport which utilises a remote tower operation, at the moment the only one I know of which is operational is Örnsköldsvik in Sweden. Although I have heard that LFV are also planning to introduce remote towers at other airfields, as I recall Linköping being one.
I don't know, but it is reasonable to expect a controller to remain current on say two (and I believe there are examples of people who have been current on three) sector groups in an area center. I have no area experience but I would assume they are different in a similar way that airfields are different. However they've always had the advantage of having the same equipment, something airfields have not, at least until now.
Yes there are many issues here, and I'm sure many more will appear if (when?) the first attempts at having ATCOs valid at several airfields start. But my gut feeling is that this will happen, in particular for the smaller airfields (which is where this technology seems to be expected to have the greatest impact).
"The regulators" would be the CAA for the UK for example, or appropriate goverment organisations for each individual country. At the end of the day they have to approve the new remote mode of operation and they are there to, among other things, regulate these things. At least that is my understanding of the process of bringing in new ATM technology.
With the training times today it's less than 3 years, and I will be the first to admit I am one of the newest people around here (and in the industry in general). But then again I'm also happy to be told I am wrong, although I will try to understand why that is the case.
I am not saying this is an all out positive development, but today I a sure many view the role of the flight engineer as something of the past that we can now deal with perfectly well without. At the end of my career maybe we will view the concrete towers of today in a similar fashion. Something that was used until technology meant there was a more efficent (and some would argue, better) way to do it.
I don't know, but it is reasonable to expect a controller to remain current on say two (and I believe there are examples of people who have been current on three) sector groups in an area center. I have no area experience but I would assume they are different in a similar way that airfields are different. However they've always had the advantage of having the same equipment, something airfields have not, at least until now.
Yes there are many issues here, and I'm sure many more will appear if (when?) the first attempts at having ATCOs valid at several airfields start. But my gut feeling is that this will happen, in particular for the smaller airfields (which is where this technology seems to be expected to have the greatest impact).
"The regulators" would be the CAA for the UK for example, or appropriate goverment organisations for each individual country. At the end of the day they have to approve the new remote mode of operation and they are there to, among other things, regulate these things. At least that is my understanding of the process of bringing in new ATM technology.
With the training times today it's less than 3 years, and I will be the first to admit I am one of the newest people around here (and in the industry in general). But then again I'm also happy to be told I am wrong, although I will try to understand why that is the case.
I am not saying this is an all out positive development, but today I a sure many view the role of the flight engineer as something of the past that we can now deal with perfectly well without. At the end of my career maybe we will view the concrete towers of today in a similar fashion. Something that was used until technology meant there was a more efficent (and some would argue, better) way to do it.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This radar thing, I don't trust it. The only way to keep things safe is to make sure everything is procedurally separated. I mean what happens if the controller gets confused about which return is which, or some anaprop or multipath creates some false returns? Or there are two aircraft near to each other in one area of my scope and I miss something somewhere else?
After all it's just a way for ATCO numbers to be reduced. With radar they say that eventually each ATCO will be able to cope with more traffic, so we'll need fewer ATCOs.
They say that eventually there will be all sorts of technology that can link in to radars, such as displaying identity as something called a label, and even more flight plan information like type, or maybe even the speed the aircraft is flying, or some sort of safety system that may detect when two aircraft are getting too close. That's all a load of rubbish, it's just management smooth-talking to get us to accept it.
No, much safer all round to keep things the way they are now.
The sooner the regulators knock this radar concept on the head, the better. It might have worked in 1940 but this is different.
After all it's just a way for ATCO numbers to be reduced. With radar they say that eventually each ATCO will be able to cope with more traffic, so we'll need fewer ATCOs.
They say that eventually there will be all sorts of technology that can link in to radars, such as displaying identity as something called a label, and even more flight plan information like type, or maybe even the speed the aircraft is flying, or some sort of safety system that may detect when two aircraft are getting too close. That's all a load of rubbish, it's just management smooth-talking to get us to accept it.
No, much safer all round to keep things the way they are now.
The sooner the regulators knock this radar concept on the head, the better. It might have worked in 1940 but this is different.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Up North
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gonzo,
Haha - so nice to read, but you are writing about a different thing in my opinion - Procedural App - you can never see the planes, only comms from pilots - now with radar we add an ability to see the planes on a screen whilst still having the comms - so we added a functionality for increased safety. We didn't just rely on what the pilots reported.
Remote tower - we replace the eyes of the ATCO on site who can see the planes - and put a camera in its place. Some possible additions like thermal imaging are potentially an added advantage, I admit, but the main purpose of the project is to do the same job as the ATCO's eyes and feed that data to a remote location. The overall aim is reduce the costs - it is all about efficiency these days, by reducing the number of staff.
The remote tower concept is initially being rolled out at airfields where paying for an ATCO to be on duty for many hours of the day, when there are no operations, is not stated as being cost effective. Unfortunately there are many trained ATCOs in Europe at present, without a job (e.g. Spain). Maybe reduced salaries at these airports could have been an answer? These days "any job is better than no job" for a lot of Europeans. This would support these smaller airports and regions. Technology doesn't spend money at restaurants, shops and put money back into these rural communities, employed people do.
I would actually be interested to see the business case for the Remote Towers......I wonder what the time-scale is for it to become cheaper than a human? Maybe all ATCOs just become ATSEPs and keep the technology running instead??
I personally don't think the Remote Tower increases safety compared to the service provided by an ATCO in the tower itself.
If you want to start an interesting debate about the future of ATC - Is Point Merge the start of an automated approach sequence, so that a computer will do it in the future - no need for the ATCO to do the final approach sequencing? Link this with CPDLC - ultimately will there be no need for RTF any more?
My personal opinion, unfortunately the future is not bright at the moment for our profession.
Haha - so nice to read, but you are writing about a different thing in my opinion - Procedural App - you can never see the planes, only comms from pilots - now with radar we add an ability to see the planes on a screen whilst still having the comms - so we added a functionality for increased safety. We didn't just rely on what the pilots reported.
Remote tower - we replace the eyes of the ATCO on site who can see the planes - and put a camera in its place. Some possible additions like thermal imaging are potentially an added advantage, I admit, but the main purpose of the project is to do the same job as the ATCO's eyes and feed that data to a remote location. The overall aim is reduce the costs - it is all about efficiency these days, by reducing the number of staff.
The remote tower concept is initially being rolled out at airfields where paying for an ATCO to be on duty for many hours of the day, when there are no operations, is not stated as being cost effective. Unfortunately there are many trained ATCOs in Europe at present, without a job (e.g. Spain). Maybe reduced salaries at these airports could have been an answer? These days "any job is better than no job" for a lot of Europeans. This would support these smaller airports and regions. Technology doesn't spend money at restaurants, shops and put money back into these rural communities, employed people do.
I would actually be interested to see the business case for the Remote Towers......I wonder what the time-scale is for it to become cheaper than a human? Maybe all ATCOs just become ATSEPs and keep the technology running instead??
I personally don't think the Remote Tower increases safety compared to the service provided by an ATCO in the tower itself.
If you want to start an interesting debate about the future of ATC - Is Point Merge the start of an automated approach sequence, so that a computer will do it in the future - no need for the ATCO to do the final approach sequencing? Link this with CPDLC - ultimately will there be no need for RTF any more?
My personal opinion, unfortunately the future is not bright at the moment for our profession.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice one Gonzo...
Slightly different though in that there was a mega increase in capacity suddenly available and I suspect more controllers/tels folk were needed.
But I'm beginning to warm to the cost-saving thing and I've had an idea....
I see Hungarocontrol are planning to make Budapest a r-TWR airport. I think that NATS, being a 'World leader' should prove that they're still up there with the best of them and convert EGLL to r-TWR operations.
Think of the advantages though......
1. You wouldn't have to walk through Terminal 3 to get to work, so massive personal time savings for the staff.
2. No more fighting the dreaded M25/M4/M1/M3 traffic. You could arrive for work relaxed and 'chillax' on the drive home.
3. A personal financial saving for each member of staff due to less commuting too?
4. You've probably all had a go in the 'contingency bunker', so you're half-way there already.
5. The current VCR could easily be converted into a revolving restaurant for passengers. This would produce another revenue-stream for HAL, and would offer diners commanding and constantly-changing views of the remote EGLL operation.
They would also be able to see construction of the new runway, AND observe the DFS single-runway operation at EGKK, (Wx permitting). It would also replace the similar rotating-eatery that was lost when The Post Office Tower was bombed in the 1970s.
6. The current emergency facility could be leased to McDonald's or Starbucks, providing yet another revenue stream.
7. Staff costs would also be reduced, which is what it's all about.
There is an ideal location for this operation on the NATS estate already. I've been there and seen it for myself. It's very nice, it's in Ayrshire, it's located at the end of a quiet cul-de-sac. It has it's own on-site car park, and gymnasium. The staff restaurant, (which doesn't revolve unfortunately), has splendid views of the on- site car park, the housing estate in the middle-distance, with mountains on the far horizon. The mountains are much more impressive than The Chilterns and North Downs.
The canteen (sorry,restaurant) even has it's own sun-terrace and does a splendid 'Full Scottish Breakfast', (including haggis, obviously).
Much of the required infrastructure and wiring for the EGLL r-TWR operation is probably already in-situ. There is bags of space now that Scottish Mil have moved out. Why, I bet J.P. could even have the old DandD cell as his new office.
Best of all though, it's a BAND 4 unit, so just think of the savings in staff-costs that will produce.
KERR-CHING !! - Everyone's a winner. (Apologies to the Late Errol Brown., obviously).
I'll work some figures out later and send Dick Deakin an email after tea.
Slightly different though in that there was a mega increase in capacity suddenly available and I suspect more controllers/tels folk were needed.
But I'm beginning to warm to the cost-saving thing and I've had an idea....
I see Hungarocontrol are planning to make Budapest a r-TWR airport. I think that NATS, being a 'World leader' should prove that they're still up there with the best of them and convert EGLL to r-TWR operations.
Think of the advantages though......
1. You wouldn't have to walk through Terminal 3 to get to work, so massive personal time savings for the staff.
2. No more fighting the dreaded M25/M4/M1/M3 traffic. You could arrive for work relaxed and 'chillax' on the drive home.
3. A personal financial saving for each member of staff due to less commuting too?
4. You've probably all had a go in the 'contingency bunker', so you're half-way there already.
5. The current VCR could easily be converted into a revolving restaurant for passengers. This would produce another revenue-stream for HAL, and would offer diners commanding and constantly-changing views of the remote EGLL operation.
They would also be able to see construction of the new runway, AND observe the DFS single-runway operation at EGKK, (Wx permitting). It would also replace the similar rotating-eatery that was lost when The Post Office Tower was bombed in the 1970s.
6. The current emergency facility could be leased to McDonald's or Starbucks, providing yet another revenue stream.
7. Staff costs would also be reduced, which is what it's all about.
There is an ideal location for this operation on the NATS estate already. I've been there and seen it for myself. It's very nice, it's in Ayrshire, it's located at the end of a quiet cul-de-sac. It has it's own on-site car park, and gymnasium. The staff restaurant, (which doesn't revolve unfortunately), has splendid views of the on- site car park, the housing estate in the middle-distance, with mountains on the far horizon. The mountains are much more impressive than The Chilterns and North Downs.
The canteen (sorry,restaurant) even has it's own sun-terrace and does a splendid 'Full Scottish Breakfast', (including haggis, obviously).
Much of the required infrastructure and wiring for the EGLL r-TWR operation is probably already in-situ. There is bags of space now that Scottish Mil have moved out. Why, I bet J.P. could even have the old DandD cell as his new office.
Best of all though, it's a BAND 4 unit, so just think of the savings in staff-costs that will produce.
KERR-CHING !! - Everyone's a winner. (Apologies to the Late Errol Brown., obviously).
I'll work some figures out later and send Dick Deakin an email after tea.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The (probably steam-powered and piston-driven) CCTV you talk of can hardly be compared with the composite displays available today....much in the same way that the first radar displays bear little relation to the displays in front of area controllers today.
Every tower ATCO I've heard from - those who have actually seen/sampled the technology - have been keen to use it because they see the advantages.
It's great that you got a new all-seeing traditional VCR...but does it still have no blind spots? Sooner or later as airports continue to expand they will develop again. Can you always spot VFR? (At night? In marginal weather? At long distance? Regardless of aircraft orientation?) I know I can't from my traditional VCR.
From the airport authority's point-of-view it's a bit of a no-brainer...when the existing tower needs to be replaced (to get the all important all-seeing view back) do they spend £xx million on a new traditional control tower periodically or do they set up a remote facility at a fraction of the cost?
(Heathrow control tower cost ca. £50m in 2007...let's just say, for argument/example, that they get a 3rd runway built 15 years from now which requires another VCR to be built...that £50m in 2007 will cost more than £100m in 2030.)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Greetings all, sorry, but I've been off the Mega-Hertz of late.
Glamdring,
I see that the post of NATS CEO may be vacant. Unfortunately, I ruffled the feathers of a previous incumbent, at a 'Bar-Stool Session', so, probably not qualified to apply for the position.
good egg and Crazy,
All done as a bit of fun. "Life is not a dress re-hersal", as Max told us.
Crazy, great posts on the NATS interview forum. Future ATCOs need all the help they can get. Keep us posted on what's going on in the commercial, cost-concious, world of 21st Century ATC.
Glamdring,
I see that the post of NATS CEO may be vacant. Unfortunately, I ruffled the feathers of a previous incumbent, at a 'Bar-Stool Session', so, probably not qualified to apply for the position.
good egg and Crazy,
All done as a bit of fun. "Life is not a dress re-hersal", as Max told us.
Crazy, great posts on the NATS interview forum. Future ATCOs need all the help they can get. Keep us posted on what's going on in the commercial, cost-concious, world of 21st Century ATC.
Last edited by ZOOKER; 20th May 2015 at 00:51.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps go speak to the operational ATCO that was the main project leader that introduced the LFV remote tower, and see what their opinion is - you might change your opinion and realise regardless of the politics/business reasons to remote a tower, actually operationally the ATCOs think it better way to do it, and as you obsessed with your grand years of experience and anyone with only 3 not got a clue what they talking about(even though they actually valid at something you aren't) the LFV ATCO is celebrating 35 years controlling.
