DFS selects remote tower technology
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
From: Poland
"their own service"? How? Airport operator doesn't have its own ATC staff. The only people validated at that unit live in a different country and are not willing to relocate. There's no physical tower facility, and no remote tower technology available on hand to the airport operator.
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 154
Likes: 2
From: at the computer
DFS selects remote tower technology
Unlike radar and procedural sectors that can be combined during low traffic, I can't see how one tower controller could be able to scan the whole environment simultaneously. Switching between airports when there are aircraft operating at each seems unacceptable to me.
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
From: UK
"their own service"? How? Airport operator doesn't have its own ATC staff.
*actually it's very complicated - and can be complicated further by other agreements.
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
From: London
Bean Counters missing the point
The essential safety point has been totally overlooked here. When an ATCO clears an aircraft to land , take off or cross a runway, he/she does not just look at the runway (as a camera can only do). The ATCO scans the whole environment, looks for uncleared movements, unusual activity, stray vehicles, birds, wildlife, FOD, stray airborne aircraft and increasingly small UAVs.
The ATCO continually scans and observes the whole airport ATZ until the aircraft is clear of any potential danger. A camera or multiple cameras cannot do that.
Will that safety issue be taken into account by the beancounters ? NO
The ATCO continually scans and observes the whole airport ATZ until the aircraft is clear of any potential danger. A camera or multiple cameras cannot do that.
Will that safety issue be taken into account by the beancounters ? NO
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
From: Spain
I just found this video is from a few years ago. The concept looks interesting...
https://youtu.be/Gqv8EECMXJM
https://youtu.be/Gqv8EECMXJM
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,655
Likes: 114
From: jersey
I'm with LadyAtco; although the technology presentation is impressive.
Where I seriously object to the concept espoused is in the 1 controller multiple airport scenario. Even if this idea is restricted to VERY quiet airports I simply cannot accept that it is safe. There are too many considerations & variables involved to make this practice acceptable.
In my view, this is an example of the Regulators abandoning their responsibilities in order to appease airport operators etc.
I was schooled in the ATC "Fail Safe" philosophy. I cannot see how this scheme could possibly be Fail Safe.
Where I seriously object to the concept espoused is in the 1 controller multiple airport scenario. Even if this idea is restricted to VERY quiet airports I simply cannot accept that it is safe. There are too many considerations & variables involved to make this practice acceptable.
In my view, this is an example of the Regulators abandoning their responsibilities in order to appease airport operators etc.
I was schooled in the ATC "Fail Safe" philosophy. I cannot see how this scheme could possibly be Fail Safe.
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
From: Ennis
The recent press release from IAA shows the direction in Ireland: https://www.iaa.ie/news.jsp?i=531&gc..._to=2100-01-01
Expect to see consolidation for quiet and overnight periods to reduce the need for staff (the largest expense of any ATC provider) and help to combat staff shortages and leave coverage at some locations, which is a typical challenge in Scandinavia for example.
By the way I believe that some towers in Germany are outsourced to
AustroControl .
it is rather silly that DFS can operate Towers in UK and not vice versa for NATS. The EU open market is not open enough yet! Lobby your MP!
FF
Expect to see consolidation for quiet and overnight periods to reduce the need for staff (the largest expense of any ATC provider) and help to combat staff shortages and leave coverage at some locations, which is a typical challenge in Scandinavia for example.
By the way I believe that some towers in Germany are outsourced to
AustroControl .
it is rather silly that DFS can operate Towers in UK and not vice versa for NATS. The EU open market is not open enough yet! Lobby your MP!
FF
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
From: under a single european sky
Let me get this straight right from the start: I'm not 100% convinced of the multiple "remote-TWR" concept as it is presented right now
BUT
we're all creatures of habit and looking back a few decades proves how awfully wrong or even ridiculous our perceptions can be...
When steam locomotives were invented, doctors were warning the human brain could suffer damage as it is not made for traveling with such high speed
IBM chairman Thomas Watson said, there might be a world market for about five computers.
Not trying to prove a point, but maybe the generation of babies that's swiping through iPhone pictures might have a different view on that issue.
BUT
we're all creatures of habit and looking back a few decades proves how awfully wrong or even ridiculous our perceptions can be...
When steam locomotives were invented, doctors were warning the human brain could suffer damage as it is not made for traveling with such high speed
IBM chairman Thomas Watson said, there might be a world market for about five computers.
Not trying to prove a point, but maybe the generation of babies that's swiping through iPhone pictures might have a different view on that issue.
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
From: UK
Let me get this straight right from the start: I'm not 100% convinced of the multiple "remote-TWR" concept as it is presented right now
BUT
we're all creatures of habit and looking back a few decades proves how awfully wrong or even ridiculous our perceptions can be...
When steam locomotives were invented, doctors were warning the human brain could suffer damage as it is not made for traveling with such high speed
IBM chairman Thomas Watson said, there might be a world market for about five computers.
Not trying to prove a point, but maybe the generation of babies that's swiping through iPhone pictures might have a different view on that issue.
BUT
we're all creatures of habit and looking back a few decades proves how awfully wrong or even ridiculous our perceptions can be...
When steam locomotives were invented, doctors were warning the human brain could suffer damage as it is not made for traveling with such high speed
IBM chairman Thomas Watson said, there might be a world market for about five computers.
Not trying to prove a point, but maybe the generation of babies that's swiping through iPhone pictures might have a different view on that issue.
Rest sound like people who seen a TV for first time and wonder how they get the man inside the box.
Most of the statements about what an ATCO in a glass tower need to do actually is the limitation of the design of glass tower and the unsafe part, remote towers actually fix most of the problems with glass towers.
Multiple concept again - needs lot of work yet, but open thinking and not thinking in the silo of how would 3 glass towers be done - instead consider fact the technology does and allows presentation differently so the problems that perceived when only think of the now don't exist.
Any new technology that tries to replicate what you do now is pointless - it should change and improve things.
Comment reference SARG, actually their role is equally to improve standards not just maintain them - so perhaps they see an opportunity here to fix the issues we have in the old glass tower tech!
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 15
From: Wellington,NZ
Only sensible educated post here!
Rest sound like people who seen a TV for first time and wonder how they get the man inside the box.
Most of the statements about what an ATCO in a glass tower need to do actually is the limitation of the design of glass tower and the unsafe part, remote towers actually fix most of the problems with glass towers.
Multiple concept again - needs lot of work yet, but open thinking and not thinking in the silo of how would 3 glass towers be done - instead consider fact the technology does and allows presentation differently so the problems that perceived when only think of the now don't exist.
Any new technology that tries to replicate what you do now is pointless - it should change and improve things.
Comment reference SARG, actually their role is equally to improve standards not just maintain them - so perhaps they see an opportunity here to fix the issues we have in the old glass tower tech!
Rest sound like people who seen a TV for first time and wonder how they get the man inside the box.
Most of the statements about what an ATCO in a glass tower need to do actually is the limitation of the design of glass tower and the unsafe part, remote towers actually fix most of the problems with glass towers.
Multiple concept again - needs lot of work yet, but open thinking and not thinking in the silo of how would 3 glass towers be done - instead consider fact the technology does and allows presentation differently so the problems that perceived when only think of the now don't exist.
Any new technology that tries to replicate what you do now is pointless - it should change and improve things.
Comment reference SARG, actually their role is equally to improve standards not just maintain them - so perhaps they see an opportunity here to fix the issues we have in the old glass tower tech!
It's not the tech per se I have a problem with; its how the average cost-driven ANSP is likely to want to utilize it.
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
From: UK
None of your arguments or suggestions address the basic issue of staffing in the event that things suddenly get very busy very quickly due to, say, an emergency, or multiple diversions due to unexpected weather.
The key difference and research that's ongoing - is more about how you manage a remote tower centre. The view could be that say you had 3 airports remoted to a single centre - you may be able to, at low workload times have one ATCO control all 3 airports at same time(using new tech) however you'd still have in that building 3 ATCOs(as you need to give breaks anyhow etc) (same as most glass towers now at night) should your doom and gloom situation occur - the tech allows you to split it out and the 3 airports now controlled individually by 3 ATCOs. No different from any bandboxing that happens now in towers or centres.
Point to equally consider is to think about what you might be combining 1 ATCO may be doing 3 airports but that's 3 airports GMP, where the air and gmc still have a dedicated or multiple ATCOs still providing that element per airport.
Because of the way you could display the view(not limited to just replicating the non optimised tower view now - you could display two runways at two airports - no different from where some ATCOs control two runways now, but in that case they often required to turn their head to see both and actually can't look at both fully at all times, in remote tower the screen layout could allow you to see both at all times without turning your head,add in the digital safety nets that can detect incursions, highlight overlays on the image and even display surveillance data on the visual image, giving even more situational awareness without the ATCO needing to look down at a different screen or strips etc, you've improved the situational awareness, safety. But regardless of the technology it still comes back to a workload, and the management and choice to operate this way no different from desicions made now on bandboxing. All the technology does is give you another way to operate, same as radar fusion did - you couldn't bandbox sectors if each working position could only take one radar feed, mosaic radar allows you to technically see the whole country at a single working position, which if the WL was such one ATCO could bandbox sectors.
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 15
From: Wellington,NZ
My "doom and gloom' (your words) situation has only happened to me personally about 40 times in my career, so far.
In most of those situations, I would not have wanted to have to handover a couple - or even one - other sector/s to a relief controller while trying to focus on the emergency requirement.
I don't have a problem with information saturation in the current environment. And we have quite a lot of info able to be displayed. Much more, however, and the human brain (or my brain, anyway) starts to become the limiting factor at processing it.
It's simply a case of more is less, sometimes.
But carry on pushing the fancy toys. One day, they will probably be cost-effective, and several more days down the track, fully automated. Controllers will really become software and system troubleshooters without the traditional skills, so much. I expect to be retired or dead by that time.
By then, fully automated flight decks (no human pilot) will have started to gain widespread acceptance. This matters not a bit to me. When I have a need to go places, by then, it will be on a ship, or maybe a train.
Or I'll walk. Or shuffle.
In most of those situations, I would not have wanted to have to handover a couple - or even one - other sector/s to a relief controller while trying to focus on the emergency requirement.
I don't have a problem with information saturation in the current environment. And we have quite a lot of info able to be displayed. Much more, however, and the human brain (or my brain, anyway) starts to become the limiting factor at processing it.
It's simply a case of more is less, sometimes.
But carry on pushing the fancy toys. One day, they will probably be cost-effective, and several more days down the track, fully automated. Controllers will really become software and system troubleshooters without the traditional skills, so much. I expect to be retired or dead by that time.
By then, fully automated flight decks (no human pilot) will have started to gain widespread acceptance. This matters not a bit to me. When I have a need to go places, by then, it will be on a ship, or maybe a train.
Or I'll walk. Or shuffle.
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
From: The World
I am confused. Lately I heard not one report of German authorities forcing small airfields to move their "tower" to a location where the full airfield can be seen and now they toss the remote tower approach? How does this fit together, are these technologies covering total 360hor+180ver surveillance?
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,003
Likes: 0
From: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Went to a presentation by the MAG Operations Director recently who indicated they are very interested in this.
Currently, they employ NATS at EGCC and EGSS, while EGNX and EGHH are staffed 'in-house'.
Interesting times ahead.
Currently, they employ NATS at EGCC and EGSS, while EGNX and EGHH are staffed 'in-house'.
Interesting times ahead.
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
From: farfaraway
Does anybody know if ATCOs controlling at more than one VCRs are operating crosscoupled frequencies or are they on separate channels. Speaking as one has been required to work two different freqs. at the same time I can say it takes very little for workload to go through the roof and it is worth remembering that the tragedy at Uberlingen was in part caused by a controller working two different freqs. Having said that beancounters will win.
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
From: UK
There is no multi towers in operation yet - there a significant difference between individual multiple towers in one RTC(think approaches/sectors in swanwick) and multiple towers combined (oh think again sectors band boxed)
Hmmm nothing new really then! Except it now apparently unsafe - better close swanwick/Prestwick/most towers now then, as they all bandbox- difference is the tech they developing in remote towers will make this even safer.
Remote towers are one example where bean counters - and grumpy, resistant to change, negative ATCOs both actual win, cheaper, smarter and safer.
Just for interest the ATCO in the LFV tower also performs radar from the remote tower. Maybe they just more skilled/capable than some of those negative posters here.
Hmmm nothing new really then! Except it now apparently unsafe - better close swanwick/Prestwick/most towers now then, as they all bandbox- difference is the tech they developing in remote towers will make this even safer.
Remote towers are one example where bean counters - and grumpy, resistant to change, negative ATCOs both actual win, cheaper, smarter and safer.
Just for interest the ATCO in the LFV tower also performs radar from the remote tower. Maybe they just more skilled/capable than some of those negative posters here.
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 4,432
Likes: 33
From: LHR/EGLL
While I'm all for developing new technology, it's not all 'win/win'.
I imagine that those ATCO jobs in those remote communities, in Sweden and elsewhere, whose airports are ripe for 'going remote', actually provide a lot of income into those communities. Jobs such as those enable skilled professionals to stay in their local communities rather than moving to the big city etc etc.
I know this is no different to any number of different industries over the years, but it should be acknowledged and handled correctly.
I imagine that those ATCO jobs in those remote communities, in Sweden and elsewhere, whose airports are ripe for 'going remote', actually provide a lot of income into those communities. Jobs such as those enable skilled professionals to stay in their local communities rather than moving to the big city etc etc.
I know this is no different to any number of different industries over the years, but it should be acknowledged and handled correctly.
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,655
Likes: 114
From: jersey
When radar positions are band boxed, the ATCO is doing just the one job. Granted that this is in a bigger area, overall, than if he is controlling just one sector, but it is still just one piece of airspace & his attention is not being distracted by events outside of his area of responsibility. But, IF an ATCO is controlling more than one aerodrome this involves him doing more than one job, & he might very well be distracted by events in his other area of responsibility.
In my view, you cannot compare band boxing of radar sectors with an ATCO doing Aerodrome Control simultaneously at more than one aerodrome.
In my view, you cannot compare band boxing of radar sectors with an ATCO doing Aerodrome Control simultaneously at more than one aerodrome.