DFS selects remote tower technology

[kcockayne]

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

[kcockayne]

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

[evansb]

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

[BDiONU]

Originally Posted by ZOOKER

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

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

[BDiONU]

Originally Posted by Gonzo

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

The brief from the Swedes is that the ATCOs are happy to move back to civilisation. Instead of being stuck in the tower solo and only seeing others in their profession at shift change they now see others during breaks, which they can now get. There is other help around for problems etc. etc. Also they were having problems getting volunteers for some of the remote places.

[kcockayne]

BDiONU

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

[BDiONU]

Originally Posted by kcockayne

it also seems to fly in the face of established & cherished safety principles. Certainly, not what I was brought up with !

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

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

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

Only for 35+ years.

[Gonzo]

BD,

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

I wasn't clear.

[BDiONU]

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

Remote tower for single airport | SESAR

[BDiONU]

Originally Posted by Gonzo

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

Well there would be a tipping point where these smaller airports are running on a financial knife-edge, ATCO costs being quite a large slice of the running costs. If it comes down to the wire would they close the airport as not being financially viable or keep it open if they could reduce the running costs, one option being to run the tower remotely.
It is not an easy decision to make I suspect.

[ZOOKER]

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

[sirsaltyhelmet]

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

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

[Satellite Man]

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

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

[kcockayne]

Very true, Satellite Man.

[3miles]

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

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

[3miles]

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

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

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

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