LCY Remote Tower

[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]

Originally Posted by good egg

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]

Originally Posted by kcockayne

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by kcockayne

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.

[good egg]

Originally Posted by ZOOKER

"Going forward"

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

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by ZOOKER

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]

Originally Posted by good egg

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]

Originally Posted by Gonzo

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.