Combined radar and tower
 

Talking to a guy the other day who said this system is being trialled in Scotland? How does it work and what are the benefits??

Are you sure it wasn't approach and tower? Because I've never heard of tower and radar, in fact it's a complete no go.

Surely if it's Approach and Tower it wouldn't be being trialled as it is already in use in many places!

It is tower and radar, I think Belfast has been doing it at night for a while now.

No Sylo it is RIT Radar in the tower. Now perfectly legal (subject to certain conditions being met).

It is in use at Belfast Aldergrove.

Benefits? Take a mad stab.....clue the answer includes costs and staffing.

Many towers have had what is now called an 'Aerodrome Traffic Monitor' (ATM), formerly 'Distance From Touchdown Indicator' (DFTI) for over 40 years. Uses are strictly limited to monitoring spacing on final approach and position of visual circuit traffic, however controllers with ADI and APS ratings are not permitted to vector traffic using it, but they may pass generic traffic information derived from it, so it's not a new system being trialled.

Chevron....wrong. Do you ever read posts before leaping in?


The system now allows for vectoring on the ATM which is an exact repeater of the "main" radar.

Like you I am no longer valid BUT I will get hold of the rules and post the essentials when I speak to my old watch.....couple of days max.

It was just being introduced as I left...I naturally paid no attention to it :p

Trials ongoing at EGAA and imminent or just starting at EGPF.

I am surprised it has taken so long for it to be introduced for the night traffic hours.

Shows you I'm a bit out of touch.
So if the ATM has to be an exact repeater of the main radar, presumably at places like Luton and Farnborough where the ATM has south at the top it can't be done.

No reason why a second north-up screen can't be installed or, given the light traffic levels I'm assuming are necessary for this to be permissible, switch the picture on the ATM to north-up for the duration of approach-radar ops.

Watch this space, this is about to happen across the board (where the CAA will approve it) because it can reduce staffing costs long term. Management will love it. Couple it with electronic strips and then the night ATSA disappears too...........not good. And another thing!!!!!! ATCO's doing night MET obs..........not good.....again!

ATM's which are south facing are being turned so they face north!!!!

Only one reason to do radar from the tower, cost saving!!! You can cut your night manning by 50%.

WIP . Night ATSA is a distant memory at EGAA .ATCO has been doing met for a couple of years now.

Part of the reality of having to fight to retain contracts in NSL.

Just ANOTHER example of "sacrosanct" procedures or requirements which have been "No Go Areas" for decades suddenly becoming approved because of expediency - primarily cost cutting.
It makes me weep. All those years not doing it & now, suddenly, its all OK; & we could have been doing it all the time .
Please explain why; & what has now changed to enable it to be done safely.

Tried to look at ANO Schedule !0 last night, but it has been deleted and replaced by CAP744. Lots of information, but it does say……

"The Aerodrome Radar Control endorsement shall not permit the aerodrome controller to use the surveillance radar equipment in any way that will detract from the primary task of providing an aerodrome control service by visual observation of aerodrome traffic".

Sorry Guv', I didn't see the vehicle stray on to the runway/Aerodrome Ground Incident*, I was too busy vectoring a few inbounds.

*delete as applicable

@lookingforajob,

I don't know which unit you are/were based at but where I work you don't get half an hr with no traffic to put your feet up and make a brew........I wish! As a dual valid controller working nights at a busy airfield, tower duties involve more than just aircraft calls. Night duties involve lots of vehicle activity due to constant work in progress and non standard complex procedures on a regular basis. Having controlled at a couple of units I can say that it might work at some units, but not everywhere. It simple isn't safe in my opinion.
Once the staffing is cut it won't be re-introduced thats for sure.
Put bad weather and an emergency into the frame and trust me, when your work loads has doubled you would prefer to have an ATSA and an extra ATCO on duty to help!

Zooker
Quite so. Whatever conditions are placed on the operation, how do you guard against precisely what you describe?

2 s

Perhaps NATS NSL thinks it can get it past the union against the background of a lost contract, and the hard negotiation they will face as a result when the other contracts come up for renewal.

LookingForAJob

Can you suggest what has now changed (other than the need to cut costs ie NOT ATC safety related) that overcomes what, for 50 years or so, was ABSOLUTELY forbidden ?
&, if this practice is now legal, WHY it is now so; &, why could we not have done it before ?
Either we were doing something (or not doing it) for so many years for absolutely NO reason; or, we are now doing it despite very good reasons (which haven't changed) for not having done it in the past. Which is correct ?
It seems to me that you have a touching faith in the professionalism & probity of the Regulators/Administrators. I hope that I am not doing you a misservice !
What is the answer ?

Its just my opinion that its not a good idea.
There are so many variables that could make it safe or not.
Unfortunately modern NATS is different to days when one minute you've got your feet up, bored and wondering who's going to make a brew! And then on the other hand saying to the boss " you better call up the troops, we will need them tonight. I've got 1 inbound due in half an hour".
There won't be any extra staff. If a safety case is proven by the regulator and it gets implemented into the contract with the airport authority the staff won't be there.
All this will do is add to the stress of frontline ATCO's, decrease ATSA numbers (further) and possibly decrease the service to the airliners, but alas, we won't be bored or suffer any tedious night duties!

Answer me this. What is the difference between doing approach procedural and tower combined and approach radar with tower combined? Answer- one has been legal for many decades the other has not? Why not? What's the difference? IMHO approach procedural requires far more concentration than approach radar (I've done both for many years) so I would far rather (with appropriate restrictions/conditions) do a bit of approach radar in the tower than have to do full on procedural because of some outdated rule that nova body can quite remember why was introduced.

The reason this has come up now is because NATS dispensed with its ability to do approach procedural many years ago (rightly or wrongly) and so this is its only real option...and I'll lay money no non-NATS units get approval to do it.

Especially QGHs combined with ADC...

This is shortly to start trials at PH too. I'll reserve judgement...

Trial just started at EGNT too I believe....

You can cut your night manning by 50%.


Ha ha ha, thanks Nimmer! Will I, as part of the watch management team, be exempt from being sliced in half or do I get to choose which of my colleagues becomes sushi?!


Just one serious but obviously hypothetical question, at unit X where there are currently three ATCOs on night duty, we'll assume this new plan reduces staffing by 33% thus leaving two on duty. What happens if or when one of the two remaining staff declares unfit for duty and the other ATCO, who would previously have been on nights, has already been re-allocated to other operational duties? How would that be covered? Interesting question don't you think?

Sorry if I appear to be 'stooping low' with this, but I wonder if the managers, accountants and, (dare I say), 'union reps', who have obviously given their endorsement to these cost-saving procedures have forgotten that:-

The 2 most tragic mid-air collisions in European airspace in the last 40 years were, in part, attributable to persons not sitting in seats that should have been occupied.
Also, the loss of Comair 1591, at Lexington, might have been prevented had eyeballs been looking though the VCR windows.

No offence intended to anyone. Stay safe and keep a sharp lookout.

In theory I would assume it can be covered by moving somebody from the afternoon, and then probably give them a day of TOIL to be covered with overtime.

In practice, with the reductions in staffing that seem to be going all over the country, I think (opinion, not fact) that airports will start to close regularly at nights due to staff shortages if staffing is cut much more.

"In theory I would assume it can be covered by moving somebody from the afternoon, and then probably give them a day of TOIL to be covered with overtime."


Which of course assumes that the person calls in sick prior to the afternoon shift starting and that someone is willing to change shifts at short notice. Good luck with that one!

If the rostered person calls in sick and a replacement can't be found then close the airfield," simples". It's the price the consumer sometimes has to pay when when they want something done on the cheap. The train companies cancel trains at the drop of a hat and people have to put up with it. It's UKPLC 2014, accept it and get on with it:ugh:

Is the Radar in the Tower procedure actually requiring the ATCO to vector the inbound or allowing the aircraft to manually position onto the ILS using a RNAV procedure and therefore the ATCO performing a monitoring role only?

@standardnoise:
That is exactly why I think we will start seeing airfield closures at a regular basis if this is brought in across the board and staffing subsequently cut.

@obwan
I don't have a problem with it, but once again I think that the second we start regulating traffic or closing airfields due to staffing it's not the airfield that will get the bad publicity, it's the ATCOs! Which means we may end up having to adapt a new procedure we don't want, cut staffing even more (which we don't want), the reasoning being the reduction in service. When the service then has to eb reduced (like we said) we will still take the blame, it's no-win situation for the ATCOs if you ask me!

@250kts
As far as I know it's standard radar vectoring.

Interesting comment knots, (greetings by the way, we haven't spoken for ages).
The next question is obviously in the 'monitoring role', what ATC service is the aircraft receiving, (with the terrain-clearance issues,), and also, what would be the tower controller's responsibility if unknown conflicting traffic, (say a night-time VFR nav-ex gone pear-shaped), was observed on the ATM/radar/situation display?
Lots of Interesting 'oral-board' questions ahead.

So an inbound could be transferred,say, 30 miles out and the tower controller does the vectoring?? Not sure this would get through a safety case. What happens at Belfast where the trial has already taken place? How could the tower controller handle a stack should there be bad weather or inbound delays?

Ultimately if it comes in it's the airport operator who takes the risk on the airfield closing should there be sickness.

Hello Zooker

@250kts,

Exactly the point I was making earlier when I was told by 'lookingforajob' that we should be careful about "waving the safety flag"! I think there is genuine safety concern with this one, whether or not it is 'just a gut feeling or not'.
I would not be happy at my unit doing radar in the tower ( out to 40nm ), providing an aerodrome control service and doing met observations at the same time in LVP conditions with holding traffic. Obviously the met would get neglected, resulting in calls from the met office!
The whole point of this is 100% a money saving exercise. For ATCO's it means working in a more stressful environment where the swiss cheese holes will line up faster. And for management/bean counters and others who get large bonuses for reducing overheads it means in the long term less staff.
It used to be Safe, Orderly and Expeditious. I'd prefer to keep it that way!!

Could someone who is involved in the trials enlighten us about what conditons are imposed and how the potential for being interrupted by vehicles or aircraft on the aerodrome frequency is addressed?

2 s

Swiss cheese has enough holes in already.
There is absolutely no need to take a knife to it and cut bigger ones.

Couldn't agree more Mr Zooker, incidently where is Mt Belzoni?

Very close to where WJAZ is broadcast from, allegedly. :E

WorkinProgress - "I would not be happy at my unit doing radar in the tower ( out to 40nm ), providing an aerodrome control service and doing met observations at the same time in LVP conditions with holding traffic."

Yet this is perfectly legal WITHOUT radar!!

NQWhy, there is one, tiny difference: with procedural approach you don't have to stare at the radar screen all the time (while being obliged to look around through the windows at the same time, which is essential to providing aerodrome service).