DFS selects remote tower technology
 

DFS, the new providers of ATC at Gatwick will introduce remote tower control for Saarbrucken, Erfurt and Dresden. They will be controlled via cameras from Leipzig. A spokesman said DFS would train ATCOs to cover multiple airports thus saving manpower.

Is this the start of major job losses ?

What can ATCOs do to prevent DFS from taking away our jobs.

Thank God I'm out of it now......

Nothing can be done.

We embraced Europe and deregulated our air traffic.
Unlike Germany. So DFS can keep winning contracts here and we can't touch theirs

I don't think any ANSP has tried having one controller provide tower ATC for more than one airport at the same time. Obviously technically possible but what about when the concept becomes reality?????

I take it that this means being "rated" to work multiple airports, two hours Airport 1, break, two hours Airport 2, not working multiple airports at the same time. Could be wrong but that's my reading of it.

Multi tasking
 

Cost savings would come if one ATCO was working all three airports simultaneously in quiet times.

If there was only one movement every hour or two then the ATCO could switch cameras between airports to cover occasional movements.

What are the movement rates for these Airports, are they 24/7, do they have radar etc?

...not just DFS
 

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

This is an interesting topic and what interesting times lie ahead.

I understand Dresden is the busiest of the three mentioned by DFS and last year had 30357 air traffic movements. Some other facts here, but it doesn't mention radar: Key data, traffic statistics - Dresden International Airport

The Swedes have already begun down this road: Sweden opens first remote control air tower - The Local

I think the point here about jobs is a really interesting one. If it is deemed possible to control more than one airport simultaneously then of course this will result in the amalgamation of positions. I can simultaneously control two runways but in the same environment, with the same constraints, rules etc. Is it a good idea when two airports can be so diverse? What about if they're relatively simple operations, as LadyAtco says with a movement or two an hour and one adjacent taxiway?

There is no doubt that cost is the driving force behind these changes but that doesn't necessarily mean less jobs. It's cheaper to employ 10 people on one site than 10 people on 10 sites (or even 2 sites). The big issue is: what is acceptable? Managers with budgets and ATCOs with safety accountability will have two different opinions here and it's important we stand up for ourselves. However, lets not be daft, if two people are employed to sit and control two movements an hour in two different locations do you really feel your job is justified?

And also your MEP. :)

Not really true, DFS lost a few towers to austrocontrol already.

DRS: ATC is H24, however no landing and takeoff allowed between 2100 - 0500, except scheduled traffic that which cannot take off and land between 2230 and 0430 with a grace period of 30 minutes. Has seen a severe reduction in traffic in the last few years. Last year, as mentioned, 30.370 movements.

ERF: ATC is H24, some restrictions exists for landings between 2200 - 0500, however most common types can land during that time. Has seen a severe reduction in traffic in the last few years. Last year 9.259 movements.

SCN: ATC is available 0500 - 2130, for delayed landings until 2300. Last movement figures i have are from 2013, 11.124 in total. That figure is about to raise somewhat as Zweibrücken Airport close by is broke and closed for scheduled traffic, available PPR.

All times are german local times as far as i can tell.

Thanks Denti & Hangten! :ok:

The thing is, with this type of multi-sector operation, is that when all is going well, and the movement rate is low, it is quite probably possible to manage it safely.

Where I see it being particularly applicable is in the sort of environment the Swedes are using it; a shuttle service up the country stopping at two or three not-busy airports, and returning. The remote tower is "moved" up the country to cater for each arrival/departure. (The ATCO and the flight crew probably get to "know" each other quite well.)
This seems appropriate. Rather than staffing ~3 low-traffic units, one unit with one controller can man all three, barring exigencies such as a big increase in unexpected traffic. This is where reserve capacity needs to be available, realistically, and at short notice. (An extra work station or two, and staff to man them. This would, of course, partially negate some of the savings made. In fact, from what I've seen of software systems augmenting or replacing the human touch, it might even be more expensive.)

If something goes wrong (airborne emergency, diversions due weather, equipment outage/degradation etc) I could see a controller becoming very overloaded very quickly.

What would be the plan B for such a situation? Does anyone think the beancounters up near the top of the organization will have a good, workable plan?

There is an precendent for this sort of thing going wrong, unfortunately. IIRC the controller had his name leaked by the press and was subsequently murdered. Some of the managers of the organization he worked for received jail sentences in a subsequent investigation concerning the work practices.

OK, it was same-same but different, in that an area sector was combined with another area sector during light workload, but I could easily see something similar happening were one operator (controller) tasked to control more than one aerodrome at the same time.

Tarq 57

I can see a case for doing remote tower operations but I somehow doubt the contingency plans will prove to be very robust if put to the test, especially with one controller providing a service at more than one tower simultaneously. That method of operations is inevitable as the driver for all of this is substantial cuts in costs.

Nevertheless, I am sure the managers will get all the paper work approved by the regulators!

Koksy

How right you are !

One thing you can guarantee, the regulators will NOT protect professional standards.

How very strange !

Guess the next is a remote flight deck technology, where multiple aircrafts are controlled by only a few pilots that are able to switch between aircrafts depending on when a pilot (actually) flying is needed for the phase of flight.

Zoom down the runway, once airborne, press auto and from then on the control is handled by the computer, acting on the instructions given via datalink from the controlling ACC computer, and the pilots switch to the next needed aircraft.

Saving manpower all around, making us all either earning on the stocks, or cleaning toilets (whereby we have even less money to pay for the airfare, making the beancounters looking for even more ways to cut costs).

Well, when the SRG were regulating my old unit, they were very keen to point out that the major reason for their existence was to uphold professional standards. That's how they sold their existence to ATC & the Airport Authority.
It does not appear to me to be entirely the "raisin d'être" of their existence now!

I dont really see - in terms of safety - any advantage in the remote tower

so many things can go wrong

The fact that DFS can bid for ATC contracts in the UK is a slightly different debate to remote tower operations. Unless of course DFS are proposing they do EGKK remotely?

Anyway, isn't the UK's biggest ANSP also looking at remote towers?

As an end user, albeit as a private pilot, there is something comforting knowing the voice in my headset is local with local knowledge and their sole attention is on the task in hand. A somewhat different perspective if the voice is potentially hundreds of miles away yet clearing me to land whilst simultaneously involved in another task on another airfield.:ooh:

Purely from a cost basis I can see how the airport accountants will be in sheer delight at the thought of getting rid of those costly and troublesome ATC types but I can see one major pitfall, correct me if I am wrong.

The UK`s largest ANSP bids for the quieter regional airports with a remote contract promising all things to all people in the beginning. Risk assessments will be made to match the perceived risk and all boxes ticked, never mind the reality, just get the contract signed - take a loss if need be to get it. I don`t know what a standard ATC contract is, 5 years, 10 years? Local regional airport signs the deal at £X pounds and subsequently local infrastructure is dismantled, controllers dispersed to remote facilities etc. At the end of the contract the ANSP now says the price is £XXX - non negotiable. Result - local regional airport is royally screwed. No way back without huge expense to reinstate local ATC and the initial savings are history. I think its actually quite a clever move to entrap customers who once they give away their flexibility will find it near impossible to return no matter how much they protest.:ugh: