Digital ATC
 

Article in the Telegraph re plans to digitise ATC and reduce the need for controllers. Has noone heard of cyber warfare and attacks ?

Not sure having human controllers makes any difference in the event of a cyber attack. Everything that the human does is computer based anyway.
The radio will be software based/filtered/modulated, ditto the radar picture.

British airports consider replacing air traffic controllers with remote system
I think they're referring to using cameras for local and ground control. ATCOs will still be making the decisions but from a remote control room.
With suitably placed cameras using IR etc, it could actually enhance monitoring and safety.

< it could actually enhance monitoring and safety.>

I wonder how>

I think it's easier to disrupt VHF communications than secure encrypted digital connections..

It is a big step from an airport with 20 movements a day to airports with as many movements in an hour or less. I guess it won't stop SAAB and the rest trying, especially as the numbers will look very appealing to the bean counters!

No obvious tower target.
Intruder detection.
Pics to back up ground movements radar.
Must be lots of other things; not suggesting you don't have those already.

Back in the day when I was an RAF ATCO there we were picnicking at other side of airfield during display.
Security come to enquire, show ID, "OK, Sir." :ok: Ahh . .

Basil
 

No obvious tower target?

Let's say one tower is providing the ATC for 5 or 6 adjacent airfields i.e. Gatwick for Southend, London City, Luton, Stansted, Farnborough etc- take out Gatwick tower and you've closed all the others!

How is that any different to taking out somewhere like Swanwick?

It's not!!!!!

<<Intruder detection.
Pics to back up ground movements radar.>>

Not sure what intruder detection means... but surface movement radar can detect very small objects.

What pics to "back up GMR?" Have you ever seen a GMR? I used GMR for over 20 years and never cried out for pictures as a back up!

Get used to it HD. IT must be better - it's the future !

People trying to sell it because it can be done (and someone profits) rather than because there is a real improvement in cost, safety, order or expedition. A solution looking for a problem.

You've hit the nail firmly on the head, Dan.

It makes sense for an airfield that could knock down a tower to expand within and have ATC conducted remotely or take multiply small airfields with no ATC and amalgamate them to increase safety.

Depends on the motives really. It's been successful elsewhere.

Absolutely bang on! One of today's cancers in many industries!

The operational benefits of future 'digital ATC' tools should be obvious.

The ability to display surveillance data on to a visual picture, perhaps via a HUD or similar; the ability to use IR and other electro-optical instruments to give a near-daytime visual picture in darkness or LVP; the ability to provide extended safety nets such as preventing conflicting clearances, warning of stop bar overruns, route deviations etc; the ability for cameras to contribute surveillance data into the combined surveillance picture; integration of voice-recognition etc.

Large amounts of data on each movement, integrated with intention and routing (both air and ground) will enable far more stable departure sequences.

Yes, it's all very difficult to get right. Yes, it will be a long time before things like the above operate seamlessly in a highly pressured environment, but it is all coming.

Whether for the right reasons or not, it's where the industry is headed. Do people really expect ATC technical development to stop as we are today?

No, Gonzo. But, there's still a lot of bulls**t involved !

As ever.



As ever.

The things Gonzo mentioned we used to do as ATCOs. Wonder how we managed?

Yes, but sometimes a human isn't the best 'thing' to do that. Humans make mistakes, and perhaps having a system that will alert the controller when he tries to clear an aircraft for take off when there's someone crossing it ahead of them is a good idea, or alert the controller when he tries to instruct an aircraft to route along a taxiway behind an aircraft to which he has just given a pushback clearance.

We have had TCAS for years.

Flight decks used to have navigators, flight engineers, wireless operators as well as pilots.

Would we really trust a human to monitor the thousands of parameters and data points of modern turbofan operation without any assistance, rather than multiple onboard computers, not forgetting the myriad computers back at Derby or the other real-time ops centres of the engine manufacturers doing the same thing?

And regardless of the safety nets etc, you can't deny that having a radar-like label being projected on to the window, or having an IR-augmented view, would help in LVP. That's the sort of thing digital tower tech can do.

Interesting that one of the medical requirements to be the holder of an ATCO licence is a pair of serviceable eyeballs, to provide stereoscopic vision and depth perception. In contrast, the remote tower camera system is essentially monocular.

<<you can't deny that having a radar-like label being projected on to the window>>

It sounds like a real nightmare. What is the advantage? Also, I haven't found out what "IR" means. See what getting old does.

Infra Red..

The advantage?

So you don't have to keep switching from the window, to A-SMGCS (GMR), to EFPS (electronic strips), and back again.

So you could perhaps have a visual indication through colour or symbol to represent confirmation that a pushback manoeuvre had begun, especially if the aircraft is parked end on to you, or perhaps round the back in the old Sierras, or at the bottom of the old Victors, which you can't see from the tower.

So you could see each aircraft's target take off time as you look out of the window to help you decide who gives way to whom, instead of looking at your strips.

So you can see aircraft type of something nearly two miles away in the dark as you're giving a conditional clearance on it to someone else withouit having to look down at your strips.

So you could have a visual indication of the aircraft being ready for taxi (having received such a request by data link) without the aircraft actually calling up on the R/T.

So you could see the position of aircraft beneath you, under the floor of the VCR, and check relative speeds, which is not so easy on A-SMGCS.

Apologies for the lack of order of those, that's just off the top of my head in a few minutes.

All those seem useful to me.

Don't be daft Gonzo. Things were much better 40 years ago, when ATCOs were real ATCOs

Well said!

Tongue in cheek comes to mind, HD !

Things were much better 40 years ago, when ATCOs were real ATCOs.


Ah! The good old days when men were men, and women were too!

kcockayne As are all my postings. I doubt anyone takes notice of me!

I always take notice of what you say HD. There is no substitute for operational experience - not tongue in cheek !

I'm with kockayne.
One of my ambitions was to man 120.4.
Never made it.....But utmost respect to those who did.

Is it me or does the ATC sub forum on this site have its own local version of Godwin's law of the internet....

. . and, in the RAF, back in the day, did without labels; you just remembered who each dot was.
Admittedly, far fewer dots than Swanwick ;)

...and never got it wrong, of course. :-))


2 s

Maybe surprisingly, not often. You were used to the systems you had & you just got on with it. That's how it was. Mis-indents could occur , but I didn't witness many of them. PRI only was good experience. Later, we all got used to SSR & Code Callsign Conversion but it was revealing to see that those controllers who didn't have PRI only experience found it very difficult, during TRUCE PRI only exercises, to continue to provide radar service without SSR; & even without CCC.

A similar story repeats with every generation of new tools.

I trained at LHR without A-SMGCS where every aircraft has identity, and inbounds have parking stand. In the old tower the secondary failed for a week or so, those who had only ever known controlling with it struggled, those who knew ops before it was introduced took a session to get back into the swing of things.

Now it is so integral to operations that we would consider putting flow restrictions on if it failed in the same way.

Same with electronic strips. As those of us used to using paper strips at LHR become the minority, paper strips is no longer considered an appropriate fallback mode.

This, of course, puts more stringent requirements on resilience for those pieces of kit.

Yes, Gonzo. What you say is so very true, & understandable. But, it is a pity that the "old tools" cannot be resurrected in these sort of circumstances.
Off on a tangent; I well remember the use of Climb & Descend VMC. This was a very useful tool when Radar was not available. We used it a lot at Aberdeen in the days before Radar (& even after Radar became available - when it failed for days on end !). Mostly worked a treat; although, I can remember one or two embarrassing events !
Climb/Descend a 1000 ft. above/below other traffic was very useful too; & even in a Radar environment, when pushed.

My slightly facetious point entirely - "not often" and "could occur" = did occur = occurred too often.


2 s

'Digital ATC'........Hmm

"What goes around, comes around"

I remember listening to CDs, back in 1986.........'Digital Audio',.... While doing my area course at CATC.

It was 'The future'......All the Hi-Fi shows said so.

Have you sen how many analogue vinyl LPs J.Sainsbury is selling these days?