NATS - Remote Towers
 

Control without bounds: The rise of the digital 'remote' tower - NATS

NATS busy championing Remote Towers in the UK, presumably for any UK or other airports.

Surprised there's no thread here already, NATS claim even the largest airport will/can be remote towered in future... :cool:

What's everyone's thoughts? Will we really see the likes of LHR and LGW controlled from a box room in Swanwick, and in terms of practicalities, what will be the set up of the ATCOs providing the service? NATS can provide technology, but are they also going to provide the new remote control tower 'room' for every airport across the country? :}

Like most things these days 'remote' or 'digital' towers are driven by the need for industry to sell its systems and the potential to reduce the costs of ATC services. It looks as if industry have been successful in persuading senior managers in ATC that this way of working makes sense.


On the basis that a controller can only perform one role at a time and still has to be trained for that role, I can't see much scope to reduce costs through staff cuts. However there is potentially a big saving if this way of working avoids the need to build a new tower.

Will all those doing ADI/ADV from Swanwick/Prestwick be paid Band 5 and 4 salaries I wonder?

The savings on building new towers and apportioning land for them will be worth it to the airports. Plus I reckon they will cross train controllers so that they can be valid on multiple airports. But Nats needs to do this quick or else they might not have any airports left! And it's all about cuts, they'll try their best not to give anyone more money 😡

There is a thread already. Here's the one I started two years ago:

http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/557...towers-uk.html

Have to say that I think crosstraining for different airfields will be very difficult. Heathrow has at least 6 different positions in the VCR, Stansted has 3, Luton 2/3 and they are all very very different not like approach units. Other things make it difficult too. Quieter units may be able to cross train but which ones?

Only those which do not have an attached APS section.

https://youtu.be/C1vza1BqgbQ

Split screen mode proved to be workable. We can have EGLC on the top screens and EGGW on the bottom screens.

Recipe for disaster !

Which airport will want to send a very important part of their infrastructure to a Nats office miles away? Once it's all set up they can't exactly change ANSPs easily can they. Good for Nats but for airports?

I agree with kcokayne.
Many years ago, during night duties, we band-boxed Air and GMC onto 1 frequency at night, which involved cross-coupling 2 VHF and 2 UHF channels.
As nights became a bit busier, the airlines complained about having to listen to GMC stuff when they were on the ILS, resulting in both frequencies being kept open, but manned by 1 ATCO.
No-one, including the younger folks, enjoyed doing this. Two frequencies was often hard enough.......Let alone two airports.

Just out of interest, are there any area folks who operate 2 widely-spaced sectors simultaneously on different frequencies? I know EGGP do EGCN approach from Merseyside, but I don't know if they are licenced to do both at the same time?

Exactly this. I expect NATS' interest in remote towers is primarily about locking customers in to a situation that would be prohibitively difficult and expensive to extricate themselves from if they ever wished to change service provider, or take ATC in-house.

All those staff cross-trained on other airports so it's impossible to pin down just who 'belongs' to which one, living miles away from the airport in question or where other ANSPs provide remote services from? Lovely jubbly.

It's a model that's worked well for NATS with the airports that are provided with approach services from LTCC, at least until Gatwick left the fold - but even then it was only Tower, can you imagine trying to untangle an approach sector from Swanwick?

Conversely, one could argue that it's easier to switch ANSP with a remote tower operation.

All the airport has to worry about is the big pipe that feeds data to the remote tower.

To switch ANSP one unplugs the feed from the socket labelled 'current ANSP' and plugs it in to the socket labelled 'new ANSP', who have set up their own remote tower.

From that simple, equipment-centric view it doesn't even have to be in the same country as the airport.

All the financial risk in terms of ATC equipment is forced on to the ANSP.

Interesting times ahead, no doubt.

Hit the nail on the head there. My main worry is that they might try to outsource ATC to another cheaper country using remote towers. There's already talk of using different country's area centres to provide cover if one country goes on strike. Airlines would love that!

NATS not necessarily the first in the UK?

Jersey Airport is set to become the first provider of Remote Tower Service technology in the British Isles

Suppose if were all going to be sat remotely somewhere in 20 years, there's worse places than Jersey....

I went on a famil trip to EGGP about 10 years ago. At that time they told me that the controller working EGGP wasn't permitted to work EGCN at the same time. And if I recall correctly the radar screens were set up so the controllers worked back to back, so they couldn't see both screens at the same time. (That may have changed since then)

Thanks jackie'
It was always odd when I did the Wallasey Sector, and I'd usually be on the landline to EGGP Approach quite a lot.
Two hours later, I'd be on the East Sector, and you'd ring EGCN, and the same voice answered the phone!

Perhaps the EGGP Approach Controller, having taken a break, then moved to the EGCN position and thought it equally coincidental to hear your voice again ZOOKER!

Not at all spekesoftly.
We were great mates, mate.
I had to do all the area sectors apart from Sector 29..............Not bad for someone who was posted in as ADC/APS. :E

If you went to your dentist, and he/she was performing a separate procedure, on another patient, at the same time as you were being treated, would you be happy?
Imagine if a heart surgeon, or a vet, was performing 2 operations simultaneously, and one of them went wrong........
NATS is keen on RPAS technology......But should a 'Drone Operator' control 2 separate RPAS units simultaneously?
Do you ever see a checkout operator, at TESCO, Waitrose or Sainsbury's, working 2 tills at the same time?.........No, I though so.

But it's O.K. for ATCOs.......Allegedly.

Speaking as someone who did 30 years at Jersey, I'd be very interested to see how that works out. A major part of the battle to get this established will be getting political support to allow outsiders into the island. But, if it isn't forthcoming, I suppose that it would give the present staff something to do. I don't agree with the principle of this type of operation, but the Airport is now an incorporated company charged with making as much money as it can. Who is worried about such inconsequential things as principles & safety anymore, when there is money to be made ? If I hadn't retired, this proposal would be occupying my thoughts intensely !

Further to the above; I ought to state that I have less objection to the use of this technology to overcome catastrophic scenarios where the permanent Tower is unavailable. After all, most of the Jersey ATCOs worked with the "assistance" of CCTV (facing the wrong way) for several years after the new terminal was built so as to remove the ability of ATC to actually see the main area of operations (apart from the runway) i.e. the southern apron. So, the experience is there already.
One question. What happens in low vis. conditions ? And we get some VERY frequent low vis! I can't envisage one ATCO doing two ADCs in VI's of 200 meters !

I don't think Jersey's intention is to control multiple airports.

Yes Gonzo, having read the item again, that appears to be true. Although Les is hopeful of expanding its use other than as an "emergency tower" facility. However, with the new revitalized Airport company looking for business, the prospect must have occurred to them.
I hope that my more generalized comments are still taken seriously.

Makes sense.

If your contingency facility can get you to 100% capacity, why not use it all the time?

Fair point Gonzo. But they've only just built a new tower that cost £10m+ ,so I can't see them closing it down anytime soon.

That doesn't stop the MoD!!! :hmm:

I have no knowledge of the plans in Jersey, but if they have recruitment and retention issues at Alderney and Guernsey maybe they could provide remote tower services from Jersey for those airfields?

There are pros and cons for remote towers but one of the major benefits for small aerodromes is the possibility of enjoying a better standard of controllers as there are less recruitment issues.

I know that is contentious, and there are a lot of good controllers at smaller aerodromes, but the job motivation, additional training and money the 'remote' controllers would receive should ultimately raise the competence levels of ATC personnel at small aerodromes across the world.

In a modern ATC environment I feel I am more removed from the Pilots and ground staff than ever before in my 15year career, (and it is a shame). Is it really a big leap from this to controlling remotely?

You could say that... You could also say that that is somewhat less than diplomatic!

2 s

One of the big factors to be considered is the datalink. High quality cameras send masses of data so you need to be certain that you're going to get the quality of service you require from the cable provider. I would be dubious about connections from A country to B country because of the difficulties in agreeing just who is responsible for maintaining the service and finger pointing should it go horribly wrong.

Much better to use windows BD.

No, not the thing Mr. Gates invented, the ones in the physical control tower that you look through. :ok:

Not a great analogy as my dentist does precisely that! Generally flitting between rooms with three patients on the go - typically one in the hands of the hygienist, one waiting for the Novocaine to kick-in, one actually under her treatment.

The reality is that some of the provincial airports really need to look at this type of technology if they wish to remain economically viable.

Another bad comparison.

That is en-route control, not Tower. And the sharing or merging of sectors under quiet conditions is established practice in that context. The only thing Uberlingen demonstrated is that you have to do it correctly.

Really ?
 

I've heard some bad analogies in my time.

Approach is in a darkened room with radar ? It could be your in garden shed for all it matters. The tech has made it wholly plausible, from a centre, for decades. There's half your tower gone in a blink. Savings to the provider and customer, huge ! Why ? Because ATCO's consider themselves beyond tech, which is hilarious. I could train a hybrid, in months, to do the job. Your time is up, as well as Tels and Admin, as has been proven in the last 10 years. My ATC colleagues are trying to leave, have left or are in despair regards their future. Hardly surprising, NATS went on a journey about 15 years ago, but forgot to take their people with them. NATS, in particular, dropped the ball and the Germans picked it up and scored a try. Well done UK LTD.

I work in a busy tower and radar unit. Apart from the radar itself we barely ​have any technology, and what little we have breaks often. I don't dispute that technology will eventually replace air traffic controllers, but there isn't any sign of creeping technology in my workplace. Unless it all happens at once but that would still require the ansp to actually invest quite a lot of money, which I've never seen them do. I'm not overly worried.

Name and shame?

Or your nothing more than a trick cyclist or a fantasist ?

No name and shame. I like my employer! I probably wasn't clear. We have back ups, service is not interrupted due to the professionalism and great work of my colleagues. Just knowing how technology is and how it frequently breaks, think of any computer or phone or whatever, I'm not worried the job will imminently disappear. I feel like there would be some sort of technological disruption leading up to a big change like that and I've seen nothing of the sort.

Spambhoy,

I was doing approach radar, from a centre, utilising daylight-viewing, in 1982. That unit also combined approach with tower, and area, (obviously), plus approach radar for another of the ANSPs contracts, which has since been lost.
Many of the ATCOs who worked at this unit were valid on all of these functions, and all the others did at least two of them.
The flexibility that this system offered those tasked with rostering 'b*ms on seats' was second to none.
Then accountants/managers got involved and it all went for a ball of chalk.

Also.........

"I could train a hybrid, in months, to do the job".

Please could you explain this statement to us?

You have to admit though.... the new corporate image puts them in a fantastic position to thrive in this developing marketplace 😉

When I joined ATC, in 1971, I was told by a person I met who was in the computer industry that I would soon be out of a job, replaced by one of his computers. It didn't happen & I made it to retirement (38 years later). I accept that the pace of technology is increasing, & that computers will take over at some point. But, when? Another 38 years ?

A remote tower with pooled ATC has to be the way to go for smaller airports with few scheduled movements. Off the top of my head, places like MME, CAX, CAL, HUY etc. might benefit. It is quite reasonable for ATC officers to be properly paid and to have a proper career, but airfields like these can offer little other than being nice places to live. But a good career coupled with a superb location to live could created for ATCO's who want to work in this part of the industry. At the same time these airfields would get proper ATC at a reasonable price.

PM