London City ATC news today
 

Um, I don't know what to say. I don't fly at all now but the idea of no one in the tower is a hard one to cope with.

I agree psychologically; but is it so different from ROC's on the railways instead of a signalman at your local station.

Out of interest do remote towers replicate the view from an existing tower- not always optimum of course but familiar and a clear bench mark or do they allow enhanced fields of view such as close to holding points or busy ramp areas so a remote controller can get a close up view from different sites around the airfield

I just don't see the point. Will it cut costs? Somehow, I'm not all that convinced that it will. I wonder what it will cost in delays when one of the "high tech" cameras goes u/s and has to be fixed before ops can resume?

The cost saving should come from having controllers working from a central pool managed by fewer managers. LCY will gain from having more space available from aicraft parking. I also hope that a centralised pool should enhance promotion for controllers and providing relocation packages are properly put together, an improved quality of life and a stable home platform. But cynics amongst us know that software, hardware and communication gremlins will stuff things up in ways we can not imaging. And if NATS is run like any other business, they will screw their workers over at every opportunity but... this time controllers can shut down multiple airports. They will now have more industrial power than ever.

PM

If and I repeat IF it's done from Swanwick the wage bill will rocket as City is Band 2 as opposed to Swanwick Band 5. If it's done from Whitely instead I assume the 'Western Radar' guys are on a lower band.

I note with intrigue there are many very negative comments and overall skepticism from the general public judging from the HYS comments on the BBC article.

Chevvron, do you know for sure that this is the case now, or even if it is do you know it will be so in 2019? Yes, it has been so in the past, but things have changed a lot in the past eight years.

HT and Piltdown Man, why should it be the ANSP instigating this? Perhaps there are no substantial benefits to the ANSP, but if it's what the customer wants.............

That's a misconception, just because it was done like that in the past doesn't mean it will continue to be like that.
Following your logic then, the "Western Radar" guys should be paid like the college instructors who are also based at CTC, and we know it's not the case!

As potty an idea as I have heard in a long while. They will still need the same number of controllers as they do currently, so there will be no cost saving in terms of personnel costs. Until someone decides that, as the staff are not overworked on the LCY duties, they can control somewhere else in between flights.
They say they have connected the airport to (presumably) Swanick via 3 different fibre cables. So, do they own those cables? If so, there will have been a huge outlay on digging, routing, laying etc attending the cables. If not, and I suspect this will be the case, they will probably end up renting time on the cables from BT. And I know from experience that data to and from London can be routed via a 3rd point. And that 3rd point could possibly be on a different continent! Unless you pay a premium to guarantee a shorter routing. I have known data links between 2 points a couple of miles apart within London to be routed via Chicago during busy periods. So, presumably this will add to the costs in order to avoid the long delays, gaps etc.
It is claimed they will have 14 CCTV cameras plus 2 more with pan, tilt and zoom. That doesn't exactly smack of great flexibility.
Getting rid of the existing tower gives no extra space at the airport as it will be replaced by an even bigger one.

I feel very uncomfortable. When everything goes tits up, knowing someone with a pair of binoculars and an r/t standing on the balcony seems sensible. Ok, my early flying did involve a man with a Very pistol and technology has moved on since the 1950s. But even so. I'm glad I'm nearer my grave than my skills test.

I heard they are going to introduce circular runways at London City also!!

Aw nimmer, yur jest funnin me nau!

<<Out of interest do remote towers replicate the view from an existing tower- not always optimum of course but familiar and a clear bench mark or do they allow enhanced fields of view such as close to holding points or busy ramp areas so a remote controller can get a close up view from different sites around the airfield>>
Technically they can do both. The HungaoControl remote tower project in Budapest consists of tower views, plus other cameras to provide zoomed in views of operationally important areas, as well as integration of A-SMGCS data, allowing flight data to be displayed alongside aircraft on the screens.

Not sure if this makes operational sense but you can be sure somebody thinks they can make money out of it otherwise it would not be happening.

The whole idea of "Remote Towers" is madness; driven by a "we can do it, so we will" philosophy. Management is seduced into it by a mistaken idea that it will save them money & a touching faith in technology & a total misunderstanding of the principles of ATC. Cherished, & appropriate professional standards, are ditched with gay abandon.

It reminds me of a headline that appeared on the front page of 'Transmit' during the 1990s.............'De-skilling the profession?".

Watch continues......

In what way would it de-skill the profession??

Well, I hope I'm wrong good egg, but there seems to be a parallel with this idea with what has happened at The Met Office.

Years ago, there were observers and forecasters in situ at various locations across The U.K. The quality of observation and prediction was very good.

Then, everyone de-camped to a bunker down in The West Country and all the 'local-knowledge' which aided the task was gone. In spite of all the 'remote-sensing' kit they now have, the content of the observations and accuracy of the forecasts are not a patch on what was available previously.

On a different note, I have never driven an articulated HGV and admire those who can, but in the last few months I've seen 3 of them stuck in the middle of a Cheshire village because they were relying on their 'new-technology', rather than looking out of the cab windows.

Hopefully, for the sake of those who will be tasked with operating this, I'll be proved wrong.However, this seems another part of an insidious erosion of the responsibilities and skill-sets of the ATCO profession, which began before the headline I mentioned above was written. Many of those involved in these decisions have little or no experience at the 'sharp-end' of aviation.

It has been discussed elsewhere on PPRuNe and described as "A solution looking for a problem".......Let's keep our fingers crossed and hope it isn't.

Wasn't it one of The Red Barron's right-hand men who, during a tour of Swanwick, made a remark that it was 'nothing more than a call-centre', or words to that effect?

If EGLC tower proves it can be done as safely and efficiently etc from Hampshire, can it not be done as safely and efficiently from say Spain? Or Latvia? Poland? One assumes as long as you have the secure data connection, and trained staff it would be no issue. Cost savings would definitely be more apparent in those locations.

Also, did someone decide "Digital" was more palatable to the masses than "Remote"?

Thinking about the Met Office, who is going to make Wx observations when the controllers are miles away?
At many units now, the task of 'met observer' has now been passed on to ATC staff. The observations have an impact on the way each airfield operates, and therefore must be accurate.
Who will be trained to make the METAR obs when the remote-tower is up and running?

Airfield ops or even worse, just put AUTO METAR into action like at EGLL! :ugh::hmm::cool::E

Most NATS towers nowadays have a Part Automatic or Semi Automatic Met observation system - PAMOS or SAMOS - I don't know what the difference is.
Assistants still have to verify the ob is correct and determine the type of precipitation if any for which they do a special course not as complex as the Met Observer Course.

In the event of an RTF failure, how will the Aldis Lamp work?

Hi Zooker

Any statistical data to back up your first assertion regarding the Met Office? Or is it purely subjective?

On the other point I've quoted...why would digital towers be an erosion of the responsibilities and skill-sets of ATCOs?
It's the same job, with the same responsibilities.
The technology involved offers more situational awareness for the ATCOs, which is a good thing surely?
Every ATCO makes mistakes at work. Tools which make it less likely for ATCOs to make mistakes, and for ATCOs to make more timely interventions when things go wrong, are surely a good thing.

I thought you were an ATCO.
ATCOs do NOT make mistakes at work, only at home or when driving the wife somewhere.
NB If I could figure out how to attach a smiley, I would.

1. That's fairly simple Zooker. It's not like observers at Stansted or Luton step out onto the balcony and put their hand out to gauge the rain...
That's what Met observers are trained to judge, using a variety of available indications.

2. Yes (In my opinion)

3. For one, you can't put flight labels on windows, nor can you put map overlays on them, and plenty more good reasons.

An ALDIS lamp is a basic requirement today (though as I understand it not all airfields have them??). If you'd looked around the subject I'm sure you'd have noticed that a Light Signal Gun attached to a PTZ camera can fulfil this requirement.

"Flight labels on windows"

What's all this?? AS for Aldis lamps, at most airfields they went out with the ark and I doubt very much if pilots of heavy jets know much about them nowadays.

When you visit Blackbushe later today, ask them if they still have an Aldis lamp. I think you'll find they do; we certainly have one at Fairoaks but Farnborough ditched theirs in the move to the 'new' (Mk 4) tower in 2002.

Every aerodrome that I ever worked at had a signal lamp - whether literally an Aldis or not. For zero upkeep, just occasionally, they are useful - for communication with WIP, if not aircraft. They certainly did not go out with the ark and it is a blinkered view to suggest that they did. Pilots of "heavy jets" most certainly should know the meanings of light signals, which are enshrined in SERA in the case of Europe.
As regards the additional technology that is available with a digital control tower, there is no doubt that it might well be useful as an add-on in a proper (conventional) tower, but not exactly vital.
The one question that I see Nats avoiding - or perhaps I have missed it - is WHY? There has to be an ulterior motive, knowing them, and it certainly will not be to enhance the status or conditions for the controllers.
The one necessary HF still to be addressed is the injection of JetA1 and freshly mown grass into the air conditioning - oh, and a genuine enthusiasm for aircraft in tomorrow's controllers.

2 s

In the event of an RTF failure, how will the Aldis Lamp work?


Mr Zooker, you really are showing your age, the last time Iused an Aldis lamp the intended recipient called me and asked"wots that red light on the tower",which I suppose one could argue had the desired effect.

or possibly, his experience, wisdom and healthy scepticism. Slightly less than polite to counter a reasonable query with a comment like that.

2 s

Hi good egg

This whole scenario sadly reminds me of a comment made by one of our senior ATCOs, many years ago.

"If NATS wanted a dog, they wouldn't buy a dog.......They'd buy a cat, and teach it to bark".

2359........Watch continues.

Hi, good egg.

Apologies for the delay in replying, but sadly, I have no statistical data to back up my assertions that the Met Office have lost the plot.

Just a lifelong interest in meteorology.

But, it's hardly surprising, is it, considering the paucity of the data they're now having to work with?

I wonder what the control tower is worth as a bijou residence?

Ummmm, why would they have any less data now than before? Each reporting station still reports the weather doesn't it?

In fact the Met Office use many more sources of data than ever before in order to produce their forecasts. The list of their sources continues to grow, not shrink, as time passes...because added information, or situational awareness, is beneficial for them too.

I'm guessing this thread drift is about a perceived loss of local knowledge and how that might be detrimental??

Not much I'd have thought. Gaining access to it (being airside), and its upkeep costs would be prohibitive for starters...