|
Remote towers
Apparently Cranfields ATC staff have been trained up in the new remote tower, but one glaring operational issue, possibly affecting safety where no radar is installed, has been identified because the controllers cannot see what is happening overhead the airfield, only around the airfield so' for instance' they cannot watch overhead joiners from the remote facility.
Surely this is something the makers should have pointed out to the University Management when selling the system to them?. |
I've yet to see a VCR with a fully glass roof - leaving a large cone of invisibility above the ATCO on most airfields. I'm not a fan of remote towers, but I don't think blind-spots in the overhead are going to be the deal-killer.
|
I tend to agree with you, Dan, but chevvron has a point. The lack of visibility above the tower is something that is not desirable - & which ought to have been rectified. |
I'd have thought that an overhead view from a camera on the roof would have been very easy to arrange.
Unfortunately, as in many things, these days "progress" seems to mean nothing but saving costs. |
Cranfield don’t have a ‘remote tower’ they have a digital tower. Most towers have a solid roof, the ones I worked in while in the UK all had lots of activity overhead the tower not visible to the ATCO. |
Does Cranfield’s digital tower not have a PTZ? |
Originally Posted by ShyTorque
(Post 10396766)
I'd have thought that an overhead view from a camera on the roof would have been very easy to arrange.
Unfortunately, as in many things, these days "progress" seems to mean nothing but saving costs. |
Coming big time to HIAL apparently. They've had a 'scoping study' by independent consultants. Seven airfields will be done from EGPE. :uhoh:
|
|
Originally Posted by 2 sheds
(Post 10398392)
- I agree wholeheartedly with your point about the overhead. Where I would take issue is the design phase. IF there is less view than in a conventional tower then your point has merit. BUT I would suspect that any company in this field (in this case SAAB), and the ANSP, and the CAA, would not countenance a worse view than any existing tower - including the ability to “peek outwards and upwards”... - As for 20 years time...I don’t know what the future will bring...much as I didn’t know 20 odd years ago that we’d be discussing remote/digital towers. I’d suspect (barring some sort of technological warfare) that digital towers are here to stay - whether remote or not. The possibilities of “digitalisation” will rule, in time. Data, data, data. Decision-making? AI. Takes the human risk element out (pretty much). First it’ll be “tools to assist the controller”, then “progressing” to remove/mitigate the human element. Cost matters. Esp when you need to add a visa to visit your nearest neighbours...(oops, that’s another thread!) |
You know where an aircraft joining overhead is when the pilot reports overhead - it is in the overhead! That caused a few anxious moments on our part, but after some frantic head swivelling, I spotted him a long way from the field in our four o'clock. He can't have even been inside the ATZ when he made his "overhead" call and had probably misidentified the field altogether. |
good egg,
surely 'Artifical Intelligence' is only as intelligent as the humans who designed and programmed it in the first place? Went to Sainsbury's today too. The 'vinyl' album display is getting bigger each week. |
Do these things have an audio feed, too? Full stereo or better still, surround sound would be my preference.
Lot of audio cues tower controllers can pick up on at times. |
Tarq,
I believe NATS have investigated that aspect and may even be providing it for EGLC? |
Originally Posted by Tarq57
(Post 10400333)
Do these things have an audio feed, too? Full stereo or better still, surround sound would be my preference.
Lot of audio cues tower controllers can pick up on at times. |
Cost cutting and technologies that reduce staff numbers have been leading the way for the last 20 years. As much as I don't like to lose staff like everyone else, what are the safety statistics saying? I don't think cost cutting over the last 20 years has made us less safe. Has it?
|
Originally Posted by mike current
(Post 10400468)
Cost cutting and technologies that reduce staff numbers have been leading the way for the last 20 years. As much as I don't like to lose staff like everyone else, what are the safety statistics saying? I don't think cost cutting over the last 20 years has made us less safe. Has it?
You take a new software to do a job. There are usually ongoing bugs to re-code. Then, when the hardware platform needs to be "upgraded", in some cases the software doesn't work properly with the new hardware. Long story short, it ends up costing a lot. I don't know if it makes us more or less safe, in some cases the tech improvements make up for any shortfall in staff numbers and abilities. In others, probably not so much. Statistics only tell part of it. An incident doesn't receive the same level of investigation and probing as a full-on accident, and fortunately, those are incredibly rare. |
Cost cutting in staffing is chronic and has made ATC everywhere much less safe. So why is there no outcry? I'd liken it to smoking in the 1960s - everyone was doing it and it was thought to be unhealthy, but the risk was downplayed. Smoking tends not to kill you straight away and some smokers live to very old age, but nobody today would argue that it is good for your longevity.
|
I can confirm that the EGLC digital tower has sound.
|
Talking about cost cutting: do we really need these control towers at all on such relatively low-traffic airfields? Couldn´t the airport be also used while the tower was not operating? If it was all about cost cutting and thus making airports more attractive there are more pragmatic solutions.
|
Originally Posted by Dan Dare
(Post 10400503)
Cost cutting in staffing is chronic and has made ATC everywhere much less safe. So why is there no outcry? I'd liken it to smoking in the 1960s - everyone was doing it and it was thought to be unhealthy, but the risk was downplayed. Smoking tends not to kill you straight away and some smokers live to very old age, but nobody today would argue that it is good for your longevity.
|
Originally Posted by ZOOKER
(Post 10400293)
good egg,
Went to Sainsbury's today too. The 'vinyl' album display is getting bigger each week. Sheeesh Zooker, you're starting to sound like a stuck record! :p |
Cost cutting is the future for any ANSP. Those pesky controllers who have ensured safety for years are now a financial liability when it comes to contract renewals due to pensions costs etc etc. as the bulk of any ATC contract is staffing costs. The business rationale behind it all is quite shrewd. Sell the dream to a gullible airport director, tell him how efficient a remote/digital tower is, tell him how much he can save over the life of a 10 year contract, any bean counter will have a semi once you tell them how much they can save and how impressed the airport owners will subsequently be. Produce reams of safety analysis and toothless regulator approvals, job done.
Result - strip the current building of all equipment, lease the new equipment to the aforementioned gullible airport director, again saving costs rather than buying it outright. Fast forward to the end of the contract - the ANSP now has the airport by the throat. Theres no equipment in the building any more, if it is even still there. The contract cost has now doubled but there's nothing the airport can do. It will now cost exponentially more to re-equip the building to the required standard, they can't even get a new ANSP to come in cos there's nothing there to provide a service with. Or maybe I'm just old and cynical. |
Old & cynical ? Maybe. But, also largely correct ! Then again, I’m the same as you. |
Thanks Heaven I'm out of it. I saw what I considered to be the best days of ATC....
|
Originally Posted by escaped.atco
(Post 10401123)
Result - strip the current building of all equipment, lease the new equipment to the aforementioned gullible airport director, again saving costs rather than buying it outright. Fast forward to the end of the contract - the ANSP now has the airport by the throat. Theres no equipment in the building any more, if it is even still there. The contract cost has now doubled but there's nothing the airport can do. It will now cost exponentially more to re-equip the building to the required standard, they can't even get a new ANSP to come in cos there's nothing there to provide a service with. Or maybe I'm just old and cynical. Perhaps there’s a big dial on the wall at the airport, with various increments, as to where the airport sends all the data to the remote tower; the big dial points towards ACME ANSP Remote Tower Centre right now, but hey ho, the current incumbent has lost the contract because they didn’t reduce their price out of complacency, thinking they had a lock-in......come the switchover day, that ‘gullible’ airport manager reaches over from his desk, and with a smile on his face he turns the dial to Foreign ANSP Remote Tower Centre, who bid lower, and have spent the time since the announcement training up their own controllers, and everything just carries on. Just cheaper. The airport manager smiles as he looks at how many Remote Tower Centres are inscribed on his dial, and they’re increasing in number all the time. The airport manager leans leans back and smiles while thinking of the next contract renewal............ |
Meanwhile the REAL workers are shifting traffic..
|
Originally Posted by HEATHROW DIRECTOR
(Post 10401382)
Meanwhile the REAL workers are shifting traffic..
|
I don't think so! HD may not remember this - as I think Approach had already left - but back in the mid 90s we in LL TWR enjoyed a few weeks without a GM ( the one-eyed golfer was away somewhere 'really important' ) and Manager ATC left to take up a new post ( GM KK ? ) before his replacement had been appointed.
Did we miss them? Not at all! We the REAL workers still shifted the same number of aircraft, Watch Managers exercised what control was needed, Training Officers still oversaw U/Ts, LCEs still kept their beady eyes on standards - it was a shame that the GM ever came back! In the many years since I retired many people have asked if the job was stressful. My reply was that the most stressful part of it was management! Most of them a complete waste of space. Rant over! By the way Gonzo and Good Egg are too young to remember the debacle when the Cardiff contract came up for renewal in the late 70s - the outcome describes managers to a T! |
Remember it well, 48Nav. Not much changes. 😉 |
Originally Posted by Gonzo
(Post 10401266)
Not sure it’s quite that clear-cut. Perhaps there’s a big dial on the wall at the airport, with various increments, as to where the airport sends all the data to the remote tower; the big dial points towards ACME ANSP Remote Tower Centre right now, but hey ho, the current incumbent has lost the contract because they didn’t reduce their price out of complacency, thinking they had a lock-in......come the switchover day, that ‘gullible’ airport manager reaches over from his desk, and with a smile on his face he turns the dial to Foreign ANSP Remote Tower Centre, who bid lower, and have spent the time since the announcement training up their own controllers, and everything just carries on. Just cheaper. The airport manager smiles as he looks at how many Remote Tower Centres are inscribed on his dial, and they’re increasing in number all the time. The airport manager leans leans back and smiles while thinking of the next contract renewal............ I know times are getting desperate but surely sanity and common sense has to still be considered. Or maybe someone has done an APSA and decided that neither of the aforementioned have any part to play when it comes to profits and cost cutting. I really am old and cynical, must go and take my meds!:hmm: |
Obviously it is the old cynical ATCO’s who have a problem with remote towers. No matter what anyone says it is all about a perceived cost saving. I presume when HIAL centralise the towers at Inverness they are planning to reduce staff because one ATCO can now do several airports ( just like having several enroute validations ). Although the H&I airports are not busy ( I worked at one for three years ) they may get their traffic rush at the same time. Say for instance you are a valid on a “ Western Isles” grouping i.e EGPO and EGPL. Before I retired PO use to get an inbound rush of three a/c and usually at least one departure ( remember this is combined ADI and APC ). PL would also put a departure on request. Does the ATCO on duty decide to ignore PL and concentrate on PO or vice versa. This could cause delays however it will be safe, it will just be a reduced customer service which could be overcome by having a PL valid and a PO valid ATCO on at the same time so what is the overall gain in having Remote towers. I feel some people have been blinded by the potential of modern technology and think if it’s old it’s bad. Today I went to the bank to pay in a paper cheque and had to use one of the new automatic check pay in machines. I of course made a mess of it so luckily a bank clerk who stands by the machine all day came over and helped. Would that clerk not be better employed behind a counter. I then went to a large high street shopping chain and tried to use my digital “Sporks” card which is on my iPhone ( getting down with the kids ). I have yet to see this card work by scanning, the readers don’t accept it, at one point the shop assisistant asked if I had the actual hard copy of the card! Get a grip The above examples show two new modern systems which may look ok on paper, however the customer experience is not enhanced one iota! Some people will say that on a remote tower you can attach labels to the aircraft to help retain idents etc. Well to be honest if you work at a tower and you can’t remember the traffic order from the FPS perhaps you shold not be working there. Several years ago HIAL went down the let’s recruit locally road. There is a video somewhere on the net where a locally recruited islander is waxing lyrical about having a very good job and also able to live on the island of his birth. I bet he is p*ssed off now! Maybe that’s one of the reasons HIAL ATCO’s are holding a ballot for strike action. A lot of the ATC community will probably be thinking its only Highlands and Islands. Don’t knock it ‘till you’ve tried it! Rant over time for wine. Rgds AyrTC |
Originally Posted by escaped.atco
(Post 10401885)
And I'm not sure its as clear cut as that either. The glaring issue is going to be the actual controllers again, I know they are an inconvenience and and expensive nuisance BUT at this stage of the game they're still needed. Lets say ACME have the contract, they're in a portacabin far far away from the airport to the north for example. The airport decide to change to NITS Solutions but their portacabin is also far far away to the south for example. The controllers working for ACME realise that NITS Solutions are a bunch of cowboys that they don't want to work for, how then is NITS Solutions going to satisfy the problem of having actual people to run the show? They may well have all the toys, they may well have the means of ensuring data links are secure and all the cost that goes with that but with no controllers they don't really have a runner. As much as the regulator role has diluted and become a rubber stamping exercise depending on the paperwork that has been produced, I really can't imagine a scenario where they would think 20+ green field validations is safe. Plus I can't imagine any airport being keen on the media getting wind that they've employee a brand new ANSP with sweet FA experience other than sims all to save a few quid. The other point, and I apologise now for bringing it up, is brexit. How will remote towers play out if they are in vastly different jurisdictions. Can you imagine Jose in Madrid getting a green field validation in Cardiff having never worked there or experienced the airport in his life?:eek:
I know times are getting desperate but surely sanity and common sense has to still be considered. Or maybe someone has done an APSA and decided that neither of the aforementioned have any part to play when it comes to profits and cost cutting. I really am old and cynical, must go and take my meds!:hmm: My example was just to show that just because the control console is miles away from the airport, it doesn’t make it any more difficult for the airport to change ANSP. Yes, I can certainly imagine an ATCO in a remote tower centre in Madrid getting a validation at a UK airfield, the ANSP s/he works for only has to get UK ANSP accreditation from the UK CAA. Not difficult. There’s an ATC training provider in Spain churning out trainees for the UK right now. Not much more work to wholly conduct that training offshore. DFS have also been approved to conduct UK ATC training in Langen, have they not? |
Originally Posted by AyrTC
(Post 10402130)
Well to be honest if you work at a tower and you can’t remember the traffic order from the FPS perhaps you shold not be working there |
mike current I was more thinking along the HIAL lines of a BN2,JS41 and a SF34 :confused:
Rgds AyrTC:E |
Originally Posted by Gonzo
(Post 10402148)
Ha! Common sense disappeared a long time ago, and sadly controllers have been complicit in that. My example was just to show that just because the control console is miles away from the airport, it doesn’t make it any more difficult for the airport to change ANSP. Yes, I can certainly imagine an ATCO in a remote tower centre in Madrid getting a validation at a UK airfield, the ANSP s/he works for only has to get UK ANSP accreditation from the UK CAA. Not difficult. There’s an ATC training provider in Spain churning out trainees for the UK right now. Not much more work to wholly conduct that training offshore. DFS have also been approved to conduct UK ATC training in Langen, have they not? As far as AyrTC says, I don't believe controllers have any problems with technology. If you look at the rate of change there has been over the last 30 years then I don't think anyone could argue that all of the innovations have been detrimental. SSR is one simple tool that has improved controlling techniques and abilities beyond belief, there are many others. The problem is that remote towers are being pushed for one reason, that is cost saving and so called efficiency. Safety may be given lip service with the PTZ cameras, if these cameras are so fantastic then bolt them onto the current towers! It's as though someone has come up with a solution to save money, now they need to justify the problem to solve. It's all the wrong way round in my humble opinion. But hey ho, we live in the days of the bean counters, risk assessments and outsourcing. As others have said, maybe in years to come some bright spark will come up with the idea of having real towers at real airfields to ensure safety. |
Originally Posted by escaped.atco
(Post 10402243)
I get the whole training scenario, a rating from a training college is one issue but a unit remote tower validation is another matter altogether! The thought of a Spanish or any other country you care to name, getting ANSP contracts within the UK and validating controllers on units that they have never ever seen makes me shudder. I still can't get my head round how they would circumvent the actual unit training process if they haven't been trained by any currently valid OJTI types. Couple that with the fact of securing data lines through several different countries and I'm sure it would all be fine. Surely nothing could go wrong there?:\ I respect your opinion but from the bottom of my heart I hope you are wrong.
As far as AyrTC says, I don't believe controllers have any problems with technology. If you look at the rate of change there has been over the last 30 years then I don't think anyone could argue that all of the innovations have been detrimental. SSR is one simple tool that has improved controlling techniques and abilities beyond belief, there are many others. The problem is that remote towers are being pushed for one reason, that is cost saving and so called efficiency. Safety may be given lip service with the PTZ cameras, if these cameras are so fantastic then bolt them onto the current towers! It's as though someone has come up with a solution to save money, now they need to justify the problem to solve. It's all the wrong way round in my humble opinion. But hey ho, we live in the days of the bean counters, risk assessments and outsourcing. As others have said, maybe in years to come some bright spark will come up with the idea of having real towers at real airfields to ensure safety. You can see it already with the SESAR trials and sims in area/en route. ‘Any controller, any sector’ is the mantra. No local expertise, but compensated for by massive levels of tool support, telling the ATCO what to do. Likewise, Surface Managers and Integrated Working Positions, if we put aside the practical issues of putting such a system into real-life ops, make the job petty easy for 99% of the time. I’ve tried one simulating Paris CDG GMC bandboxed and after about 30 mins I was handling the same traffic as two or three ATCOs do there today. I say that not as a demonstration of my capabilities, far from it, but as an example of how tools and safety nets (reactive and predictive) can make the job so easy (for 99% of the time) that even non-ATCOs can make a decent fist of it. And that’s the holy grail. |
Any controller, any sector? Haven't heard that one yet but then my work has always been ADI/APS. I've read bits and pieces about SESAR but it hasn't really filtered down the entire business yet, I'm sure it will though at some stage. It's a bit like saying any pilot, any aircraft. Sure the principles are the same and for 99% of the time you'll be flying along quite happily - snag is when the proverbial hits the fan, you have a human so far behind what's happening that it may well prove unrecoverable.
Unfortunately I refer back to what I stated earlier, if someone knows what they want as an end result then simply write the risk assessment to suit. That way it all looks good on paper. It's not that long ago when I was coming through training. all students were told under pain of death that they were never to vector on the ATM, regulator would strip their license and all hell would break loose. Fast forward a few years and let's do RITT. Thats not enough, now its lets have one controller doing several airports. Where does it all stop? Do we need a major or catastrophic incident to show that sometimes efficiency and cost cutting has limits? I hope not. Unfortunately my experience in recent years has been ideas and plans coming down from senior management to middle management, the mantra isn't "will this work?", rather "make this work if you want your performance bonus and career progression." |
From experience I’m already surprised how busy traffic has been with RIT being used. I wonder if when the regulator signed off on it that they expected that level of traffic to be handled.... |
Isn't the issue with remote cameras being the only eyes on the airfield that a drone could literally cover the cameras with something and close the airfield? I am thinking of the new London City digital tower.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:14. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.