The "work to rule" seems to be continuing. BA flt INV to LHR a few days ago scheduled to depart at 19:20 departed 30 min late.

Explanation from Captain - Sorry for the delay but air traffic control at Inverness is closed from 19:00 to 19:45. No one to cover the controller break due to a work to rule?

That’s a published closure and has been every day of the week since the start of the year due to a chronic lack of qualified controllers. Nothing to do with the industrial action. Perhaps BA and Easyjet shouldn’t schedule flights for when the airport is closed.

Thanks for the clarification. I confess that i don't always check the NOTAMs when flying as pax!

Link to Scotsman article https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinio...ilson-3370459#

You may be interested in a 'TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CONVENTION OF THE HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS HELD ON MILLPORT ON 12 MARCH 2018' . Page 69 onwards.
I don't have a personal axe to grind, however I do think that the jobs should be local to the communities that they serve, and if the cameras are so good, just link them into the towers.
Other than that, I'll reserve comment (although itching!).

Local jobs imply locally recruited ATC staff; it might happen in a few instances but they would still need training at an 'approved' ATC school or college.
As for using remote viewing; there ain't no substitute for direct observation and communication between those in the tower and those on the apron; if your controller is many miles away, you can't just open a window and yell at the marshaller if you see things going wrong.

How naive we all are. Remote towers have nothing to do with ATC service, or local jobs, but saving cash and ensuring contracts are cheaper and retained.

Many medium and large sized airports operate at capacity or near enough capacity at night and/or in low visibility, without being able to see much or nothing at all.
With regards to shouting at the marshaller.. good luck with that, I thought they wore ear defenders against aircraft noise.. now it seems they can hear the controller shouting from the tower hundreds of meters away..

Always worked with our loud hailer.

No way would I as a controller consider interfering with the work of a marshaller, TCO, or anyone on the apron. Not my manor, guv. I only "Assist in preventing collisions between aircraft on the apron." If my airfield is worth its salt, any staff operating on the apron are subject to their own apron rules and regs, with oversight from their company and, almost certainly, from the airfield safety team, who will conduct ramp audits on their performance and investigate reported incidents.
Use of remote tower technology can clearly deliver economic benefits, and delivers benefits in resilience. Like it or not, it is the way forward for economically challenged airport businesses.

HB

HB - could you elaborate on those last three claims?

2 s

Use of Remote Tower Technology negates the requirement for a dedicated ATS facility, with the 'not VCR' integrated into any office space you like, reducing building maintenance and operating costs. With COTS equipment that gets through a safety case, capital expenditure can be further reduced. It is my understanding that some airports have adopted RTT for their contingency facilities. As use of these facilities develops, I believe it is inevitable that they will switch from a contingency role to routine ops, allowing airports to remove their old ATS buildings and make more productive use of the space. With modular systems, they could be moved between locations, e.g. normal to contingency (subject to regulatory approval), offering more flexibility. To save staffing costs, you could even contract out services that are uneconomic to run (e.g. out of hours operations, low traffic airports) to adjacent ANSPs to run.

Remote Towers are very much dedicated ATS facilities with all the commensurate resilience, security and cyber requirements.

Yes, they can be ‘hosted’ physically within an office building, but it requires considerable assurance, design and engineering work to ensure that they are suitable as operational ATS units.

Physically ‘moving’ a remote tower facility, even if a contingency, and modular and identical in equipment fit, from one location to another is no mean task and is not cheap to effect.

Exactly Gonzo.

They are no different from the "remote" radar units we've been operating for decades.

I get the resilience, security and cyber requirements...by facility I meant a dedicated building. Unless you have a fairly new-build, maintenance and operating costs only ever go up. In respect of resilience, even if you go for a trailer mounted VCR, the outright purchase cost, replication the ATS kit, and AGL and navaid controls, plus UPSs and connection to the airfield circuit, can be prohibitive, to the extent that some airfields make the case that it is not worth the bother. I believe that over the long term RTT will prove to offer a better business prospect than the traditional ATS set up, but yes, the initial outlay will be considerable.

Given the cost of setting up these facilities, it is only generally worthwhile if you are avoiding a completely new facility on an airfield, as they have to be constructed while still using the old facility, therefore, all new kit, etc as it would be difficult to move kit from one place to another, get it set up, tested and signed off without interrupting the operation even overnight. Of course, you also need a backup facility as well as ensuring the new facility also has security coverage. Generally, the old one on the airfield is airside so has security by dint of its location.

RIT is I believe only used in very quiet periods eg overnight and so would be difficult to implement at an airport that has a reasonable amount of traffic. Also, it will need a position to open if it gets too busy to run combined so requires extra equipment as well as a controller standing by to take over, thereby negating any staff saving.

I think Hersham Boys meant ‘RTT’ as Remote Tower Technology, rather than ‘Radar in the Tower’.

Remote Tower tender process cancelled
 

https://www.shetnews.co.uk/2022/01/0...ess-cancelled/THE SCOTTISH Government has confirmed that the tender exercise for Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd’s (HIAL) controversial remote tower project has been cancelled.

This follows a joint announcement by HIAL and the Prospect union in October last year that following industrial action there was an agreement on a new way forward in the controversy over the airport operator’s plans to centralise air traffic control in Inverness.

Will this have an impact impact on the “Pentland Radar” concept and also taking Sumburgh Radar in house at Inverness or was that going into the existing Tower?
Rgds
AyrTC