The future is bright the future is HIAL
 

https://www.hial.co.uk/whats-hot/hia...ement-project/

HIAL have just issued a press release about their future operations. I hope the link above works. Basically downgrading PC and PL to AFISO and moving all other ops to an industrial estate just by the Kessock bridge. PB Radar will be moving there I presume to join PE Radar?
Sounds like a logistical nightmare.

Rgds
AyrTC

Well the future is coming whether we like it or not.. I don't think the service provision will suffer. If anything, if you have controllers cross valid on multiple remote towers this can improve resiliency and reduce the chances of closure due to shortages.

It's a shame regarding the remote units. Island life is not for everyone but those who enjoy it will miss it. And for those who would have considered it, it will no longer be an option. Some of those places are stunning and the lifestyle is unique.

When I first became an ATCA at West Drayton back in '69, I read a report of a visit by some LATCC controllers (including the late Len Vass) to New York where they viewed the 'NY Common IFR' facility at (I think) Newark; that's where I first heard about the concept of combining approach services for several airports under one roof, so it didn't surprise me when years later, the 'Beeker Plan' (from its authors, Dave Beech and Al Parker) introduced the same concept to the UK which eventually became CCF then TC.
Course the RAF introduced a similar (but not quite the same) concept in the early '60s with Combined Approach Control (CAC).

More Detail
 

HIAL announced its plans to introduce a remote tower air traffic management system (ATMS) in January 2018 and since then HIAL staff, the Unions and key stakeholder groups have been kept informed on all aspects of the review from its inception. In October 2019, the HIAL Board gave authority to seek funding from Scottish Government to progress the ATMS programme. Following approval from Scottish Government, a Business Case was approved by the Board in December, along with a number of specific recommendations. The strategic programme decisions made by the Board moves HIAL into the implementation phase of the ATMS project and will allow detailed operational decisions to be made.

The key decisions covered:

Purchase of New Century House for the Combined Surveillance Centre

Airspace and Surveillance Options

Sumburgh Approach Radar Service

Air Traffic Service (ATS) Training

AirTraffic Service provision at Benbecula and Wick John O'Groats

Dundee ATC Position in ATMS Transition Plan

Operational / People Transition Plan

To ensure all staff and stakeholders were aware of the strategic decisions made by the Board, a concentrated programme of local engagement events were undertaken from 17th to 22nd January. These sessions were the start of the next phase of our ongoing engagement programme to ensure our staff, stakeholders and partners are kept up-to-date and able to input their views as we move forward with the programme.

The sessions were not detailed technical briefings but generated honest feedback and questions. The feedback helps us enormously and will allow us to direct our ongoing engagement as we seek input from staff, stakeholders and partners.

We have compiled questions from the different sessions and have included these in the Air Traffic Management Strategy area of the website.

Outwardly it seems the ‘engagement process’ is merely a ‘this is what we are doing, we won’t debate it or get your ideas about it. You have now been ‘engaged’’ process.

Futher Detail
 

h ttps://prospect.org.uk/news/remote-towers-proposals-put-future-of-islands-air-services-at-risk/
h ttps://www.shetnews.co.uk/2020/01/23/cross-party-opposition-to-hials-remote-tower-plans/
h ttps://www.cne-siar.gov.uk/news/2020/january/better-options-available-in-atc-modernisation/
h ttps://www.orcadian.co.uk/mcarthur-urges-ministers-to-call-a-halt-to-air-traffic-control-centralisation/

Independent Report
 

An independent report carried out for Prospect into the Highlands and Islands Airport Limited (HIAL) plan to relocate all air traffic controllers to a central location at Inverness, has shown that the likely costs and risks of the project have been hugely under-estimated by HIAL.

The report was carried out by procurement expert Dave Watson and looked at the overall costs and risks of HIAL’s proposal. It also looked at the alternatives as well as the impact on local communities and the level of engagement.

HIAL is carrying out its own impact assessment but it states in the call for evidence that whatever the findings are it will be continuing with its plan to move to remote towers.

The key findings of Prospect’s independent report were:

• The remote towers programme will take at least £18m of economic benefit from island economies
• HIAL’s own scoping study identified the remote towers option as “the most difficult and risky to implement”.
• HIAL have only published a redacted business case for the proposal. Implementation costs have already almost doubled to £33.5m with lifetime costs £70m higher than the status quo.
• HIAL has failed to learn the lessons of an NAO report into IT procurement by the Scottish government with engagement and staff buy-in in particular well below optimal.
• Early adopters of new technology like HIAL, not only face a risk of functionality but also that the technology is quickly updated.
• Safety and operational concerns have been raised including, the breakdown of data transmission systems, cyber-security, weather assessment, impact on human performance and managing the need for ratings for more than one tower in a single shift.
• The scoping study took place pre-COVID and does not take into account any potential impact of the pandemic on the aviation industry as a whole.

David Avery, Prospect negotiator, said:

“From day one HIAL have presented this as a done deal with negligible consultation, even less transparency, and bad faith.

“Prospect and its members in HIAL are not against reasoned changes to the technology and the operating procedures of air traffic control in the Highlands and Islands but these plans are not fit for purpose. The plans will remove vital high value jobs from communities which can little afford to lose them, totalling at least £18m.

“It is beyond belief that HIAL continue to press on with these plans, backed by the Scottish government, when the risks and costs are so plain to see. And that’s before we take COVID-19 into account. The plans were already questionable but with the aviation industry in crisis the risks are even higher and must be rethought.

“If the Scottish Government and HIAL continue with the remote towers plans it will be remote communities that pay the price. It’s no wonder places like Shetland are looking into self-rule when their needs are paid so little regard.”

Latest news

https://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2021...-control-plans

Lots of words, well quite a few anyway, but I'm not really sure it actually says very much. Anybody with any detail?????

HIAL could try paying NATS to do the paperwork. Then when it's criticised, ask why it's ok for London City but not them ..........

Nope, nope, nope. (Had to repeat myself to get it to post)

That doesn't bode well. Sumburgh radar was supposed to be the easy part. Quite why they wanted to take that on themselves when NATS did it for next to nothing is beyond me. Looking at the airspace change portal it seems like the Inverness application is still suitability shambolic. Why do HIAL make such a mess of these things? Can't see how they are so optimistic about using controlled airspace and cooperative surveillance at the smaller aerodromes if it's taken them seven years to progress Inverness CAS application to this stage.

LSI Hial training
 

Rumour has it that classroom training for the start of the move over of Sumburgh Radar to HIAL took place last week and simulator training has started today!!

Because they're civil servants and part of the Scottish government and thus not ATCOs who would simply get on with it?:ugh:

There were adverts looking for staff to manage the project not long after the initial announcement. Safety Management transition. I’d imagine system redundancy and training would be crucial in gaining CAA approval, plus continuation of service and impact on customers. Basically rewriting everything including operational instructions. A mammoth task with much contracted out.

Any truth to the rumours that the CAA have stopped them and made them redo the transition training? I was tempted at one point to take a job there - glad I didn't now!

Don't know the specifics but I would be surprised if that was the case as normally the CAA have no clue of what happens at most units 😂

Strike announced over Inverness air traffic control plans https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...lands-57833657

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...lands-57997274

So the strike went ahead. Been keeping an eye on this for a while, it appears management simply don't want to lose face? They already have their solution for the perceived problem and now have painted themselves into a corner where they can't accept that there have been genuine concerns raised. What a mess. I feel sorry for our colleagues who I am sure haven't entered into this action lightly - are ATC managers the same wherever you go?

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