It depends what you see by progress. Anything that adds to an ATCO's situational awareness is a plus in my book. It's also a plus in my book that the tower controllers will have more interaction with the approach controllers (and vice versa).

With the number of manufacturers of remote tower equipment potentially increasing in number, how costly would it be to transfer from one manufacturer to another? Sensor and camera technology could be unique in design along with its interface with how the data is presented to the controller.

Any ATC service provider who was looking at taking LCY, would face a choice of embracing the current Saab equipment that is installed, which would be cheaper but could this pose a problem if the other service provider is perhaps accustomed with equipment from a different manufacturer?

Would the remote tower equipment at LCY belong to NATS or the airport? If it's the latter then could that perhaps add a further cost to any service provider that may ever look to knock NATS off their perch at LCY?

"It's also a plus in my book that the tower controllers will have more interaction with the approach controllers (and vice versa)."

Well that statement certainly nails you down as a member of 'management', good egg.

Because that's how it generally was back in the day, when approach and aerodrome controllers were co-located in the same building, oh, and cross-valid on both functions.........Before 'management' started meddling with it.

You couldn't make this up.

Well said, Zooker.

There's an oxymoron if I ever saw one!

Already happening at some airfields where the tower controller is now allowed to vector traffic for the ILS at certain times, supposedly when it's not busy (but how long will THAT rule last?)

Ah Zooker, there are plenty of good reasons why the approach functions for the bulk of TMA airfields were clumped together.

I'm presuming (I may be wrong here) that you see some logic in bringing those two functions closer together again?

Indeed cross-validation over the two functions seems eminently more practical again...given that they would be housed in the one location.
Such opportunities would be welcome, assuming the terms & conditions were right.

However, I doubt there will be a huge push for such a move any time soon. Crawling before walking springs to mind.

When the move of the radar units to LATCC took place I don't think any operational ATCO saw benefits, even less when new controllers were posted in. None had dual validations; some had only one rating! What a way to run a group of major airfields? Still, the important thing is the bosses got their whopping bonuses!

So how is this now viewed by operational ATCOs?

(my asterisk)

* What about seagulls ?

The servo motors on those cameras are going to wear out quickly !

Ah good Egg the naivety of the young!!!mwhen the approach functions were moved to West Drayton in 1993 (Gatwick and Heathrow), Satnsted 1995, Luton around 1998ish,the reasoning was anything but sound.

Controllers with 2 validations, tower and radar, suddenly had 1, the approach controllers, and there were loads of us ending up doing split shifts until a plan was decided. Cross validations, of course, but again there was no planning, and still isn't. Essex radar should also do Luton, and gatwick should do thames, alas the mix is somewhat befuddled with some Gatwick doing Hearhrow, Luton and gatwick, Essex and Thames.

The advantage of approach in the same room as TMA? Well the big advantage at west Drayton, was that I got to play cricket for LATCC, and the comfy chairs in the rest room were better. Down here at Swanwick the advantage is living in the New forest!!!

Good point, Uplinker,

Without checking MATS Pt.1, I'm fairly certain that bird activity still constitutes 'Essential Aerodrome Information'?

Especially in an 'estuarine' location such as EGLC?

This chitchat is very amusing.

Do you not think that with each additional tool (on top of "merely" reproducing the visual image) that time will have been spent addressing all these (valid) concerns?
Is it likely that they'd have overlooked such obvious issues as birds during the design and testing phases?
I doubt it.

I can't help but think that the single consistent issue is reproducing the visuals on screens rather than looking out of the windows - with all the resiliency and redundancy necessary - even more so when this is located remotely (which brings in much wider issues, not least of which is staff relocation).

Seems a 'letter-box' view....What about the overhead?

Are you 'BDiONU', good egg?

It's not that amusing, really.......

The safety of the travelling public, and those whom they have paid good money to travel over, are the issues here.

Who are "they", good egg?

Nimmer. Don't know if you came across this classic after the "split": I was at TC and AIR ARR rang about a go-around which was in conflict with a departure off the other runway. I told the controller to put the departure on a heading... "I can't do that; I don't have a radar rating".

At what was Europe's busiest airport the tower controllers couldn't issue headings!! I trust that this has been sorted out by now?

Yep, tower controllers without a radar rating, can issue headings when instructed by radar. There were a few interesting scenarios when we split off wasn't there??

All is good now though, of course.

Ummmm, what about the overhead? In a conventional tower the overhead is covered by a ceiling with zero opportunity to see what's going on...with this technology a PTZ camera can offer that view.

No, I'm not.

The point of this technology is that it offers superior safety, through better views and increased situational awareness for controllers.
Should we shun these potential improvements?

The "they" I referred to are the developers of the technology. They develop to a potential market, based on what that market's requirements are.

Surely, then, these benefits from modern technology should be available to Tower controllers who are actually situated at the airport concerned. Why do they need to be situated at a remote site ? It needs one ATCO to perform ADC for the airport concerned whether or not he is sited at the airport. So, why bother to site him remotely ?

The location of the digital tower is something that I'd expect the airport customer to be heavily involved in. I doubt an airport would take the decision to site it remotely without exhaustive analysis and with due regard to redundancy and resiliency (much like the ANSP).

I'm not sure you understand the operation at the airport in question - I'd be amazed if one ATCO was sufficient to deliver the required airport capacity and punctuality safely.

Just a few thoughts:

- Most airports have 'back-up' or 'contingency' towers, what will be the contingency for this remote tower? And before you jump to say 'resilience of systems, secure etc. etc.' :zzz: what if for example someone flew a drone into the cameras? Or gained access to the structure housing the cameras and grafitti'ed them or even knocked the whole structure down? Sounds a bit farfetched but is it really too far from reality for today's nut jobs or eco-warriors?

- Why can't the 'remote technology' be applied instead locally. Apply all these new gizmos to the current glass for example of the existing VCR so in the event the whole thing fails, it can be turned off and raw view out of the window the old fashioned way comes back until hacker or drone or whatever has crippled the system has been removed.

- There was a worldwide hack of many systems a few weeks ago, one that crippled some NHS Trusts for a short period. Is this an acceptable risk that has also been factored in? Any human build system is not faultless because a human designed it :ugh::oh:

One positive aspect of this system is the ability to replay the video in the event of an accident or incident.

How long would the 'visuals' have to be retained for?

What are the 'fallbacks' in the event of all the screens going blank?

Just a thought,

Even if an airfield has no desire or intention to go to r-TWR ops, would it not be an idea to install a passive version of the panoramic camera system, purely for recording of accidents/incidents?

Every other aspect of aviation is comprehensively recorded for investigation purposes, why not add this?

As an ATCO of 37 years standing, I think I have a pretty good idea of what is involved ATC wise at EGLC. The point of my previous post was that, if this technology can be utilized remotely i.e. at NERC, why can it not be used at the aerodrome itself ? Indeed, why should it not be used at EGLC to the benefit of the TWR controllers there ? What, exactly is the pressing need to move the ATC TWR controllers to a remote location; why should the benefits only accrue at that location ? If you need 1,2 or 3 ATCOS to do the job at EGLC then you need the same number to do the remote tower at NERC.
Or, am I missing something ?

I'm pretty sure all those questions have all been answered on the various threads relating to this topic on here.
Whether they are answered satisfactorily as far as you are concerned is a different matter.

I think one of the main drivers behind this kcockayne is the managements desire to get ATCOs working more than one aerodrome simultaneously.

One of the videos I've seen on Youtube clearly shows the ATCO in Sweden with switches on the desk enabling her to select displays covering different airfields.

Also, I think either the IAA or the Dutch have run trials with 2 sets of screens stacked one-above the other, enabling 2 airfields to be controlled by one ATCO at the same time? Again, there is a video of this on the 'net.

I did read somewhere a discussion about what traffic levels/scenarios could be 'safely-worked' 'simultaneously'. For example, could you have 2 take-off or landings at the same time?

Personally, I don't see any of the above as 'enhancing-safety' at all.

Zooker, I completely agree with you. And this is the salient point of all this - to reduce staff by getting one ATCO to do two(or more) ATCOS' work. This MIGHT be acceptable at aerodromes with little traffic - but absolutely not at EGLC. This sort of situation ought to be the catalyst to get all ATCOS to stand up for professional principles & the safety of ATC by, ultimately, being prepared to go on strike.

Ummmmmm

Nothing in this proposition indicates anything of the sort?

Should that day come then those issues would have to be faced, and answered.

So, what is the reason for doing it if it is not to save staff & money ? How can the aerodrome operator save money if the same number of ATCOS are controlling the traffic (regardless of where they are doing it from) ?

This feels like Groundhog Day all over. Same answers (from me, my personal opinion) as above/as stated in other threads on this topic.
I don't know what the ultimate objective might be, if there is one. I can speculate, like anyone can. I could offer a ton of reasons why the current VCR is not fit for purpose "going forward" - for want of a better term!
But each battle should be weighed up on the pros and cons.
There's little point in limiting progress for the sake of it. Where the benefit outweighs the cost then progress should be made. When the benefit doesn't outweigh the cost then a line has to be drawn.
Where that line is is disputable on a subjective front. On an objective front it is more measurable.
Both measures are important, of course, but the balance of both - in particular with regards to safety should surely rule?
No airport, no ANSP, no regulator would accept anything less, and nor should it.
Safety is always the priority, despite market pressures.

Safety is assured on the probability of failure, and what the mitigations are for said failure - which is why current systems operate the way they do. Until a system is proved reliable it isn't accepted. Hence the time it takes for a system to be tested until it is proved reliable (and, that in the case of failure, the fallback measures are safe).

"Going forward"

A splendid and ubiquitous 'management phrase' that tells is everything we need to know. :E

And hence why I quoted it...
But hey, if you can't get that...

The world moves on, constantly.

"Ahh, procedural control...."
"Ahh, Primary radar..."
"Ahh, Secondary radar Mode A...."
"Ahh, Mode C"
"Ahh, Mode S"
"Ahh, datalink clearances"
Ad infinitum

The reasons for the City remote operation have been discussed in this and other threads.

It will be fantastic to see how these tools develop over the years. Looking forward to seeing how I can help make them work.

However, it will be interesting to see how the UTP for new trainees and valid controllers handle ongoing familiarisation with the airport itself, and how the relationship between controllers/ATC Ops and other airport employees (airside ops, ground crews etc) develops once there are 120 miles between them.

120 miles........??

Is EGLCZT moving to Cornwall?

Yes indeed, closer links between tower and approach, extended links between tower and the airport (in this case).
Managing those changes in relationships is likely to be a big factor.
Bigger, I'd guess, than the relationship between an ALDIS lamp and a PTZ Light Signal gun...

But Gonzo,

BK, down at airspace planning seems to think that NATS is going back to the procedural days..........'ATC Systemisation'?

Crikey, that's a bit of a leap for this topic...perhaps a new thread would be more appropriate to voice your concerns?

Don't know what you're talking about old chap, we've managed without a signal lamp for years! You're stuck in the past! :}

:) Well, to be fair, there are airfields that don't rely on heavy jets (HD). And also airfields that use said equipment on a regular basis in order to (possibly) prevent unnecessary missed approaches (quite apart from regulatory requirements...)

But do the ATCOs at said airfields control a/c at other locations..........Simultaneously, good egg?

ATC is a bit like 'Space-time', good egg...........A continuum.