[PaulB]

How long before this becomes the norm?

Instead of sitting in a tower overlooking the runway, controllers will be 80 miles away, watching live footage from high-definition cameras.

The new system, due to be completed in 2018, will be tested for a year before becoming fully operational in 2019.

It has already been tested in Australia, Sweden, Norway and Ireland.
The technology has been developed by Saab, the Swedish defence and security company, and will be introduced as part of a £350m development programme to upgrade London City Airport which will also include an extended terminal building, enabling it to serve two million more passengers a year by 2025.

It will provide controllers with a 360-degree view of the airfield via 14 high-definition cameras and two cameras which are able to pan, tilt and zoom.

The cameras will send a live feed via fibre cables to a new operations room built at the Hampshire base of Nats, Britain's air traffic control provider.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39960993

[romille]

What are the benefits, fewer staff, reduced costs or something else? What happens when the link goes down, the system hangs or gets hacked, do they have a back up on the airport?

[PaulB]

What would happen now if the system got hacked? Swanwick already does remote controlling for radar services.... this could get hacked, or go down. The only extra here is the cameras which could be located in places other than the tower.

[romille]

At Swanwick as with other radar controllers there is no need to have visual on the approach and runway so reverting back to the old manual based systems is not such an issue.

[CloudHound]

The airport is planning to decommission its traditional tower in 2019, replacing it with a new 164ft (50m) digital tower - 104ft (32m) taller than the existing one.

eh?

So remote working is only a stopgap until the new VCR is ready?

[Marvin]

The airport is planning to decommission its traditional tower in 2019, replacing it with a new 164ft (50m) digital tower - 104ft (32m) taller than the existing one.

eh?

So remote working is only a stopgap until the new VCR is ready?

No they are building a new tower to house the cameras.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Marvin]

What are the benefits, fewer staff, reduced costs or something else? What happens when the link goes down, the system hangs or gets hacked, do they have a back up on the airport?

Lower building cost for a tower for a start however the infrastructure to relay the audio/video will need to be funded.

Larger pool of controllers in a central location who may be multi- disciplined.

With CAT 3 operations we already have virtual towers by the fact that the view out the window is obscured by poor/no visibility so why not.

In may of the pioneering countries mentioned in the news item it was promoted as adding air traffic control to airports that were so remote that sustaining staff there was difficult so remote operations a real benefit.

Having seen LC where space is tight not having a visual control tower means the real estate can be used for other things. If your upgrading the facilities anyway, as mentioned in the news report, not really a big issue.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Chrisp]

Just a thought.
Would the use of infrared cameras also be of benefit in poor vis???

[Marvin]

Just a thought.
Would the use of infrared cameras also be of benefit in poor vis???

Provided you took steps to prevent the flooding from the lighting you still need to provide to the pilots.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[romille]

What are the benefits, fewer staff, reduced costs or something else? What happens when the link goes down, the system hangs or gets hacked, do they have a back up on the airport?

Lower building cost for a tower for a start however the infrastructure to relay the audio/video will need to be funded.

Larger pool of controllers in a central location who may be multi- disciplined.

With CAT 3 operations we already have virtual towers by the fact that the view out the window is obscured by poor/no visibility so why not.

In may of the pioneering countries mentioned in the news item it was promoted as adding air traffic control to airports that were so remote that sustaining staff there was difficult so remote operations a real benefit.

Having seen LC where space is tight not having a visual control tower means the real estate can be used for other things. If your upgrading the facilities anyway, as mentioned in the news report, not really a big issue.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

So is main aim of the project about reducing costs and maximising utility of assets and thereby profits or are there any safety benefits for London City and it's passengers?

[Marvin]

That would be in the business case that NATS and the LC Operator have agreed - no idea.

I would imagine both would be mentioned.

[Jim Jones]

Virtual commercial pilots aren't far off, military drones have used them for years.

Then of course virtual passengers can have their business meetings, holidays etc using VR and we never need to leave home.

[Nomad63]

Cost saving measure

[romille]

Virtual commercial pilots aren't far off, military drones have used them for years.

Then of course virtual passengers can have their business meetings, holidays etc using VR and we never need to leave home.

So we won't be needing driverless cars then, other than to park outside our homes that we will never leave.

[chevvron]

Cost saving measure

Hardly.
If the controllers are operating from Swanwick, they HAVE to be on a much higher pay scale than those operating from London City so it may turn out more expensive.
London City as classed as a 'Band 2' under the agreement with the union whilst Swanwick is a 'Band 5' unit. The union agreement specfically prohibits different 'bands' operating from the same unit.