Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1872254
PeteSpencer wrote: for those unaware: Cranfield has pioneered the 'remote camera' system


Not really pioneering to be honest. We had ours installed in 2018 and approved by EASA in 2019 (first in the British Isles) and we are also not pioneers! 2015 saw the first one in Yerp.

More here:

https://www.sesarju.eu/sites/default/files/documents/press-coverage/ATC-Bulletin-Remote-Towers.pdf
Last edited by AlanM on Fri Sep 24, 2021 4:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By PeteSpencer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1872268
AlanM wrote:
PeteSpencer wrote: for those unaware: Cranfield has pioneered the 'remote camera' system


Not really pinoeering to be honest. We had ours installed in 2018 and approved by EASA in 2019 (first in the British Isles) and we are also not pioneers! 2015 saw the first one in Yerp.

More here:

https://www.sesarju.eu/sites/default/files/documents/press-coverage/ATC-Bulletin-Remote-Towers.pdf


Thank you for correcting my inaccuracies.

Still waiting to see if anyone else has had a similar experience to mine.................
#1872300
Always welcome. I wasn’t saying you were inaccurate though - just not that pioneering in my opinion!

As MATSpt3 says - essential elements fail in aircraft and in ATC Systems. Most of us have had radar failure at a critical phase of vectoring for an ILS in IFR conditions (I broke 3 aircraft off and put them in the hold once level separated and they made EAT based Procedural approaches.)

What happened to you is just a more recent based example of a system failure and fallback ops implemented.

I don’t know of any HMI failures in remote tower ops. I am sure that there are some but let’s face it, who would shout about it?!. We have procedures for ours, dependant on what screens have failed.
User avatar
By PeteSpencer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1872493
townleyc wrote:@PeteSpencer

Did they still charge the approach fee?

KE


Yes, I paid it having done the holds and most of the procedural approach:

The DA is 560ft for the ILS and I figured I only had another 200 ft to go before procedural GA so I thought it would be churlish not to pay:

In fact it was good practice for a late (unexpected) G/A.

So I got my money's worth.

Peter :wink:
rdfb, AlanM liked this
#1872697
Alan I will always bow to your superior and professional knowledge on this but how does that make a difference? Ground radar is obviously lovely but the situational awareness of eyes out the actual window must be greater than eyes on the screen no matter what the vis situation on the field? (8/8's 0005m excepted obvs)
Londlostdriver liked this
#1872700
eltonioni wrote:Alan I will always bow to your superior and professional knowledge on this but how does that make a difference? Ground radar is obviously lovely but the situational awareness of eyes out the actual window must be greater than eyes on the screen no matter what the vis situation on the field?


No need to bow!

When we are in 300m of Fog and OVC001 we still operate and can see nothing from the tower and have no surface movement radar. A bit like a remote tower with no screens.

Believe me, you can keep situational awareness in a remote tower. There are also many additional safety benefits such as overlays on the screens with aircraft callsigns, holding points, VRPs etc etc.

Finally, we also have it all recorded so can replay the cameras instantly if there has been an incident. As a system, It really isn’t as dangerous or dire as some may believe.
#1872708
Australia have been trialling remote tower operations for a while...

https://www.australianflying.com.au/lat ... rs-in-2020

There are numerous articles about how it works, where it's implemented, incidents linked-to etc.

Australia is a bit bigger than a lot of the areas discussed. Controlling flights into Perth from Melbourne crosses 2 time zones (3 hours) and >3000km
#1872789
AlanM wrote:When we are in 300m of Fog and OVC001 we still operate and can see nothing from the tower and have no surface movement radar. A bit like a remote tower with no screens.

Believe me, you can keep situational awareness in a remote tower. There are also many additional safety benefits such as overlays on the screens with aircraft callsigns, holding points, VRPs etc etc.

Finally, we also have it all recorded so can replay the cameras instantly if there has been an incident. As a system, It really isn’t as dangerous or dire as some may believe.


You may still operate. The rest of us pile on the coals at DA and go back to the mainland after 2 goes and some getting dizzy in the hold :wink:
AlanM liked this
#1872792
Unless you have EVS :lol:

Planes also depart, runways inspections happen etc.

In the British Isles there are probably no more than 50 controllers with experience of operating remote towers. Half of those are here and the overriding comment after first using it live was that it was the same but different - and noone felt uneasy or unwilling to use it.

It may be worth reminding that at the ATC colleges (and at most ATC units), the aerodrome control simulators basically are just a load of screens. It is how we simulated camera and screen failure in our training.

If it is OK to train an ab initio and is approved as part of the training organisation then why would a remote tower be any different?
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1872794
It's all about having reliable procedures and and a proportionate attitude to risk. CAT is rightly wholly risk averse and so procedures and contingency plans are extremely rigorous.

In my case I have been known to take a calculated risk from time to time. I once took off from Alderney following a CAT aircraft at IFR minima, the tower cleared me for take off and asked me to report airborne which might be a clue.....