London Airport to be controlled from 80 miles distance

Looks perfectly sensible, what could POSSIBLY go wrong.

----------------

London City is to become the first UK airport to replace its air traffic controllers with a remotely operated digital system.

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 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

Sounds like thats "all yer eggs in one basket" ?

If it is anything like my internet connection in rural England it won't work if it rains---------

Have you ever looked out of the aircraft window while coming in to land and seen nothing but cloud ?

And then wondered, what super eyesight the pilot must have, to see where we are going.

No, I think auto-pilot landings are 'the norm' but will stand to be corrected.

Hmm, I can think of anumber of reasons for doing that, not least security and safety.

They will have triple-redundant connections that don't rely on the national grid being up.

Still doesn't stop a contractor unplugging a wire or a seagull dumping on the camera lens though...

Neil

Edited By Neil Wyatt on 19/05/2017 08:43:57

Sounds like setting yourself up for a failure. Without an "eyes on the ground" system you're liable to hacking I suppose.

Michael W

My experience with remote monitoring by CCTV systems for security and vehicle movement is that depth perception is often lost or inhibited, which makes estimating speed and distance quite uncertain. Nothing like seeing with your own two eyes to get the most accurate understanding of movement, whether it's potential intruders, vehicles or aircraft. Nevertheless, this is not always possible in certain weather conditions, so reliance on electronic systems for tracking aircraft movement is usually the norm whether we like it or not.

When you can have people killed remotely by drone, doesn't it even up the scales a little to have other people kept alive remotely?

I do agree, though, it adds complexity without adding anything to the safety that couldn't be done better at the airport with the same investment in cameras/equipment. Also has the problem that it will fail dangerous, while a control tower will fail safe, as someone can look out of the window.

Regards,

Richard.

Wonder if they're using XP as the stable drive system.

Regards Ian.

Coming into Heathrow we were very nearly landed may have even touched down when we we suddenly under full power and climbing, the pilot sounding a bit breathless told us they had to abort landing as an aircraft had not cleared the runway. Probably a procedure they practice but still causes a buttock clenching moment for them. On a clear morning just as dawn is breaking I could see the planes stacked waiting to approach Heathrow and this is from a bit of high ground in south Oxfordshire. The air traffic control for all this is in Swanley in Kent since it moved from West Drayton. I would hope that the aborted landing I experienced was not triggered by someone looking out the window or even an operator spotting it on screen. With the number of flights handled at Heathrow each day there must be a lot of automated assistance already so the proposal for London City is probably not much more than putting the last piece of the puzzle in.

Mike

Our office aircon is controlled from somewhere else in a random fashion. It is amusing sometimes to see people fruitlessly twiddling the wall thermostats.

One of the aircraft stacking points is above our track. A bucket of water left out make you appreciate the amount of unburned fuel oil raining down over a ten mile radius.

Mike P - a 'go-round' such as you experienced is a perfectly normal and straightforward procedure. It is planned for on EVERY approach and (depending on circumstances) can be initiated as late as 'wheels on the ground'. Headings/tracks/heights to fly are pre-programmed and requires just one order from the Captain to initiate "Go round" (or "Go around" if you are pernickity! The decision as to whether or not the aircraft will be put on the deck is left until the last couple of hundred feet to accommodate any possible problems. The majority of airlines nowadays use a PF/PNF (Flying/Non Flying) division of responsibilities for the landing approach. PF will be handling controls/operating AutoPilot while PNF will be monitoring instruments and/or the visual approach. At Decision Height (200'-ish) PNF will take over the controls and complete the landing or initiate the GA. NOT doing a GA, when one was necessary, has caused a lot of grief in the past!!

rgds

Bill

One of the aircraft stacking points is above our track. A bucket of water left out makes you appreciate the amount of unburned fuel oil raining down over a ten mile radius.

Not something they ever mention in the media, the amount of dumped fuel from airliners

If a ship drops even a bucketful of oil into a US port area there is big trubble

I have personally seen a foreign airplane drop about a 1/2 mile curtain of fuel before landing. It was light brown(hope it was fuel) over a farm before landing.

Just to add to my previous, the extract below is from the Aeroplane magazine 'Roger Bacon' column many years ago. It was prompted by the use by BOAC and BEA of the PF/PNF system which (at that time) was almost unknown elsewhere. It subsequently proved to be a real life-saver but mocked at the time as too complex and confusing. Unarguably, this version of the instructions could be regarded as a little less than clear!!!

rgds

Bill

The big problem is it's cheap, there's a zero tax type deal on aviation fuel all over the world so they can just chuck it away if required

Today in the US Avgas is about 1.45 but if you want kerosene for heating you pay 100% extra taxes so a gallon is 3 dollars

Would that be a strong and stable drive system like a certain health system?

Edited By Brian Oldford on 19/05/2017 14:55:12

Just a quick note from someone who has been involved in air traffic control (building the new Prestwick centre in the early 2000s) At that time all traffic across the Atlantic was put into "Pipes" and the details noted on a computer to alert the controller on the other side to expect the aircraft at a certain time. The system employed when I was there was a dBase III+ application which worked very well. All computers in NATS were networked within the organization with NO LINK to the internet to avoid infiltration of viruses or hackers. To send an email out of NATS you had to find a standalone PC and use that - disc drives and USBs were disabled. In the control room each controller had a sector which covered a part of the UK and traffic was handed off using blocks of wood with a card attached detailing the aircraft/destination etc. These blocks were literally handed to the next controller who slotted them into the traffic flow in their sector. The power to the building was from 2 separate supplies with battery backup and in the event of a total power loss the last system to go down was the radios. The controllers were able to effectively control all aircraft using just the radio and these blocks. In case you think it couldn't be done I personally witnessed this working when we switched from one supply to the other which failed and we couldn't reconnect the first supply. The battery backup for the control screens also failed at that point but control was maintained calmly while us engineers tried work out why it had failed and how to correct it which we did in about 40 minutes. The controllers were calm while we were acting like headless chickens - a most impressive feat. As I recall the airport controllers at the Heathrow didn't have windows in the control room so would have great difficulty working visually. As they say the most dangerous part of any flight is the drive to the airport.

John

The "expert" arguments in favour of this policy will no doubt be along the same lines as those touted for the nucular industry up to the late 1970s

"There's as much chance of a nuclear accident as there is of an airliner crashing onto Wembley on cup final day"

I suppose the bottom line for all these things is money, and if a few people have to die along the way then that's just the way it goes

Is is cheaper to employ someone 80miles away, if not I can not understand why they are doing it. They still have bodies employed doing the job.

Looks like it will be stanstead from now on!

Bri