World-First Remote Air Traffic Control System Lands In Sweden 36
Zothecula writes: Small airports are often in a no-win situation. They don't have much traffic because they don't have an adequate tower system, and they don't have an adequate tower system because they don't have much traffic. That could be about to change, with the opening of the world's first remotely operated air-traffic control system in Sweden. Thanks to the Remote Tower Services (RTS) system, the first plane landed last week at Örnsköldsvik Airport, but it was controlled from the LFV Remote Tower Centre 123 km (76 mi) away in Sundsvall.
supporting technology? (Score:1)
i surely hope they are not dependent on third party services like google maps as part of the landing process.. they would need to install an infrastructure of sensors, cameras and network communication channels to obtain enough information about the environment as if they were actually there.. otherwise; we'll see planes hit a tree or newly built building that may not be available yet on google maps.
Re: (Score:3)
Next step - Remote Pilots (Score:3)
Next step will be the pilots sitting in the same Remote Tower Services piloting their planes remotely, all in one building.
Re: (Score:1)
The appeal is obvious: No pilot and no instruments means a lot of weight saving, and frees up precious passenger space.
Re: (Score:3)
You'd still need instruments, even if remotely piloted.
Re:FYROM (Score:5, Informative)
hmm (Score:2)
Seems like a remote tower system might also be useful at a real airport in an emergency when the local tower is out of commission.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like a remote tower system might also be useful at a real airport in an emergency when the local tower is out of commission.
I don't know if this is worth it even then. You've got to be at some minimum traffic level or it doesn't matter. I've flown into and out of "uncontrolled" and "controlled" airports and unless we are talking about IMC situations and multiple parallel runways, I don't see the need for more than a Unicom frequency. About all a tower gets you is improved though put and that's only really when the airport is under IFR, well that and enforced separation between us slow guys and the jets.
I'm guessing the necess
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Um, no that's incorrect. I personally got my private license back in the mid-80s, and knew quite a few private plane owners. None of whom were one percenters.
How we do it in Canada (Score:5, Informative)
In Canada we have an intermediate step between untowered uncontrolled airports and controlled airports with towers, Mandatory Frequency airports. They have a ground station with whom you must communicate for arrival and departure. They dispense information and coordinate activities, but do not give clearances. As pilot you make those decisions.
An example MF airport I've flown to is Kamloops, BC (CYKA). On initial contact the ground station told me the wind, altimeter setting and active runway, but also advised me of skydiving activity north of the airport. Since this might conflict on the usual left-hand circuit pattern, they suggested I fly a right hand circuit on approach. I did, and landed. This wasn't binding on me - the decision and responsibility were mine - but it was a good idea.
...laura
Re: (Score:2)
I like this idea actually. Personally I learned to fly at an airport that had a flight service station on the field so although we didn't have a manned tower, we had almost exactly what you describe. Pilots would use the FSS advisory frequency and although they where not issuing clearances, they did provide traffic advisories and local conditions if you contacted them. They stopped short of requiring radio contact in VMC though that makes sense to me.
This "remote tower" thing sounds a bit dodgy to me an
Re: (Score:2)
That's what cameras are for. Panasonic (amongst others, I presume) even have some that do a fantastic job of grepping a usable image in fog.
Re: (Score:2)
Look, I'm not saying it's not *possible* only that it's not practical to do this. Sometimes it really just takes a human to actually be on site.
Effective tower controlling may be possible to do remotely in most situations, but the benefits of having a tower over just a radio is for the safety afforded by having a human verify that some pilot didn't make a mistake and taxi onto the active runway in IMC, or that pesky flock of migrating birds which are using that set of trees off to the right and left of th
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever used a proper and modern PTZ camera? Or several of them at once? Perhaps with multiple fixed cameras to give a good overview, and a good management system to make looking around easy? Because it really sounds like you don't have a clue what you're going on about. I'll take a few good PTZ cameras with diverse locations over a set of binoculars at the top of a tower every fucking day for the sort of ranges and objects we're talking about here.
(Disclaimer: I've been on towers installing PTZ
The FAA Tried to Study This (Score:3)
There was an attempt to study remote and automated unmanned towers at the FAA to serve towerless airports. The Controller union had it shut down. And now I see other countries doing it... Great.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know why the controllers union would be against it. They would have to add more controllers to control new remote strips which they previously did not control.
You're thinking small -- one airport. Think 100. A manned tower at each would require 200 controllers, at least. Remote controlled would require 10, maybe 15.
Of course, there is the issue of liability when the system fails and the only think left to pin it on is controller error.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they're dumb and shortsighted. It was obvious to us that it would mean more controllers being hired (and, even better, controllers that could live where it was cheap and the weather was nice, due to remote capabilities). However, the study included a concept for a fully automated control system for airports that don't see enough traffic to even warrant remote tower control, which would interact with aircraft over the radio (kind of like how
Re: (Score:2)
What surprises me is that the union actually has the clout to stop this.
I'm confused: aren't these common already? (Score:2)
Whenever I fly using ATC (in my case, flight following, unless I'm flying instrument) I'm talking to an air route traffic control center based in a town 50 km away from the nearest towered airport, and it's what everyone flying instrument from nontowered airports uses, throughout the whole state.
They don't do approach or ground control, which is done at towered fields where someone's actually looking at the airplanes in question, but they handle everything outside the class b/c/d airspace.
Obviously this is
Re: I'm confused: aren't these common already? (Score:2)
A made of mine is A330 and A340 rated (as well as Hawk and Hawker 125) - his comment was that he'd love the fly-by-wire setup of Airbus combined with a Boeing yoke.
Personally I don't see the problem with a side stick, but then I'm not a commercial pilot. However I remember seeing pilots take advantage of the lack of yoke and literally put their feet up.
Re: (Score:2)
This is having the person "actually looking at the airplanes in question" being remote as well.