Digital control towers

[robshelle]

Coming soon to an airport near you....

https://bit.ly/2ScTBGB

This is real, and Red Deer has a working version of it in testing right now. Might be a while before it is implemented, but the proof of concept is there and working.

[scdriver]

Coming soon to an airport near you....

https://bit.ly/2ScTBGB

This is real, and Red Deer has a working version of it in testing right now. Might be a while before it is implemented, but the proof of concept is there and working.

That’s pretty cool tech but it seems a little pointless. Must cost a lot to begin with, and the article mentioned increased situational awareness but for increased situational awareness in a regular tower why not just put up a couple of extra cameras with a screen in the tower. Seems to be digitalizing something when there’s not much need. What’s that phrase about fixing things that aren’t broken?

[photofly]

I think you've missed the point.

You can replace 20 control towers with one room in a big city (Toronto?), and one or two ATCOs can work multiple towers. Click - we're in Thunder Bay. Click - we're in Windsor. Fewer buildings, less infrastruture, vastly fewer ATCOs, and lower costs.

[lhalliday]

I see this as an extension of what we already do when we fly in to an MF airport and talk to an RCO, like at Tofino. Get the infrastructure right so it's safe and you have an efficient operation.

...laura

[photofly]

Looking on the positive side, if it's cheap-as-chips (which it is) then a whole lot more airports can have a Tower service. All you need is a mast and a fibreoptic link.

[Heliian]

This is the first "major" airport to have it.

I know they're testing it in the usa for some time now and there's actually a couple of smaller airports with it already, first one was at the end of 2019.

Great concept, it will hopefully bring better coverage and efficiency to atc operations everywhere.

[scdriver]

I think you've missed the point.

You can replace 20 control towers with one room in a big city (Toronto?), and one or two ATCOs can work multiple towers. Click - we're in Thunder Bay. Click - we're in Windsor. Fewer buildings, less infrastruture, vastly fewer ATCOs, and lower costs.

That’s a fair point, but I would think that for any airport busy enough to have a tower it might not be the wisest thing to have guys working multiple towers at one time. Now for places like Tofino (Hardy Radio) that was mentioned, I can absolutely see how using this tech would be a good move.

[linecrew]

This is the first "major" airport to have it.

I know they're testing it in the usa for some time now and there's actually a couple of smaller airports with it already, first one was at the end of 2019.

Great concept, it will hopefully bring better coverage and efficiency to atc operations everywhere.

It's been in place for a few years now at the international airport in Hungary: https://www.atc-network.com/atc-news/se ... st-airport

[trey kule]

I think the only fault in your argument Photo , is thinking it might be Toronto.

This is an election year. It will be in Quebec.

Interesting to have a 50 meter tower with 200 ft minimums. I am assuming it is off airport.

Another small step forward to complete automation.

[photofly]

I think it has to be where the control tower would otherwise have been. Presumably lower than 150m if the tower itself would have been lower.

But yes, in Quebec, I see my error now!

[A346Dude]

It's been in place for a few years now at the international airport in Hungary: https://www.atc-network.com/atc-news/se ... st-airport

That article is from 2017, and I can find nothing more substantial or recent about it. It appears it is operating as a backup only.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

I'm not sure I see the value in this - at least not as an Ontario trained student pilot.

The ability to click back and forth between airports, I just don't see how it's more useful than Timmins telling me about incoming IFR traffic at Muskoka while they can't see it. It just can't compare to a controller's ability to just turn his/her head. There may well be places in the country where this would be useful, but I don't see it, not from my experience in Ontario.

I've trained at YTZ where (currently due to Porter being shut down) ATC is basically a luxury. I've trained at CNC3 where there is no ATC and you need to negotiate your position with other (possibly NORDO) pilots. I've flown to Muskoka where Timmins seems superfluous, and to Peterborough, where I'm falling back to what I learned at CNC3.

Basically, I fail to understand why this is better than controlled airspace with an MF (with possibly a few cameras thrown in and the odd ground radar).

But I'm still just a student, so I may be missing something here.

[turbo-prop]

Already rolling in London.

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/ground ... 021-04-29/

[Braun]

I'm not sure I see the value in this - at least not as an Ontario trained student pilot.

The ability to click back and forth between airports, I just don't see how it's more useful than Timmins telling me about incoming IFR traffic at Muskoka while they can't see it. It just can't compare to a controller's ability to just turn his/her head. There may well be places in the country where this would be useful, but I don't see it, not from my experience in Ontario.

I've trained at YTZ where (currently due to Porter being shut down) ATC is basically a luxury. I've trained at CNC3 where there is no ATC and you need to negotiate your position with other (possibly NORDO) pilots. I've flown to Muskoka where Timmins seems superfluous, and to Peterborough, where I'm falling back to what I learned at CNC3.

Basically, I fail to understand why this is better than controlled airspace with an MF (with possibly a few cameras thrown in and the odd ground radar).

But I'm still just a student, so I may be missing something here.

There are still controllers controlling the traffic. They just aren't physically on station. They have cameras, radars and all the equipment remotely. It is still controlled airspace.

[photofly]

I'm not sure I see the value in this

The value is that adding a new control tower to an airport is now a five figure sum, instead of a seven figure sum. And the ongoing costs are tiny.

The value proposition isn't to you - it's for NavCanada to save money. A whole lot of money.

[thenoflyzone]

I think the only fault in your argument Photo , is thinking it might be Toronto.

This is an election year. It will be in Quebec.

Interesting to have a 50 meter tower with 200 ft minimums. I am assuming it is off airport.

Another small step forward to complete automation.

Lol. Since when does NavCan, a private company, announce anything Quebec related on election years? This isn’t the government. That’s the first fault in your argument.

The second fault in your argument is thinking these remote tower controllers will be based in one city only.

Yes, it’s most likely going to be in Montreal. But it will probably be in Toronto as well, and Edmonton, and Vancouver and Winnipeg, Moncton and Gander.

Basically everywhere Nav Canada has an Area control Centre. That’s where the remote tower controllers will most likely be based out of. Ottawa might get a piece of the action as well.

NavCan will not be spending millions building a massive building somewhere in Quebec where all the nations medium to small sized airport controllers will transfer too. That will cost too much money and will delay the ROI of the entire “remote tower” project. It already has 7 ACCs, plus some real estate in Ottawa, ready for the job.

That’s what happened in London, England. The London City airport is now controlled from the Area Control
center in Swanwick, 115km to the south.

Canada will most likely proceed in a similar fashion. Tower controllers will slowly migrate to the nearest control centres.