tschnell wrote:
The only way I can imagine this investment to be profitable (i.e. being cheaper to operate than an on-site TWR in the long run) is one controller working multiple airports simultaneously
That is the main idea. Most of the smaller airports only have activity within short time frames (1 hour or less) a coupe of times each day. One controller can all alone do multiple such small airports. The main architecture is a RTC (Remote Tower Center) controlling several airports. Avinors RTC is placed in Bodø. The 5 first airports will start this year, and ten more (not 15) within the time frame to 2020, including Bodø airport itself. Later on every airport will be remotely controlled.
Another benefit is reduced future cost of the Towers themselves, and flexibility in opening hours. There are no reasons for a remote tower to close for instance. The total cost reduction is estimated to be 40%
Røros is one of the first, then both Rørvik and Namsos will follow (the three closest Avinor airfields from me). It will be cool to see how it works out for GA. Somehow I believe it will be cool. But the entire reason to do it is to reduce cost and increase flexibility for commercial airline traffic, and GA never enter into that equation. Training for instance. One student doing touch and go will occupy one controller. This was no problem when a person was sitting in the (local) tower in any case, but with these remote towers, it could be a fight about resources. We will find out soon enough.
Peter wrote:
I don’t know how real this is.
Caba wrote:
we´re presently talking about airfields with less than 10.000 IFR-movements a year, less than 50 on the busiest day. No matter how you let controllers do their stuff on such a field, it will not be a profitable business.
@AdamFrisch was making reference to IFR operations into non-ATC airports, no tower necessary and pilot-to-pilot coordination at the airport, being the way this is done routinely in the US, at thousands of small airports.
I can see this being useful where you have very busy airports that can’t be operated non-tower either VFR or IFR, due to traffic density. The ATC staff for all of those airports regionally can then be co-located with the regional Terminal Radar Center controllers, improving communication and hand-offs. The benefits for quieter airports aren’t obvious to me, either VFR or IFR, because quieter airports work fine without any ground based ATC.
Peter wrote:
I don’t know how real this is.
Already in operation in Sweden. (But with a different vendor.)
Given that in Germany generally either ATC or an AFISO has to be on duty for any flight operation, I doubt that this will eventually be beneficial for the small GA over here: With a remote tower center there is now a real incentive to suspend operations e.g. early in the evening and just open up the airport again for the airline flight landing at 10 p.m.
Now that we all have ADSB and text messaging, why not cut the cost and risk of human error even further by giving the few remaining ATC jobs to computers? Even French computers don’t go on strike…
That would at least end the comical ATC use of their WW2 technology to advise a CAT “Easy 123, traffic is a light aircraft in your one o’clock range two miles tracking north to south 2,000 ft below”, while the bus driver can see the poxy Maule’s call sign, velocity and 3D position to the nearest couple of metres on his TV screen.
Jacko wrote:
Even French computers don’t go on strike…
No, but IT personnel do. And without IT staff on permanent standby, no such system will ever be approved. So nothing will change.
tschnell wrote:
Given that in Germany generally either ATC or an AFISO has to be on duty for any flight operation, I doubt that this will eventually be beneficial for the small GA over here: With a remote tower center there is now a real incentive to suspend operations e.g. early in the evening and just open up the airport again for the airline flight landing at 10 p.m.
On the contrary, I think. There will always (or for a long time to come) be a requirement for a person to be present at the airfield. But with a remote tower system coordinating arrivals and departures and ground movements this person does not need to have any special qualifications. All he or she needs to do is collect landing fees, call taxis for passengers and crews and call “110” (“911” elsewhere) if something goes wrong.
what_next wrote:
There will always (or for a long time to come) be a requirement for a person to be present at the airfield
Why???
Why???
Because our lawmakers (and me as well, which is why I will continue to support them) feel more comfortable if someone on site can raise the alarm and help in person in case something goes wrong.
One person with a fire extinguisher can make the difference between five lucky survivors or five burnt victims.
what_next wrote:
Because our lawmakers (and me as well, which is why I will continue to support them) feel more comfortable if someone on site can raise the alarm and help in person in case something goes wrong.
Wouldn’t it be fair to have the freedom of choice, though? You wouldn’t have to land at unsupervised airfields if you don’t want to, but why in the world (I’m very much with Silvaire here) would one want to force this upon those who’d really just want to land at a perfectly available and physically existing landing site at 18:05 when the man (or woman) with the fire extinguisher has just called it a day?
