World-First Remote Air Traffic Control System Lands In Sweden

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.

Comments

supporting technology?

[ardiri]

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:supporting technology?

[Platinumrat]

They do have local equipment and streaming cameras. I've seen Demonstrations of RTS at the last few Internation Air Shows, that I've been to. It's more like a VR system for ATC.

Re:supporting technology?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course they have local cameras and sensors, etc. The amount of testing and evaluation to get something like this certified is huge. It's a very expensive setup, it's just cheaper than having a full crew of ATC staff on site all year round...

Re:supporting technology?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

I'm pretty sure that the pilot will see that, after all the planes still have windows.

This is about the Air Traffic controllers being remote, not remote-control landing the planes themselves.

Next step - Remote Pilots

[Trachman]

Next step will be the pilots sitting in the same Remote Tower Services piloting their planes remotely, all in one building.

Re:Next step - Remote Pilots

[SuricouRaven]

The appeal is obvious: No pilot and no instruments means a lot of weight saving, and frees up precious passenger space.

Re:Next step - Remote Pilots

[Anonymous Coward]

all INTO one building.

FTFY

Re:Next step - Remote Pilots

[Anonymous Coward]

And the following step: remote passengers!

Re:Next step - Remote Pilots

[dcw3]

You'd still need instruments, even if remotely piloted.

Re:Next step - Remote Pilots

[Anonymous Coward]

Colloquially, often even among pilots, instruments refers to the avionics suite. No one but engineering and maintenance ever needs to make a distinction between the instruments and the user interfaces to the instrumentation.

FYROM

[Anonymous Coward]

I read somewhere that the Macedonian airspace is being controlled from Budapest for years. Does that not qualify as 'remote'?

Re:FYROM

[KFK2]

Airspace is completely different than towers. Most airspace is actually controlled remotely. The higher up the plane is the more likely the controlling "tower" will be further away. Most airspace is inverted cone shaped - The FAA has a whole page describing the various airspace classifications in the U.S. - and the procedure for hand-offs between various control authorities. Towers have to manage things like who gets the run way and who gets what taxiway - completely different. And generally requires visual verification of what plane is where (especially ground control)

hmm

[roc97007]

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:hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps, but the main benefit of this system is to not have local staff which is very expensive. This way controllers in a single center can be cross-certified to work multiple airports, easing the need to staff for vacations, sick leaves, etc. If a tower is out of commission due to an emergency, the sensors would probably be out as well.

I could see a use for a mobile version of this, to set up ATC services in a war zone or disaster relief area where there may be a landing strip but not the facilities to handle larger amounts of traffic.

Re:hmm

[bobbied]

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 necessary traffic rate that makes this kind of VR system worthwhile, is darn close to the traffic rates that makes manning the tower locally a viable solution. Yea, it might be a bit cheaper on the labor side, but it's not like you have to man a tower 24/7 anyway.

Re:hmm

[tompaulco]

Then there is the matter of NORDO (No radio) flying, which is perfectly fine in non-controlled airspace, but which may now not be possible from some airports due to not being in contact with a controller.

Cause and effect?

[Anonymous Coward]

The article blames low traffic levels on the absence of a control tower. One should consider that the low traffic level may be due to the lack of demand, and that lack of demand causes there to not be a tower. Airlines like to have major hubs because they can concentrate their flights at fewer locations. Customers like major hubs, provided they are not too far from one, because they can get flights to where they want to go.

Re:Cause and effect?

[Anonymous Coward]

this is a very simple example of the "tax da rich" mentality at work. Only the rich own airplanes, so they get taxed aggressively and regulatory oversight becomes crushing, so only the rich can fly. This has resulted in the fraction of the population with a private pilot license dropping from roughly 0.25% in the 70's to 0.10% now, and the cost of a new airplane going from roughly the price of a mid-line sedan to double a luxury sedan.

Re:Cause and effect?

[dcw3]

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

[spaceyhackerlady]

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:How we do it in Canada

[bobbied]

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 anyway. There just are things that you can only do from the tower cab on location. I'd hate to see what it took to use the signal lights or dig out the binoculars to see if there's some trash on the runway if you are 70 miles away. And unless you have a LOT of traffic a tower isn't necessary or helpful.

Re:How we do it in Canada

[adolf]

There just are things that you can only do from the tower cab on location. I'd hate to see what it took to use the signal lights or dig out the binoculars to see if there's some trash on the runway if you are 70 miles away.

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:How we do it in Canada

[bobbied]

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 the threshold of 23 are something to be watching out for. Then there is the deer that jumped the fence and is grazing between the taxiway and runway. Most of this is stuff that nobody can see remotely, but a guy in the tower cab could easily.

But the *real* question is if this being remote leads to better safety and is worth the major costs. A simple Unicom frequency works well for traffic avoidance, especially if you make it mandatory for pilots to announce their position and intentions. You could easily and cheaply add to that somebody on the other end who is keeping track of weather conditions and previously reported traffic but doesn't grant clearances or give out orders and add greatly to that safety. Beyond that you go to full blown tower, but I don't see all that much improvement in safety when you make that jump. I just don't think it's worth it.

Re:How we do it in Canada

[adolf]

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 cameras while also armed with binoculars. The PTZ system is useful for finding and tracking birds and deer; the binoculars are good for studying them as a biologist might and lousy for finding things that the eye can't see.)

As to practicality, it's already being done: It is therefore practical. I presume that smarter people than either of us already figured this shit out and determined that it's more effective to have a remotely-manned tower than an actually-manned tower in this instance...otherwise, TFA would not exist.

Are we done yet? Or is the Earth still flat?

The FAA Tried to Study This

[Chibi Merrow]

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:The FAA Tried to Study This

[tompaulco]

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. Maybe they considered it a safety issue due to not being actually on the grounds and were worried about getting sued if there was an incident.

Re:The FAA Tried to Study This

[Obfuscant]

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:The FAA Tried to Study This

[Chibi Merrow]

I don't know why the controllers union would be against it.

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 unattended runway lights are triggered by keying your mic on the right frequency). In addition, only the big airports are staffed by FAA controllers. The small towers are run by (non-unionized) contractors.

As soon as any discussion of some sort of control system that didn't involve warm bodies, or possibly increasing the number of non-union controllers came up, they torpedoed it.

Re:The FAA Tried to Study This

[JaredOfEuropa]

Maybe they were afraid that small airports that do have controllers would start replacing those people with the remote setup. If those airports only get infrequent traffic, a couple of guys in a remote control tower can probaby handle dozens of them.

What surprises me is that the union actually has the clout to stop this.

I'm confused: aren't these common already?

[smellsofbikes]

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 different. How?

Re: I'm confused: aren't these common already?

[Anonymous Coward]

During the Vietnam Conflict, the United States Red Berets woud talk you down. In theory they were in the "immediate vicinity" but in practice, they could be anywhere within a 100 mile radius.

More than once, Red Berets have taken over United States civilian air traffic, with the commercial pilots never knowing the difference.

IOW, this "news release" is something that has been done for more than fifty years, and at fields that are, by any definition, inadequate to land on.

Re:I'm confused: aren't these common already?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's different because it shows the stubborn europeans have finally decided that trying to build an airbus that flies itself is killing too many people. It has the added benefit that ground station jobs can all be outsourced to the Phillipines. I don't know the name of the jackass who approved the idea of replacing a yoke with a joystick, but then again, I don't know the names of all the people he killed. Anyway good luck running your voice operations on the internet, our system hardly goes down once per day anymore.

Re:I'm confused: aren't these common already?

[stoborrobots]

This is having the person "actually looking at the airplanes in question" being remote as well.

Re: I'm confused: aren't these common already?

[oobayly]

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.

Non towered not a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

As a recreational pilot, I prefer the small untowered airports. There is a system to broadcast movements "blind" to any nearby traffic, and safety is not an issue.

India?

[Anonymous Coward]

Outsource to India? Lol