Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
 

On Tue, 23 May 2017 11:40:33 +0100
ColinR wrote:
On 23/05/2017 09:51, d wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2017 21:14:01 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 22/05/2017 16:51, d wrote:
of the many heathrow flight paths and there's enough air traffic already.
God
knows what it'll be like with even more. Assuming NATs can handle it which
isn't a given as it seems from 2019 they'll be doing London Citys remote
control tower - no one at home, just video feeds down a presumably "secure"
link. What could possibly go wrong?


Actually three separate secure links.

And how do you know the current one in use hasn't been compromised and is
feeding duff data or video? Or failing that a contractor cuts through the
cables by mistake. I utterly fail to see the logic behind this. It must be
costing a fortune to do and for what? They won't be saving on salaries since
they'll still need new people at NATs so what is the reason? Heating bill of
the control tower? Given the risks its an absurd decision.


Savings will be made when one set of controllers look after multiple
airports, London City is likely the first of many - see
http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2017/...ntrol-replaced
centralised-surveillance

Ah, so its like the situation that led to this accident over switzerland
in 2002:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9C...-air_collision

Fantastic.

--
Spud

Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
 

On Tue, 23 May 2017 12:36:28 +0100
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\05\23 09:44, d wrote:

Sure, I'm not saying the road traffic won't be worse. But tbh one traffic
jam is very much like another. When I worked down there it was pretty much
gridlock already in the rush hour. However that only affects a relatively
small area. The extra flights will affect all of london and a significant
portion of Berkshire. All so Heathrow Plc can increase its share price.

Heathrow can not spirit more money out of people's pockets unless it is
providing the entire population with more of what they want.

Or charging the airlines more in access charges for a supposed improved
service. Besides, as Heathrow likes to keep reminding us , its a hub, which
means its generally not the population of the UK that gets the benefits.

Still, whats some extra noise, gas and particulate pollution affecting
millions of people when share prices are at risk. Priorities, right?

--
Spud

Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
 

On 23/05/2017 14:14, d wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2017 11:40:33 +0100
ColinR wrote:
On 23/05/2017 09:51, d wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2017 21:14:01 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 22/05/2017 16:51, d wrote:
of the many heathrow flight paths and there's enough air traffic already.
God
knows what it'll be like with even more. Assuming NATs can handle it which
isn't a given as it seems from 2019 they'll be doing London Citys remote
control tower - no one at home, just video feeds down a presumably "secure"
link. What could possibly go wrong?


Actually three separate secure links.

And how do you know the current one in use hasn't been compromised and is
feeding duff data or video? Or failing that a contractor cuts through the
cables by mistake. I utterly fail to see the logic behind this. It must be
costing a fortune to do and for what? They won't be saving on salaries since
they'll still need new people at NATs so what is the reason? Heating bill of
the control tower? Given the risks its an absurd decision.


Savings will be made when one set of controllers look after multiple
airports, London City is likely the first of many - see
http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2017/...ntrol-replaced
centralised-surveillance

Ah, so its like the situation that led to this accident over switzerland
in 2002:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9C...-air_collision

Fantastic.


True, but that accident was caused by the country air traffic control,
not an airport approach control. Like for like comparison would be with
Swanwick which covers the UK country air space.

However, I tend to agree with your discomfort, looks like a money saving
idea rather than a safety inspired idea, the point I was making.

--
Colin

Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
 

In message , at 13:17:09 on Tue, 23 May
2017, d remarked:
Besides, as Heathrow likes to keep reminding us , its a hub, which
means its generally not the population of the UK that gets the benefits.

It's around one third hub, two thirds destination.

But passengers in transit through the hub still require airlines to
prepare, clean, fuel and crew aircraft, transfer baggage, and make and
deliver on-board meals.

Transit passengers are therefore making much the same demands (and
providing much the same revenue) for the local economy as non-transit
passengers.

Note that I'm avoiding getting into a second-order ****ing competition
over whether or not transit passengers make more or less use of airport
catering and duty free shops compared to non-transit passengers.

Then there's the benefit to local passengers of the increased traffic
from transit passengers making many of the flights economically feasible
in the first place. Without the transit passengers the airlines might
decide not to run them (or as many) at all.
--
Roland Perry

Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
 

On 23/05/2017 14:13, d wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2017 10:30:27 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 23/05/2017 09:51, d wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2017 21:14:01 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 22/05/2017 16:51, d wrote:
of the many heathrow flight paths and there's enough air traffic already.
God
knows what it'll be like with even more. Assuming NATs can handle it which
isn't a given as it seems from 2019 they'll be doing London Citys remote
control tower - no one at home, just video feeds down a presumably "secure"
link. What could possibly go wrong?


Actually three separate secure links.

And how do you know the current one in use hasn't been compromised and is
feeding duff data or video? Or failing that a contractor cuts through the
cables by mistake.

If the cable has been cut through then you won't get any picture. I
suspect even someone from the CAA might notice that.

I suspect hackers would be somewhat subtler than just blanking the picture.

I was answering your point about the cable being cut.


What risks? Its a triple redundancy system as used by aircraft.
Whether the controllers re staring out of the windows or at screens
makes no odds. In fact the latter can be better as night vision cameras
can give you a better visual image after dark.

Right, because you couldn't possibly do any of that in the control tower.

Once you are using screens they can be located anywhere, don't have to
be actually at the airport.

And since when did security cameras have the same viewing field as the human
eye thats carried around in a skull and can look in any direction almost
instantly including vertically down?

And the advantage of being able to look at the foot of the tower would be?


You also have the possibility of overlaying relevant information on the
screens such as tagging the image of each aircraft with its flight details.

See above.


See what above? You haven't addressed the point at all.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
 

On 23/05/2017 14:14, d wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2017 11:40:33 +0100
ColinR wrote:
On 23/05/2017 09:51, d wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2017 21:14:01 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 22/05/2017 16:51, d wrote:
of the many heathrow flight paths and there's enough air traffic already.
God
knows what it'll be like with even more. Assuming NATs can handle it which
isn't a given as it seems from 2019 they'll be doing London Citys remote
control tower - no one at home, just video feeds down a presumably "secure"
link. What could possibly go wrong?


Actually three separate secure links.

And how do you know the current one in use hasn't been compromised and is
feeding duff data or video? Or failing that a contractor cuts through the
cables by mistake. I utterly fail to see the logic behind this. It must be
costing a fortune to do and for what? They won't be saving on salaries since
they'll still need new people at NATs so what is the reason? Heating bill of
the control tower? Given the risks its an absurd decision.


Savings will be made when one set of controllers look after multiple
airports, London City is likely the first of many - see
http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2017/...ntrol-replaced
centralised-surveillance

Ah, so its like the situation that led to this accident over switzerland
in 2002:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9C...-air_collision

Fantastic.


All British airspace is controlled for either Swanwick or Prestwick,
your point is?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
 

wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2017 10:30:27 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 23/05/2017 09:51, d wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2017 21:14:01 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 22/05/2017 16:51, d wrote:
of the many heathrow flight paths and there's enough air traffic already.
God
knows what it'll be like with even more. Assuming NATs can handle it which
isn't a given as it seems from 2019 they'll be doing London Citys remote
control tower - no one at home, just video feeds down a presumably "secure"
link. What could possibly go wrong?


Actually three separate secure links.

And how do you know the current one in use hasn't been compromised and is
feeding duff data or video? Or failing that a contractor cuts through the
cables by mistake.

If the cable has been cut through then you won't get any picture. I
suspect even someone from the CAA might notice that.

I suspect hackers would be somewhat subtler than just blanking the picture.

What risks? Its a triple redundancy system as used by aircraft.
Whether the controllers re staring out of the windows or at screens
makes no odds. In fact the latter can be better as night vision cameras
can give you a better visual image after dark.

Right, because you couldn't possibly do any of that in the control tower.
And since when did security cameras have the same viewing field as the human
eye thats carried around in a skull and can look in any direction almost
instantly including vertically down?

You're assuming the tower has a glass floor?

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pqIGEo88RXA/maxresdefault.jpg

Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
 

On Tue, 23 May 2017 14:35:02 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
But passengers in transit through the hub still require airlines to
prepare, clean, fuel and crew aircraft, transfer baggage, and make and
deliver on-board meals.

Transit passengers are therefore making much the same demands (and
providing much the same revenue) for the local economy as non-transit
passengers.

Given that the staff can come from anywhere I doubt the "local" economy
sees many benefits at all. OTOH The extra traffic might reduce it quite
significantly if people stop bothering visiting the shops or companies.

in the first place. Without the transit passengers the airlines might
decide not to run them (or as many) at all.

One could only hope.

--
Spud

Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
 

On Tue, 23 May 2017 15:26:35 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 23/05/2017 14:13, d wrote:
And since when did security cameras have the same viewing field as the human
eye thats carried around in a skull and can look in any direction almost
instantly including vertically down?

And the advantage of being able to look at the foot of the tower would be?

I don't know, something happening nearby that may be of concern. Use your
imagination. The human eye is quite good at catching motion on the peripheral,
perhaps a vehicle or person where they shouldn't be etc. Something you won't
necessarily spot with screens showing narrow angle camera views.

You also have the possibility of overlaying relevant information on the
screens such as tagging the image of each aircraft with its flight details.

See above.


See what above? You haven't addressed the point at all.

The point being you could do all of that in the control tower. FFS, you can
get all that on flightradar24!

--
Spud

Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
 

On Tue, 23 May 2017 14:59:39 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
Right, because you couldn't possibly do any of that in the control tower.
And since when did security cameras have the same viewing field as the human
eye thats carried around in a skull and can look in any direction almost
instantly including vertically down?

You're assuming the tower has a glass floor?

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pqIGEo88RXA/maxresdefault.jpg

I guess ir never occured to you to wonder why the windows are angled outwards
instead of being vertical.

--
Spud