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/...d-surveillance

--
Colin

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

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

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.