Remarks of CANSO Director General, Jeff Poole, to the Remote and Virtual Tower Conference, in London, 4 February 2016

Transcription

1 Remarks of CANSO Director General, Jeff Poole, to the Remote and Virtual Tower Conference, in London, 4 February 2016 Good morning and thank you for asking me to speak today at what I believe to be an important and timely Conference. In our industry, we often have to improve or fix things on an incremental basis but the exciting prospect of remote towers is in its early days so we genuinely have a chance to work together to get it right from the outset. I am also encouraged by the opening words of Steve Cotton that the ITF approach is to show leadership by being proactive, strategic and professional. That matches exactly the values and philosophy of CANSO. CANSO the Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation represents 87 air navigation service providers around the globe as well as Associate Members the organisations that provide products and services to the ATM industry, including the biggest names in aviation. We are the voice of air traffic management globally. I should emphasise that, like ITF, we are a representative association not a regulator. Although, like ITF, we make representations to regulators such as ICAO, where we have Observer status. Our goal is to transform air traffic management performance globally, by taking steps to help our Members enhance safety and improve efficiency for air space users, and enabling planes to fly the most efficient routes, seamlessly crossing the different Flight Information Regions. To do that, we are implementing Vision 2020, our strategic framework for the ATM industry. This is much more than a strategy document we have over 130 projects with real deliverables ranging from best practice guidelines to pilot implementation projects. For the purposes of today s discussions, I wish to highlight four key commitments that are embedded in Vision 2020: Embrace change and new technologies as drivers of transformation, improved safety and enhanced efficiency Enhance safety as our number one priority Focus on delivery through structured programmes at global, regional and local levels, with strong programme management 1

2 And to do this in strong partnerships with all key stakeholders. So, before I start my formal remarks on remote towers, I wish to be very clear that for ANSPs safety will never be compromised, only enhanced; and we wish to work closely in partnership with staff on the important changes involved. This century we have seen big advances in technology in ATM such as improved surveillance through ADS-B and with space based ADS-B on the horizon surveillance coverage will reach across the globe; system wide information management or SWIM, allowing better exchange of information between all stakeholders; and more efficient flying through performance based navigation. Remote towers are another example of the many technologies and new procedures that are transforming air traffic management performance globally. We will all need to get used to new concepts, definitions, terms and their inevitable acronyms but, for simplicity, in my remarks today I will refer to them all just as remote tower services or RTS. Remote towers services are applicable at any airport. The size of the airport is not an issue. Larger airports may use RTS, for example, for getting rid of blind spots, providing coverage for new runways, and enhancing current services. Regulation The introduction of new technologies always needs careful validation for safety and invariably requires regulatory approval. There has been some concern that remote towers are somehow contrary to the rules that govern civil aviation under the Chicago Convention. However, remote towers do comply with ICAO rules under the Convention (doc 4444) to provide a continuous watch on all flight operations on and in the vicinity of an aerodrome as well as vehicles and personnel on the manoeuvring area and this watch shall be maintained by visual observation. Remote towers fulfill these requirements as they do enable ATCOs (and ATIS) to maintain visual observation. There is nothing that states that personnel have to be physically present on site. The services provided mainly aerodrome flight information service or AFIS and air traffic control or ATC remain the same. All that changes is the means of delivery. ICAO has allowed for the development of remote towers in the Global Air Navigation Plan (Doc9750) and its Aviation System Block Upgrades (ASBU) includes a section on remote towers in section B1 RATS. In addition, traffic is already controlled without direct visual observation in low visibility and bad weather through the A-SMGCS system. In Europe, where most remote tower development is taking place, the SESAR Concept of Remote Tower for Single Aerodrome (SDM-0201) and its successor RT for Multiple Aerodromes (SDM-0205) laid the basis for developing remote towers in Europe. In 2015 the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) produced guidance material for a single mode of operation after wide consultation with all stakeholders. As LFV were the first to operation, they went through a long process with the Swedish regulator starting in 2011 with approval for full operations given in December

3 CANSO s view is that regulation should be performance-based. In other words, regulation should specify the desired outcomes required rather than being prescriptive as to how it should be carried out. With regard to single mode RTS, much of what they provide is already covered by existing international and national regulations. Given that safety is our number one priority, our industry introduces new technology in a step-by-step manner with each stage being analysed and validated. So when it comes to multiple operations, providing services to different airports from one remote tower centre (RTC), we will need to work with regulators to look at existing regulations and whether additional regulations are needed. In my view, it is highly ironic that we complain about being in the most over-regulated industry, yet when a new technology comes along the first reaction is more regulation! Regulation is important and fundamental - but the real challenge is to use the implementation of new technologies to ensure that we move to appropriate, fit-for-purpose, performance-based regulations rather than just adding even more regulations that constrain good innovation. Status of remote towers today A number of countries are planning to implement or are exploring the opportunities offered by remote towers. The first remote tower was implemented in Sweden last April where controllers based in Sundsvall started operating services 150 km away in Ornskoldsvik. SESAR and ENAV, the Italian ANSP, have developed the Remote Airport Concept of OperatioN or RACOON to demonstrate the viability of both single and multiple airports operated remotely. In the USA, the FAA is running a remote tower demonstration with Saab Sensis at Leesburg Airport just outside the Washington DC area. It is interesting to note that Leesburg, which has 70, ,000 movements a year, has been pleading for a tower for 10 years! Also, as part of a high level demonstration under SESAR, the Irish Aviation Authority is working with Saab to implement a remote tower centre at Dublin Airport as well as remote tower installations at Cork and Shannon. DFS has selected Frequentis to provide remote tower technology for three airports in Germany from a centre in Leipzig; Saarbrucken is scheduled for 2017 with Erfut and Dresden to follow. HungaroControl has contracted with Indra and Searidge to deploy a remote tower to replace its out of date tower. In Norway, Avinor (along with Kongsburg Gruppen and Indra Navia) announced plans to invest in remote tower services in a number of airports to be controlled from a remote tower centre in Bodo. 3

4 In France, DSNA has run trials at Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport to regulate traffic to and from the apron to increase overall capacity (and the survey results from participating ATCOs were excellent). Encouragingly, all of these remote tower initiatives are proceeding with strong involvement of staff associations. Remote towers tomorrow multiple operations and cross border operations While remote towers offer huge potential, we are starting simply, with one remote tower centre providing services at one airport. We have already learned a lot from the nine months of operations thus far. The next stage is to develop the provision of ATS services to multiple airports from one RTC. LFV in Sweden has conducted successful trials together with Linkoping University, with ATCOs managing three medium sized airports simultaneously safety was not compromised. As mentioned earlier, we need to define the regulatory aspects of multiple operations. Another possibility in the future is the provision of cross border operations conducted from a remote tower. CANSO s approach is that a global industry transcends national borders and as part of our quest for seamless airspace, we argue that airspace can be controlled over larger areas, such as we see with the functional airspace blocks (FAB) in Europe. The same principle applies to remote towers controlling ATS in other countries. We do recognise though, that this throws up a host of other questions that need to be addressed, including the social factors. Our commitment to safety and the existing national regulatory frameworks will ensure that any such changes are implemented cautiously and effectively. Five key reasons why the ATM industry is developing remote towers First, cost efficiency. ANSPs are able to reduce costs at small aerodromes where traffic volume is not enough to keep them economically viable. This is important in the light of the Airports Council International (ACI) report that 42.5% of airports in Europe are loss making. RTS will lead to greater ATCO productivity with an increase in the number of flight hours per ATCO. Economies of scale can be achieved through RTS by grouping the control of multiple airports in one centre. There will be reduced through-life costs in maintenance and training compared to traditional towers. And, importantly, the cost savings can be passed on to airports and airlines. Building new towers is expensive with for example the tower in Tucson USA costing USD 26 million. Where old outdated towers need to be replaced, remote towers enable the ANSP to save costs. For example, in Hungary, the airport now needs to replace its 30-year-old tower (which the ANSP rents) and building a new tower is considered too costly. HungaroControl is therefore considering a remote tower solution, using the old tower for contingency purposes for a limited period. Airports and ANSPs are therefore able to invest in IT rather than concrete. Second, with air traffic forecast to increase by an average of five percent a year, remote towers and their new technology will help manage this increase through using existing 4

5 personnel and their knowledge and expertise in a more cost effective way. RTS also enable increased opening hours, further improving capacity. Third, they enable ANSPs to provide services in remote places that have no ANS provision at the moment for example, non towered airports in the USA. HungaroControl is looking at how best to manage the growing demand for ATC services from low traffic regional airports and is looking at a cost effective solution through remote towers. This has the added advantage of providing new jobs for ATCOs. Remote towers help to meet the expectations of society and customer expectations, by keeping smaller, less used airports open and financially viable. Remote towers improve the business case for maintaining such airports. In addition, for small or medium sized airports that have low annual operations but experience seasonal or event-related increased demand, and where ATS is often staffed on a part time basis, RTS can help manage the increased demand. Fourth, the technology enables the operation of remote contingency towers like the one at London Heathrow Airport. This enables the airport to continue to operate if the main tower becomes unavailable. It will only be used in an emergency. Fifth, and most importantly, RTS enhance safety and the service that ATS can offer. Safety is the industry s number one priority and remote towers have many features that improve observation and thus enhance safety. The technology works with high quality images with filters that enhance the image as well as the availability of infrared for low visibility and with a delay between reality and the screen of well under one second. Weather information, flight information and other key data can be displayed directly on the screen. This simplifies things by having all the information in one place and therefore reduces controller workload. Direct visual observation or Out The Window (OTW) is carried out by cameras and sensors. Remote tower technology offers many opportunities to improve tower operations, particularly in detection and alerting through motion tracking, infra red cameras an pan-tilt zoom cameras. Advanced visual tools improve situational awareness. But we must be careful not to introduce information overload for ATCOs. Runway incursions are one of CANSO s major safety concerns and we have expended much effort on mitigating the risk through procedures for pilots and ATCOs, training and publications. Remote towers can help mitigate the risk still further, particularly through these visual displays. Impact on ATCOs So, how have remote towers impacted on ATCOs? I deliberately talk about ATCOs rather than ATSEPs because although remote towers impact the job of ATCOs, for ATSEPs the maintenance tasks remain the same. For ATCOs the job is essentially the same but there is a need for conversion training due to the technology used to provide ATS. 5

6 Today, single person operations are common, but remote towers offer the opportunity to work with colleagues, who can provide back up, share experiences and best practice and work as a team. When multi tower operations come into effect, there will be fewer lulls that can lead to boredom and lower attention levels. It is sometimes difficult to persuade ATCOs to work in remote places. By co-locating ATS services for multiple airports into a remote tower centre, ANSPs can sometimes offer a more attractive location where they are co located with colleagues. This can be anywhere, even downtown, so can be an incentive for staff. And as a RTC does not have to be within the airport secure area, this will be more convenient for staff. In addition, working conditions in new RTCs will tend to be better than in older towers. It is too early to say whether remote towers will impact on controller fatigue but this is something we are monitoring very closely. One advantage is that with a larger team ATCOs will be able to take a break and actually leave the ops room. Another aspect that will need to be evaluated is the contact with airport staff if ATS is provided remotely. Contact can be ensured through webcams, Skype and mutual visits. Remote towers will simplify the role of the ATCO and it is proving possible to remove some redundant tasks when designing the new controller working position for remote towers. Having said this, for new ATCO entrants to the industry, it is an attractive new job. The new generation of ATCOs are used to multi tasking across screens and applications. For the iphone generation, this is the sort of technology they expect. In Sweden the younger ATCOs are saying why have we not done this before and this new technology is not a problem for me. Some of the older ATCOs express concern about new entrants lacking experience in what they call a real tower. And if this argument sounds familiar, it is because the airlines have had exactly the same debate about flight deck automation with senior pilots concerned about the lack of hands-on flying experience amongst newly trained pilots. However, we fully understand the attachment that ATCOs have to traditional towers where they can see, hear and smell the traffic. The human element must therefore be handled sympathetically by ANSPs. All of these factors point up the fact that change management must be applied effectively and carefully, fully taking into consideration the concerns of ATCOs. All parties must be involved as early as possible and a common understanding has to be reached by all parties. The Swedish Air Traffic Controllers Association and trade unions have been closely involved in the Sweden initiative. And HungaroControl, which is at the early stages of developing remote tower operations, has invited the unions to participate in the project. It has also hired a specialist consultancy to develop a personal programme for every colleague. In the USA, NATCA is closely involved in the Leesburg remote tower demonstration. 6

7 CANSO and its Members have a good record of working with social partners, particularly in Europe, and I am confident that as more RTS are planned and rolled out that our Member ANSPs will work with social partners as they develop the new systems. Lessons learned in Sweden The first remote tower to go operational was Ornskoldsvik operated from Sundsvall in Sweden and we can already learn some useful lessons after nine months. Importantly, the ATCOs and unions have been fully involved throughout and the ANSP has had a policy of openness, consultation and dissemination of information through materials, presentations and visits. The ANSP ensured the system complied fully with existing regulations so that ATCOs can work the new system with their existing rating and licence, once they have been trained to operate the remote tower system. This means that there was no need to redefine the rules and regulations. The training plan is the same as for a traditional tower, with additional training on the new technology. ATCOs reported that the training is simpler. They said that the training was easier than anticipated and it took less time to be fully trained than they expected. ATCOs quickly built confidence and trust in the system. They reported that it is easy to grasp the system and it is easy to upgrade the system and add new functions. And the workload was lower due to the integration of functions and consistent design. ATCOs have adapted easily to the 360-degree view being presented in 225 degrees and generally saw the benefits and felt the screen gave a better overview. Depth of sight appeared not to be a problem with ATCOs adjusting to the new operational environment. These lessons are reflected in the handful of other trials. In Leesburg the more time the ATCOs were in the tower, the more comfortable they became. Conclusion These are early days for remote towers, with the first one in operation for less than a year. But we are already learning useful lessons and this gives us the opportunity to address any concerns and improve their operation as others come on stream. Partnership is one of the three pillars of CANSO s strategic plan for the ATM industry, Vision 2020, and partnership is vital to the development of remote tower operations: with regulators to ensure the new systems are safe and can provide effective air traffic services; with the airports for which we provide these services and which need to be assured that ATS will actually be enhanced; and of course, with the people who have to operate the system, ATCOs and ATISs, for whom this is a huge change. The feedback from ATCOs, both from Sweden and those operating the trial such as in Paris is very encouraging. The industry is not rushing the implementation of this new technology but is taking it one step at a time, starting with one RTC to one airport, and once we are happy with this, to explore multiple airports controlled from one RTC. 7

8 Remote towers offer huge possibilities, particularly in enabling ATS at remote airports and keeping those airports open and viable through the cost savings made. This has major implications in developing countries such as in Africa, where ANS infrastructure is underdeveloped, and remote towers can improve the connectivity that boosts tourism and provides access to markets, which in turn boosts GDP. Remote towers are a genuinely gamechanging technology for all partners and I strongly believe that everyone benefits. So, my challenge to this Remote and Virtual Tower Conference is to match the four key CANSO commitments that are embedded in Vision 2020: Thank you. Embrace change and new technologies as drivers of transformation, improved safety and enhanced efficiency Enhance safety as our number one priority Focus on delivery through structured programmes at global, regional and local levels, with strong programme management And to do this in strong partnerships with all key stakeholders. 8