[SystemSafety] Save on the window cleaning

[Brent Kimberley]

At what point does byzantine fault tolerance start to become an issue? 

    On Thursday, May 25, 2017 10:36 AM, Chris Hills <safetyyork at phaedsys.com> wrote:
 

 The advantages are that  if you have say 5 of these remote towers around the
country should anything happen to one another could take over.    Also
should anything happen to the physical tower at an airport it could still
operate.  Therefore if you have a remote tower for London City  (with
several sets of cameras/sensors )  it makes it a lot more difficult to
attack in a terrorist situation.  There would make sense for a remote tower
for  London City.  Makes it more difficult to attack. 

Also as pointed out for other airports , for example in rural USA,  where
traffic is low  you could have a remote tower in  a major city.  In fact you
could have 2 or 3 remote tower suites  in one building  that service 4-10
airfields and you switch between the airfields  as needed.  

For these scenarios it would mean you have a standard tower layout and
equipment fit for all towers then remote tower operators would be familiar
with the equipment and controls. Of course there will be a context switch to
a different (external) environment which may be harder to do.. 

Just some random thoughts.

Regards
  Chris 

Phaedrus Systems Ltd        
FREEphone 0808 1800 358    International +44 1827 259 546
Vat GB860621831  Co Reg #04120771
Http://www.phaedsys.com  chills at phaedsys.com 



-----Original Message-----
From: systemsafety
[mailto:systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de] On Behalf Of
Pekka Pihlajasaari
Sent: 21 May 2017 19:22
To: systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] Save on the window cleaning

There was a hint in the article. ATCs could be trained for multiple airports
(with the attendant context switch complications) and this could allow a
reduction in stand-by staff if statistically available replacements are
acceptable for the workforce planning.

It could also be that ATCs living closer to the new location are less likely
to insist on allowances for working conditions (hours, travel, what have
you) when living away from a large centre with a significant employer in the
area.

I'd be extremely surprised if a bureaucrat does not have a very
well-reasoned justification for the shift. Of course, the reasons may not be
well considered beyond the monetary savings aspect.

Regards
Pekka Pihlajasaari
--
pekka at data.co.za    Data Abstraction (Pty) Ltd    +27 11 484 9664

-----Original Message-----
From: systemsafety
[mailto:systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de] On Behalf Of
Bernd Sieker
Sent: 21 May 2017 20:16
To: systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] Save on the window cleaning

On 19.05.2017 19:45, Derek M Jones wrote:
> All,
>
> Wot could go wrong?
> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/19/remote-air-traffic-co
> ntrol-preparing-for-takeoff-at-london-city-airport
>
>
So we've talked a lot about the drawbacks. What I don't quite understand are
the supposed benefits. Is this just "we can do it, so we will do it"? I can
sort of understand it for remote desert airports in the US, where the
nearest city is far away, and where it may be preferable to no ATC at all.

But London City? Why? It's literally in the middle of one of the biggest
cities.

To me it looks like a solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist.


Bernd


_______________________________________________
The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE
_______________________________________________
The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE

_______________________________________________
The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE

   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/private/systemsafety/attachments/20170525/8b18d989/attachment.html>