If it is anything like my internet connection in rural England it won't work if it rains———

Hmm, I can think of anumber of reasons for doing that, not least security and safety.

They will have triple-redundant connections that don't rely on the national grid being up.

Still doesn't stop a contractor unplugging a wire or a seagull dumping on the camera lens though…

Neil

Edited By Neil Wyatt on 19/05/2017 08:43:57

My experience with remote monitoring by CCTV systems for security and vehicle movement is that depth perception is often lost or inhibited, which makes estimating speed and distance quite uncertain. Nothing like seeing with your own two eyes to get the most accurate understanding of movement, whether it's potential intruders, vehicles or aircraft. Nevertheless, this is not always possible in certain weather conditions, so reliance on electronic systems for tracking aircraft movement is usually the norm whether we like it or not.

Wonder if they're using XP as the stable drive system.

Regards Ian.

Our office aircon is controlled from somewhere else in a random fashion. It is amusing sometimes to see people fruitlessly twiddling the wall thermostats.

One of the aircraft stacking points is above our track. A bucket of water left out make you appreciate the amount of unburned fuel oil raining down over a ten mile radius.

Just to add to my previous, the extract below is from the Aeroplane magazine 'Roger Bacon' column many years ago. It was prompted by the use by BOAC and BEA of the PF/PNF system which (at that time) was almost unknown elsewhere. It subsequently proved to be a real life-saver but mocked at the time as too complex and confusing. Unarguably, this version of the instructions could be regarded as a little less than clear!!!

rgds

Bill

Would that be a strong and stable drive system like a certain health system?

Edited By Brian Oldford on 19/05/2017 14:55:12

Just a quick note from someone who has been involved in air traffic control (building the new Prestwick centre in the early 2000s) At that time all traffic across the Atlantic was put into "Pipes" and the details noted on a computer to alert the controller on the other side to expect the aircraft at a certain time. The system employed when I was there was a dBase III+ application which worked very well. All computers in NATS were networked within the organization with NO LINK to the internet to avoid infiltration of viruses or hackers. To send an email out of NATS you had to find a standalone PC and use that – disc drives and USBs were disabled. In the control room each controller had a sector which covered a part of the UK and traffic was handed off using blocks of wood with a card attached detailing the aircraft/destination etc. These blocks were literally handed to the next controller who slotted them into the traffic flow in their sector. The power to the building was from 2 separate supplies with battery backup and in the event of a total power loss the last system to go down was the radios. The controllers were able to effectively control all aircraft using just the radio and these blocks. In case you think it couldn't be done I personally witnessed this working when we switched from one supply to the other which failed and we couldn't reconnect the first supply. The battery backup for the control screens also failed at that point but control was maintained calmly while us engineers tried work out why it had failed and how to correct it which we did in about 40 minutes. The controllers were calm while we were acting like headless chickens – a most impressive feat. As I recall the airport controllers at the Heathrow didn't have windows in the control room so would have great difficulty working visually. As they say the most dangerous part of any flight is the drive to the airport.

John

Is is cheaper to employ someone 80miles away, if not I can not understand why they are doing it. They still have bodies employed doing the job.

Looks like it will be stanstead from now on!

Bri

Probably not as daft as it seems. Don't air traffic controllers already sit in front of screens rather than look out of the window? And aren't railways long since run from a small number of control centres? I guess if the remote system fails the problem is no different to fog, which I hope they know how to deal with already. There might even be advantages – you can have many more cameras on the ground than eyeballs and cameras can see in the dark. Much cheaper outside London and the people operating the system are less likely to get stuck in traffic on their way to work.

Anyway I don't care – you wouldn't get me up in one of those things!

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 19/05/2017 18:45:45