[SystemSafety] Save on the window cleaning

[Pekka Pihlajasaari]

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