The basis of this fact check are statements made in response to parliamentary inquiries (“questions parlementaires”). The GLCCA would like to clarify some points here and dispel misunderstandings.
„Règlement 2024/2803 relatif à la mise en œuvre du ciel unique européen qui vise à moderniser la gestion du trafic aérien (ATM) dans l’Union européenne en renforçant l’efficacité, la durabilité et la sécurité du système.“
For clarification: Regulation 2024/2803 is the EU regulation for the implementation of the modernization of the Single European Sky. As part of this modernization, the Digital European Sky aims for more efficient, sustainable, and safer air traffic in Europe, including fewer delays, optimized flight routes, the integration of aircraft such as drones, as well as improved data networking.
Virtual or remote towers are only one of many optional technologies and are not a mandatory or central element. An airport can fully participate in the digital airspace without operating a virtual tower; what matters is the connection to digital systems and data exchange, for example via SWIM, which links air traffic, weather services, airports, and other stakeholders. Large airports such as Frankfurt or Paris-CDG make full use of SWIM without employing virtual towers!
„La numérisation des services de navigation permet d’augmenter et d’automatiser les flux gérés ; tant dans le ciel que sur les pistes.“
Modern digital technologies such as advanced surveillance systems, precise navigation, and automation as support indeed help manage air traffic in the sky and on runways more efficiently.
However, this is not inherently related to virtual towers. Virtual or remote towers are simply one way to conduct air traffic control remotely using cameras and digital interfaces; they are not a prerequisite for digitalization or for increasing ground capacity.
Major airports like Zurich have recently opted against introducing a virtual tower, yet still make extensive use of digital systems and continue to operate physical towers due to operational requirements.
„Le Conseil de gouvernement a en même temps décidé l’abandon du projet de construction d’une tour de contrôle dite « classique » sur le site précité.“
Should this site now actually be abandoned, it is likely also because the municipality of Sandweiler was never fully informed about the consequences, such as the relocation of the “training circuit” for general aviation to the north, instead of continuing to fly over the heads of local residents. The chosen site is, as is well known, located within the municipality of Sandweiler and not on the airport grounds, yet approval to proceed was granted by the previous government.
Interestingly, for a large company like Google in Bissen, it was possible to successfully reclassify land for their needs.
„Même l’autorité américaine de l’aviation civile FAA, longtemps réticente envers la numérisation et enjointe par le FAA Reauthorization Act de 2024 d’avancer sur la certification de services numériques comme les tours de contrôles virtuelles.“
The term “digital services” is not directly connected to virtual control towers (as previously explained); these are merely one possible area of application within digital technologies. The FAA began experimenting with remote tower systems in pilot projects in Virginia and Colorado in 2018. Although both sites were operational, certification was delayed due to evolving FAA requirements and abandoned in 2023.
In 2024, Congress called on the FAA to establish a clear approval process. At the beginning of 2025, the FAA started evaluating systems at a central test center and is aiming for approval around 2027. However, approval is not guaranteed; final certification will depend on the test results and compliance with strict safety standards.
„Charleroi et Liège seront bientôt gérés à partir d’un centre de gestion à distance situé près de Namur ; et des projets sont en cours en Estonie, Roumanie, Espagne, Irlande, Pays-Bas, Italie, Danemark, etc.“
In countries like Norway, where small regional airports are operated, a virtual or remote tower makes perfect sense, as we have emphasized several times before.
The Charleroi Airport has been pursuing a remote tower project since 2018, originally planned to be operational in 2019. However, the schedule has been pushed back multiple times, and full operation is now expected by the end of 2026.
Charleroi is used almost exclusively by low-cost airlines such as Ryanair and Wizz Air, which deliberately seek out cost-effective airports, possibly a reason for the decision in favor of a virtual tower. Furthermore, cargo traffic plays hardly any role at Charleroi Airport, meaning that potential outages would have less overall economic impact than at more integrated locations such as Luxembourg!
Spain: In July 2025, there were repeated disruptions to operations in Vigo, so that the old tower had to be temporarily used again. At locations like Menorca and Alicante, the experiment with virtual towers has been put on hold for the time being.
Interestingly, the mega-project of the new CPK airport in Poland will not receive a virtual tower, but rather a traditional tower with a height of 105 meters. The airport is being built in the Central Poland region and is set to become one of Europe’s largest aviation hubs. The project is being implemented entirely in accordance with European aviation laws and regulations.
„Munich, un des plus grands en Europe, est en train de réaliser un projet de contrôle aérien virtuel de contingence, afin de pouvoir procéder à la rénovation de la tour de contrôle classique.“
Munich Airport has commissioned Frequentis DFS Aerosense to install a validation system for a virtual tower. High-resolution 360° and PTZ cameras on the existing tower will transmit image data to a remote control room at the DFS branch in Munich, allowing the operational and technical possibilities in 2025 to be tested, including for potential temporary use during the planned tower renovation.
However, no decision has yet been made as to whether air traffic control will actually be managed via the virtual tower during the renovation; this is still under evaluation.
„Le seul gros œuvre fermé revient à plus d’un million EUR par mètre de hauteur (hors équipements).“
As an example: The tower at Dublin Airport is about 87 meters tall and cost around 50 million euros to construct.
Aside from that, the minister has announced that more than one billion euros will be invested in airport infrastructure by 2032.
This raises the question: does it really matter if a few million more are spent on a new tower, or is safety in fact being compromised while investments are made in terminal expansions and new lounges?
With an investment volume of one billion euros and numerous new buildings, it should surely be possible to find a suitable location for a physical tower on one of the structures.
„La flexibilité en matière d’interchangeabilité des équipements et de leur mise à jour / modernisation est considérablement plus élevée dans une tour virtuelle.“
The claim that virtual towers inherently offer significantly greater flexibility in system modernization falls short. In fact, due to the complex system architecture and the intensive oversight by authorities such as the DAC, the process of making changes is often not accelerated but rather prolonged. According to EU Regulation 2017/373, any modification must undergo a safety assessment as part of the management-of-change process. As system diversity increases, practical flexibility in component interchangeability therefore actually decreases.
« En résumé, les nouvelles technologies digitales ne mettent pas en péril la sécurité des opérations aériennes, mais contribuent à améliorer la sécurité dans tous les domaines. De surcroît, des services physiques tel que le « follow me » pourront être remplacés par des guidages digitaux plus efficaces et sûrs, et p.ex. éviter des accidents du type collision entre bus et avion.“
This statement is very surprising or even incorrect. In Europe, as is the case in Luxembourg, according to current EU regulations 139/2014 and 2020/1234, the airport operator (in this case LuxAirport) is responsible for Apron Management Services (AMS). This service is usually provided by the airport itself or by affiliated companies. Although the regulations allow for AMS to be outsourced to external providers, this is not the case in Luxembourg.
A virtual tower would therefore not result in any change regarding responsibility or safety in connection with ground vehicles such as buses. The risk of a collision between a bus and an aircraft exists regardless of the tower model used, since ATC is not responsible for bus guidance under the current operating model. Buses are generally not in direct contact with air traffic control, but are subject to the procedures and control of the airport operator.
Should there be political efforts to transfer responsibility for AMS to the ANSP, which would be an exception in the European context, a virtual tower would still not offer any operational advantage over a conventional tower in this case.
The “more efficient digital guidance” mentioned in the statement presumably refers to other digital systems (e.g., Visual Docking Guidance Systems (VDGS), follow the greens). Such systems can indeed contribute to increased safety, but they fall within the responsibility of the airport operator and can be implemented independently of a virtual tower.
In summary, it can be stated: The cited statement mixes technological possibilities with institutional responsibilities and creates causal relationships that do not actually exist in this form.
„Le potentiel d’incorporation d’innovations technologiques est quasiment infini dans une tour virtuelle, alors qu’il est limité aux technologies traditionnelles en voie de disparition„
The possibilities seem virtually limitless, but not every technology available on the market needs to be integrated into a tower, whether virtual or conventional. It is important to understand that it is primarily the manufacturers of ground radar systems who actively promote new technologies like remote towers or AI-powered tools.
Why do they do this?
The market for ground radar systems used to be very lucrative and highly competitive. Today, however, almost every major airport is already equipped with the relevant technology. To secure their long-term revenue streams, these companies are compelled to reposition themselves and develop new products.
We know that AI-driven features, such as visual aircraft identification directly on the remote tower window screen, may seem impressive to outside observers. In practice, however, they are often unnecessary and can even be perceived as distracting by controllers, especially in complex situations, for example when several aircraft are ready for takeoff at the same time near the runway and result in cluttering of labels.
Therefore, it is not necessary to follow every technological innovation uncritically. Only after careful evaluation of their actual added value does it become clear that only a handful of innovations are truly worth pursuing.
We are keeping a close watch on technological developments and will get involved when new solutions emerge on the market that offer real operational benefits for air traffic control.