Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Tower Closings Delayed...

  1. #1
    David Pavlich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Mandeville, LA...humidity central
    Posts
    139

    Tower Closings Delayed...


  2. #2
    Joe Delene's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    243
    I can go either way with this, closed or not. I do think they could find $$ elsewhere, the cuts do seem minor. We have to do something. Maybe give the President a 'line item veto' if Congress can't act. If it's that important Congress can later over-ride the veto & put the item in.

    We've kicked this battered can down the road about as far as we could. The road is a dead end with nothing but swamp ahead. It's also about impossible if over half the federal budget is off the table, growing on auto-pilot all the time.

  3. #3
    Mayhemxpc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Manassas, Virginia
    Posts
    206
    And that is why we have three branches of government. None are close to perfect. Together they should work at cross purposes enough to keep liberty and freedom relatively safe. (Save me from an efficient government.)

    Anyway, to get back on point, the issue is safety, not the quickest way to cut costs. The threat of litigation has forced the FAA to do what it should have done in the beginning. And three cheers for the States and local governments who have said they will fund the towers themselves. They recognize the safety and commercial benefits of towered airports at select locations.

  4. #4
    Sirota's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    57
    I recognize the slippery slope concern about the governmenttaking anything away from aviation but I got'a tell you, this is our tax moneyand SOME of these towers are a waste of money. I can only speak about KRYN and it needs to go. There is no way there's sufficient traffic tosupport it and many of the controllers are rude and surly.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    16

    Disagree

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirota View Post
    I recognize the slippery slope concern about the governmenttaking anything away from aviation but I got'a tell you, this is our tax moneyand SOME of these towers are a waste of money. I can only speak about KRYN and it needs to go. There is no way there's sufficient traffic tosupport it and many of the controllers are rude and surly.
    KRYN needs to keep the tower. A lot of activity with parallel runways and an ILS.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    105
    According to the FAA, KYRN has over 122,466 operations per year. That makes it the 9th busiest on the list of potential closures.

    In my opinion, that is busy enough to justify a tower. That tower is open 8.5 hours each day. That is about 39 operations each hour, or approximately one take off or landing every 1.5 minutes. Seems pretty busy to me.

    If I were king, I would take that original list, and every tower with less than 50,000 operations per year would be closed (there are 107 of those). There is just not enough traffic at that level to require a controller. Every tower with over 100,000 operations would remain open (there are 24 of those). I feel they have enough operations to justify a tower. The remaining towers (106 of those), with more than 50,000 operations but less than 100,000 operations, would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Most likely the majority of those would end of being closed, too.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    850
    Not trying to be overly contrary, John, but operations per year listings are for totals, not just when the tower is open, so one can't take the 122K ops and then divvy it up only when the tower is operating.

    Granted, we would hope the tower is manned when the field is busiest, but one must be careful with statistics.

    Personally I am very amused by the seeming over-reaction to tower closings. The latest AOPA email I receivedsays something to the effect of "what to do now that the tower is gone" as training. For all the hay about "being an aviator instead of a pilot" (usually spouted out by someone with an airplane with more electronic gizmos than the space shuttle), can't folks handle a CTAF, a regular, pubished pattern, and see-and-avoid?

    C'mon into uncontrolled airspace, boys, it's gonna be okay. You'll have to do the whole looking at something more than six inches from your chest thing (it's called a window, and outside it the blue side goes up and the green down. If you look through it one will find that contrary to popular rumor aircraft can be seen and located without somebody in a tower telling one where they are.).
    The opinions and statements of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles KWHP
    Posts
    96
    There are other factors that affect the justification for a tower. At my home airport, Whiteman KWHP (which is on the closure list) we have two very busy airports within 3 miles (Burbank and Van Nuys), and a major "bottleneck" where a large amount of traffic for two airports comes and goes through a gap in the hills (Newhall Pass).

    There are numerous scenarios where mid-airs, or interfering with airline or corporate traffic, are easily possible. There are also large speed differences at play.

    I was at Whiteman before the tower was built, and I have no problem enjoying uncontrolled airports. But there are now far too many times when not having a tower would cause a risk in this particular place.
    EZ Flap is the high performance upgrade for Cessna, Piper, Stinson, Maule and Beech manual flaps.
    More performance - more control - more visibility ! 100% Money Back Guarantee www.ezflaphandle.com

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Giger View Post
    Not trying to be overly contrary, John, but operations per year listings are for totals, not just when the tower is open, so one can't take the 122K ops and then divvy it up only when the tower is operating.
    Who is counting the operations for the FAA when the tower is closed?

  10. #10
    MEdwards's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Las Cruces, NM
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by FloridaJohn View Post
    Who is counting the operations for the FAA when the tower is closed?
    I wondered the same thing. But I've seen estimates of operations at non-towered airports, so I assume the same rationale can be used for towered airports after the tower is closed. Here's a link to an FAA document on that subject:

    http://www.faa.gov/data_research/avi.../GAModel3F.doc

    The first page of this paper looks weird, it looks like an abortive abstract, but the rest of the document follows that page.

    No, this link does not explicitly answer your question, except to say, the FAA probably does, and they're estimates.

    I've seen estimates for operations at my own uncontrolled airport, and they've always seemed high to me. But when I compare them to other airports I know about the relative comparisons (higher/lower/way higher/way lower) seem reasonable, so I think these estimates may be of some value.
    Last edited by MEdwards; 04-10-2013 at 04:31 PM. Reason: corrected bad link

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •