Contract Control Tower Closures Likely [Archive]

Mike Switzer

03-20-2013, 10:37 PM

I am, as part of the airport community, supposed to be opposed to the closing of our tower. I feel for the guys that are going to lose their jobs. But honestly, (other than training ops, which will affect our club & the Air Guard unit) for the most part the only effect it will have here will be the pilots will have to get their cell phones out to get IFR clearance. And ADM corporate flight ops will need to do a bit more coordination to fly in to Midway or O'Hare when they have ground stops in effect. I have flown out of here many times before 6AM when the tower opens, myself, the couple corporate jets, ADM, & the UPS 757s & their occasional DC8's (back in the day when they still used them) & the Shorts Skyvan all talked on the radio & avoided conflict.

Honestly, SPI has less traffic than we do here at DEC. CMI has barely more traffic, and at times Litchfield (untowered) has more traffic than any of those 3. I don't see why CMI. SPI, BMI, or DEC have towers, and as far as I can see CMI & SPI don't need class C.

Just my personal opinion, which I am sure I will get heat over after hitting the enter button...

Joe Delene

03-21-2013, 04:11 AM

The "sequester" may not be the best option or pretty at times, but let's keep in mind how we got here. The inability to act over the years, by Congress & the President(s) brought us here. Many of the recent cuts are orchestrated to be visible and seemingly painful. If we can't do it the proper way, it still will have to be done. These minor reductions in the rate of spending increases are just a small harbinger of what's to come.

A presidential 'line item veto' would help, like many governors have. Even though congress is unable to act on spending, they don't want to give away the ability to stuff 'pork' into a bill. Buckle up, the road needs repair ahead.

martymayes

03-21-2013, 06:20 AM

Pick your poision - I'd rather see a reduction in services before politicians resort to "user fees" to support these (mostly unnecessary) services.

FloridaJohn

03-21-2013, 07:01 AM

I have looked closely at the list of proposed tower closings, and for the most part, it is my opinion that they should, indeed, be closed.

There is one airport on the list that has two operations per hour, on average, while the tower is open. An "operation" is either a landing or a departure, so two operations per hour could mean the only traffic the tower sees in an hour is the same plane coming in for a landing and the taking back off a short time later. Even a simple touch and go would count as two operations.

Some of the busier airports on the list are a bit questionable, as those are pretty busy airports. The busiest airport on the list has an average of 27 operations per hour. That is a plane either taking off or landing every two minutes. That tower should probably be retained, in my opinion.

But for the most part, the towers on the list are unnecessary.

Joe LaMantia

03-21-2013, 07:21 AM

I think your have a valid point regarding low levels of operation. I trained at a class D airport back in 1992 and was based there (KUES) for about 8 years. Back then the GA activity level was much higher then today and the weekends were very busy with a big mix of aircraft types. The tower was very helpful in getting aircraft into the pattern and giving the pilots more situational awareness. Like Ron, I mostly fly into uncontrolled airports and I'm based at one as well. During the week, traffic is rare, and even weekends it's pretty light. It would make sense to take a look at traffic volume and timing and reduce tower activity where it makes sense. Unfortunately, our govt. system tends to swing the axe blindly then react when the "blow-back" hits the fan.

Joe
:cool:

WLIU

03-21-2013, 07:58 AM

Flying in and out of a non-towered airport is easy. Folks get nervous when their routine is disturbed or their workload changes.

I like the folks in our local control tower, but from a financial and traffic count point of view, I have to say that the local tower makes no sense. Must be really boring to sit there and see nothing going on hour after hour.

Since towers are expensive to build and operate, they need to work. And unfortunately, towers with low traffic counts don't work enough. I will guess that folks in this forum have done their best to contribute to aviation but with the economy of the last few years the unfortunate reality is that flying is way down. And that means that aviation support services like contract towers can not avoid following the trend forever. Many towns view an airport control tower as a status symbol, but only so long as they do not have to pay the bill. Hard to see how this can work in the long term.

The tower folks that I know are smart enough to have side businesses. These are not dumb people and I have heard the comment that at least one tower staffer is having a hard time juggling his other business with his tower hours. We can hope that other contract tower staff demonstrates similar motivation.

When they start cutting Social Security and Medicare, no one will be complaining about contract towers anymore. Tighten your seatbelts.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

Chris Henry

03-21-2013, 08:48 AM

Something everyone is overlooking is safety. Is an uncontrolled field safe? Sure. As long as everyone follows the rules. Is an uncontrolled field as safe as a controlled field? No. And right away everyone gets all fired up, but hear me out. Yes some of these towers may have had lower traffic numbers. But, Towers do more than just seperate traffic. Towers ensure everyone is doing the right thing while flying but they also have the task of taking care of folks on the ground, reporting changing weather that a computer will not keep up with, scanning departing aircraft to ensure all is safe with them, ensuring that the runway enviroment is safe, and emergencies. I can not tell you how many times I have stopped a departure due to something being forgotten during walk around or pre-flight. It is a built in layer of safety, and it is going away. - Chris ATC, EAA

WLIU

03-21-2013, 09:09 AM

Repeat after me... Towers are not responsible for separation of traffic in the air. They are not. Look it up. You are responsible. The nice folks in the tower control access to the runway. All of the traffic pattern point outs are helpful but not required. And I operate in and out of a tower airport where at least one controller talks so much that you can't announce on downwind, which is a problem in and of itself....

Airports that do not have control towers are safe. They really are. You are supposed to look out the windshield and see traffic. It really works. If some of our bad friends are less familiar with good operating practices than they should be, we should help them get better. A tower controller may take time to point out the error of their ways, or may not. But we all own helping everyone do better.

I appreciate that some folks like the guy in the control tower as a sort of "safety blanket", but an ATC guy can not put gas in your tank, can not move hills out of your way in less than perfect weather, is not going to crash with you, and can not make the traffic pattern work any better than your contribution allows it to.

We will make the airspace safe whether or not a control tower is operating. After all, a pilot is the first person to the scene of an accident, so we are all motivated to be elsewhere.

Our friends in the towers are very helpful. And we like the service. But it appears that some folks think that we can not affort the service, so we get to see how life is without.

Be safe,

Wes
N78PS

martymayes

03-21-2013, 09:33 AM

Is an uncontrolled field as safe as a controlled field? No. People get fired up because that's an emotional response. You could get more support if you had data to support your claim.

Chris Henry

03-21-2013, 09:35 AM

"The primary purpose of the ATC system is to prevent a collision between aircraft" FAA 7110.65 Section 2-1-1

Chris Henry

03-21-2013, 09:39 AM

I have worked at both a controlled and uncontrolled field. And I just proved why one is safer than the other. The ground aspect of it alone should prove that. I am not trash talking anyone here. I am a fan of both types of airports. I just want people to realize it is not just this "No big deal we can fly without them" feeling. Many companies won't even think of basing at an airport without a tower for insurance reasons. So by closing a tower, your airport may also be losing business.

WLIU

03-21-2013, 10:38 AM

An interesting point is that 7110 is NOT a regulation. It guides and provides work instruction for ATC staff. It is an FAA document that controllers live by.

I once had and interesting conversation with an ATC friend over drinks about how I was legally unable to accept a type of airspace clearance due to the constraints of 14 CFR 91.303. He did not have a clue about what I was talking abount until I showed him the text of the FAR he was saying he thought that he could clear me to violate. He did not read Part 91, just 7110. No sale. FARs do not equal the 7110 book.

But back on the main topic here, we are forced to acknowledge that safety has a cost, and that not everyone can afford gold pated safety vs adequate safety. If we safety were free we would likely all be flying with airplanes that were crash proof, could find the runway in any weather, and would never run out of gas. Unfortunately, our politicians seem to have identified a level of safety that we can not afford. And it appears hard to come up with a clear calculation that convincingly weighs against the current plan. Wishing does not appear to be making the case.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

cub builder

03-21-2013, 11:04 AM

Given a choice between user fees vs the towers I see slated for closure, I'll take the tower closures. I hate seeing these guys lose there jobs, especially over such stupid political posturing. Do they add a layer to safety? Sometimes. Are they worth what it costs to have them? Not in my opinion, but yes in the opinion of many others.

However, the problem I have with the closures is that there was no safety analysis or traffic study done to see what is needed or not needed. Instead, the FAA decided that lopping off the contract guys would be easy. So, the FAA does the easy thing rather than the right thing.

I see the tower closest to me is slated to be closed. Another tower a bit further away is slated to stay open even though they have less traffic, much less IFR jet traffic, and no airline service as opposed to the closer tower. The only reason this other tower will stay open is because it is FAA staffed. The closures are being handled as a highly public knee jerk reaction rather than based on traffic or safety. I take serious issue with that kind of decision making. IMHO, the closures should be set aside until some sort of analysis or justification is completed. This is a really poor way to make decisions that may put the public at risk.

-CubBuilder

martymayes

03-21-2013, 11:07 AM

I have worked at both a controlled and uncontrolled field. And I just proved why one is safer than the other. Me too. Doesn't prove anything.
The value of an ATCT goes up with the number of aircraft. The proposed cuts are at low activity locations, I predict very little, if any change in safety.

FloridaJohn

03-21-2013, 11:56 AM

Is an uncontrolled field as safe as a controlled field? No.
What do you estimate the change in the accident rate would be if every field had a control tower?

Bill Greenwood

03-21-2013, 12:28 PM

New pilots might find it hard to believe, but in past years the majority of airports did not have towers. You actually taxied, took off, flew, and landed on your own resorces, such as looking out the window, flying a logical pattern, and listening for any other traffic that does announce on the radio.
Believe it or not, we also had a time before cell phones when people actually walked or worked or drove their cars without a gadget on their ear. A phone was something that you didn't carry around but that you could actually here on when using it.

A tower can be useful where there is a lot of traffic, especially jet IFR traffic, and imc weather, but many towers are as much a hindrance as a help in places where there is basic flying or off peak times.
The presence of a tower at a field where there is flight training is going to add time and cost to flying there.

I have flown into Fon du Lac in the years before there was a temporary tower there, as well as when it was there. I prefer no tower, but at least the controllers there seem to like private gen aviation planes and even pilots. That is not always true at other places.
I have done some rides for the controllers at FLD and OSH, and they all seemed to have enjoyed it, though I never got a thank you note. I think most of the controllers are not pilots and it may be helpful for them to see the Airventure scene as a pilot sees it.

I almost always phone Flight Service before I fly; not being smart enough to get my briefing by mobile gadget. IN 34 years of flying I have found that FSS, both govt and now private contract are 90% of the time polite and trying to be helpful.
I don't get the same positive experience with tower controllers or approach. I'd say it used to be maybe 80% positive in the past, now maybe 60%.
Oshkosh controllers are almost all great, they know what they are doing in a very high traffic environment that may have many different types of planes and pilots and they seem to actually like what they are doing.
That is quite different than with some controllers.
I took an IFR refresher course some years back in Ill. and the presenter was a controller. One thing he emphasized was that 92% of controllers are not pilots.

martymayes

03-21-2013, 02:16 PM

Floatsflyer

03-21-2013, 02:31 PM

In Aug. 1981, 13,000 PATCO controllers were fired while ~1300 stayed on the job. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall any sudden surge in accidents related to not having any controllers.

Marty, you can't just tell part of a story because that part supports or suits your view or opinion. You invited it, so allow me to correct you with the full factual story. Reagan had at the ready military controllers to replace them and when he fired the PATCO guys, he IMMEDIATELY inserted them into the system. There was no pause, no hesitation so therefore no sudden surge in accidents.

Chris Henry

03-21-2013, 02:35 PM

Floatsflyer

03-21-2013, 03:13 PM

Working on the job I have caught time and time again aircraft going out for departure with pitot covers on, engine covers on, lights out during a night flight, a tow bar still installed, and gear not extended. I don't bring these events up to bash a pilot, I bring it up to provide an example where an extra set of eyes backed a pilot up. We have had people with no radio enter the pattern, emergency landings where we had to change runways, and the list could go on and on. The point is that there was a level of safety there. I am not sure how anyone can not see how it is safer. On top of that many businesses will not operate into a field with no tower, and more will not base there for that reason.

I just love hearing anecdotal stuff like this from a guy who's actually been there and is in a professional position to say how it really is and not how it might or would or should be without controllers. I'm with you Chris, of course you guys make it safer.

Really?...pitot covers, engine covers, attached towbars!!!, really? Holy s**t that's unbelievable and scary. Can you imagine how those cavalier pilots conduct their lives outside of aviation?

martymayes

03-21-2013, 03:42 PM

Marty, you can't just tell part of a story because that part supports or suits your view or opinion. You invited it, so allow me to correct you with the full factual story. Reagan had at the ready military controllers to replace them and when he fired the PATCO guys, he IMMEDIATELY inserted them into the system. There was no pause, no hesitation so therefore no sudden surge in accidents.

Are you saying there was no change in the number of controllers?

In relative terms, the number being cut now can dance together on the head of a pin.

FloridaJohn

03-21-2013, 03:51 PM

I am not sure how anyone can not see how it is safer.
Can you quantify how much safer it is with controllers?

DRGT

03-21-2013, 04:26 PM

I currently fly in/out of 2 class D airports on a regular basis. One is scheduled for closure (contract tower) whereas the other is not. I don't have the numbers, but I would say their traffic counts are pretty close. Monday - Friday, during peak hour, both are fairly busy. Saturday/SUnday - both are fairly quiet. As you can probably guess, most of the Monday - Friday traffic is corporate jets enabling a stronger business communitie. I, on the other hand, fly an old, slow, fat twin (Apache).

Numerous times I have been 3 - 5 miles out talking to the tower and I have been vectored out of the way of the Phonm 8 - 10 miles out. Somebody dispute this if you have had different experieices, but it seems to me - Always, always, always - faster corporate traffic is given priority over the smaller, slower part 91 aircraft. A few weeks ago I was sent around 3 times! Guess what is going to happen when the tower closes - I say with a grin. Guess who is going to have to slow down, look out the window, and fit in with us slow pokes. I understand why the corporate guys hate the tower closures and I understand their safety concerns. But from the perspective of a guy whose final approach speed is under 100kts - tower closures - so what.

Floatsflyer

03-21-2013, 04:48 PM

Are you saying there was no change in the number of controllers? .

Don't change the subject of your prior post. I just said what you conveniently neglected to say or didn't know.

Floatsflyer

03-21-2013, 04:51 PM

Can you quantify how much safer it is with controllers?

Can you quantify how safe it would be without controllers?

FloridaJohn

03-21-2013, 05:27 PM

Can you quantify how safe it would be without controllers?
i wasn't the one making the claim that towers are safer.

However, there are plenty of airports that operate without control towers. Having a control tower does not completely eliminate accidents. How does the accident rate compare between airports with towers and airports without? At what level of traffic does a tower improve safety? Is there an appreciable difference between towered and non-towered accident rates below that level? What would be the difference in accident rates be if we put a tower at every airport?

martymayes

03-21-2013, 06:02 PM

Don't change the subject of your prior post. I just said what you conveniently neglected to say or didn't know.

Not changing the subject and I'm not the one dragging anecdotal "facts" into the discussion. When PATCO was canned, 10,000+ controllers were off the job overnight and flying did not suddenly become dangerous.

The closure of ~200 ATCT's in this country won't even be noticed. Cut the gloom and doom, you're sounding like a mainstream press release.

Bill Greenwood

03-21-2013, 06:27 PM

DRGT, you are right on point with that observation.

pacerpilot

03-21-2013, 06:31 PM

NO CONTROL TOWER!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!! Oh wait...I fly out of an uncontrolled airport and don't have a radio. Never mind.

Bob Dingley

03-21-2013, 06:54 PM

I saw the partial list and some are going to hurt. Over in nearby Mobile, KBFM Downtown APT is on the list. A former B-52 base once called Brookley AFB has lots of significant traffic. USCG trains there out of their base at Bates KMOB. FEDEX, UPS and some others base there, The biggest employer in town, a Singapore owned outfit does heavy maint on airliners. Oh yeah, Airbus has broken ground on an assembly plant and they will be the new biggest employer. It got so crowded that TCM moved across Mobile Bay. Lot of $$ in the air on any given day..

WLIU

03-21-2013, 07:11 PM

Well the FAA does NOT have to fund a control tower. In my state there is an airport where I understand the city and the local business share the costs somehow. The staff has to meet FAA standards for sure, but it appears that the ownership and operation can be outside the FAA.

Large busy airports have larger revenues from fuel flowage and other fees. So I will hazard a guess that a place like KBFM sounds like it is might be able to self fund their tower. After all, you guys do not have to budget for snow removal like we do up here in Yankee-land (another foot came out of the sky yesterday - the sky IS falling!).

I would hope that once the wailing and gnashing of teeth settles down, airport managements take a hard look at their needs for a tower and where they really really see a need, they can find budget $$. That's why those guys make the big $$.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

Mayhemxpc

03-21-2013, 07:35 PM

Well now, Wes brings up an interesting point. But I wonder if the Federal Government will allow municipalities to take over some of these operations. Yes, I know that some State and local governments DO run their own control towers, that is not the issue. Will the Feds (not just the FAA) ALLOW backfilling them? Or...is the intent to make us feel their pain?

I think maybe the latter, otherwise they would shut down some of the less busy FAA towers and move the staff to the busier contract towers. I hope that I am mistaken and they are, in fact, planning to do that.

Will we see military tower operators at dual use airfields -- at least during military training periods? You DO want to be kept separated from the F-16 coming in at 180kts....using an overhead approach.

Floatsflyer

03-21-2013, 10:59 PM

When PATCO was canned, 10,000+ controllers were off the job overnight and flying did not suddenly become dangerous.

Geez man, what does it take to get through to you?? I can't believe you brought up your Patco argument again even after I previously let you know why flying didn't become dangerous. Srub, rinse, repeat!!

JimmyH

03-22-2013, 12:15 AM

I fly out of an uncontrolled airport. I have two towers closing near me and every time I have been to either one it has been very quiet. I don't think the level of safety will be diminished in any way. Most bad decisions I read about the tower could have done nothing about such as stall on base to final . As long as people follow the regulations that are already in place such as making radio calls if equipped and looking for other traffic around us, we will all be fine. Safety and sound decisions starts with us .

I find it odd that no matter where I go on forums people can never just have a discussion and leave the bickering at the door. Everyone thinks their opinion is correct. Respect on both sides is important. The reality at the end of the day is that more than likley they will be closed .

malexander

03-22-2013, 05:23 AM

Where's kscessna......whatever his name is guy? HE seems to always have ALL the answers.:)
This thread is up to 4 pages & I haven't seen him chime in with anything.

FloridaJohn

03-22-2013, 06:29 AM

But I wonder if the Federal Government will allow municipalities to take over some of these operations.
My understanding is that was how it was done before the contract tower program. If a city wanted a tower, they paid for it. The FAA still oversaw the operation of it, but the local government funded it. There is nothing preventing from doing the same thing now.

FloridaJohn

03-22-2013, 06:36 AM

I saw the partial list and some are going to hurt. Over in nearby Mobile, KBFM Downtown APT is on the list.
KBFM tower has 76,741 operations per year. It is number 62 on the list (1 having most operations, 238 having least). The tower is open around 15 hours per day (it varies based on the day of the week), so that is approximately 14 operations per hour, or one around every four minutes.

Seems reasonably busy to me, but has about half the traffic the airport on the top of the list has.

Just putting some context to the discussion.

Joe LaMantia

03-22-2013, 08:07 AM

Well this pot has certainly been stirred-up! Here's a few thoughts, do we know which towers are or will be closed and what class of airspace is impacted? I doubt there will be any reductions at the (B)ig airports. Maybe some reduction of hours/staffs at class C. Biggest number should be class D where there is a bigger mix of aircraft types and the tower helps with situational awareness. Now the FAA's mission is to "insure safety, and promote aviation", which in reality means commercial aviation, GA is the tail of the dog. Class D airports, particularly those around cities with lots of business activity have the larger mix of aircraft types, with speed differences that can cause problems in the pattern. A tower controller advises traffic and tries to keep a balance of take-offs and landings which in fact provides traffic separation even if that is not cast in the FAR cement. Safety will be reduced at airports with higher operational activity and a large mix of aircraft types. Today we've got very low activity in the single engine fixed gear aircraft mostly flying out of uncontrolled airspace. Many of the owners/pilots of these aircraft are flying 10 or 15 hours a year and what is going to happen at some point will be on the news.

Joe
:cool:

martymayes

03-22-2013, 08:53 AM

Where's kscessna......whatever his name is guy?

Last I heard he was flying his blimp into a headwind....could be weeks before he gets down.

FloridaJohn

03-22-2013, 09:08 AM

Well this pot has certainly been stirred-up! Here's a few thoughts, do we know which towers are or will be closed and what class of airspace is impacted?
The FAA has already released a list of 238 "potential" closings. All airports are Class D. The FAA's criteria for putting an airport on the list was less than 150,000 operations per year or less than 10,000 commercial operations per year. After the FAA put an airport on the list, the airport was to write a letter to the FAA explaining why they thought the tower should remain in place.

The FAA will be releasing the final list today (March 22), along with the date the towers will close.

deafpilot

03-22-2013, 09:40 AM

The FAA has already released a list of 238 "potential" closings. All airports are Class D. The FAA's criteria for putting an airport on the list was less than 150,000 operations per year or less than 10,000 commercial operations per year. After the FAA put an airport on the list, the airport was to write a letter to the FAA explaining why they thought the tower should remain in place.

All airports on that downgrade list are classified as both Class C and D, not just Class D.

Rochester, Buffalo and Syracuse airports are currently classified as Class C airspace. They will be downgraded to Class D, which is considered as a great new for me - because I'm a deaf private pilot. :)

FloridaJohn

03-22-2013, 11:26 AM

All airports on that downgrade list are classified as both Class C and D, not just Class D.

Rochester, Buffalo and Syracuse airports are currently classified as Class C airspace. They will be downgraded to Class D, which is considered as a great new for me - because I'm a deaf private pilot. :)

I couldn't find Buffalo, Rochester, or Syracuse on the list of potential closures. Maybe that is because they are downgrading the airspace, not closing the towers at those airports.

deafpilot

03-22-2013, 12:07 PM

I couldn't find Buffalo, Rochester, or Syracuse on the list of potential closures. Maybe that is because they are downgrading the airspace, not closing the towers at those airports.

Towers to be closed down:
http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/Facilities_Could_Be_Closed.pdf

Overnight shifts - eliminated (Class C -> Class D)
http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/Facilities_Where_Shifts_Could_Be_Eliminated.pdf

Mike Switzer

03-22-2013, 12:27 PM

The tower at SPI is on the list, it is class C.

malexander

03-22-2013, 01:48 PM

Last I heard he was flying his blimp into a headwind....could be weeks before he gets down.

:):) Thanks Marty, just curious.

David Pavlich

03-22-2013, 02:03 PM

The Hammond, LA airport is supposed to have a tower built in 2014. You've got to wonder if that's been back burnered? It's already been posted, but needs to be repeated; this whole sequester thing is being done in a way to inflict maximum pain on the public. It's like when a local municipality wants a tax increase. What's the first thing they tell the proletariat? We have to cut the police, firemen and teachers. It's never the beauracracy or bike paths or fishing piers. It's to make sure that we insist that the government gets more of our money. At what point does it stop? I wish that I had the answer.

David

Tom Charpentier

03-22-2013, 02:08 PM

Final closure decision: http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=14414

Wilfred

03-22-2013, 02:17 PM

The list is out and OSHKOSH tower is on the list of tower to be closed !!!! If other arrangements are not make that's going to be fun this summer !

Bill Greenwood

03-22-2013, 02:31 PM

Tom Charpentier

03-22-2013, 02:32 PM

Bill

03-22-2013, 02:45 PM

The closure of Oshkosh Tower will NOT adversely effect AirVenture. The controllers for the event are brought in under a separate arrangement and are for the most part unrelated from the year-round contract tower here. There WILL be ATC at the convention. See you here in July!

We all breath a sigh of relief!

Wonder what's going to happen at SUN n FUN this year since Lakeland is on the closure list.

Joe LaMantia

03-22-2013, 03:09 PM

David,

In Chicago, they always lay-off the garbage collectors first, then the teachers and then the public safety people. That way they get the maximum public outrage the quickest. In this situation, both party's agreed not to agree and voted for the sequester in an attempt to put pressure on the "other guy". Now their dancing around blaming the "other guy". In the publics' view of aviation, "closing towers" scares the stuff out of them, since they have no idea what airspace classification is or how it works. The average guy on the street will be thinking that flying from O'Hare to JFK will be "uncontrolled". We know that the first mid-air will probably not involve a big commercial airliner, but maybe a little regional jet with some guy in a Skyhawk flying into a Class D on a Saturday morning. The press will have a field day and the bunch in D.C. will point fingers and hold hearings.

Now as far as that new tower construction for 2014, that is a different budget within the FAA. They are currently scrambling to deal with this years current operating budget, but I'm sure that at some point the "capital improvement budget" will come under the knife. That means a push-out of Next-Gen and a slow down on building brick and mortar facilities of any kind.

Joe
:(

Tom Charpentier

03-22-2013, 03:13 PM

SnF has announced they will have controllers too. They handle show traffic similar to the way we do.

One general comment from our end on this subject - while we understand the debate here on the necessity of towers at many airports (and having learned to fly at a busy untowered field myself, I definitely see both sides of the coin), the real story here is that GA is getting hit disproportionately by these cuts. The towers are most visible, but it extends to services we rely on to fly and do business in aviation. Things like pilot/aircraft/medical certification will likely be slowed down by sequestration. While we always push for ways to reform the system and cut the red tape (chief among them our recent work on medical and Part 23 reform), the fact is at the present time our community requires certain FAA services that are vulnerable right now.

Check 6

03-22-2013, 03:19 PM

We all breath a sigh of relief!

Wonder what's going to happen at SUN n FUN this year since Lakeland is on the closure list.

The state of Florida will provide the funding for controllers during SnF.

Joe Delene

03-22-2013, 03:21 PM

I knew there was a reason I didn't get ADS-B right away. Maybe the requirement will be pushed off a few years, for those of us still flying G/A.

Brian Hartwick

03-22-2013, 03:49 PM

Floatsflyer

03-22-2013, 04:04 PM

After a quick cursory look at the list it appears that Texas and Wisconsin got hit disproportionately.

Bill Berson

03-22-2013, 04:06 PM

Oshkosh is probably like many towers that aren't really justified by traffic most or part of the year. There isn't even airline service into Osh, like there used to be.

I would imagine that they can and will staff the tower on a temporary basis for the week or 10 days around Airventure.
And probably the same at Sun N Fun.
The FAA spent $31 million for the new Oshkosh Tower. This is the insanity of federal spending.
For that money spent, several satellite runways could have been built, each with segregated airspace that would allow self CTAF control. And these small ( perhaps grass) satellite runways could be linked into the main airport each with a two mile taxiway.

rwanttaja

03-22-2013, 04:15 PM

After a quick cursory look at the list it appears that Texas and Wisconsin got hit disproportionately.
What percentage of their towers were closed, compared to other states? What percentage of their towers are contract towers?

Ron Wanttaja

Jim Heffelfinger

03-22-2013, 05:06 PM

Well, Bill you may be right. There could be added satellite airports built.
a basic small GA runway - 3,000 feet long - allow for 500 feet to the fence and now 4,000, by 800 runway and safety zone. That comes to 3.2 million square feet divide by 43560 ft2/acre. = ~ 73.5 acres. WI farm land is averaging $3,400 per acre ( http://walworth.uwex.edu/files/2012/03/Wisconsin-Ag-Land-Prices-2006-2011.pdf ) that gives just short of 2.5 million for land. Grabbing a quick check of runway costs - FL reports an average of $1350 per linear foot for runways and 18 per square foot for taxiways. ( http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/policy/costs/Airports.pdf) runway costs = ~ 4 mil. so 6.5 million so far. Now the fence. 9600 linear feet for a mid priced fence of 28/ft= $268K add in $10K for the access gate and controller now 278,000. Next we have all the surveys and permits necessary.... 2 mill est. Then there needs to be a 10 Mil development defense fund to shield the project from all the people that don't want an airport next to them. Plan on a 8-10 year gestation period. Add'm up. ~18 million per. That does't cover management and maintenance .

WLIU

03-22-2013, 05:14 PM

DoD obviously spoke up as my local Air Guard base got its contract tower off the closure list.

I saw a report that explains why the FAA staffed towers are not on the list. The FAA agreement with the controller's union says that the FAA must give 1 year notice of a tower closure. That said, I see that night shifts will be eliminated in a number of FAA towers. Will be interesting to see the nearby Class C become Class D every night.

Fly safe,

Wes
N78PS

Mayhemxpc

03-22-2013, 06:19 PM

So some years ago, I was providing instruction for the CAP National Flight Academy at OSH. This is about two weeks after the conventions and the tower has reverted to contractor operated. We fly out to New Holstein and have a good time with four other airplanes in the pattern, everybody talking to one another and being both courteous and cooperative. Upon return, we are the 4th airplane in the pattern at OSH. One more arrives and things get interesting. Very long down winds, S-turns, and even being directed one time to do a 360 for spacing while on downwind. We land and as we are tying down the plane, one of my students remarks, "You know what would really improve safety here at Oshkosh?" "What?" I cautiously reply. "Close the tower!"

For 50 and a half weeks a year, that might be the answer.

rwanttaja

03-22-2013, 06:49 PM

Anyone else notice, it seems the items cut, due to sequester, are used by or enjoyed by the people that actually pay taxes? Just haven't heard of the desert being cut from the free lunch. Too cynical?

You didn't word that properly. It should say, "Just haven't heard of the dessert being cut from someone else's free lunch." One person's "absolute need" is another's "wasted entitlement."

Ron Wanttaja

Brian Hartwick

03-22-2013, 07:13 PM

You didn't word that properly. It should say, "Just haven't heard of the dessert being cut from someone else's free lunch." One person's "absolute need" is another's "wasted entitlement."

Ron Wanttaja

Thats why the dessert reference, not dinner.

rwanttaja

03-23-2013, 12:48 AM

What percentage of their towers were closed, compared to other states? What percentage of their towers are contract towers?
Neither Wisconsin or Texas are the worst hit... some states are having all of their Contract Towers shut down. Wisconsin is losing all but one, Texas is about 24th on the list.

PDF file is attached. This was a quickie analysis...may be some errors due to OCR mistakes, etc.

Ron Wanttaja

Bill Greenwood

03-23-2013, 03:16 AM

I looked over the list and there are plenty of places that probably didn't need the tower in the first place, like San Marcos, and New Braunfels Texas. It looks like in the past the FAA has stuck towers about everywhere. I used to enjoy flying in Texas because there were places where you didn't have an external person who is likely not a pilot to tell you how to fly the pattern and land. Galveston is another that did just fine for years as uncontrolled, but I don't see it on the list.