Tower Closings Delayed...

[David Pavlich]

I just saw this on Drudge: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_AIRPORT_TOWERS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-04-05-14-48-34

[Joe Delene]

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.

[Mayhemxpc]

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.

[Sirota]

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.

[EZRider]

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.

[FloridaJohn]

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.

[Frank Giger]

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.).

[Victor Bravo]

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.

[FloridaJohn]

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?

[MEdwards]

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/aviation_data_statistics/general_aviation/media/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.

[FloridaJohn]

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:

www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation_data.../GAModel3F.doc (http://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation_data.../GAModel3F.doc)

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.
I couldn't get the link to work.

I have compared the numbers listed at AirNav to the ones the FAA has, and have found error rates average around 25%, but not always in the same direction. In other words, sometimes the AirNav numbers are too high, sometimes they are too low. I have no idea where the AirNav numbers come from, but in any case, the error rate there is too high to put any faith in their estimates.

My assumption (yes, I know) is that the FAA numbers mainly reflect the number of operations when the towers are open. I believe the tower controllers are logging all operations, so they should have a pretty accurate count while they are there. If the numbers the FAA reports include some sort of estimate of operations when the tower is closed, then the actual number of operations the controllers handle while they are there is lower than what I have estimated. So using the FAA numbers for only tower operational hours is really a worst case scenario.

Having said that, I am interested in finding out how the official FAA numbers are generated, if anyone actually knows.

[MEdwards]

I couldn't get the link to work.

Having said that, I am interested in finding out how the official FAA numbers are generated, if anyone actually knows.I'm sorry, it wasn't all there.

Try this one: http://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation_data_statistics/general_aviation/media/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.