FAA Releases List of 149 Control Towers to be Closed April 7

[njhorseman]

http://www.aaae.org/?e=showFile&l=TDDZKA

[frugaltravel]

So planes flying into/out of those airports will rely on ATC from nearby towers I assume. Doesn't seem like the end of the world.

[Zach1213]

Or operate uncontrolled. Not a big deal.

[njhorseman]

Other ATC towers while in the air, but while on the ground they have to rely on pilots following proper protocol for movement of aircraft between runways, taxiways and gates. Some of these airports, such as the one nearest my home, TTN Mercer County have commercial flights, not just general aviation, and it's not inconceivable that an airline might not wish to risk flying into an airport without a tower to control the ground traffic, which could result in the loss of commercial service at some of these airports.

[VillaHappy]

Should I be worried?

[toberman]

http://www.aaae.org/?e=showFile&l=TDDZKA

 

Don't really understand your post... Most of these 'towers' seem to be slow at the best - but are they FAA towers, or 'Contracted' towers?? Is it just for ONE day, or is it forever?? Poor post!

 

Airlines 'Do Not' require a 'Control Tower' to be in operation when they arrive/depart any airport. Depends on traffic volume, time of day, and Airline policies.

[toberman]

Should I be worried?

 

 

Not in the least !!!

[toberman]

So planes flying into/out of those airports will rely on ATC from nearby towers I assume. Doesn't seem like the end of the world.

 

Not at all.... Remember when Regan fired all the Controllers?? Life went on.

[Algebralovr]

I know a couple of these towers. They only have a few flights a day from them and are going to be tied to the towers they were tied to a few years ago. I really don't see the problem.

[njhorseman]

Don't really understand your post... Most of these 'towers' seem to be slow at the best - but are they FAA towers, or 'Contracted' towers?? Is it just for ONE day, or is it forever?? Poor post!

 

Airlines 'Do Not' require a 'Control Tower' to be in operation when they arrive/depart any airport. Depends on traffic volume, time of day, and Airline policies.

 

This is hardly a new topic. When the cuts were first proposed a few weeks ago, it was discussed here. My mistake for assuming people were aware the cuts were pending. I'm pretty sure you participated in the thread...but perhaps not.

 

As I understand it, these are contract towers. This is not a one day cut. It's "permanent"...whatever that means.

[toberman]

As I understand it, these are contract towers. This is not a one day cut. It's "permanent"...whatever that means.

 

Must mean those 'Contract Towers' are not really needed.

 

And if?? This tread goes the way of the others where we had meaningful 'discussions' on this topic - It will be deleted as well !!

[kenish]

Many people don't realize that there's 15,000 airports in the USA, only 5,000 have paved runways, about 500 have control towers, and 375 have commercial service (all numbers approximate). Non-tower airports operate safely, and there are procedures and regulations for landing, ground ops, and departing. From my skim, all the airports on the "hit list" have low traffic volume. A friend who flies regional jets says within the airline they feel tower closures at smaller airports will be beneficial. Bottom line, it should have zero impact on schedule or safety.

 

Additional fear, uncertainty, and doubt is being spread by DoT and the ATC union about reductions at major hub airports. To the context of this forum, that could delay flights to port.

 

Don't forget that general aviation, airlines, airfreight companies, and shippers have very strong influence in Washington and won't put up with too much nonsense since the pain is being deliberately inflicted on taxpayers and companies at the point-of-service while the "backoffices" stay intact.

 

Although the closure list is factually true, don't buy into the fearmongering

[njhorseman]

Must mean those 'Contract Towers' are not really needed.

 

And if?? This tread goes the way of the others where we had meaningful 'discussions' on this topic - It will be deleted as well !!

 

I think it means that the smaller airports happen to have contract towers.

 

I'm not about to pollute the thread with unnecessary and off topic political comments, nor did I on the deleted thread. Hopefully everyone else follows suit so there will be no need to delete this thread.

[kenish]

I think it means that the smaller airports happen to have contract towers.

 

I'm not about to pollute the thread with unnecessary and off topic political comments, nor did I on the deleted thread. Hopefully everyone else follows suit so there will be no need to delete this thread.

 

Some smaller towers are contract, while others are government employees. I'm not sure of the mix. Contract towers are the first on the list, but are pretty irrelevant to disrupting cruise travel. AFAIK, major airports are all government-staffed.

 

The thread a few weeks ago was political in the original title..IIRC, the rest was pretty apolitical except for one political rant. Agree w/ your comments!

[SnowshoeCat]

Hi again, everyone!

Considering I don't have any cruises booked, I seem to be on this board a lot ;)

 

Anyway, some of those contract towers happen to be pretty busy - just not with commercial traffic. One of the contract towers near here does lots of military training. It's not a military airport (it was, many years ago) so it's still open to general aviation. Another one does lots of flight training. Nothing like mixing a B737 in with a bunch of student pilots flying around the pattern.

 

Many people don't realize there are many more airplanes up there than just the people-hauling airlines. If corporate and private pilots don't want to go to an uncontrolled field, they may end up increasing the traffic at the towered airports.

[Zach1213]

Not at all.... Remember when Regan fired all the Controllers?? Life went on.

 

Or when the controller at Reagan Airport fell asleep and one or two planes landed themselves no problem.

 

So obviously everything links to Reagan in some way ;)

[PaulMCO]

Hi again, everyone!

Considering I don't have any cruises booked, I seem to be on this board a lot ;)

 

Anyway, some of those contract towers happen to be pretty busy - just not with commercial traffic. One of the contract towers near here does lots of military training. It's not a military airport (it was, many years ago) so it's still open to general aviation. Another one does lots of flight training. Nothing like mixing a B737 in with a bunch of student pilots flying around the pattern.

 

Many people don't realize there are many more airplanes up there than just the people-hauling airlines. If corporate and private pilots don't want to go to an uncontrolled field, they may end up increasing the traffic at the towered airports.

 

So whats the big deal. Most of these towers used to be run by the airport operators themselves. Why should the Federal Government pay to hire contract ATC Controllers and provide equipment for these airports. If the user's want the services the operators should increase parking and landing fees to cover these facilities. That is the way it was done before.

[toberman]

So whats the big deal. Most of these towers used to be run by the airport operators themselves. Why should the Federal Government pay to hire contract ATC Controllers and provide equipment for these airports. If the user's want the services the operators should increase parking and landing fees to cover these facilities. That is the way it was done before.

 

Or, take it one step further and privatize all ATC. The Gov could save kazillions of $$ ! ;)

[sail7seas]

There are five towers being closed in our state.

 

Private planes can land without the tower but it has to jeopardize safety and put an added load on the towers which remain active.

[kenish]

There are five towers being closed in our state.

 

Private planes can land without the tower but it has to jeopardize safety and put an added load on the towers which remain active.

 

I'm a private pilot. Rest assured, it does not jeopardize safety despite what the FAA and the unions might say. Many airports here in congested SoCal don't have towers. (LAX, DFW, JFK etc. would be a different story but none of these airports are in that genre).

 

A friend flies regional jets for a major carrier...he and other pilots feel that no tower will be a benefit to their operations.

 

BTW, a tower closure does not transfer any burden to other airports unless pilots opt to use the airport with the active tower.