Contract control towers targeted for cuts

[GeorgePerry]

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2011/111216-contract-control-towers-targeted-for-cuts.html

I personally welcome this move....Control towers at GA "only" airports don't offer any real increase in Safety or air traffic expediancy.  Thousands of uncontrolled airports operate safely with only a unicom freq and Center control for IFR approaches and departures.  AOPA is making an issue of the OMB recomendataion which I think is a mistake.  They should embrace the change.  Austerity measures are coming across the range of the Federal Government and DoD.  Rather than swinging at every pitch AOPA needs to pick it's battles a little better.   Fewer control towers = less federal oversight = more individual pilot freedoms.

[201er]

Yeah, safer to cut a few control towers and let us keep our free chart downloads.

[Cruiser]

I wonder if the new control tower that will open in Frederick, MD. (homebase to AOPA) the first of the new year is going be contract operated?

[N9453V]

Not sure where you guys fly, but in California and in Texas there are a few GA only airports with very heavy traffic and a lot of student pilots. I think closing the towers at SQL (350 ops/day), SAC (248 ops/day), GKY (410 ops/day), GTU (350 ops/day) and RBD (310 ops/day) would be a bad move and adversely affect safety.

There is an effort underway right now to get a control tower at HDC (Hammond, LA) and with only 210 ops/day, there have been a lot of close calls.

-Andrew

[gregwatts]

Quote: GeorgePerry

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2011/111216-contract-control-towers-targeted-for-cuts.html

I personally welcome this move....Control towers at GA "only" airports don't offer any real increase in Safety or air traffic expediancy. Thousands of uncontrolled airports operate safely with only a unicom freq and Center control for IFR approaches and departures. AOPA is making an issue of the OMB recomendataion which I think is a mistake. They should embrace the change. Austerity measures are coming across the range of the Federal Government and DoD. Rather than swinging at every pitch AOPA needs to pick it's battles a little better. Fewer control towers = less federal oversight = more individual pilot freedoms.

[GeorgePerry]

Quote: gregwatts

That depends on the amount of traffic in and out of a particular airport. Some of these airports are downright dangerous without a tower......especially airports with a lot of training activity. Having flown out of airports such as SGJ or BCT prior to towers........where everything from ultralights with no radios to center of the universe jetjocks mix with barely speaking English student pilot.......I am thankful for towered airports. Try flying into LNA someday when the weather is nice..........will scare the hell out of you.

[aviatoreb]

Quote: Cruiser

I wonder if the new control tower that will open in Frederick, MD. (homebase to AOPA) the first of the new year is going be contract operated?

[gregwatts]

Quote: GeorgePerry

That depends on the amount of traffic in and out of a particular airport. Some of these airports are downright dangerous without a tower......especially airports with a lot of training activity. Having flown out of airports such as SGJ or BCT prior to towers........where everything from ultralights with no radios to center of the universe jetjocks mix with barely speaking English student pilot.......I am thankful for towered airports. Try flying into LNA someday when the weather is nice..........will scare the hell out of you.

[Ncbosshoss]

That is funny, George. St. Augustine, Flagler, Ormond and New Symrna all have contract towers now! Not sure what the number is today, but in the 80's, you had to have a minimum of 50K ops per year to be considered for an FAA tower. That is over 900+ ops a day. There are a bunch of municipalities that have the towers for what ever reason and not always traffic. Insurance maybe? I've flown into some pretty small airports with a tower and I was the only bird moving. Controllers are not always needed.

Control towers at GA "only" airports don't offer any real increase in Safety or air traffic expediancy.

I respectfully disagree with you on this point. It will take you about 2.5 seconds to find stats on Google to prove you are mistaken about the increase in safety at least. Expediancy is another story! Towers have seperation standards!

I am not sure if you are on the save money bandwangon or who needs air traffic contollers bandwagon!

Being a 20+ year air traffic controller and still pushing tin at a moderately busy airport, I love talking to the towers when I fly. Saw a B737 with a deck angle I had never seen before yesterday when a C208 taxied onto the runway while he was departing. Tower alerted the Boeing and he was already committed. Whew!! The caravan ignored the 'Stay off the Grass" sign and headed for the green. 

Quote: GeorgePerry

That depends on the amount of traffic in and out of a particular airport. Some of these airports are downright dangerous without a tower......especially airports with a lot of training activity. Having flown out of airports such as SGJ or BCT prior to towers........where everything from ultralights with no radios to center of the universe jetjocks mix with barely speaking English student pilot.......I am thankful for towered airports. Try flying into LNA someday when the weather is nice..........will scare the hell out of you.

I think there's a valid arguement on both sides and the busier the airport the higher the risks.  However when I was a student at Embry Riddle the outlying fields (Ormand beach, New Symrna, Flaggler Co) were all uncontrolled.  You wanna talk about busy!!!  Too my knowledge there haven't been any accidents as a result of high traffic and high usage.  As long as the traffic is similar in speed and performance I don't think the the high traffic argument holds water?

If an airport has a wide mix of aircraft types (say for instance: ultralights to small jets) then the differences in speed, pattern geometry and airport usage (IFR/VFR) probably nessesitates a Tower to direct and control.

My larger point here was there are probably lots of towered airports that don't "really" need a tower.  AOPA blankets the entire issue with a one size fits all counter stance to the OMB report.  They could instead say, "We think this is a great idea...let us help"  Influence the process with metrics that make sense.  For example:  A GA only aiport that has greater than, I'll use 100 ops/day for argument sake, should keep their tower.  Less than that, is a tower really required?  Field legnth could also be a discrimiator.  Does a GA only airport that has less than 4000 feet of runway need a tower?  These are just two examples right off the top of my head.  If a panel off experts sat down and hashed out metrics that determine acutal requirements, then this issue would likely solve itself.

I think it's fair to say we've all flown into an airport with a Control Tower and scratched our heads as to why it's even there???  Anyway, it would be nice if AOPA would take a more evolved stance on the issue.  Help the FAA decide on a case by case basis which ones should stay and which ones should go.  Saving money is a good thing!   If closing some GA only airport Control Towers can be done safely, if it makes sense, and simultaneously reduces the government's footprint at these airports, then I'm all for fewer CT's.

 

[scottfromiowa]

I agree with George...and while we are at it lets close a few post offices too.

[eldeano]

If I had enough faith in the flying community to make proper radio calls, I would agree. However my only two near fatal incidents happened at uncontrolled airports. First in Mesquite, AZ when a amphib glastar took off from runway 1 with no radio calls until he took the active when I was landing on 19. Even if he had just been monitoring the freq he would have heard me.

The second one was at Arlington, WA where a helicoptor was doing a practice approach with center and never switched over to make any reports on the CTAF.  I was taking off in the opposite direction.  If I was in a high wing, I would never have seen him.  Arlington has a history of incidents as well as a couple of fatal mid-airs.

Also foreign students operating at busy GA airports can present problems.  

Generally, I try and avoid uncontrolled airports on long cross countries, because if you are unfamiliar, you have a hard time understanding local position reports.  Also pilots practicing approaches forget that the VFR world does not understand where the VOR A approach is!!

This would have to be done with caution and knowledge.  However these things tend to be done purely statistically.

PS I could give the name of a couple of Post offices that could be shut down tomorrow, and I am not sure anyone would even notice.  Also, these days do we really need mail on Saturdays?  

[GeorgePerry]

Quote: Ncbosshoss

[flight2000]

I must have over looked the list of which towers were closing.  I flew out of both ORM and GTU when they weren't towered airports and neither were difficult (and they were just as busy back then).  Just requires an extra level of awareness to stay safe.

The "sky is falling" scare tactics are used by the unions and associations to generate interest for their own causes.  If contract towers start closing, membership starts decreasing and that means loss of MONEY for them.  An example from the link:

"The American Association of Airport Executives, which created the U.S. Contract Tower Association, warned of “devastating” effects of the cuts." 

So lets just throw out something to scare the non-flying public into believing planes will start crashing into each other and fall into schools and neighborhoods becasue they close a tower.  I'd like to see the research to back up their statement that it will have devastating effects.

The reality is money is getting scarce as government is trying to balance everything out before we drill ourselves into a deeper hole than we're already in.  Everything from the military to federal grants are being cut and those on the cut line will kick and scream because of it.  If the airport management is so worried about the safety of the airport after a tower is cut, maybe they need to figure out how to fund it.  Think the local county would be in favor of higher taxes to support it?  Doubt it, so they'll just blame big brother instead of figuring out how to make it work.  It's easier that way so managers like the knucklehead in Colorado can go to Disney World and baseball games on the airports dime...

Brian

[Ncbosshoss]

I totally agree with you, George. Some airports that have control towers don't need them. The federal contract tower program needs evaluating. As far as cost vs. safety, safety is certainly NOT the only factor for opening or closing a tower. The FAA has a gazillion page document for the cost vs. benefit of same. There are many factors involved. If you want to read about it, you can find it here: (you'll have to copy and paste)

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Bun8Ud6gJisJ:www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/investment_criteria/media/establish_atct.pdf+cost+of+operating+an+air+traffic+control+tower&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShbYaJ36FB4MEJjOMXWToZU-qziFgr8jHcVRxEo-htG7bHezeki_R4czITcAmHeeag1MmqU4UUsMcwQuvsGQAZNlEjNosxGyF2mksE9oA2SiT13UyJ1L7MN1edHhuGw9BdjWIPs&sig=AHIEtbQF4hl8r3oiCstt1gKZTTDVsEGM3g

On a seperate note but along the same lines, I am confident that in the future, the FAA will no longer be responsible for operating the ATC system. It will be a private company with the FAA providing safety oversight and regulation. This will save the government a bunch of money. We, as pilots and users of the NAS, will fund the new and improved system with user fees. It's coming. The dates are a bit old in the piece below but, the blueprints have not been thrown away. The unions are as mentioned above kicking and screaming about comprising safety by putting profits first. The private companies and airlines are kicking up their heels with excitement because they can run the system cheaper by cutting the fat and do more with less. It has been done all over the world.

From www.downsizinggovernment.org:

Commercializing Air Traffic Control

The way to address all three of these organizational problems is to take the ATC system out of the federal budget process and make it a self-supporting entity, funded directly by its customers. Variants of this commercialization approach have been recommended by a series of federal studies and commissions over the past 15 years.

As part of Vice President Al Gore's efforts at "reinventing government" in the 1990s, for example, the Clinton administration proposed turning the ATC system into a separate, self-funded, nonprofit government corporation within the Department of Transportation. The 1997 National Civil Aviation Review Commission, which was chaired by Norman Mineta, similarly proposed moving toward a self-supporting air traffic control organization.²⁹

Commercialization would entail shifting from aviation-related taxes paid to the U.S. Treasury to fees for ATC services paid directly by customers to a new self-supporting Air Traffic Organization. This change would allow fees to grow in proportion to the growth of flight activity, rather than being tied to a less-stable variable, such as fuel prices or airline ticket prices. Moreover, a predictable revenue stream that was not subject to the federal budget process would provide the basis for the ATO to issue long-term bonds for funding capital investments.

[aviatoreb]

Quote: Ncbosshoss

I totally agree with you, George. Some airports that have control towers don't need them. The federal contract tower program needs evaluating. As far as cost vs. safety, safety is certainly NOT the only factor for opening or closing a tower. The FAA has a gazillion page document for the cost vs. benefit of same. There are many factors involved. If want to read about it, you can find it here: (you'll have to copy and paste)

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Bun8Ud6gJisJ:www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/investment_criteria/media/establish_atct.pdf+cost+of+operating+an+air+traffic+control+tower&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShbYaJ36FB4MEJjOMXWToZU-qziFgr8jHcVRxEo-htG7bHezeki_R4czITcAmHeeag1MmqU4UUsMcwQuvsGQAZNlEjNosxGyF2mksE9oA2SiT13UyJ1L7MN1edHhuGw9BdjWIPs&sig=AHIEtbQF4hl8r3oiCstt1gKZTTDVsEGM3g

On a seperate note but along the same lines, I am confident that in the future, the FAA will no longer be responsible for operating the ATC system. It will be a private company with the FAA providing safety oversight and regulation. This will save the government a bunch of money. We, as pilots and users of the NAS, will fund the new and improved system with user fees. It's coming. The dates are a bit old in the piece below but, the blueprints have not been thrown away. The unions are as mentioned above kicking and screaming about comprising safety by putting profits first. The private companies and airlines are kicking up their heels with excitement because they can run the system cheaper by cutting the fat and do more with less. It has been done all over the world.

From www.downsizinggovernment.org:

Commercializing Air Traffic Control

The way to address all three of these organizational problems is to take the ATC system out of the federal budget process and make it a self-supporting entity, funded directly by its customers. Variants of this commercialization approach have been recommended by a series of federal studies and commissions over the past 15 years.

As part of Vice President Al Gore's efforts at "reinventing government" in the 1990s, for example, the Clinton administration proposed turning the ATC system into a separate, self-funded, nonprofit government corporation within the Department of Transportation. The 1997 National Civil Aviation Review Commission, which was chaired by Norman Mineta, similarly proposed moving toward a self-supporting air traffic control organization.²⁹

Commercialization would entail shifting from aviation-related taxes paid to the U.S. Treasury to fees for ATC services paid directly by customers to a new self-supporting Air Traffic Organization. This change would allow fees to grow in proportion to the growth of flight activity, rather than being tied to a less-stable variable, such as fuel prices or airline ticket prices. Moreover, a predictable revenue stream that was not subject to the federal budget process would provide the basis for the ATO to issue long-term bonds for funding capital investments.

[gregwatts]

Quote: scottfromiowa

I agree with George...and while we are at it lets close a few post offices too.

[1964-M20E]

Closing some towers would not be the end of the world.  I fly out of a controlled airport during the day and uncontrolled at night.  This maybe a solution for some areas to save cost.  I generally choose to fly to an uncontrolled airport since the fees and fuel are generally cheaper than at the larger controlled fields.  Why have a tower open 24 hours when there are very few ops during the nighttime hours.  The Feds are out of money and cuts need to be made.  I'd rather see cuts to controlled airspace than increase fees and taxes but we may end up with both.

[orangemtl]

I agree that it's not an absolute black/white question: but i suspect one coud close towers below a certain daily/monthly volume of landings and have no impact on safety wahtsoever.

Everyone says "We need to cut the budget and eliminate waste......except for MY little niche, because that's different." No; it's not.

Everyne's ox will get gored a bit, if the Federal government ever learns the term 'austerity'. Money is finite. So is safety, security, health, etc.  It's very easy for appointed or elected officials to wave the 'safety' flag: I see it all the time in hospitals, when they publish reams and reams of safety guidelines that are well meant at their core, but ultimately provide in some cases marginal benefit at enormous cost. It's right up there with "But we have to do it for the children!" Everyone has heard about the NTSB wanting to eliminate cellphone use---even hands-free--in cars for safety. Does that mean that I can no longer have a conversation with my wife in the car while driving? Same thing, after all---and yet, never let common sense intrude upon a Federal initiative.

This is a simple risk/benefit analysis.  Identify the level of activity above which, say 80% of GA traffic is centered. Keep those towers. Eliminate the rest. One can parse the breakpoint endlessly, but the point still stands. It seems that AOPA has chosen this battle rather poorly, but: I'm unaware of the details. Perhaps they can propose something along these lines and keep half a loaf, rather than losing both the loaf and the battle.

[jetdriven]

The same argument posted on here before and elsewhere.  Take away someone else's benefits, just not mine!

[scottfromiowa]

Quote: aviatoreb

Every body duck for cover.

HMMMmmm, that doesn't sound at all like the postal service?  HMMMmmmm the postal service is running just fine in the black?  HHHMMMmmmm.  Yep, right no comparison what-so-ever to Aviation and Mooney's.  My mistake.  I offer my appology to any and all Mooney drivers for my egregious breach of forum ettiquette.  I shall now perform hairy carrie while hanging my head in shame.  Perhaps a public flogging.  Perhaps the moderator should change my avitar to an Ass....

[jetdriven]

The ATC system has been self supporting through the Airport and Airways Trust fund for decades.  Fuel and passenger taxes pay this fund. Problem now is, someone wants to raid this fund and pretend it is broke.  Meanwhile, billion-dollar grants go out for airport modernization and pet projects.  Dont be fooled.  This is the same crap as saying "Social Security is bankrupt" and "federal pensions are bankrupt" though they robbed those funds to pay for other things.

 

the AATF has a balance of 9.4 Billion in cash.  I'm sure some people in private industry would love to get thir hands on it.   http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/aatf/

 

[DaV8or]

Quote: jetdriven

The ATC system has been self supporting through the Airport and Airways Trust fund for decades.  Fuel and passenger taxes pay this fund. Problem now is, someone wants to raid this fund and pretend it is broke.  Meanwhile, billion-dollar grants go out for airport modernization and pet projects.  Dont be fooled.  This is the same crap as saying "Social Security is bankrupt" and "federal pensions are bankrupt" though they robbed those funds to pay for other things.

 

the AATF has a balance of 9.4 Billion in cash.  I'm sure some people in private industry would love to get thir hands on it.   http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/aatf/

 

[DaV8or]

I personally like towered airports and at some busy airports it would be really unfortunate to have to close them. However, there are towers at other airports that could be closed if need be. Also as pointed out, many really aren't that needed at night. If there's money in the budget, keep 'em all. If there isn't, close the ones at slow airports and at nights. I think there are some out there just to meet requirements for various small regional airlines.

[GeorgePerry]

I think one can draw a direct comparison between the USPS and Aviation. 

(1) the USPS derives its' revenue from user fees...42c per envelope and they are still loosing money

(1a) Aviation doesn't fund itself with user fees yet...but it's coming (I hope the fee is only 42c)

(2) USPS isn't run like a business...it's run like a government entreprise where the employees and management largely don't care if it makes or loses money. (I know this is a generalization, so my appologies to the USPS employee that actually does care...Let me know if you meet them so I can shake their hand)

(2a) The FAA doesn't run itself like a business.  Their charter is to maitain the highest levels of aviation safety.   To those ends they often are an impediment to buesines.   They do not proactively help reputable businesses inexpensively achieve the required certifications to bringing new products to market.  They require them to jump through hoops and overcome rhemes of red tape...all in the name of safety.  Look at the variety and low cost of "non TSO's" products availible to experimental and LSA flyers.

(3) The USPS is used to varrying degress by most Americans, but the vast majority of the "mail" one recieves is junk and no one wants it anyway.  Their product is home delivery of mail, which is easily replaced with electronic delievery.  Why spend money on people, planes and trucks (infrastucture, pensions etc) when the internet exsists.  Packages can be shipped by exsisting commercial carriers (UPS, FedEx etc)

(3a)  The aviation system is used by just about everyone in the US.  Some users sit in the back of a Southwest 737, some fly themselves, but we all pay federal taxes that cover the costs of the system.  (Fed income, fuel tax, etc)

Ok..I'm done stiring the pot.

[Becca]

Quote: GeorgePerry

(2a) The FAA doesn't run itself like a business.  Their charter is to maitain the highest levels of aviation safety.   To those ends they often are an impediment to buesines.   They do not proactively help reputable businesses inexpensively achieve the required certifications to bringing new products to market.  They require them to jump through hoops and overcome rhemes of red tape...all in the name of safety.  Look at the variety and low cost of "non TSO's" products availible to experimental and LSA flyers.