Who needs control towers?

[scottfromiowa]

To PilotDerek, I sent an apology via PM, but I do not apologize to the rest of dumb asses who think Barry is somehow a worst president than the last years delivered to us by the dumb monkey from Texas (actually, GWB is from the east coast, good old fashioned liberal elitist, if you must know).

 

Now, a few quotes from those who've been there and done that:

 

"If one morning I walked on top of the water across the Potomac River, the headline that afternoon would read: PRESIDENT CAN'T SWIM." LBJ

 

“There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons,” said California Gov. Ronald Reagan in May 1967

 

Reagan was a commie, at least according to most of you ;-)

I know dumb ass when I see hear and read their words. Yup, sure do.

[triple8s]

“There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons,” said California Gov. Ronald Reagan in May 1967

 

 I have no doubt Reagan said this.

 

Sam Donaldson: "Mr. President, in talking about the continuing recession tonight, you have blamed mistakes in the past and you have blamed the Congress. Does any of the blame belong to you?" Ronald Reagan: "Yes because for many years I was a Democrat."

One sign of a true leader, accepting blame/responsibility. Still waiting to for Sotero to accept some.........

[wishboneash]

Back to the topic, my home airport is slated to lose its ATC on Apr 7. Possibly one of the busiest primary training airport in the SF Bay area. On Sat/Sun we usually have a second tower position open during the afternoons. I have seen/heard a lot of close calls because of the mix of pilots using this field. It could get interesting. On the other hand, Reid-Hillview is not affected! That's one dead airport that doesn't need a tower.

[Dale]

I have called and written some of our legislators in Washington about the problem with closing airport towers in high traffic areas. I have actually gotten some responses back from them and actually received a couple of phone calls from their aides, which is rather surprising. As I see it, most of our legislators do not understand the problem of airports in high traffic areas. They believe that the FAA's arbitrary distinction of airports with less than 150,000 operations solves the problem. They are being told that there are plenty of untowered airports that are used all the time and cause no problems. Their aides told me they were given untowered airports such as Pahokee and Ochechobee, as typical examples of untowered airports here in Florida. They were never told about airports that may be in Bravo airspace or that have airport operations over 100,000 that may be in close proximity to another high operations airport. I understand they are going to investigate this problem. It probably wouldn't hurt to call or email your local legislators in Washington to voice your concerns. I believe there is concern but simply a lack of clear understanding about the problem that may be made clearer by calls from knowledgeable pilots. It couldn't hurt, that is what are representatives are there for.

[DaV8or]

So, "Because the FCC's news distortion policy is not a "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment in her favor and remand for entry of a judgment in favor of WTVT."

 

Akre's case was overturned because Fox argued that distorting the "news" was not a "law, rule or regulation". Fox argued, successfully, that they can do this, and the whistleblower protections do not apply.  They didnt argue their "news" was correct, undistorted, or not an outright lie.

 

I guess it all sort of evens out. I had read somewhere that polls show that a higher and higher number of people get their news from John Stewart's Daily Show.

[DaV8or]

Back to the topic, my home airport is slated to lose its ATC on Apr 7. Possibly one of the busiest primary training airport in the SF Bay area. On Sat/Sun we usually have a second tower position open during the afternoons. I have seen/heard a lot of close calls because of the mix of pilots using this field. It could get interesting. On the other hand, Reid-Hillview is not affected! That's one dead airport that doesn't need a tower.

 I'm agreed that it's going to get interesting at some CA airports. Their list of closures is a bit random. Some need closing, some won't be missed much and others will a mess. I suppose people will adjust their flying to avoid airports like Livermore out of fear. The radio frequency will be jammed to the hilt! Hope you don't mind the sound of two people talking at once!

 

Of course this whole exercise is designed to cause outrage, alarm and calamity. Cutting 2-3 percent from an operating budget is no big deal. The way they're doing it is designed to be stupid. We're supposed to contact our representatives and tell them to cave in and do whatever it takes to make it stop. Basically, the government hopes to borrow more money and tax the rich some more.

 

If mid airs do start happening, I think there is grounds to sue the federal government.

[N9660M]

After looking through the list of towers being considered for closure, I've operated out of many of them over the years and can honestly say that I've wondered why we were paying for controllers at several long before sequestration became the issue of the day.  Many of these fields are simply not that busy.

 

http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/Facilities_Could_Be_Closed.pdf

 

Agree that closing them adds some degree of risk, but don't believe that the level of safety will be unacceptably compromised if we're upholding our responsibilities as pilots to "see and avoid".  IMO our country's debt is the biggest national security threat we face today, and we'll have to accept some risk in many areas of spending to address it. 

 

Jim

[1964-M20E]

I see several airports that I fly to ORL, NEW and either of these can be closed and each are in the boundaries of Class B airspace. ORL is 5nm North of MCO and NEW is 15nm Eastof MSY. It is nice to have the tower but they can function just as well without. Now having an RCO to get clearance and relaease times would be nice to keep. I've seen more traffic 30nm North of ORL than in the pattern.

Also any of these placces that currently have towers can have a temporary toweractive when they ahve special events and expect large volumes of traffic. ASN Talladega is on example of using temp tower on race day.

[RJBrown]

Just looked at the list. The four in Utah and Colorado, Provo, Ogden, Front Range and KBJC could go for all I care. Provo was uncontrolled until the school based there wanted a tower. I find the tower there an inconvenience. BJC was Jefferson County Airport untill the marketing department renamed it Rocky Mountain Metropolitan. These are all part time towers that serve only a limited purpose.

[DaV8or]

Agree that closing them adds some degree of risk, but don't believe that the level of safety will be unacceptably compromised if we're upholding our responsibilities as pilots to "see and avoid".

 

Looking out the window is very much required, but it's a pretty crappy collision avoidance system IMO. An airplane is filled with blind spots. Many have poor plastic in the windows. The sun can cause us to miss a whole lot. In the traffic pattern full of other planes that you may, or may not be able to find along with the usual task of setting up for landing can lead to selective attention.

 

If you're not sure how bad that can be, watch the video below and follow the instructions exactly. Those that have already done this, or have seen this video, please don't spoil it for others. If you're reading this and haven't watched the video, do so before reading people's responses below.

 

http://youtu.be/vJG698U2Mvo

[Dale]

Video was an excellent demonstration of what can happen in an airplane, while managing your aircraft. I understand that the aviation department here in broward is greatly concerned about the tower closures at opa locka (Kopf) and north perry (KHWO) based on their very high amount of operations and the fact that there are probably more close plane incursions than anyone wants to admit in this area. Without those towers things could get pretty dicey here fast on a high traffic day in this area. This is especially true with the large number of banner tow planes and numerous training flights coming from these airports. On a crowded day my collision avoidance system can paint as many as 15 to 25 planes all within a small area. When these towers close this is going to be a problem waiting to happen. I agree that spending cuts have to be made, they should just come from less critical areas first or from towers with fewer aircraft operations in less crowded areas.

[mulro767]

God, I hate US of A sometimes. The most obtuse, misinformed bunch on the face on this planet in a country where the actual bills are public knowledge and available for reading. It almost seems like the first amendment is a complete waste on the population. The bill is written specifically in such a manner where the executive branch does not have a choice of where to cut. As an example, if there is a federal employee responsible from removing gum from the runway, you can't just cut him and so that a tower remains open. No, you get to keep to guy, but his hours get cut a percentage so that he only removes 98% of the gum or whatever the percentage of cuts was. Read the effing bill.

 

Let me guess, you run a "small business" and watch fox news.

Your post makes absolutely no sense to me. I'm guessing liberal politics is your expertise. This is a pilots forum. Care to contribute?

Oh and the seatbelt sign is off. So feel free to get up and move to another country!!!

[aviatoreb]

Okay - some of you are not as bothered with some of the towers going away as I am.  I am really going to be worried about some of the towers being unmanned.  

 

Seems like that discussion has played out, and also rolled naturally into who's fault it might be, or if we should be doing this one political and economic grounds.  I will not offer anymore opinion on that part.

 

How about this though - from what I read, there will also be a reduction in center controllers, so there will be less enroute controllers available.  Is that true?  It is hard to confirm what is going to happen actually.  That really worries me too if it is true.  Does this mean that GA traffic will hear "unable" often/usually when asking for VFR flight following.  That IFR traffic will also have a harder time getting service?  This seems to me like a safety issue no matter how much the FAA may be stating it is not in the media.

[AndrewR]

Looking out the window is very much required, but it's a pretty crappy collision avoidance system IMO. An airplane is filled with blind spots. Many have poor plastic in the windows. The sun can cause us to miss a whole lot. In the traffic pattern full of other planes that you may, or may not be able to find along with the usual task of setting up for landing can lead to selective attention.

 

If you're not sure how bad that can be, watch the video below and follow the instructions exactly. Those that have already done this, or have seen this video, please don't spoil it for others. If you're reading this and haven't watched the video, do so before reading people's responses below.

 

http://youtu.be/vJG698U2Mvo

 

Having a towered airport doesn't negate the need of see-and-avoid.  I lost two coworkers in tower controlled airspace at Renton, WA.  BTW, KRNT is one of the towers on "The List".

 

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=d66608fa-d9df-4489-b8fe-511744a5d45c

http://www.komonews.com/news/archive/4159996.html

[scottfromiowa]

I have seen some of my closest traffic while under the "watchful eye" of flight following. I stopped making statements about the traffic...as stated might give a warm fuzzy, but PIC responsibility to see and avoid. I use my Mark 21's as my primary...

[DaV8or]

Having a towered airport doesn't negate the need of see-and-avoid. 

 

Never said it was, nor did I say that a tower would make you 100% safe, or a mid air impossible. The first sentence in my post included this- "Looking out the window is very much required..." but it also said that "see and avoid" is a pretty crappy collision avoidance system. I stand by that. In a busy traffic environment, we need help and an extra set of eyes outside the cockpit is useful. Some pilots on the usual aviation forums are so anti government that they have taken the position that all the Class D towers could be closed and we'd be just fine. I strongly disagree.

 

However, I concede, that with the declining pilot population, eventually they will be correct.

[fantom]

Coming into private towered KHWO last evening, with lots of foreign students (weak English skills), heads down community college students in their SR20's, banner towing pilots, and TBM's flying into Socata, I was reminded of how much more challenging it will be without our tower.

 

Something has to be given up to underwrite illegal immigrant health care, college expenses, food stamps and other hand outs....

[David Mazer]

Apparently, the FAA thinks we need towers:

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/01/politics/budget-faa/