Austin Executive to get control tower

Scott@KTYR said:
I thought he owned a Piaggio Aero P180 Avanti.
Click to expand...
I got no idea who h is or what he owns. I shoulda said "probably." It was just a punchline. Anyway, those are cool planes. I followed one into SAN a few years ago and shot the sheet with the pilot at the FBO. Wonder if that was him, or his pilot.
 
luvflyin said:
I got no idea who h is or what he owns. I shoulda said "probably." It was just a punchline. Anyway, those are cool planes. I followed one into SAN a few years ago and shot the sheet with the pilot at the FBO. Wonder if that was him, or his pilot.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I did not catch the punchline.
He is Ron Henriksen. He owns Austin & Houston Exec. airports. His picture with the P180 is on the wall in Austin. The P180 does look cool and Very fast.
 
kkoran said:
BJC's tower cost $24 million because:
1) It's 124 ft. tall (due to the size and layout of the airfield)
2) It was built by the FAA (a local government or private company would probably have built tower of similar height for $12 million)

The typical 55-65 ft. control tower needed for an airport like Austin Executive generally costs $3-4 million.
Click to expand...

It's 124' tall because some moron spec'ed the site just south of a 60' cliff, so the first 60' brings the cab to almost field elevation ... :D
 
gkainz said:
It's 124' tall because some moron spec'ed the site just south of a 60' cliff, so the first 60' brings the cab to almost field elevation ... :D
Click to expand...

You sure this isn't a Federal project? o_O ;)
 
BigBadLou said:
One other factor to consider is IFR traffic. While the airport does have a ground CD frequency, it doesn't work most of the time so you can imagine the delays this can cause on OVC days.

While I see a strange push against a tower here, I might be the odd duck in the flock to agree that it would improve safety. Especially given all the yahoos causing trouble out there. I've had a few close calls at EDC in the past. IMHO, a tower could have prevented all of them.

Flame suit on, let the flogging begin, I am assuming the position. :D
Click to expand...

I'm there quite often and have never had an issue winter or summer with traffic other than the run from Llano to KEDC, that's a nightmare. Had opposite direction traffic this weekend about 35 feet higher (he was not descending). My PCAS picked him up first, TCAS never went off. Close enough to get a GREAT look at the belly of his plane.

KAUS is usually pretty good, but wasn't allowing FF this weekend out of KEDC, they were landing from the south, so no issues. I'm worried that it'll turn into a real TURD controlled field like Double Eagle ... that place has been a true poop show every time I've been there. Am hoping they can handle a FF handoff ... Double Eagle can't and ABQ center drops you off often already in their airspace, then Double Eagle gets their panties in a wad about not contacting prior to entering their airspace when ABQ center indicates there's been coordination.
 
danhagan said:
KAUS is usually pretty good, but wasn't allowing FF this weekend out of KEDC, they were landing from the south, so no issues. I'm worried that it'll turn into a real TURD controlled field like Double Eagle ... that place has been a true poop show every time I've been there. Am hoping they can handle a FF handoff ... Double Eagle can't and ABQ center drops you off often already in their airspace, then Double Eagle gets their panties in a wad about not contacting prior to entering their airspace when ABQ center indicates there's been coordination.
Click to expand...
Double Eagle Tower can't handle a flight following handoff from Albuquerque Center because that procedure doesn't exist. What you are describing here is a failure of PIC responsibility. It is the PIC's responsibility to terminate radar flight following and contact the tower prior to entering Class D airspace. The AIM recommends you do so at 15 miles. AIM 4-3-2. Radar flight following does not give you a free pass to violate §91.129 or any other regulation. The operator is required to establish and maintain two-way radio communication prior to the airspace boundary. In the alternative, you can always remain above Class D airspace and avoid entering the airspace altogether.

This issue comes up very frequently in Dallas and its ~11 Class D towers scattered about the metroplex, one of which does not have a tower radar display (HQZ). What I always teach is that it's the PIC's job to ensure they comply with the regulations. The PIC needs to tell ATC what they need to do, especially when VFR. ATC is not there to hold your hand on arrival.
 
Harold Rutila said:
Double Eagle Tower can't handle a flight following handoff from Albuquerque Center because that procedure doesn't exist. What you are describing here is a failure of PIC responsibility. It is the PIC's responsibility to terminate radar flight following and contact the tower prior to entering Class D airspace. The AIM recommends you do so at 15 miles. AIM 4-3-2. Radar flight following does not give you a free pass to violate §91.129 or any other regulation. The operator is required to establish and maintain two-way radio communication prior to the airspace boundary. In the alternative, you can always remain above Class D airspace and avoid entering the airspace altogether.

This issue comes up very frequently in Dallas and its ~11 Class D towers scattered about the metroplex, one of which does not have a tower radar display (HQZ). What I always teach is that it's the PIC's job to ensure they comply with the regulations. The PIC needs to tell ATC what they need to do, especially when VFR. ATC is not there to hold your hand on arrival.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I fully understand your post, but just last week, I was on flight following coming into Dallas, and approach handed me off to RBD tower. So that procedure exists at least in some places.
 
Lindberg said:
I'm not sure I fully understand your post, but just last week, I was on flight following coming into Dallas, and approach handed me off to RBD tower. So that procedure exists at least in some places.
Click to expand...
'
Technically they just gave you a frequency change. A handoff is a radar procedure that results in a continuation of providing radar service to an aircraft. However the AIM states "Radar service is automatically terminated and the aircraft need not be advised of termination when an arriving VFR aircraft receiving radar services...is instructed to change to tower or advisory frequency." §91.129 then requires the pilot/operator to contact the control tower prior to entering the Class D airspace. The point of my above post is to emphasize that the pilot has to initiate contact with the tower before the Class D boundary, regardless of whether radar service is being provided. (The one exception to this is the Class D towers with combined approach controls like Waco, Waterloo, Terre Haute, and several others.)

That said, as someone who flies out of RBD on an almost daily basis, I can tell you the controllers there couldn't care less if you contacted them late. Those guys are just happy you're flying in. Also, I would expect further guidance to be coming out about whether §91.129 applies when receiving radar service to a Class D airport, as this has been an area of hot contention lately, with many ATC facilities insisting opposite positions as others.
 
Harold Rutila said:
'
Technically they just gave you a frequency change. A handoff is a radar procedure that results in a continuation of providing radar service to an aircraft. However the AIM states "Radar service is automatically terminated and the aircraft need not be advised of termination when an arriving VFR aircraft receiving radar services...is instructed to change to tower or advisory frequency." §91.129 then requires the pilot/operator to contact the control tower prior to entering the Class D airspace. The point of my above post is to emphasize that the pilot has to initiate contact with the tower before the Class D boundary, regardless of whether radar service is being provided. (The one exception to this is the Class D towers with combined approach controls like Waco, Waterloo, Terre Haute, and several others.)

That said, as someone who flies out of RBD on an almost daily basis, I can tell you the controllers there couldn't care less if you contacted them late. Those guys are just happy you're flying in. Also, I would expect further guidance to be coming out about whether §91.129 applies when receiving radar service to a Class D airport, as this has been an area of hot contention lately, with many ATC facilities insisting opposite positions as others.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I didn't know that there wasn't technically a handoff. There must be some communication though, because when I called tower they knew I was landing. Or maybe they just assumed.
 
Harold Rutila said:
Double Eagle Tower can't handle a flight following handoff from Albuquerque Center because that procedure doesn't exist. What you are describing here is a failure of PIC responsibility. It is the PIC's responsibility to terminate radar flight following and contact the tower prior to entering Class D airspace. The AIM recommends you do so at 15 miles. AIM 4-3-2. Radar flight following does not give you a free pass to violate §91.129 or any other regulation. The operator is required to establish and maintain two-way radio communication prior to the airspace boundary. In the alternative, you can always remain above Class D airspace and avoid entering the airspace altogether.
Click to expand...

That's would make three (3) different protocols for B/C/D airspace ... unlike you I VERIFIED after the flight. I get slam dropped near PHX also, so I guess that is a PIC responsibility as well? FF is there for a reason and it helps BOTH sides <sheesh>

Harold Rutila said:
This issue comes up very frequently in Dallas and its ~11 Class D towers scattered about the metroplex, one of which does not have a tower radar display (HQZ). What I always teach is that it's the PIC's job to ensure they comply with the regulations. The PIC needs to tell ATC what they need to do, especially when VFR. ATC is not there to hold your hand on arrival.
Click to expand...

ATC knew exactly going into Double Eagle and didn't give a squawk VFR or any other message. KSAT hands off to Stinson (drum roll) a Class D as well ...
 
danhagan said:
That's would make three (3) different protocols for B/C/D airspace ... unlike you I VERIFIED after the flight. I get slam dropped near PHX also, so I guess that is a PIC responsibility as well? FF is there for a reason and it helps BOTH sides <sheesh>
Click to expand...
First, I'm not really sure what the vitriol is all about. This is an issue that can get you in hot water with the FAA. I'm taking time out of my day to provide you with citations where you can go and find out more information.

There are three different protocols for Class B, Class C, and Class D control tower's handling of VFR aircraft. See AIM 3-2-3 e, 3-2-4 d-e, and 3-2-5 for details.

Also, see AIM 3-2-1 d. VFR Requirements: "It is the responsibility of the pilot to ensure that ATC clearance or radio communication requirements are met prior to entry into Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace. The pilot retains this responsibility when receiving ATC radar advisories." (citing 14 CFR Part 91).

danhagan said:
ATC knew exactly going into Double Eagle and didn't give a squawk VFR or any other message. KSAT hands off to Stinson (drum roll) a Class D as well ...
Click to expand...
It does not matter. Class D entry is not dependent on an arrival's squawk code.
 
Lindberg said:
Interesting. I didn't know that there wasn't technically a handoff. There must be some communication though, because when I called tower they knew I was landing. Or maybe they just assumed.
Click to expand...
They have a radar display and can see you coming in, but Regional Approach does not call them ahead of time to advise them that.
 
Harold Rutila said:
It does not matter. Class D entry is not dependent on an arrival's squawk code.
Click to expand...

I didn't say I have a squawk I'm good, I'm saying FF has always been taught that it is transparent regarding airspace EXCEPT Class B ... Every other Class D (Stinson, Fullerton, Glendale, etc) that I've been to has been the equivalent of a ATC to Class C hand off. Do you train you're students to request frequency change from center, then tune tower and request entry prior to arriving at Class B/C/D? I'm at 750+ hours, but if something changed thanks for the info. I believe your Aim citation is regarding cold calls, not an FF handoff.
 
danhagan said:
I didn't say I have a squawk I'm good, I'm saying FF has always been taught that it is transparent regarding airspace EXCEPT Class B ... Every other Class D (Stinson, Fullerton, Glendale, etc) that I've been to has been the equivalent of a ATC to Class C hand off. Do you train you're students to request frequency change from center, then tune tower and request entry prior to arriving at Class B/C/D? I'm at 750+ hours, but if something changed thanks for the info. I believe your Aim citation is regarding cold calls, not an FF handoff.
Click to expand...
Nothing changed. I have not cited anything related to cold calls.

If you're approaching a Class B primary airport and have been cleared into the Class B by the approach control, you do not need to make two-way contact with the Class B tower prior to entering the surface area of the Class B airspace.

If you're approaching a Class C primary airport and made two-way contact with the Class C approach control, you do not need to make two-way contact with the Class C tower prior to entering the surface area of the Class C airspace.

If you're approaching a Class D airport, you must make two-way contact with the Class D tower prior to entering the surface area of the Class D airspace.
 
Harold Rutila said:
Nothing changed. I have not cited anything related to cold calls.

If you're approaching a Class B primary airport and have been cleared into the Class B by the approach control, you do not need to make two-way contact with the Class B tower prior to entering the surface area of the Class B airspace.

If you're approaching a Class C primary airport and made two-way contact with the Class C approach control, you do not need to make two-way contact with the Class C tower prior to entering the surface area of the Class C airspace.

If you're approaching a Class D airport, you must make two-way contact with the Class D tower prior to entering the surface area of the Class D airspace.
Click to expand...

Harold, your quotes are obvious, but you keep avoiding the everyday practical.

On FF, ATC will "normally" indicate a change to tower frequency prior to entering that airspace, and there is no direction to squawk VFR. You check in and report similar to any other sector handoff (level 8500, 6 south whatever) retaining your squawk (for a reason). You keep going back to scenarios in which an AC squawking 1200 wants in ... I'm sure you're students must love you:confused:
 
Harold Rutila said:
They have a radar display and can see you coming in, but Regional Approach does not call them ahead of time to advise them that.
Click to expand...

There's no need for them to call ahead. All they'd have to do is enter something in the data block to indicate the aircraft intended to land there. The airport identifier would be a good choice for that.
 
Harold Rutila said:
Double Eagle Tower can't handle a flight following handoff from Albuquerque Center because that procedure doesn't exist. What you are describing here is a failure of PIC responsibility. It is the PIC's responsibility to terminate radar flight following and contact the tower prior to entering Class D airspace. The AIM recommends you do so at 15 miles. AIM 4-3-2. Radar flight following does not give you a free pass to violate §91.129 or any other regulation. The operator is required to establish and maintain two-way radio communication prior to the airspace boundary. In the alternative, you can always remain above Class D airspace and avoid entering the airspace altogether.

This issue comes up very frequently in Dallas and its ~11 Class D towers scattered about the metroplex, one of which does not have a tower radar display (HQZ). What I always teach is that it's the PIC's job to ensure they comply with the regulations. The PIC needs to tell ATC what they need to do, especially when VFR. ATC is not there to hold your hand on arrival.
Click to expand...

Well I wouldn't say the communications requirement of 91.129 is that black and white. 91.129 doesn't state to contact tower prior to entry. It states to contact the ATC facility providing ATC services prior to entry. Only part where it states to contact tower is under "departing flight."

Approach / center can always coordinate a late transfer of communications with a FF arrival. A FF transition is also coordinated by approach/ center without a communications transfer. Another example of getting a "pass" for violating 91.129 is conducting a radar approach. Because you are in "communications with the facility providing ATC service," you're allowed entry without talking to tower.

Also, plenty of class Ds can accept automated hand offs on their radar displays (CTRD). All the ATL area towers can accept hand offs from approach. However, based on their LOAs, the services that they provide with their CTRDs is very limited. So, as the AIM states, never assume you're receiving FF from a tower.
 
Last edited:
So then, what service exactly does a class D tower provide and who exactly is responsible for the airspace? The world wonders...
 
Clark1961 said:
So then, what service exactly does a class D tower provide and who exactly is responsible for the airspace? The world wonders...
Click to expand...

The primary purpose of a non-approach control tower, aka VFR tower, is runway separation. The airspace belongs to the overlying approach control or center. It's common to delegate some authority/responsibility to the tower; SVFR, initial separation of successive departures, etc.
 
I called Austin Exec. and they said last Friday (3-2-18) the Tower is now in operation.
Ground 119.45
Tower 120.30
 
We actually went to the tower. Pretty slow and quiet (majorly due to the airport management's rule prohibiting touch-n-goes).
The young gentleman in the tower was very nice, he's a transplant from out of state and is enjoying his new job greatly.

When we asked about the number of pilots flying in and announcing themselves on the old CTAF, he responded that the number is non-zero for every day. :)
So c'mon, guys, read the dang NOTAMs, please!

If anybody local wants to come up to the tower, let's get together and bring the kid some donuts!
 
BigBadLou said:
When we asked about the number of pilots flying in and announcing themselves on the old CTAF, he responded that the number is non-zero for every day. :)
So c'mon, guys, read the dang NOTAMs, please!
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree.

I fly into KEDC frequently, and plan to do so again in a few weeks. So, I was curious what the indications of such a facility change would actually look like.
  • The flight briefing from www.1800wxbrief.com shows this NOTAM buried in a list of others:
    • EDC 02/013 Austin Executive, Austin, TX (KEDC) Service tower OPN local control 120.3, Ground control 119.45 Daily 1200-0400 Feb 23, 2018 1200Z to Feb 24, 2019 0400Z
    • I guess that's trying to indicate the presence of a control tower, but the NOTAM appears to me to have expired.
  • ForeFlight's briefing has (only) the same weak/expired NOTAM.
  • ForeFlight's current (1 Mar - 29 Mar) Sectional and IFR Low maps don't show Class D airspace or a "blue" airport symbol at KEDC. Neither lists a tower frequency on the airport data block.
  • ForeFlight's airport information tab DOES show Tower and Ground Control frequencies.
I have to say that I'm not thrilled with the information that's available. I could easily have been one of "those guys" blundering in and self-reporting on the CTAF. What would have been a better indication that a new control tower is in place?
 
The actual NOTAM wording is clearer than the translated format, IMO. "1802231200-1902240400" looks much clearer (since it starts with the year) than having the year at the end where many pilots stop paying attention.

I agree that the NOTAM is buried but there is currently no system in place to highlight NOTAMs based on their importance. :(
Maybe app such as FF could take a shot at it? I believe it could only improve safety if NOTAMs were categorized better with the important ones (airspace, towers, outages) at the top and not buried with dozens of lightbulb-out or construction-crane notifications.

The sectional will take a while to be updated, a few cycles for sure. Heck, it took several years for the charting companies to put the airport beacon star on the charts when EDC got one. :)
Also, the tower employee said that the future airspace change has not been yet approved by the FAA (due to its proximity to the Charlie airspace) so that is extra time before it is even NOTAMed and sent to the charting companies.

Again, if you fly in and self-announce on the CTAF, the kid in the tower will politely direct you to his new tower frequency, he's cool about it. It is understandable that there will be a few years before the CTAF calls stop. :)
Now I really wonder, though, whether there are any NORDO aircraft that come in without any idea there's a tower. Or those who fly into EDC because they are afraid to talk to any tower (GTU or AUS). Plenty of those around! LOL
 
Probably be dealing with pilots calling on CTAF for months to come. Same thing happened when my brother started working at SGR tower when they started class D services. Didn’t help that they gave them a tower the size of an outhouse though.

14D6ADB2-9F2E-42CC-9021-ABB6E815F638.jpeg
 
Last edited:
KEDC's doesn't look much better!
28424231_1552025718180356_4328797132703705856_o.jpg
 
My guess is this has is partly to do with the IFR traffic around the area, as well as giving a little order to local VFR traffic. Further, I can't imagine corporate jets are in love with getting their IFR clearances either on the ground by phone or crappy frequency, or in the air. This could steer a little traffic the way of the airport and make a difference in the bottom line.

ColoPilot said:
Gillette Wyoming has a tower and Airnav shows 69 operations a day. Not sure how that happened.
Click to expand...

They do have air carrier traffic, though I'm guessing that's not the reason. Probably had a tower historically, facility has an ILS and they just contracted it off when the FCT program started.

If traffic was everything, airports like SZP or MTH would certainly have towers.

pburger said:
I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that some corporate aircraft cannot operate out of non-towered airports due to either corporate policies or maybe insurance requirements. This may be a factor in the decision to add a tower.

I will say that I've been to Austin Executive several times since they opened, and they have always treated me well, even though I fly a single engine. They usually let me park under the cover, they have awesome crew cars, and a very nice facility. I was just there this past weekend visiting my brother. It's outside of the Class C, so it's easy in and easy out. And it's right on the toll road, so you can hop on that and go 80mph and get to town quickly.
Click to expand...

I don't see why corporate aircraft cannot operate out of non-towered airports. Even commercial airlines operate out of non-towered facilities, or airports with towers that close.
 
As others noted KTME is a private airport open to the public. I’ve never stopped in but do see traffic on occasion as I’m passing by.

When the owner announced they were getting a tower he said it was a requirement for a lot of companies that fly jets to be able to land there. They welcome 172’s but their stated goal at the time was to become a primary reliever for GA jet traffic, especially for executives trying to get into the energy corridor on the west side of Houston.

In this case, the decision to build and staff the tower was strictly a business decision of the owner and, at least according to what he’s said in local interviews, the owner thinks his strategy is working. I’m guessing his putting one in at Austin Exec confirms that.

The strangest part of Houston Exec to me is that is has a very oddly shaped class D area. It’s only 8 miles across at its widest and has a big cutout for Sport Flyers airport on the west side. It’s easy to avoid but I pay attention when flying by to the south because if something is taking off it’s usually a jet.

KTME does frequently have one of the lowest prices on 100LL in Houston. It’s just never been a big enough delta vs. my home airport to make it worth stopping even when I’m passing within a few miles.

Gary
 
I've flown in there a few times since they got a tower. One of the controllers seems like he's very new and says strange things, but he's probably just learning. I landed the other day and he told me to make sure I was off the runway before I stopped. I thought that was strange. When calling ground to taxi, he tells you to switch to the tower frequency when you're ready to takeoff. Something we should all know, but not a big deal. Just a little green. All in all, it's about the same as it always was when going in there.
 
gkainz said:
It's 124' tall because some moron spec'ed the site just south of a 60' cliff, so the first 60' brings the cab to almost field elevation ... :D
Click to expand...

Dude you have no idea. I've worked here four years and can't for the life of me figure out why we're at the bottom of a damn hill. I frequently lose a/c in the ground clutter on 30R. Even worse on 12L.
 
Clark1961 said:
You missed it entirely. The readers of POA have been assured that there are no private towers in the US.
Click to expand...

Defne "private". Are we talking simply non-FAA/ contract towers, or are we discussing private in terms of a private corporation running it? There are a few NFCT's run by city/ county governments.
 
BTW, it's still not charted. The last info I have on it is a picture that someone shared on Facebook on February 23.

austin_kedc_twr.jpg
 
zaitcev said:
BTW, it's still not charted. The last info I have on it is a picture that someone shared on Facebook on February 23.
Click to expand...
It takes a while for changes to make it into a chart cycle. I've seen changes take a year or longer. There are processes in place for the charting companies, change approvals etc.
In the meantime, pilots are expected to read NOTAMs. Yeah right! :D
 
The AWOS/ATIS reports the tower frequency. So you don't even have to check NOTAMS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top