Remote Control Towers in USA

[Brad Z]

So it will be perfect for the airports that don't need towers, but have them anyway for various reasons.

What are those reasons?

OK, I'll bite. There are plenty of operators (mostly turbine class operators) who choose not to operate from nontowered airfields. Reasons are varied but generally due to a fear of sharing the pattern with little planes, close calls, etc. Also, towers tend to simplify and speed up the process of getting in and out IFR, even if the tower is a so-called VFR tower.

I'm not sure they're necessarily valid reasons, but they are reasons. Often these operators talk to airport sponsors. Airport sponsors, not wanting to miss out on traffic from kerosene burners, tend to listen and look for ways to justify a tower. It sounds like this might fill that niche.

 

[TMetzinger]

Apparently the FAA is testing one of these remote control towers in Virginia.

http://www.saabgroup.com/Civil-secu...raffic-Management-Solutions/Remote-Tower-Pre/


I can see the technology would work, but I fear the consequences. Think outsourcing tech support. The same guys asking if you have rebooted your computer from a call center in India will now be running our control towers.

That's my home field, and people are cautiously optimistic about it.

 

[Lindberg]

What are those reasons?

Around here, a couple of reasons are politics, ego, and trivial 121 operations. I am sure you're more familiar with this than I am.

 

[roncachamp]

OK, I'll bite. There are plenty of operators (mostly turbine class operators) who choose not to operate from nontowered airfields. Reasons are varied but generally due to a fear of sharing the pattern with little planes, close calls, etc.

Can you identify some of these operators?

Also, towers tend to simplify and speed up the process of getting in and out IFR, even if the tower is a so-called VFR tower.

VFR towers can slow the process of getting out IFR. Take KATW as an example; when the tower is open aircraft call the tower, then the tower calls approach, then tower calls the airplane back. When the tower is closed aircraft can call approach or center directly.

 

[EdFred]

The military is what keeps SAW open. From what I see they have B52s, F-106s, F-101s and F-111s based there.

Seriously though, it's not necessarily the traffic but the type of traffic that keeps that tower open.

Which is exactly what I was getting at with the bureaucracy comment. There is no reason that SAW needs a tower other than some bureaucratic (and not necessarily governmental) behind the scenes garbage.

How old is that article, because there has never been a stream of planes pulling up every 15 minutes in the 10+ years I've been flying and out of there.

 

[StinkBug]

I know that, that's why I put "��" in there.

I dont know what you put in quotes there, because whatever it is doesn't work with my browser. I just get a black square.

 

[Palmpilot]

I dont know what you put in quotes there, because whatever it is doesn't work with my browser. I just get a black square.

On my browser, it shows as a smiley face.

 

[jpower]

This system is being tested at Leesburg Executive Airport, KJYO, which currently has no control tower. So at the end of the test period all you have is a comparison of remote tower operations vs. untowered operations.

That's my home field, and people are cautiously optimistic about it.

Mine too, when I'm back in the DC area. Does anyone have any more details on how it's going to be implemented and when? I did some poking around online but turned up nothing. Is it going to be charted? It appears to be a 90 day trial, but is it something that people are thinking could be permanent? And when is it supposed to open?