Those based at fields with potential tower closures...

DrMack said:
Something for VFR folks to understand though is that if an IFR flight cleared for an instrument approach at a non-towered airport does not land, it's not as simple as a VFR go around. The IFR flight must begin the execution of the published missed approach procedure, change frequency to approach control and possibly end up at a holding point quite a few miles from the airport before getting clearance to try again. The hazard of close encounter of the IFR/VFR kind is especially acute when it's MVFR. I always dread breaking out at a few hundred feet AGL after a straight in instrument approach hoping not to encounter scud runners or folks just buzzing visually around the pattern without radio calls. None of this applies if it's VMC and I'm cleared for a visual approach. In that case I'm just another see and avoid chum in the pattern so on visual approaches I'm always thinking about normal pattern entries even if TRACON lines me up for a straight in five mile out.
Click to expand...

That's not true. The approach clearance does not preclude the circling maneuver which is not much different than flying the pattern.
 
roncachamp said:
That's not true. The approach clearance does not preclude the circling maneuver which is not much different than flying the pattern.
Click to expand...

Beg to differ. The circling maneuver is very much different than a normal pattern maneuver. For one thing, it is executed at the circling MDA, which is usually well below the pattern altitude plus you are entering the pattern on the upwind straight in before the MAP which on a straight in is itself lower than the MDA for circling so if the decision to go missed is at the MAP per design, circling is out of the question.
 
Last edited:
DrMack said:
Beg to differ. The circling maneuver is very much different than a normal pattern maneuver. For one thing, it is executed at the circling MDA, which is usually well below the pattern altitude.
Click to expand...

In what ways do they differ? What requires the circling maneuver to be flown at the circling MDA?
 
NONE of it is going to happen. None of it. If they can't run the FAA on last years budget then something is seriously wrong.
 
roncachamp said:
In what ways do they differ? What requires the circling maneuver to be flown at the circling MDA?
Click to expand...

You're right, it doesn't necessarily need to be flown at the circling MDA, but if I'm on a straight in IAP I'm not thinking about going missed until MAP, which as I said, is usually well below the visual pattern altitude and below the circling MDA. If I'm on a straight in I'm thinking about the missed procedure that I briefed, not a last moment switch to a circling maneuver and a hope that I can keep a visual on the runway while I sidestep and climb to the circling MDA to execute a 360 degree circling maneuver (which I confess I have never even considered doing).
 
flav8r said:
[

Some of the so-called International airports like Jacksonville, FL (KJAX) barely have
enough flights to justify a tower at all (253 flight ops).

All the statistics for any U.S. Airport can be found at Airnav.com.
Click to expand...


I found a towered airport with only 57 daily operations that is on the list.
 
murphey said:
Let's see. Close FTG, BJC towers, no night towers for APA or COS which leaves....Class B DEN.

Call me when DIA let's student pilots practice there.
Click to expand...

How is would closing the towers at APA and COS on mid-shifts (generally 2300-0700) going to affect this?
 
NoHeat said:
I found a towered airport with only 57 daily operations that is on the list.
Click to expand...

There is no doubt many towers that could be closed and no one would notice. It's my understanding that some airports have towers just to attract, or keep scheduled regional airline operations.
 
I'm in the same boat as many here. I'm based out of KCGF, which has a Flight Options base but in reality wouldn't have that much trouble losing it's tower.

KYNG, though, is going to be a nightmare with all the C-130s doing touch-n-go's mixing it up with students. Every time I'm there I'm mixing it up with one, and I'm always glad to have the tower sequencing us between them.

I can't imagine KMFD will be much better.
 
Dav8or said:
There is no doubt many towers that could be closed and no one would notice. It's my understanding that some airports have towers just to attract, or keep scheduled regional airline operations.
Click to expand...

Tyler-Pounds (KTYR), is a contract tower on the list with regional jet service. It's the home of the US Federal Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the most important patent and trademark venue in the country. So even if the tower shuts down the scheduled services would no doubt continue.
 
TedR3 said:
While poking around for information about the potential closures, I found this 2012 audit report which compares the cost of FAA vs. contract towers:

http://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/dot/files/FAA Federal Contract Tower Program Report^11-5-12.pdf
Click to expand...

There is a potentially major hoof in mouth phrase for the White House in the opening statement:
the Program has been successful in providing low-cost air traffic control services at airports that otherwise would not have received these services, increasing the level of safety at these airports for pilots and the surrounding local communities.
Click to expand...
By its own admission here the administration is admitting that it is willing to throw the safety of the public under the bus for political gain by closing down these public safety services (let's all please remember that it was Obama's own OMB director Jack Lew and legislative affairs director Rob Nabors who personally pitched the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid).

The other point to be gleaned is that by admitting that the safety of the "surrounding communities" is enhanced by these air traffic control services, they are admitting that the public, not the pilots and aircraft owners and operators, are the true USERS of the air traffic control system. So if the public is the true USER of these services, who should pay any proposed "user" fees?
 
Concord Regional (KJQF) is on that list, which I think is a mistake. That airport has executive jets, jets belonging to NASCAR teams, flight schools, flying clubs. It has about 166 active flights a day going in and out. Compare that with my home drome of ly 118 flights a day.
 
Tarheel Pilot said:
Concord Regional (KJQF) is on that list, which I think is a mistake. That airport has executive jets, jets belonging to NASCAR teams, flight schools, flying clubs. It has about 166 active flights a day going in and out. Compare that with my home drome of ly 118 flights a day.
Click to expand...

Because it is busy on Thursday and Sunday they need a full time tower? I've actually heard one of those jets take off before 7:00 am when the tower was still closed!!
 
TedR3 said:
While poking around for information about the potential closures, I found this 2012 audit report which compares the cost of FAA vs. contract towers:

http://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/dot/files/FAA Federal Contract Tower Program Report^11-5-12.pdf

Thought it was interesting.
Click to expand...

Ok, admittedly i only skimmed it instead of reading the full thing, but ...
It claims the FAA towers cost nearly 4 times as much and have 2-3 times as many errors. The report concludes that they need more oversight over contract towers (which is true, but wasn't my first reaction).

I think i see where the government might save some money, without reducing safety.
 
I honestly believe that Oregon could stand to loose most of the towers on the list. The only one that I'm a little concerned about is Portland-Troutdale because it's underneath the Portland Class C, and in the glideslope for runways 28L and 28R.

For example, at Salem McNary (SLE), I've never been there when it's busier that my non-towered home field (CVO). Also, I think it's weird that people seem to assume that jets mean that you need to have a tower. We have jets all the time. The HP shuttle used to come in every morning, and we have jets in frequently. It's not uncommon to have 3 parked on the ramp. Also, I haven't found them to be hard to deal with in the pattern.

One issue that I can reasonably see being a problem is getting the required landings in for the PPL. I suppose I would have had to go to Eugene, which does handle commercial traffic. Other than that, you'd have to fly to Portland-Hillboro which is a much longer x-country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top