Virtual Tower

Aren't you the lucky one,someone has to do it. Good luck.
 
I was at FNL in June and asked why, as busy as they are, there was no tower. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
 
I just can't see how this can be a good idea. The remote FSS Airport Advisory Service at places like Millville NJ was bad enough. For $5.9 million, I would think you could build a nice tower, and you need people to staff it in either case. What's the betting line on whether this really happens?
Jon
 
My airport could use one, or no tower. Doesn't really have the traffic to justify one. I think the only reason we have it is because of some jet traffic.
 
I wonder how they will be able to provide progressive taxi assistance... maybe the virtual towers will only be in places with really simple layouts?
 
Last edited:
4CornerFlyer said:
I just can't see how this can be a good idea. The remote FSS Airport Advisory Service at places like Millville NJ was bad enough. For $5.9 million, I would think you could build a nice tower, and you need people to staff it in either case. What's the betting line on whether this really happens?
Jon
Click to expand...

Just one datapoint, the new tower at BJC is reported to have cost 23.7 million. Hey, it's just tax dollars and you know those don't go very far.
 
Bob Noel said:
I wonder how they will be able to provide progressive taxi assistance... maybe the virtual towers will only be in places with really simple layouts?
Click to expand...
If you need progressive taxi instructions at Fort/Love...

But now that transponders are supposed to be on on the ground, I don't see how that would be a problem. Besides, I would assume they would have video of the airport itself.
 
Everskyward said:
If you need progressive taxi instructions at Fort/Love...
Click to expand...
Hey, I've gotten lost at FNL and ended up having to walk across the field to Hooters for wings and iced tea...
 
Everskyward said:
If you need progressive taxi instructions at Fort/Love...
Click to expand...

hence the question: "maybe the virtual towers will only be in places with really simple layouts?" (yes, I admit I didn't google Fort/Love to see how simple it is)

The concept of having enough traffic to justify a tower (even just a virtual tower) would tend to conflict with the concept of the fool-proof small airport layout.


Everskyward said:
But now that transponders are supposed to be on on the ground, I don't see how that would be a problem. Besides, I would assume they would have video of the airport itself.
Click to expand...

yeah, sure, because electronics always work (even when not installed) and transponder antenna never are blocked by the gear.
 
There is if course no requirement to have a transponder at FNL or the surrounding airspace. At least not yet.
Jon
 
Bob Noel said:
The concept of having enough traffic to justify a tower (even just a virtual tower) would tend to conflict with the concept of the fool-proof small airport layout.
Click to expand...
I would say FNL qualifies. So does Durango, their other choice. Grand Junction has a tower and a simple airport layout, so do Aspen and Eagle.

Bob Noel said:
yeah, sure, because electronics always work (even when not installed) and transponder antenna never are blocked by the gear.
Click to expand...
Well then, they'll need to do what they do at airports with physical towers when its foggy and the tower can't see the airplanes.
 
Last edited:
Is it unthinkable to add remote cameras with the ability to zoom/pan for use with progressive taxi, etc?
 
I'm imagining someone sitting in a room with a huge video screen with the word 'Buffering' plastered across it.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Is it unthinkable to add remote cameras with the ability to zoom/pan for use with progressive taxi, etc?
Click to expand...

I believe they will have cameras covering the whole movement area. Taxi shouldn't be a problem for the main runway and public ramp. The corporate hangars use the crosswind runway but transient aircraft have no reason to be back there. Head to head on the taxiway is always a possibility.
 
Don't use light guns much anymore but I guess that is out, too..for a/c going nordo.
 
flhrci said:
So, what do we call virtual airspace? Virtual Class C or D? Hmm..
Click to expand...

They said for this test it will part-time D then E just like normal towers. They expect it to work just like a 'real' tower.
 
ejensen said:
They said for this test it will part-time D then E just like normal towers. They expect it to work just like a 'real' tower.
Click to expand...

Did they say what the charts would look like? We're getting one and they say it will not be marked on the charts. Just open by NOTAM.
 
jbarrass said:
Did they say what the charts would look like? We're getting one and they say it will not be marked on the charts. Just open by NOTAM.
Click to expand...

NOTAM and ATIS for now. Chart cycles are too slow. Test would be over before the chart was printed. Not sure what the digital data will show.
 
So if no one is present, shut off the txpdr and say nothin?
(just pondering what might happen)
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
So if no one is present, shut off the txpdr and say nothin?
(just pondering what might happen)
Click to expand...

I'm sure that will happen. We have radar down to 500' both primary and secondary. And the camera aren't just digital. They use pattern recognition and motion to track the plane. The controller won't have try ans pick out the aircraft. And each controller will handle only one airport.
 
ejensen said:
I'm sure that will happen. We have radar down to 500' both primary and secondary. And the camera aren't just digital. They use pattern recognition and motion to track the plane. The controller won't have try ans pick out the aircraft. And each controller will handle only one airport.
Click to expand...

From reading the notes, a local WAM will be installed to ensure radar-like coverage down to and on the surface. Also from reading the notes, they will include nordo/non-squawking traffic in the testing.

In short, read the notes. Obviously some serious effort has gone into the planning. The execution of the plan is a one-step-at-a-time thing with the goal of a permanent certified virtual tower.
 
This whole thing sounds kinda silly to me.

Just put a little real tower, complete with human in, or leave it uncontrolled.
 
Just wondering if we will understand their accent. I'm not so good with Indian, Pakistani yet.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Just wondering if we will understand their accent. I'm not so good with Indian, Pakistani yet.
Click to expand...


That's how I feel when I fly in the south. Admittedly I'm better at understanding the accent than I was 20 years ago.
 
So you're having troubles with your virtual tower?

Have you tried unplugging it and plugging it back in :rofl:
 
I would assume the goal is to eventually have one complex somewhere controlling all the airports in the country....with a bank of computers

...telling the airborn computers when to land.
 
Clark1961 said:
From reading the notes, a local WAM will be installed to ensure radar-like coverage down to and on the surface. Also from reading the notes, they will include nordo/non-squawking traffic in the testing.

In short, read the notes. Obviously some serious effort has gone into the planning. The execution of the plan is a one-step-at-a-time thing with the goal of a permanent certified virtual tower.
Click to expand...

They didn't mention WAM for FNL but did say it would be used for the mountain airport test. They said our current radar coverage is enough for the program. Of course things change and docs are not always removed or modified in a timely manner.
 
Captain said:
I would assume the goal is to eventually have one complex somewhere controlling all the airports in the country....with a bank of computers

...telling the airborn computers when to land.
Click to expand...

Sounds about right. :(
 
Stumbled on this old thread... so whatever happened to this virtual tower that was supposed to be operational (per the OP) in the summer of 2016.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top