CGZ to operate as non-towered airport during Copperstate Fly-In

KeyWestPhotog

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Dec 11, 2012
Messages
206
Location
Chesapeake, VA
Display Name

Display name:
WingMan
If any of you are going to this, I'd like to hear how it turns out!


Link for News Article - From General Aviation News
CASA GRANDE, Arizona — Each October, pilots arriving for the Copperstate Fly-In at the Casa Grande Municipal Airport (CGZ) have been greeted by an enthusiastic crew of FAA air traffic controllers, drawn from facilities throughout the western United States, all proud to have been selected to staff the temporary Copperstate Control Tower. This year, however, things will be different.

While both management and controllers from the air traffic control facilities involved are eager to support this year’s fly-in, slated for Oct. 24-26, the FAA’s implementation of a user fee structure to fund such operations has dictated otherwise, Copperstate officials said.

For the first time in the 40-year history of the event, Copperstate organizers would be required to pay a user fee, of many thousands of dollars, to cover controller salaries, overtime, travel and other expenses. To add insult to injury, the FAA also declared the military surplus control tower that Copperstate has provided for the past 10 years (and which has worked flawlessly, unlike the FAA tower used previously) to be unsuitable for controller use, organizers note. Of course, the cost of the FAA-mandated portable control tower, and the technical staff to support it, would be added to the bill, officials added.

As a totally volunteer, non-profit, 501(c)3 organization, Copperstate takes great pride in running a “lean and mean” operation, maximizing the funds available to fulfill its mission of providing scholarship programs for young men and women seeking careers in the aerospace industry. While the FAA has never provided a firm quote of the costs demanded for this year’s temporary tower — despite numerous requests that they do so — off-the-record estimates and a perusal of reimbursable agreements paid by similar events make it clear that payment cannot be made without severely compromising, if not eliminating, the scholarship programs.

Fortunately, there is an alternative: Casa Grande Municipal Airport is a non-towered airport — and it will simply remain so during the fly-in. While traffic volume is expected to be high, a safe environment for air operations can be maintained by eliminating the operational complexity of previous years, which was primarily due to the use of special traffic patterns for local flights (passenger rides, factory demos, showcase, etc.). During this year’s event, these special traffic patterns have been eliminated, and all pilots will follow standard recommended practices for operations at non-towered airports.

While Copperstate’s usual Notice To Airmen (NOTAM) will disappear along with the tower, much of the fly-in information previously provided by the NOTAM can now be found in a Notice To Pilots, published on the Copperstate website. This information is provided as a courtesy to pilots, who are reminded that all operations during the event are at the pilot’s own risk and discretion, organizers said.
 
Just be careful out there.
 
Awesome. Imagine people finding out essential gov't monopoly services aren't essential. The horror the horror.
 
What ever shall we do there where air shows and fly ins long before the gov. Stepped in.can only hope that all goes well .the less we depend on this administration the better.fly safe everyone.
 
Maybe it is just my unusually more than usually foul mood today, but sooner or later(and hopefully I am wrong) there will be a mid air or close call at some fly-in that used to be done with a temp tower that was done without the tower because of the FAA being a bunch of A-holes, and then the media and the FAA will use this unfortunate event to either demand that all fly-in use temp towers to be provided only by the FAA, and paid for to the FAA by the fly in, or to cancel all fly-ins.

That being said, is there some regulation that prevents a fly-in from renting their own temp tower, and using volunteer controllers to direct traffic, without FAA supervision(hopefully I am getting my thought across).
 
That being said, is there some regulation that prevents a fly-in from renting their own temp tower, and using volunteer controllers to direct traffic, without FAA supervision(hopefully I am getting my thought across).

Its a bad idea. I recently went to a fly-in where they were using a volunteer tower on a different frequency than the CTAF, and didn't get the memo out to everyone. Complete disaster
 
In every single amateur "tower" at a fly-in I've been to, it is a disaster. Even the FAA ones frequently devolve into crap. The AOPA open house would have been better without one back when FDK didn't have a tower (frankly FDK would be better today without the inane and pointless tower there).
 
In every single amateur "tower" at a fly-in I've been to, it is a disaster. Even the FAA ones frequently devolve into crap. The AOPA open house would have been better without one back when FDK didn't have a tower (frankly FDK would be better today without the inane and pointless tower there).
So it can be done, just a crappy idea. Oh well.
 
Awesome. This is just wonderful. CGZ needs a tower on a daily basis anyway. This will be fun with all the practice approaches by non-engilsh speaking individuals going in there, along with all the same people doing touch & go's on both sides of the runway. I'll just drive from CHD...
 
Makes me want to go there. The FAA acting like a bunch of 4 year olds when their sippy cup is taken away. It's infuriating.
 
How big is the fly-in? MERFI has operated out of untowered airports for years.
 
That being said, is there some regulation that prevents a fly-in from renting their own temp tower, and using volunteer controllers to direct traffic, without FAA supervision...

Yes, there is-- Section 65.31 requires that controllers working such events hold a control tower operator certificate with appropriate facility rating (and a second class medical). It's the FAA that issues the CTO and facility rating-- and they're not inclined to do so for an operation such as you propose.

Besides, operating a control tower brings with it an enormous amount of potential liability, liability that is not covered by any insurance available to event organizers.

It should be noted that Copperstate isn't exactly reinventing the wheel, here-- the Cactus Fly-In is held at the same airport each March, and they've never had a control tower.
 
Yes, there is-- Section 65.31 requires that controllers working such events hold a control tower operator certificate with appropriate facility rating (and a second class medical). It's the FAA that issues the CTO and facility rating-- and they're not inclined to do so for an operation such as you propose.

Besides, operating a control tower brings with it an enormous amount of potential liability, liability that is not covered by any insurance available to event organizers.

It should be noted that Copperstate isn't exactly reinventing the wheel, here-- the Cactus Fly-In is held at the same airport each March, and they've never had a control tower.
So it cannot be done, and is an even bigger crappy idea.
 
Back
Top