Class D Operating Statistics

DrMack

DrMack

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Dec 2, 2011
Messages
552
Location
KRBD
Display Name
Display name:
DrMack
Here is a spreadsheet that shows the operating statistics for all the class D airports (contract towers only) in the USA for FY2012 (Oct2011-Sep2012). It comes from the FAA Air Traffic Activity Data System (ATADS).

The forum won't allow the upload of an excel spreadsheet so I had to put it in a zipped file.
 

Attachments

  • Towered_airport_statistics_FY2012.zip
    36.6 KB · Views: 78
Last edited:
Thanks, that's really interesting, and puts things in quite a bit of perspective.
 
I ran a simple logistic regression on the data and it appears that only the presence of air carriers or air taxi operators determine whether the tower will remain open with only a couple of exceptions. It is further verified by summing the number of air carrier and taxi operations for each airport and then sorting by that sum.

So if GA safety doesn't matter to the FAA, why are we so d*$#ed over-regulated!!?
 
Last edited:
DrMack said:
I ran a simple logistic regression on the data and it appears that only the presence of air carriers or air taxi operators determine whether the tower will remain open with only a couple of exceptions. It is further verified by summing the number of air carrier and taxi operations for each airport and then sorting by that sum.

So if GA safety doesn't matter to the FAA, why are we so d*$#ed over-regulated!!?
Click to expand...

To keep us from competing with the folks they do care about
 
Control towers are not just used for local traffic - at times they are used to sequence traffic into, under, and around CLass B and C airspace. Consider the disaster of closing HND.SAC or several of the others on operations of the Class B airport they underlie.

someone takes off at HND heading north before they turn to avoid the downdraft that exists semi-permanently over the hills to the SW. Heads them right for LAS - the LAS Approach and tower have no idea what they are doing - you are going to get alot more airliner go arounds and controllers who add a lot more space for that kind of stuff- whereas I just tell the HND controller that I'm going to fly to the edge of the Bravo airspace and then turn and parallel it to 8000 before I head SW - controller picks up the phone and tells LAS approach and the problem gets solved.

I am thinking about the potential for problems here at POC with LAX/ONT and [not so much] BUR - we have days where we operate east with 5 knot winds from 080 or 110 and ONT is operating west- someone takes off from there

I admit that CCB does not cause the same level of concern - but thats been pilot controlled since day 1 of the controlled airspace days - and the local pilot schools are training pilots for a totally controlled environment from totally controlled cultures [like Asia] - who I am afraid will not adapt well to radio calls at an uncontrolled field - you can barely understand them now with only a few things to say.
 
Spreadsheet reposted as a PDF which PoA will accept
 

Attachments

  • Towered_airport_statistics_FY2012.pdf
    273.1 KB · Views: 44
How do you get a 60 movement/day Tower ???
 
Palmpilot said:
I received this from a local email list:

The DOT blog says towers with fewer than 150,000 operations per year were considered in making the list of the least-used 100 towers in the country.
http://fastlane.dot.gov/2013/02/on-s...ir-travel.html
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The criteria they are using for the closure list is fewer than 150,000 operations or 10,000 air carrier operations (in this context, they are including air taxi ops).

Look at the bright side. This is irrefutable evidence that the system is designed and operated primarily for the airlines. When the administration, once again, proposes users fees so GA can pay its "fair share" we can point out that the cost of all of the towers with less than 150,000 ops should be assess to the airlines, since they are the sole reason those towers exist.
 

Attachments

  • Facilities_Could_Be_Closed.pdf
    47 KB · Views: 8
I use to work at a Federal Contract Tower that only did around 50 ops on average a day. Minimum I think I saw was 7 in a day, max slight over a 100 ops. I can remember going hours without talking to an aircraft, it was a joke. I got very little self worth out of it and probably was only really needed to control/sequence aircraft once every few weeks when we would get slightly busy.

Saw online the other day with an article in the local paper with the Airport Manager stating the effects of gutting the tower. They made it seem like it would really hurt the airport, that the military would stop flying in as much and it could affect all air carrier flights coming it the airport. I just rolled my eyes, if only the public really knew.
 
brew1819 said:
I use to work at a Federal Contract Tower that only did around 50 ops on average a day. Minimum I think I saw was 7 in a day, max slight over a 100 ops. I can remember going hours without talking to an aircraft, it was a joke. I got very little self worth out of it and probably was only really needed to control/sequence aircraft once every few weeks when we would get slightly busy.

Saw online the other day with an article in the local paper with the Airport Manager stating the effects of gutting the tower. They made it seem like it would really hurt the airport, that the military would stop flying in as much and it could affect all air carrier flights coming it the airport. I just rolled my eyes, if only the public really knew.
Click to expand...

Rather than spending 600k/year on staffing a tower, safety at a lot of these peaceful places would be more enhanced by staffing a on-field ARFF station.

There are places that get busy on 'race day' or 'cattle auction day' but are dead otherwise. Some of these airports also are like a swarm of bees once a day when 10 different parcel haulers show up at the same time. What is missing is a mechanism for those places to have some form of ATC service limited to the busy times without having to staff the predictable dead times.
 
weilke said:
Rather than spending 600k/year on staffing a tower, safety at a lot of these peaceful places would be more enhanced by staffing a on-field ARFF station.

There are places that get busy on 'race day' or 'cattle auction day' but are dead otherwise. Some of these airports also are like a swarm of bees once a day when 10 different parcel haulers show up at the same time. What is missing is a mechanism for those places to have some form of ATC service limited to the busy times without having to staff the predictable dead times.
Click to expand...

This is a great idea! I don't have a ton of experience with class d airports as I fly out of a class c with steady traffic and certainly a need for a tower but I've flown into a bunch of class D's where I'm the only one talking to the tower from 15 miles out all the way to touchdown. I'm all for keeping the skies safe for all of us GA pilots but I must be honest, the ATC system seems to be full of wasted money.

The thing I get a kick out of is when I land at the same class d airport that I'm the only plane within 15 miles talking to the tower and I get handed off to a ground controller as I am exiting the runway. I actually almost chuckle while the mic is open but hold back. Sweet job for the controllers and I give them all the credit in the world when it gets busy but a system based on traffic flow and known busy times does seem like the best way forward.
 
jspilot said:
The thing I get a kick out of is when I land at the same class d airport that I'm the only plane within 15 miles talking to the tower and I get handed off to a ground controller as I am exiting the runway. I actually almost chuckle while the mic is open but hold back. Sweet job for the controllers and I give them all the credit in the world when it gets busy but a system based on traffic flow and known busy times does seem like the best way forward.
Click to expand...

At night, we used to have the same controller man approach tower and ground. They had a full display in the cab. If you arrived later in the evening, they would occasionally stumble and give the landing clearance on the approach frequency or forget to hand you off to themselves alltogether. Now approach gets handled remotely, they even took the controllers ability away to keep himself awake by chatting with transiting aircraft.
 
weilke said:
Rather than spending 600k/year on staffing a tower, safety at a lot of these peaceful places would be more enhanced by staffing a on-field ARFF station.

There are places that get busy on 'race day' or 'cattle auction day' but are dead otherwise. Some of these airports also are like a swarm of bees once a day when 10 different parcel haulers show up at the same time. What is missing is a mechanism for those places to have some form of ATC service limited to the busy times without having to staff the predictable dead times.
Click to expand...

That's what temporary towers are for. KFLD has a temporary tower every year during Airventure. KSBM has one when a major golf tournament is played nearby.
 
weilke said:
At night, we used to have the same controller man approach tower and ground. They had a full display in the cab. If you arrived later in the evening, they would occasionally stumble and give the landing clearance on the approach frequency or forget to hand you off to themselves alltogether.
Click to expand...

The approach frequency is probably at the core airport. No need to change frequencies at all, nothing prevents use of an approach frequency for tower and ground functions.

Now approach gets handled remotely, they even took the controllers ability away to keep himself awake by chatting with transiting aircraft.
Click to expand...

They took away all methods of controllers keeping themselves awake. Used to be books, magazines, crossword puzzles were allowed when there was no traffic. When traffic called you put them away. After they were banned came reports of controllers asleep on position. Coincidence?
 
roncachamp said:
They took away all methods of controllers keeping themselves awake. Used to be books, magazines, crossword puzzles were allowed when there was no traffic. When traffic called you put them away. After they were banned came reports of controllers asleep on position. Coincidence?
Click to expand...

Well, one could ask whether a position that is that dead really has to be manned. If you only have 3-4 IFR movements between midnight and 6 am, the world would probably not end if the airport went uncontrolled during that period of time.
 
weilke said:
Well, one could ask whether a position that is that dead really has to be manned. If you only have 3-4 IFR movements between midnight and 6 am, the world would probably not end if the airport went uncontrolled during that period of time.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but they are manned. What's your guess on the justification for banning books, magazines, crossword puzzles, etc., when the controller has no traffic?
 
roncachamp said:
Agreed, but they are manned. What's your guess on the justification for banning books, magazines, crossword puzzles, etc., when the controller has no traffic?
Click to expand...

I dont know. Are you supposed to scan the horizon all night for that one plane with radio-failure who will sneak up on you and wait for light-signals ?
 
weilke said:
I dont know. Are you supposed to scan the horizon all night for that one plane with radio-failure who will sneak up on you and wait for light-signals ?
Click to expand...

I don't think that was the reason for the ban as it was imposed on all controllers, not just thiose in the tower.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top