Sequester stupidity closing the KSTS control tower

Skyscraper

Skyscraper

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Mar 12, 2013
Messages
1,490
Location
Santa Rosa, Ca
Display Name
Skyscraper
Home Airfield
KSTS (Charles Schultz)
If any of you read the Press Democrat out of Santa Rosa, Ca you might have seen the headline a few days ago. This sequester business in washington has got my home airports control tower on the chopping block :sad:

Not only do I enjoy improving my radio com skills with the tower I fly out of, but it'll also be more dangerous if this really goes through. Horizon and Alaska fly 78 passenger twin turbo prop planes in an out, averaging 8 arrival/departures a day. As just another little Cessna 150 buzzing around, it kinda sucks. I guess on the bright side it'll help train my traffic awareness and radio com even more, but still. I'LL MISS THE TOWER!
 
On my God... We will have to go back to landing without a clearance. Whatsoever shall we possibly do? :)
 
Skyscraper said:
If any of you read the Press Democrat out of Santa Rosa, Ca you might have seen the headline a few days ago. This sequester business in washington has got my home airports control tower on the chopping block :sad:

Not only do I enjoy improving my radio com skills with the tower I fly out of, but it'll also be more dangerous if this really goes through. Horizon and Alaska fly 78 passenger twin turbo prop planes in an out, averaging 8 arrival/departures a day. As just another little Cessna 150 buzzing around, it kinda sucks. I guess on the bright side it'll help train my traffic awareness and radio com even more, but still. I'LL MISS THE TOWER!
Click to expand...

I think your definition and my definition of dangerous diverge a bit. It might be inconvenient for them to have to merge into existing pattern traffic (likely on a straight in approach)... but by no stretch of the imagination is it dangerous. See and avoid. You've been trained to do this, right?
 
It sounds like you're a low-time pilot. If you're used to a towered fiekd, I can see where you think eliminating the tower is a problem. I can assure you it's not, it means that you will now have the opportunity to hone different radio skills.
 
I do not mean to ask stupid questions and not only am I a very low time student pilot, but I probably fly one of the smallest planes of anyone on here for most of you are big time pilots flying the twins and heavy's.

These bigger jets, will they enter traffic or call out traffic and fly straight in?

I believe the regs say enter traffic, but do you believe this will happen with pilots whom are use to a straight in approach?

My grass strip I fly from we only have a couple planes that hangar here. One day I was taxing down the runway to head to one end for take off.

I knew the cessna was out but I also knew he always flew the pattern before landing. On this day I just so happened to have my radio on. I am just pulling out onto the runway and I hear. N**** coming straight in to land runway 27 5 miles out.

I jump on the radio and say, Ultralight, at the time I was in my ultralight, heading down to the holdshort at 27 I will hold short.

My point, he never flies straight in but wanted to that day. It was a great lesson for us both. I wonder if we will be hearing about this type of thing happening after these towers go off line?

Fly Smart.
 
Once these towers go off line will the planes flying into these airports still use a transponder?
 
1600vw said:
I do not mean to ask stupid questions and not only am I a very low time student pilot, but I probably fly one of the smallest planes of anyone on here for most of you are big time pilots flying the twins and heavy's.

These bigger jets, will they enter traffic or call out traffic and fly straight in?

I believe the regs say enter traffic, but do you believe this will happen with pilots whom are use to a straight in approach?

My grass strip I fly from we only have a couple planes that hangar here. One day I was taxing down the runway to head to one end for take off.

I knew the cessna was out but I also knew he always flew the pattern before landing. On this day I just so happened to have my radio on. I am just pulling out onto the runway and I hear. N**** coming straight in to land runway 27 5 miles out.

I jump on the radio and say, Ultralight, at the time I was in my ultralight, heading down to the holdshort at 27 I will hold short.

My point, he never flies straight in but wanted to that day. It was a great lesson for us both. I wonder if we will be hearing about this type of thing happening after these towers go off line?

Fly Smart.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but no reason for it to be s aource of panic - just the opportunity to exercise a little extra care.

And, if I am ready to take off and someone announces five miles straight in, I say (after diligently looking to see if landing traffic is close), "Bonanza niner-two romeo departing runway two seven."

1600vw said:
Once these towers go off line will the planes flying into these airports still use a transponder?
Click to expand...

I know of no one whose standard practices involve differentiating transponder use based upon whether there is a tower or not; can't imagine why I'd change a thing about what I do (my plane is set up to automatically switch on the transponder to Alt when I take off anyway).
 
denverpilot said:
On my God... We will have to go back to landing without a clearance. Whatsoever shall we possibly do? :)
Click to expand...

Got a note from mutual friend about APA...the friend has written up notes for the flying club how to deal with Centennial during the overnight shift with no tower, even going so far as to draw maps of the parallel runways and describe the traffic pattern.

This scares me, that so many people are apprehensive about flying with no tower, to the point remedial training may be required to remind people how to fly. :mad2:
 
1600vw said:
I do not mean to ask stupid questions and not only am I a very low time student pilot, but I probably fly one of the smallest planes of anyone on here for most of you are big time pilots flying the twins and heavy's.

These bigger jets, will they enter traffic or call out traffic and fly straight in?

I believe the regs say enter traffic, but do you believe this will happen with pilots whom are use to a straight in approach?

My grass strip I fly from we only have a couple planes that hangar here. One day I was taxing down the runway to head to one end for take off.

I knew the cessna was out but I also knew he always flew the pattern before landing. On this day I just so happened to have my radio on. I am just pulling out onto the runway and I hear. N**** coming straight in to land runway 27 5 miles out.

I jump on the radio and say, Ultralight, at the time I was in my ultralight, heading down to the holdshort at 27 I will hold short.

My point, he never flies straight in but wanted to that day. It was a great lesson for us both. I wonder if we will be hearing about this type of thing happening after these towers go off line?

Fly Smart.
Click to expand...

I have flown into a couple of airports that have scheduled commercial flights and no tower. They fly IFR normally, so they would typically do a straight in approach. Just be aware of them and adjust your pattern accordingly and use your radio. We get turbines all the time into my field, KLHM, and there is no tower. They will talk on the CTAF, so it isn't a problem. The scarier thing to me are the ultralights who aren't talking, but I always do a 360 and scan the pattern.
 
You will be just fine. You don't NEED someone to tell you to takeoff and when to land. You should know how to do this all by yourself if need be. In sure the whole 8 departures from those turboprop things--will be just like you and announce on the ctaf where they are. Good luck to ya
 
Go fly, once you get used to not having to ask for permission you might like it that way.
 
Skyscraper said:
Not only do I enjoy improving my radio com skills with the tower I fly out of, but it'll also be more dangerous if this really goes through. Horizon and Alaska fly 78 passenger twin turbo prop planes in an out, averaging 8 arrival/departures a day. As just another little Cessna 150 buzzing around, it kinda sucks. I guess on the bright side it'll help train my traffic awareness and radio com even more, but still. I'LL MISS THE TOWER!
Click to expand...

A class D tower provides no separation services to or from VFR aircraft. All it does is provide sequencing services. By and large, even these are unnecessary.

I remember HEF, SBY, and FDK here before they got towers. I can't say that any of them would be dramatically affected if they lost them.
 
murphey said:
Got a note from mutual friend about APA...the friend has written up notes for the flying club how to deal with Centennial during the overnight shift with no tower, even going so far as to draw maps of the parallel runways and describe the traffic pattern.

This scares me, that so many people are apprehensive about flying with no tower, to the point remedial training may be required to remind people how to fly. :mad2:
Click to expand...
When we got our tower at KPGD the exact opposite happened. It waseither the airport authority, or EAA I do not remember who offered remedial training on landing at a towered airport.
 
The sky is falling, the sky is falling...oh wait that was Chicken Little, and he did not need no darn tower to land, did he?
 
Last edited:
HAS, I think that you'd be wrong saying most people on here are high time pilots flying twins and heavies. We have a wide variety on here, hence the large number of opinions.

There really should be no issue. I do whatever approach makes sense at my non-towered home field. Sometimes a straight-in, sometimes a pattern. Just whatever is efficient and safe. I call my position, and that handles things just fine. If it's busy, then I may have to enter the pattern more carefully. Usually, no big deal to do what's needed.

It's very common for turboprops and jets to operate at non-towered fields, and I've shared the pattern with them, even in an Archer. Again, no big deal. We make our respective call-outs, and it works out. I used to fly the commander and Cheyenne at non-towered fields primarily. Not an issue.

We are taught as a society to believe we can't function without ATC at any part of a flight, but we also know for a fact that's not true, and safe, legal flight can occur without talking to anybody. I will choose to use ATC most of the time anyway.
 
You get two planes more per hour than my home drome, no tower here. Traffic ranges from GVs to J3s.


All will be fine
 
Before we had a tower, and even after 7pm when the tower closes, I have shared the "patter" with large commercial jets. We do just fine. In fact on my checkride, I followed an Alegience jet on final. I did just fine. And at the time we had no tower. Do I like the tower, sure it is nice, but there are also disadvantages, and in the end it is no better or worse than not having it. I think I will survive if they close it.
 
Some of these closures will likely result in some danger, mostly from too many aircraft during peak periods, and too many no-proficient pilots. Most won't.

If the OP really doesn't like it he can move to another airport. I for one won't miss my tower at all.
 
how much do you think the taxpayers should pay because you "enjoy improving your radio com skills" ? WTH does that mean, anyway ? You can get a lot cheaper radio controlled airplane at hobby lobby if that's your thing.
 
Raise your hand if you've seen an airplane land at a controlled airport without a clearance...

/me raises hand

Raise your hand if someone has ever flown a non-standard pattern and gotten a bit too close for comfort to your aircraft...

/me raises hand

The regs say "see and avoid". The AIM says fly a pattern to make that easier to do.

Keep that head on a swivel and never trust that a Tower has your back.
 
Obama is clearly attempting make the sequester cuts as painful as possible to as many 'civilians' as possible.

Governmnet agencies have spent the bulk of their existence trying to convince us just how much we need them and their services. Obama, in his quest for revenge, is blind to those years of effort.. it has completely eluded him.

Myself, I think all of this is going to prove to be an excellent demonstrator of just how little we need governmnet services, and just how irrelevant governmnet actually is in our daily lives.

Trust me, you can operate your airplane safely without a control tower. The procedures for accomplishing that were established a very long time ago.

-John
 
I fly out of a Class D on the list for closure. Personally, I'm glad I did my training at a towered airport. It took the scary out of the ATC communications. Now that I'm on my own, I could go either way. If it's there, great. If not, so be it.

We have a business jet operation on the field as well as Spirit and their A319's coming in and out. I'll be interested to see how it all mixes together without the tower, but I don't expect any real problems.

And as Nate said, it's still see and avoid. Just because the tower is there doesn't mean people won't end up in the wrong spot. I was in the pattern with a buddy when an incoming Cessna reported 10 NW of the field. He was told to report a 3 mile right base for 23. After our t&g, we decided to leave the pattern to the SW. As we climbed out, the Cessna crossed directly in front of us about 400 above us. Not only was he nowhere near 10 miles out, he was also about3 miles south of where he said he was. You just never know...
 
I will be the contrarian here and say that I think KSTS is one of the airports that still needs a control tower. There is a mix of fast and slow traffic and the runway configuration could lead to conflict.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
It sounds like you're a low-time pilot. If you're used to a towered fiekd, I can see where you think eliminating the tower is a problem. I can assure you it's not, it means that you will now have the opportunity to hone different radio skills.
Click to expand...


+1....
 
JHW said:
how much do you think the taxpayers should pay because you "enjoy improving your radio com skills" ? WTH does that mean, anyway ? You can get a lot cheaper radio controlled airplane at hobby lobby if that's your thing.
Click to expand...

What a way to make a low-time pilot (maybe a student?) feel welcome!
 
Everskyward said:
I will be the contrarian here and say that I think KSTS is one of the airports that still needs a control tower. There is a mix of fast and slow traffic and the runway configuration could lead to conflict.
Click to expand...

Sac Exec is on the list to lose its tower and they just announced that they are bringing in a Taiwanese training school with 100 students, there. That should be fun. 3 intersecting runways (6 directions).
 
John221us said:
Sac Exec is on the list to lose its tower and they just announced that they are bringing in a Taiwanese training school with 100 students, there. That should be fun. 3 intersecting runways (6 directions).
Click to expand...
That one will be interesting too. Actually I haven't been to SacExec in many years but I vaguely remember it.
 
STS is a pretty sleepy airport even with the occasional -- and that's all it is -- commercial traffic.

Airliners have the same nontowered procedures a C150 does. The AIM doesn't distinguish. And yes, I've been aboard a 747 in the jumpseat witnessing exactly that.

Tower won't tell you "caution wake turbulence," but you know about that for an ATR-42 anyway, right?
 
Tony_Fletcher said:
What a way to make a low-time pilot (maybe a student?) feel welcome!
Click to expand...
I'm tired of seeing government funding of peoples hobbies. Some government participation is necessary. Most control tower's are not.

Whether it's control towers or bike trails or boat ramps, I use all those things and I'd like to see less spent on them and/or make them pay-for-play
 
JHW said:
I'm tired of seeing government funding of peoples hobbies. Some government participation is necessary. Most control tower's are not.
Click to expand...
I see the GA lobby hasn't done a very good job of even convincing pilots that small airports are only there for hobbyists.
 
JHW said:
I'm tired of seeing government funding of peoples hobbies. Some government participation is necessary. Most control tower's are not.
Click to expand...

I generally agree, though I would support a massive government program to educate people on the proper use of possessives. :goofy:

Like many here, I fly from a Class D that exists not only to support recreational flyers like myself, but also business aircraft and regional jets. My biggest concern with the closure of SAF tower is when those larger aircraft want to land on the longest runway (2/20) even though planes like the one I fly are using one of the smaller runways that are usually better-aligned to the prevailing winds.

Of course it's possible to handle this scenario using see-and-avoid, but I've experienced the above enough to appreciate the benefits of having a control tower sequencing us. I've also lived long enough to know there are better programs for our so-called government to focus on for cuts.
 
Wow, too many disrespectful responses posted to even know which one to quote. I fly regularly to several airports with no tower. I'm not lamenting this because I'm a blind idiot who needs hand-holding to get around in the air. I'm simply saying that I enjoy my tower, and will miss it. And I don't care how experienced anyone on here is, the indisputable fact is that no tower with that level of aircraft diversity is more dangerous than tower controlled space. It's really hard to respect someone who's response to a simple rant is the obvious need to mock me and show off their level of experience. Grow up kids.
 
JHW said:
I'm tired of seeing government funding of peoples hobbies. Some government participation is necessary. Most control tower's are not.

Whether it's control towers or bike trails or boat ramps, I use all those things and I'd like to see less spent on them and/or make them pay-for-play
Click to expand...

That's a legitimate gripe/concern. Doesn't mean there are a few less "dick-ish" ways to respond to the original poster. See post #4 for a good example!

The original poster is clearly a new pilot, as we all were at one time.
 
Skyscraper said:
Wow, too many disrespectful responses posted to even know which one to quote. I fly regularly to several airports with no tower. I'm not lamenting this because I'm a blind idiot who needs hand-holding to get around in the air. I'm simply saying that I enjoy my tower, and will miss it. And I don't care how experienced anyone on here is, the indisputable fact is that no tower with that level of aircraft diversity is more dangerous than tower controlled space. It's really hard to respect someone who's response to a simple rant is the obvious need to mock me and show off their level of experience. Grow up kids.
Click to expand...

See my previous post,

All will be OK. Here we have primary students mixing it up with frequent jet traffic as well as having helicopter air ambulances based here. Two more planes an hour would not make this place unsafe.
 
Skylane81E said:
See my previous post,

All will be OK. Here we have primary students mixing it up with frequent jet traffic as well as having helicopter air ambulances based here. Two more planes an hour would not make this place unsafe.
Click to expand...

I know all will be okay, I have no lack of confidence in my skills of navigating safely through patterns, landing, taxi procedures etc. Also, I never said that the airport will now be unsafe, simply, less safe.
 
Im starting to see the difference between poa and another forum I post on.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top