Sequester stupidity closing the KSTS control tower

Do not know if this is a hijack or not, but if it is I am sorry. I was approaching my home airport KPGD today and at the time there was the typical traffic for the airport on a beautiful saturday morning made for flying. Temps in the 70's, CAVU, and calm winds. Anyhow, at the time I was coming in so was three other planes, a jet was taking off from the active jet runway(22) and the pistons were taking off anf land on another runway(15). In addition CAP was doing something about 5 miles from the airport, and there were two pistons waiting to take off and another two leaving the FBO to take off. As I was taxiing to the hangar, someone called the tower(ground control) and asked if the rumors of closure were true? Ground control was ambiguous(politically correct?) in their answer, saying there was nothing official yet either way. At that point the original pilot commented on could you imagine flying into KPGD today without a tower? Uncharacteristically, I kept my big mouth shut, but his question did get me thinking about it. I quickly realized that we used to do this sort of thing all the time without a tower and often there were a couple of NORDO in the pattern as well just tio spice things up. We did perfectly fine, as do not recall any midair collisions. Is having a tower any safer, probably. Does it make getting into the pattern less ambiguous? Somewhat, when we did not have a tower, it would not be unusual for a number of runways to be used at the same time, which still happens with the tower, but there is no NORDO traffic either. However without a tower everyone was on left pattern, with a tower it is not unusual to have some one on left base turning final as someone is on right downwind turning right base, while a third plane is on a left downwind at the numbers. A number of time I have either observed or been asked to leave the pattern to do a 360 and reenter because my right pattern was the mirror image of someone else's left base. I would suggest for a large number of the airports scheduled to lose their tower that advantages and disadvantages of towered versus nontowered probably cancel each other out for the pilot that is equally comfortable in a nontowered and towered environment.
 
What are our fuel taxes being spent on?
 
Palmpilot said:
What are our fuel taxes being spent on?
Click to expand...

They're supposed to be spent on capital improvements. However, it makes no difference. Sequestration doesn't know any bounds.

I used to train at FDK a lot and my wife, being based at IAD for her student work, went to FDK a lot for landing practice. Now there was always on a nice day a couple of tow planes and some gliders on the grass next to 30, a half a dozen or more guys doing pattern work on 23, a few helicopters doing work west of 5-23, and then the occasional bizjet or kingair would announce RICKE inbound on the ILS.

It works *SO* much better now that the tower can tell those pesky gliders to maintain altitude so the IFR traffic can do their straight in.
 
Last edited:
It will be so much better if the tower clsings cause the pesky ifr traffic to go elsewhere. Someone always wins. Yeah sequester.
 
GCA319 said:
The AIM isnt regulatory until someone screws up and is found to be in conflict with it. When that happens, the FAA can get you for careless operation.
Click to expand...

Yeah, OK... and you should come to a complete stop at a stop sign too. Threat of legal action, or citation after the fact doesn't seem to impress a lot of people. In this case, since the guidelines in the AIM aren't actual regulations, a good lawyer can get you out of any FAA "You should have..."
 
ClimbnSink said:
Meaningless to some and since everyone pays for them hard cheese. Local pilots should fund their own towers if they want them. Anything else is welfare.
Click to expand...

Seriously, the highway you use to get to the airport is welfare. The stop lights in your town are welfare.

In fact, I think the stop light is a good analogy for towered airports at some towered fields. A mechanism to regulate heavy traffic. Imagine turning all the stoplights in your town (assuming you have any) to stop signs and how well that would work.
 
Traffic circles have worked for how long?

Dav8or said:
Seriously, the highway you use to get to the airport is welfare. The stop lights in your town are welfare.

In fact, I think the stop light is a good analogy for towered airports at some towered fields. A mechanism to regulate heavy traffic. Imagine turning all the stoplights in your town (assuming you have any) to stop signs and how well that would work.
Click to expand...
 
I'd be happy to see traffic lights go. People would be forced to think, same as flying into a nontowered airport.
 
ClimbnSink said:
I'd be happy to see traffic lights go. People would be forced to think, same as flying into a nontowered airport.
Click to expand...

In August of 2003, a power outage knocked out pretty much every traffic light in NYC and Long Island for a few days.

Amazingly, life went on.

-Rich
 
Dav8or said:
In fact, I think the stop light is a good analogy for towered airports at some towered fields. A mechanism to regulate heavy traffic. Imagine turning all the stoplights in your town (assuming you have any) to stop signs and how well that would work.
Click to expand...
That's an excellent analogy. However, the more perfect analogy would be a traffic cop standing there directing traffic.

Only the most voluminous intersections would justify a traffic cop. And then only for specific periods.
The rest of the time, signals or signs can be used.
 
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...

I'd say that's simply not true. ATC provides no value to VFR GA planes, unless you like having someone extend your pattern when you're perfectly capable of following the plane ahead of you.

ATC is useful to airline pilots (whom actually caused the FAA to exist due to their lack of caring about safety) and to planes that need to fly on instruments. But even a tower isn't necessary for IFR flight.

I'm hoping this might be the beginning of a way to save some money - eliminate towers, improve efficiency. Permanently
 
Everskyward said:
No kidding. And how many of those making comments have actually been to Santa Rosa?
Click to expand...

I don't think you need to have been to an airport to know how ATC works. Not being a smart-ass, just saying. ATC is ATC, and the FAA made sure that's the case by standardizing everything.
 
It will be interesting to see if the accident rate at formerly-towered airports goes up or not.
 
Palmpilot said:
It will be interesting to see if the accident rate at formerly-towered airports goes up or not.
Click to expand...

Let's see, in class D IFR separation is provided between IFR. No separation is provided to or from VFR traffic.

In class E, IFR separation is provided between IFR. No separation is provided to or from VFR traffic.

Tell me how the controller affects the safety of VFR traffic?

Most airport accidents have nothing to do with traffic anyhow. Bonehead low level pilot error in most cases. Seems like we hear of more airplane runway collisions on fields with towers than we hear at uncontrolled fields.
 
SkyHog said:
I don't think you need to have been to an airport to know how ATC works. Not being a smart-ass, just saying. ATC is ATC, and the FAA made sure that's the case by standardizing everything.
Click to expand...
If you haven't been to an airport you can't judge how necessary a tower is at that facility. For example. Colorado's two towers which are a target are KFTG and KBJC. KFTG is a much different situation than KBJC.
 
SkyHog said:
I'm hoping this might be the beginning of a way to save some money - eliminate towers, improve efficiency. Permanently
Click to expand...
Wait until they start eliminating funding for airports or making them pay-to-play. :target:
 
RJM62 said:
In August of 2003, a power outage knocked out pretty much every traffic light in NYC and Long Island for a few days.

Amazingly, life went on.

-Rich
Click to expand...

Really? Shocking I tell you.

Life went on for tens of thousands of years without electricity, much less traffic lights. Not sure what your point is here. Try turning off the electricity for months at a time in NYC and see then how life goes on. Would people survive and adapt? Yes. Would people want to live there? I seriously doubt it.
 
flyingron said:
Tell me how the controller affects the safety of VFR traffic?
Click to expand...
Well, for one thing, controllers can make a hole in arriving traffic so it's actually possible to take off when it's busy, without cutting someone off.

With sufficient traffic density, landings will grind to a halt while all the airborne traffic sorts it out. On the highway, everyone stops and you get a traffic jam. What happens at a crowded airport? Pilots do not have the big picture available, and nearest neighbor avoidance is only correct in light traffic. Even if the data were available, right of way rules are all pairwise, and different pilots will reach different strategies.

While towers do not provide VFR separation services except in Class B, they DO serve a separation and coordination function, outside the runway environment. Even if it's "only advisory," it does have significant benefit.

Americans like to assume everything can be solved by individuals. That is a myth.
 
The central planners want towers that is enough evidence against them. Hopefully the last controller out burns em to the ground.
 
MAKG1 said:
Well, for one thing, controllers can make a hole in arriving traffic so it's actually possible to take off when it's busy, without cutting someone off.
Click to expand...
I depart out of fields far busier than most of the ones that are slated to have the tower closed and never had a problem. In fact, it was never a big deal at FDK. It can be a bit challenging if you're trying to get an IFR release with a small window.

I fly in and out of Airventure several times a day. While there's a controller their playing traffic cop at the end of the runway, he does not control the landing traffic and traffic seems to depart fine from the WORLD BUSIEST AIRPORT.

While towers do not provide VFR separation services except in Class B, they DO serve a separation and coordination function, outside the runway environment. Even if it's "only advisory," it does have significant benefit.
Click to expand...
It's somewhat advisory and often completely worthless. Absent actual radar identification, the tower is resorting to the same sort of self identification that a pilot does when reporting at non-towered fields.

Perhaps we should have the principle of something like an MBZ in Australia, where while the field is still controlled it is an ABSOLUTE requirement to make position reports, not just optional..
 
ClimbnSink said:
The central planners want towers that is enough evidence against them. Hopefully the last controller out burns em to the ground.
Click to expand...

Wow. You must have been scolded by a tower controller once upon a time. Why the hate? Who are these "central planners"?

One has to wonder, all the military fields that I have seen are towered. Their daily ops are much lower than most GA fields. Does anyone here with military experience feel the tower was of much use, or are they all just just part of the Central Planning scheme to make work, and maintain control over everyone everywhere as much as they can?
 
MAKG1 said:
Well, for one thing, controllers can make a hole in arriving traffic so it's actually possible to take off when it's busy, without cutting someone off.

With sufficient traffic density, landings will grind to a halt while all the airborne traffic sorts it out.
...
Americans like to assume everything can be solved by individuals. That is a myth.
Click to expand...

Name one airport on the cut list that was traffic densities sufficient to gridlock the pattern.
Better yet, name any non-Bravo airport with sufficient density to gridlock the pattern.

As a career law enforcement officer and then senior government manager at the local, state, and federal levels, most things the government does could be better done by citizens left alone. And in most cases, government actions are not founded in concepts of efficiency, need, or best value.
 
PilotAlan said:
Name one airport on the cut list that was traffic densities sufficient to gridlock the pattern.
Click to expand...
I have been at uncontrolled airports where it's difficult to find a space big enough to take off because there are so many in closed traffic. We can't start rolling immediately when the preceding airplane lifts off because there is the risk of running over them. You can imagine the posts on POA from the airplane being overtaken as they climb out. @#$%^ jet blew right by me just after I took off...
 
Class D towers are safety theatre. And they let everyone play make believe big airport.
 
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...

Cite your source pleass

Sent from my GT-P5113 using Tapatalk HD
 
GCA319 said:
The AIM isnt regulatory until someone screws up and is found to be in conflict with it. When that happens, the FAA can get you for careless operation.
Click to expand...

They can get you for that without the AIM. AIM just makes it easier in Court.
 
flyingron said:
Let's see, in class D IFR separation is provided between IFR. No separation is provided to or from VFR traffic.

In class E, IFR separation is provided between IFR. No separation is provided to or from VFR traffic.

Tell me how the controller affects the safety of VFR traffic?

Most airport accidents have nothing to do with traffic anyhow. Bonehead low level pilot error in most cases. Seems like we hear of more airplane runway collisions on fields with towers than we hear at uncontrolled fields.
Click to expand...

If you think you know what the result will be, I'm happy for you. Personally, my crystal ball has been out of order for a number of years. :dunno:
 
Palmpilot said:
If you think you know what the result will be, I'm happy for you. Personally, my crystal ball has been out of order for a number of years. :dunno:
Click to expand...

There are plenty of busier airports then the sequester towers, so it ain't hard to figure out thatnothingisgoing to happen.
 
PilotAlan said:
Name one airport on the cut list that was traffic densities sufficient to gridlock the pattern.
Click to expand...

SQL on any sunny weekend.

Better yet, name any non-Bravo airport with sufficient density to gridlock the pattern.
Click to expand...

PAO on any sunny weekend.

As a career law enforcement officer and then senior government manager at the local, state, and federal levels, most things the government does could be better done by citizens left alone. And in most cases, government actions are not founded in concepts of efficiency, need, or best value.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that's true in many cases, but saying that it's always true raises it to the level of political dogma.
 
ClimbnSink said:
There are plenty of busier airports then the sequester towers, so it ain't hard to figure out thatnothingisgoing to happen.
Click to expand...

Predictions are great, but I hope you will not be offended if I choose to wait for data.
 
GCA319 said:
:rolleyes2: so you think APA and DVT are "safety theater"?
Click to expand...

The student training is so intense at DVT that I started using GEU instead, because I didn't like watching the Hobbs on the rental plane tick over for fifteen minutes while I waited for my turn to take off. And that's with a tower.
 
Last edited:
There won't be any proof one way or the other. Central planners once again ignoring free will, the market, and common sense. People already avoid busy airports towered or not, people will do that in the future towered or not and the level of traffic and safety will stay the same. The people don't haveto pay just because you are afraid of flying without permission. Towers don't matter.
 
Just because you are scared doesn't mean it is unsafe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top