Sign the Petition to Save the Most Important Towered Fields

ColoPilot said:
Just be careful what we wish for. I'm sure some of the 190 airports don't need towers, and everyone here seems good closing them all. But the next thing some politician will get the idea to stop federal funds for any airport with less than 300 or 500 or 700 operations a day. Next it will be to close airports that don't have commercial services....and on and on until the GA infrastructure is gone in this country.
Click to expand...

You'd see a private industry pop up. Its already happening here. I'm not losing much sleep.
 
Jps19602002@mac.com said:
You guys are sad. You are obviously not based at field in a busy airspace almost under a Class Charlie with two flight schools and numerous transient aircraft coming in an out. On weekends, we probably have 3 or 4 in the pattern and several trying to keep up their instrument rating. Probably have over 6-700 T/O and Landings on Weekends. I can understand why 50-70% of the fields on the list are there as I have flown into several but KHFD is one that I would keep open or there will be more accidents. It would even be ok to cut the hours and close on some weekdays rather than outright closure.
Click to expand...

Let's see....the 3 towers in the Denver area that are on the hit list (BJC & FTG to close, APA to cut overnight) are all under Class B. The area around BJC is one of the busiest training areas in the country, APA is one of the top 3 busiest GA airports in the country (mostly jets and high-end pistons), there are at least 10 schools among the 3 airports, 7 runways, plus there are another 5 non-towered airports in the vicinity, all with schools. And let's not forget Buckley AFB, USAF Academy and KPUB with USAF Initial Pilot training.

3 or 4 in the pattern? That's midnight at APA, a incredibly slow day on the weekend at any other airport around here. Guess what? Everyone learns to see & avoid and deal with Class B and all the other traffic regardless of the day of the week.
 
ColoPilot said:
Just be careful what we wish for. I'm sure some of the 190 airports don't need towers, and everyone here seems good closing them all. But the next thing some politician will get the idea to stop federal funds for any airport with less than 300 or 500 or 700 operations a day. Next it will be to close airports that don't have commercial services....and on and on until the GA infrastructure is gone in this country.
Click to expand...


:yes:


I heard a man speak from " Home Land Security" before it was the TSA, he said certain things where going to be baned.

GA airplanes, Ultralights, RC anything land and air, it seemed to me he spoke of a couple other things, its been to long and I do not remember.

I told him he was nuts..He said just wait.

He said it would happen in the name of...Home land security...
 
azure said:
I haven't been to MKG in over 10 years, although back then it was fairly busy. The one thing I wonder about the tower closing is how that will affect its TRSA status. Will the TRACON continue even though there is no tower?
Click to expand...

Doubtful.

Are there any other TRACONs that are centered at a non-towered field?
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "centered"? There are TRACONs that aren't located on airports and TRACONs on airports where the tower and TRACON are run as separate facilities.
 
ColoPilot said:
Just be careful what we wish for. I'm sure some of the 190 airports don't need towers, and everyone here seems good closing them all. But the next thing some politician will get the idea to stop federal funds for any airport with less than 300 or 500 or 700 operations a day.
Click to expand...

As long as they also stop collecting taxes at these airports, fine.

Next it will be to close airports that don't have commercial services....and on and on until the GA infrastructure is gone in this country.
Click to expand...

That battle has nothing to do with sequestration. Some politicians want to close airports that do have commercial services.
 
The slippery slope mentality doesn't work here. The move to close airports is largely because it is believed the economic benefit of a new mall, etc outweighs the benefit of the airport.

A tower closure is not the same as the closure of an airport. Since the vast majority of airports lack towers, including some very busy ones, it doesn't hold water that a tower closure means the airport follows.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The slippery slope mentality doesn't work here. The move to close airports is largely because it is believed the economic benefit of a new mall, etc outweighs the benefit of the airport.

A tower closure is not the same as the closure of an airport. Since the vast majority of airports lack towers, including some very busy ones, it doesn't hold water that a tower closure means the airport follows.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying closing the tower means closing the airport. It's more once you start looking at cutting the aviation infrastructure, the next step might be to close airports -- especially those with less than 20-30 operations a day. I also realize the federal government can't close these airports directly, but they can eliminate the FAA grants that provide runway funds etc.

I was just surprised how many pilots on this board seem to be happy with towers being closed without any concern about what might be next....
 
ColoPilot said:
I'm not saying closing the tower means closing the airport. It's more once you start looking at cutting the aviation infrastructure, the next step might be to close airports -- especially those with less than 20-30 operations a day. I also realize the federal government can't close these airports directly, but they can eliminate the FAA grants that provide runway funds etc.

I was just surprised how many pilots on this board seem to be happy with towers being closed without any concern about what might be next....
Click to expand...

Again, the slippery slope mentality doesn't work. We need to cut budgets, and towers are a logical place to do so. It's not a case of "what's next" so much as understanding the difference between a logical budget cut and an illogical one.

We see attempts to close airports all the time, and have for years. You see an almost universal response here to combat that. This varies from signing petitions to one family actually buying an airport and keeping it open with their own money. This has been going on for years, and I don't expect to see that changing.

There is more than just federal money at airports. You have fuel sales (which small airports often can attract with low self-serve prices) and local governments that want keep their municipal airports open. We all know closures occur, and they will continue to do so. But we also must do our part to not try to mooch off the government and make the problem else. We're in this situation because everyone said "What about ME?"
 
ColoPilot said:
I'm not saying closing the tower means closing the airport. It's more once you start looking at cutting the aviation infrastructure, the next step might be to close airports -- especially those with less than 20-30 operations a day. I also realize the federal government can't close these airports directly, but they can eliminate the FAA grants that provide runway funds etc.
Click to expand...

So the state/county/city will have to fund it themselves. I'm okay with that too.

I was just surprised how many pilots on this board seem to be happy with towers being closed without any concern about what might be next....
Click to expand...

On the contrary, I am very concerned with what might be next. I'm concerned that if we do not cut federal spending the nation will someday be referred to as the former United States of America, much like we now refer to the USSR.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The slippery slope mentality doesn't work here. The move to close airports is largely because it is believed the economic benefit of a new mall, etc outweighs the benefit of the airport.
Click to expand...

I would think the economic *activity* of a Mall would vastly overshadow that of an airport. I don't know how to quantify the benefit of having small airports around.

I'd be interested to know if there is data on this.
 
Kelvin said:
This!
The Class C field here has a midnight shift that doesn't even put up an ATIS...I have had to call three of four times late at night just to get into the Class C...
Click to expand...
I flew into KFAY a couple of days ago...pretty quiet place. Had ATC problems getting out of there but I chalked it up to training.

My rule of thumb is that ATC quality and proficiency is proportional to the traffic. Busy ops are good, sleepy is sleepy. It's just the nature of work.

Anyway, are there any regulatory requirements for an operating control tower? Do Part 121 ops (scheduled) require a control tower? Some of the slowest Class D ops seem to coincide with scheduled ops. I assume that part 135 ops (commuter?) do not.

Just asking..
 
Bill Watson said:
Anyway, are there any regulatory requirements for an operating control tower? Do Part 121 ops (scheduled) require a control tower? Some of the slowest Class D ops seem to coincide with scheduled ops. I assume that part 135 ops (commuter?) do not.

Just asking..
Click to expand...

135 ops do not require a control tower, which was fortunate since we were based at a non-towered field and almost exclusively flew to non-towered fields.

I know that Piedmont (flying Dash 8s, assumed 121) had flights into non-towered fields in Pennsylvania. So I don't see there to be any regulation about it, although that is often used as justification. Interestingly at Williamsport, though, the first flight of the day left before tower opened.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I know that Piedmont (flying Dash 8s, assumed 121) had flights into non-towered fields in Pennsylvania. So I don't see there to be any regulation about it, although that is often used as justification. Interestingly at Williamsport, though, the first flight of the day left before tower opened.
Click to expand...
I'm flying into Williamsport later this month to spend some time in Lycoming engine school. I expect a very quiet airport and I'm bringing my fly rod.
 
Bill Watson said:
I'm flying into Williamsport later this month to spend some time in Lycoming engine school. I expect a very quiet airport and I'm bringing my fly rod.
Click to expand...

Well, I know pretty much everybody there. And yes, it is a very quiet airport.

I think Jim Doebler is still teaching the class. He does a good job with it, although his speech on LOP is pretty funny if you understand what's actually occuring vs what he says. He may have changed it in 7 years, but I doubt it.

You'll enjoy the plant tour. Neat halls to walk down.
 
Oh, and if there's a guy in the tower who sounds like someone's ****ed in his Cheerios for the past 10 years, make sure to bug him by calling in any "S" as "Sugar" instead of Sierra. ;)
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Well, I know pretty much everybody there. And yes, it is a very quiet airport.

I think Jim Doebler is still teaching the class. He does a good job with it, although his speech on LOP is pretty funny if you understand what's actually occuring vs what he says. He may have changed it in 7 years, but I doubt it.

You'll enjoy the plant tour. Neat halls to walk down.
Click to expand...
I'll be looking forward to the LOP pitch since I've been doing the whole injector balancing LOP routine with my RV10. I'm guessing that the factory treats the whole subject like exposure to a toxic substance.
 
Bill Watson said:
I'll be looking forward to the LOP pitch since I've been doing the whole injector balancing LOP routine with my RV10. I'm guessing that the factory treats the whole subject like exposure to a toxic substance.
Click to expand...

Well, if you're in Durham next week perhaps we could get together some evening and chat about it. I have to be there all week for work.
 
schmookeeg said:
I would think the economic *activity* of a Mall would vastly overshadow that of an airport. I don't know how to quantify the benefit of having small airports around.
Click to expand...

I don't see why an airport and a new mall would necessarily be mutually exclusive.
 
As someone who's spent the better part of a year flying at KHFD, I can say that I don't see much of a need for a tower there, although the gentlemen who staffed it were certainly always friendly and helpful, and I feel bad for the loss of their jobs. But this petition stems from a flight school who perhaps has much to lose from the loss of a tower. GA pilots in general? Not so much.
 
Y'all are just trying to keep the towers open so that I can't fly in NORDO and get the cheap gas and leave... I guess i could argue that having control towers limits the customer base to the maintenance providers....
 
roncachamp said:
Doubtful.
Click to expand...
So then, that entire airspace will revert to ZAU for radar services? How low can they see in the vicinity of MKG?
What do you mean by "centered"? There are TRACONs that aren't located on airports and TRACONs on airports where the tower and TRACON are run as separate facilities.
Click to expand...
I guess I meant "associated with", in the sense that the most critical part of their job is to coordinate arrivals and departures from a specific airport (like Detroit Approach and KDTW). I assumed that a TRACON associated with an airport control tower would be located on the field. Are there any TRACONs (in the Great Lakes area or anywhere else in the US) that aren't associated in any way with a towered airport?
 
Last edited:
VanDy said:
Y'all are just trying to keep the towers open so that I can't fly in NORDO and get the cheap gas and leave... I guess i could argue that having control towers limits the customer base to the maintenance providers....
Click to expand...

Cheap gas at towered fields as compared to untowered? Where?

JXN does seem to be an exception.
 
I do believe that some of these rather busy places that will go non-towered could benefit from stricter rules on patterns and communications. Flying a base-entry nordo at 500ft in a camouflaged taildragger is ok at some sleepy strip on the prairie, at a place with 300 operations/day, intersecting runways and a mix of training and jet traffic not so much.
 
Last edited:
azure said:
So then, that entire airspace will revert to ZAU for radar services?
Click to expand...

Probably, just as it does every night.

How low can they see in the vicinity of MKG?
Click to expand...

Pretty good, the Coopersville ARSR is about 13 miles southeast of KMKG.

I guess I meant "associated with", in the sense that the most critical part of their job is to coordinate arrivals and departures from a specific airport (like Detroit Approach and KDTW). I assumed that a TRACON associated with an airport control tower would be located on the field. Are there any TRACONs (in the Great Lakes area or anywhere else in the US) that aren't associated in any way with a towered airport?
Click to expand...

Mizzou Approach is in Springfield but their delegated airspace is in central Missouri, I believe the radar site is somewhere between KJEF and KCOU.
 
roncachamp said:
So the state/county/city will have to fund it themselves. I'm okay with that too.
Click to expand...

And since nearly all public use airports out there now accept federal funding, how many states, counties, or cities will be willing to put in more money keep the place open? What if they doubled your tie down/hangar rent and raised the fuel prices $1 a gallon to keep the place open? Would you stay at that field? Would you continue flying?

In practice, saying you are OK with no federal funding is the same as saying you're OK with airport closures. Not that many airports out there are vibrant enough to support themselves and most states, counties, and cities aren't any better off than the US government financially. A tough case to make to a strapped local government.
 
Last edited:
Jps19602002@mac.com said:
You guys are sad. You are obviously not based at field in a busy airspace almost under a Class Charlie with two flight schools and numerous transient aircraft coming in an out. On weekends, we probably have 3 or 4 in the pattern and several trying to keep up their instrument rating. Probably have over 6-700 T/O and Landings on Weekends. I can understand why 50-70% of the fields on the list are there as I have flown into several but KHFD is one that I would keep open or there will be more accidents. It would even be ok to cut the hours and close on some weekdays rather than outright closure.
Click to expand...

Your petition does not ask for Brainard to be kept open its asks for all control towers. Perhaps Brainard is critical, it could very well be but you should limit your petition to that field, because there are some fields that are just dead.
 
Dav8or said:
And since nearly all public use airports out there now accept federal funding, how many states, counties, or cities will be willing to put in more money keep the place open? What if they doubled your tie down/hangar rent and raised the fuel prices $1 a gallon to keep the place open? Would you stay at that field? Would you continue flying?

In practice, saying you are OK with no federal funding is the same as saying you're OK with airport closures. Not that many airports out there are vibrant enough to support themselves and most states, counties, and cities aren't any better off than the US government financially. A tough case to make to a strapped local government.
Click to expand...

No federal funds doesn't mean no funds. If the feds stop funding airports they'll also have to stop collecting the taxes that are the source of those funds. I would then expect the state/county/city to begin tax collecting directly. I'd also expect that without federal oversight many needed projects would become less costly and many unneeded projects wouldn't happen at all.
 
roncachamp said:
No federal funds doesn't mean no funds. If the feds stop funding airports they'll also have to stop collecting the taxes that are the source of those funds.
Click to expand...

What makes you say that? Because that would be fair? I don't think government works that way. Once a tax, always a tax. They can argue that people operating out of the airport are still using the nation's air traffic control and they are likely flying to airports that do still receive funds. At the very least you can rest assured, the fuel taxes aren't going anywhere but up.
 
roncachamp said:
No federal funds doesn't mean no funds. If the feds stop funding airports they'll also have to stop collecting the taxes that are the source of those funds.
Click to expand...

There are already airports that dont receive federal funding (too close to another airport, not eligible due to ownership structure, airport owners choice). The feds still levy the excise tax on avgas sold at those airports.
 
Dav8or said:
Do you see any logic in the federal government and it's policies?? Sorry, but I have to disagree, if the federal funds are yanked from a particular airport, everyone will still pay the same taxes.
Click to expand...

I will, but we'll borrow a little less from the Chinese so my kids won't have to....
 
The ~8 airport TOWERS listed in WA State are all a phenomenal waste of tax money, let them all close.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top