Tower closures across the US to commence April 7

[Gomrath]

149 Control Towers contracted out by the FAA will be closed starting April 7 and surrounding airspace will revert back to Class E.
Some cities may opt to take on the financial burden of managing those Control Towers in order to keep them open.

FAA controlled towers are required to give 12 months notice for closure and that list is still being determined.

The FAA Announcement letter: Press Release – FAA Makes Tower Closing Decision (http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=14414)

A full list of the 149 contract towers that will close:
http://www.faa.gov/news/media/fct_closed.pdf

So make sure you get corrected charts as soon as they become available.

[AdamFrisch]

As a resident in LA, I must say that most of them here in SoCal I agree with - never understood why they were towered in the first place, draining funds.

Oxnard - always a mystery why it had a tower at all so close to Camarillos class D. In fact Oxnards class D 'apple bites' part of Camarillos.

Riverside - not much going on.

Fullerton - always semi-dead whenever I flew in.

Whiteman - a little surprised about this one as it was so close to busy Bob Hope's class C, but it also had the grumpiest and least helpful guy of any of the LA towers. Maybe worth it just to get rid of him.

Victorville - why did it have a tower in the middle of the desert to start with?

Same goes for Willam J Fox field. Why?

However, I did hear they tried shutting down Hawthorne's tower, but some powers at be put a stop to that. That's probably a good move - you don't want an airfield that's literally 2 miles from LAX and just under a mile from class B to the ground to be uncontrolled.

Here's my prediction of the future: with the implementation of full ADS-B by 2020 mandated by the FAA, I think we'll see less and less towers at airports. Except for the big hub or regional ones, my prediction is that almost no airports will be towered in 50 years time.

[Gomrath]

Oxnard - always a mystery why it had a tower at all so close to Camarillos class D. In fact Oxnards class D 'apple bites' part of Camarillos.
You may be unaware that Camarillo is FAA controlled and it is also on that list for closure once the statutory notice period be given.
That leaves Mugu Approach - and Mugu is also under the threat of total closure of the entire station under Defence cuts with a possible relo out to China Lake.


you don't want an airfield that's literally 2 miles from LAX
Santa Monica is also on the list of FAA controlled towers for closure.

[Silvaire1]

As a resident in LA, I must say that most of them here in SoCal I agree with - never understood why they were towered in the first place, draining funds. I think empire building is the correct answer. One airport on the list was pilot controlled until about 2002, then given a huge new tower staffed with two controllers - the same structure used at airports with many hundreds of operations per day. Locally, we laugh a little because this facility wants you to give the ground controller your destination when you call for taxi clearance, so he can pass it off to the other controller - emulating airports with departure control. This at a fairly quiet airport with a grand total of one runway and one taxiway :)

AOPA is justifiably worried about the administration using this to support user fees, but I'd pretty much guarantee you that a poll of pilots using the contract tower airports would suggest no impact at all to operations.

Politically, the administration is very smart: what they're doing generates a hysterical safety-based message that will resonate with Joe Public, justifying federal taxes and fees. They'll get only a soft push back from pilots, and they'll also eliminate inexpensive contract controllers who have been competing successfully with more expensive Federal employees. Also Federal empire building in other words, but in the form of a strategic retreat.

[piperboy84]

However, I did hear they tried shutting down Hawthorne's tower, but some powers at be put a stop to that.

isn't the FSDO based there? could they be the "powers"

[AdamFrisch]

There's no FSDO on the field at HHR, but it's damn close, just by LAX. However, one of the flight schools there is run by a DPE and on the board of the LA airspace committee that designs the airspace, so I think he pulled a few strings..;)

Didn't know Santa Monica was on the list. I doubt they'll get away with closing that however. Too much bizjet and other traffic there in vicinity to LAX. Plus it also handles all the Mini Route clearances through class B above LAX - I doubt LAX would want to deal with a million Cessna 150's asking for squawks and clearances.

Even at my home airport EMT, there's a tower freq and a ground freq. Doesn't need it, it's a waste of federal money. It's never too busy that the twr controller can't deal with it. That's what they do at HHR - one controller does both freq's. In fact, he broadcasts on both most of the time, so they're completely redundant. You could just as well ask for takeoff clearance on the ground freq.

[Silvaire1]

Even at my home airport EMT, there's a tower freq and a ground freq. Doesn't need it, it's a waste of federal money. It's never too busy that the twr controller can't deal with it. That's what they do at HHR - one controller does both freq's. In fact, he broadcasts on both most of the time, so they're completely redundant. You could just as well ask for takeoff clearance on the ground freq. A few years ago at another of the local contract towers (not the one I mentioned above) the Feds figured out that the two controllers nominally 'on duty' were in actuality splitting shifts. There apparently wasn't enough work for both of them, so they figured why have both of them sitting there. The whole crew, including the supervisor, were fired and replaced. That tower will also be closing in April.

[sherburn2LA]

apart from crossing the active (obviously not applicable at EMT) and possibly some protection from helicopters one wonders why a GA airport needs Ground at all.

[Silvaire1]

Several GA airports in my area have two parallel runways and also a crosswind runway that crosses at 90 degrees, all three generally in simultaneous use. FBOs and hangars may be located on all four corners of the airport, and crossing the active (or three of them) is often necessary to get from hangar to fuel pump.

Those GA airports need ATC and Ground, but are FAA towers and won't be affected.

[Ellemeet]

I know you guys hate it but maybe it s time to start introducing some small landingfees? The rest of the world does it and it makes sense in that the user pays.

One can keep on batteling that everything should be paid by the admnistration but then the administration is within her right to close down towers that are not busy enough.

They may even consider streamlining a lot of the red tape and certification processes. For sure if you look closely you could increase. Efficiency a lot without compromsing safety. .... As is the case in any large organisation

[AdamFrisch]

No, the landing fee's are paid by the tax excess on the fuel. Currently Avgas is at least $1.5 more per gallon compared to Mogas, some places even more. That's the way to do it - it's easy, it's fair, it works and it treats everyone the same. Starting with various landing fees, employing people that need entitling and collecting it, have complicated collection procedures not to mention all the waste of everyone's time by having to process payments, "sir, we only accept cash so you need to take a taxi into town to get to an ATM" etc, etc. It's a slippery slope and it will end up being just as ****ty as in Europe with PPR's and GA holocaust. I'm happy to pay for my use, but it has to either be the excess on the gas (as today), or some kind of yearly pass that gives you access to all airports. Individual and arbitrary fee's per landing will be the end of GA.

[172driver]

Those GA airports need ATC and Ground, but are FAA towers and won't be affected.

Careful there - KSMO (Santa Monica) is also an FAA tower and they are/were considering closing it. How that would work with a mix from C152s to Gulfstreams and everything in between right next (and under) the LAX Class B is beyond me.

Re landing fees: +1 for Adam's take on that!

[7478ti]

It is time for AOPA to wake up and realize they can't keep advocating pork $ for unnecessary towers, many unnecessary FSSs, obsolete and unnecessary WAAS (now with 30+GPSs, Galileo, and GBAS), things like airspace wasting LPV, and other flawed or obsolete "PastGen" ideas, without paying a steep price.

If we're to ever even hope to avoid eventual user fees in GA, we'll need a complete re-examination of conscience, at both AOPA and NBAA, for what they're still inappropriately advocating, for FAA's Jurassic pork and failed concept laden ideas for NextGen.

[Gomrath]

Careful there - KSMO (Santa Monica) is also an FAA tower and they are/were considering closing it. How that would work with a mix from C152s to Gulfstreams and everything in between right next (and under) the LAX Class B is beyond me.
You can use the Los Angeles Special Flight Rules Area flown on the SMO 132-degree radial and crosses LAX at 3,500 feet when proceeding southeast and 4,500 feet when flying northeast.
No ATC clearance is required to fly this route and no need to talk to SMO.

I suspect the Peoples Republic of Santa Monica will welcome the closure of the Tower if it remains on the 'possible' FAA list.

[172driver]

I suspect the Peoples Republic of Santa Monica will welcome the closure of the Tower if it remains on the 'possible' FAA list.


I know. Wouldn't surprise me if they actively lobbied for it :yuk:

[Contacttower]

This issue has raised a question or two in my mind especially after my most recent trip to Florida...

First off the process by which the list was decided, I understand that contract towers were going to be the first to go but beyond that I really don't understand the criteria by which the FAA went about their decision?

For example Saint Augustine airport in Florida, was on the list yet it frequently handles more that 500 movements a day, has a 2400m runway (and two shorter ones) and while has no commercial flights at the moment has a lot of corporate jet traffic and several flight schools. Yet other towers in the NE Florida area have remained open despite having a lot less traffic. This seems odd to me.

Beyond that I wonder what the true 'value' of a tower really is and to what extent it contributes to safety?

I think most people would agree that with moderate traffic amounts aircraft do not need ATC, this is clearly proven by the huge numbers of aircraft that use uncontrolled fields in the US every day. As previous posters have noted there are a number of towers on that list that probably were a waste of money and needed to go.

But at what point does one need ATC? Is it a question of numbers? Or the type of traffic and/or the mixture of different traffic types and speeds that makes ATC a necessity? I mean all major commercial hubs have ATC and indeed I think everyone would agree that is needed to ensure safety. But then again some surprisingly large airports in the US that handle private traffic seem to manage to operate relatively safely without it. I guess I am kind of just thinking out loud here...

To go back to my example of Saint Augustine opinion seems divided over the 'value' of the tower. Some pilots at the field say that the airport has only had a tower since 2003, that they managed fine before and will continue without the tower in the future. The flight schools are concerned though because the level of instructional traffic, especially in the pattern, is a lot greater now and particularly with a lot of student pilots, especially those who do not speak very good english, a tower is now needed to maintain safety. The amount of corporate traffic is also up and this combination of Citations and 152s is what makes the tower important...or so a lot of the airport users say. So what do people think? In a high volume environment with a mixture of traffic is it reasonable to expect pilots to co-ordinate with each other or is this unsafe?

The effect on corporate traffic is also something that I'm interested in hearing people's views on. What effect will this likely have on corporate traffic? How important does the average operator of small to medium sized aircraft like the Citations, Learjets etc that you see so many of in the US consider using towered airports to be? Are there insurance implications here in terms of insurance companies wanting operators to use towered airports?

I have my own views of most of the above but I'm curious to see what others think.

[AdamFrisch]

It seems like the minute they have airline traffic the airlines want to get IFR handling from t/o to t/d. Is it safer? Probably, but infinitesimally so.

I just went skiing up to Mammoth a couple of weeks ago. Airfield is uncontrolled, yet both Alaska's Q400 and Uniteds RJ900 fly in there all day long. They arrive on some LNAV and obviously have an IFR release and void time as they depart, but I know from experience that the radar service is patchy at best up in the mountains until you get some altitude and can check in with ATC. So in essence, on bad weather days, they're taking part in the 'big sky' game. There probably isn't an IFR equipped Cub without a radar out there in the soup, but technically there could be. Yet, it all seems to work somehow. And as technology and ADS-B gets more implemented, the need for ATC will go down further.

[Silvaire1]

Would there be a gap at Mammoth between the one-in one-out situation and radar contact in Class E? IFR is one-in one-out at an uncontrolled field, with see and avoid in VMC for all aircraft.

The selection of what towers to close was made predominantly on the basis of those selected having non-FAA employees in the tower, and they being easier to lay off. Most of those are not busy, and ATC regardless of direct or contract employee is not really required... I'm looking forward to not talking with ATC at a couple of them (VFR) ;)

Listening for Biz Jet straight-ins is the main issue for me - those IFR aircraft are obviously not going to make a standard VFR pattern entry. You just to listen on the radio, and fly accordingly.

One of the local affected airports hosts military fast jets on the weekends, to limit weekend operations into their own base. Apparently the military doesn't want them flying into an uncontrolled field so they'll go away. The guy who sells them fuel is not happy.

[AdamFrisch]

I'm not very good at these rules, but E airspace does rarely go to the ground except for over an airport. G airspace follows the contour of the earth up to 14500ft (but can go up to FL600 if terrain is higher), so there is a slim possibility that the departing aircraft, having departed in E in climbing terrain, and not climbing very well, or hugging a mountain, could hit G airspace that surrounds them at 1200ft AGL (1500ft AGL over peaks). In G airspace you can technically fly IFR without any clearance. It's insanely slim, and nobody would be so daft, but it could happen.

[n5296s]

But Adam, if an airport has an approach then it is E to 700 AGL for the surrounding area, so no uncontrolled IFR. iirc (don't have the chart in front of me) that is the case at Mammoth.

[Gomrath]

E airspace does rarely go to the ground except for over an airport
As N5296S says - Surface Class E -(dashed Magenta on the chart) is used to allow IFR approaches into uncontrolled airports. Take a look at Paso Robles. Busy airfield with the fire service - uncontrolled but has a number of instrument approaches to play with.

Also announced today that the FAA have backed off from their hasty decision and put a hold on the contract tower closures until mid June while they give it more thought...

[TheDave001]

I frequently fly through the Oxnard tower airspace, one of the towers slated to be closed, and there is always significantly less traffic there than at near by Santa Paula Airport, where there's no control tower. Oxnard isn't short just one or two planes... it's dramatically less busy. I can't imagine them closing down the tower at Camarillo... it's much busier.

I've experienced similarly light air traffic at Riverside and Fullerton, two other towers on the closure list. Corona airport, nearby both Riverside and Fullteron is consistently more busy, and it doesn't have a tower.

Seems like most of the people in the news media are playing into uneducated peoples fears... CONTROL TOWERS CLOSING = PLANES CRASHING INTO YOUR HOMES!

At least for the airports around Southern California, the cuts seem reasonable... They put a stop to Hawthorne, that was the only one that really didn't make sense. As far as Santa Monica goes, the city will close that place before the FAA closes the tower.

This whole thing seems like a really reasonable way to save money for a change.

[Gomrath]

I can't imagine them closing down the tower at Camarillo... it's much busier

At the moment, Camarillo is on the list - but being an FAA controlled tower it requires 12 months notice (same for Santa Monica).
So a lot can happen in that time.

[172driver]

Well, the whole exercise has been delayed now until June.

Link to NYT article here (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/06/us/politics/faa-will-delay-closings-of-airport-towers-forced-by-sequestration.html?_r=0)

@TheDave: I think the main issue for places like Camarillo or Santa Monica is not only the volume of traffic but also (and probably more importantly) the mix. Santa Paula doesn't get bizjets and turboprops, whereas both KCAM and KSMO certainly do. Just yesterday flew between the two and tried to imagine this w/o a control tower. Not a pleasant thought...

[Silvaire1]

Santa Paula is private/public use, owned by the people who have hangars there.

The tower closure thing is an obvious ploy to extract money from the population as fast as possible. Its a very small fraction of the FAA budget, but is highly visible. Obviously the intent of the administration, as opposed to Congress which is on the other side of the battle lines, is to create the maximum perceived impact to the greatest number of people who will influence their Congressmen. It was predictable enough that after the FAA got their newspaper headlines they delayed implementation.