FAA closing 149 towers

[wuzafuzz]

On a positive note, that's 149 airports that just opened up to Sport Pilots without the ATC endorsement. 

[redfox98]

The sad part is the loss of a paid for infrastructure. While the controllers were contract, at most of these airports,  the tower buildings and equipment, radios, voice switches, remote radar displays, engine generators, flight strip printers, weather displays are all FAA owned and maintained by FAA technicians. We as taxpayers have already supplied millions to equip and even upgrade some of these, like FDX.  Our closing tower at ALN just qualified for a remote radar display 3 years ago.  The contract controllers are leaving, but their salaries were a fraction  of what an FAA controller makes. Quite a few of these folks are retired military.  The tower buildings and equipment will still need some level of maintenance. Some of the equipment inside will still be operational- pilot controls for lighting, RCO to FSS,  most of these, when they closed at night, their tower freq was switched so it could be controlled by the nearest approach facility when they closed. So they wont be able to turn off the HVAC.  Most only had 3-4 controllers on staff. When they were FAA towers in the 70s, they had 10-15. 
I don't for a second believe they are saving the amount of money they claim, and the paid for infrastructure is wasted. Kind of like being told to ground your C182 cause there is no gas money.     We will probably hear more as they proceed with these phased in closings.

[coudano]

I'm told some insurance policies stipulate atc

[lordmonar]

Redfox......money spent last year......is last year's money....no one cares about abandoing millions of dollars of equipment....because the government does not look at it as capitol investment.

The costs to maintain the airport lighting equipment and radios will be passed to the FBO/Airport authority.

As for the contractor vs government employee.......one of the reasons why the FAA contracted out the ATC jobs was becasue it was cheaper in the first place and it is easier to simply terminate the contract then it is to lay off a government employee.

[Nuke52]

I don't for a second believe they are saving the amount of money they claim, and the paid for infrastructure is wasted. Kind of like being told to ground your C182 cause there is no gas money.     We will probably hear more as they proceed with these phased in closings.

The phrase "government savings" is a sham each and every time you hear it.  It's all a shell game with the money just being diverted to someone else's pocket.  These so-called "savings" NEVER materialize, especially this time with sequestration--it's all just political theater with both "sides" of our corrupt political machine doing their best to distract us from the real financial problems which will eventually devour what's left of our once-great nation.

[Critical AOA]

One of my concerns will be the corporate jockey who is accustomed to the controllers at certain airfields accommodating their straight in approaches by having those in the traffic pattern extend downwind or make other allowances for the jets.  Now imagine the same tower closed and a Cessna 150 is on downwind and about to turn base when a jet calls in on a long straight in final.  This might be his first call as center just let him go and he has not been monitoring CTAF.  The jet jockey who is accustomed to getting his way in the past, now will need to be prepared to modify his approach as the Cessna is likely to maintain his right of way and complete his pattern and land while the jet is closing fast.  And the Cessna would be within the rules to do so.  Throw in the possibility of some NORDO guys who had not been flying into this airport while it was controlled and things get even more interesting.  Personalities, past expectations and other factors could make things interesting. 

[a2capt]

..and how is that scenario different from the first time the jet jockey goes into a field that has been traditionally uncontrolled all along?

Listen first, or ASK - "anyone in the pattern?" ..

Like a local airport that is on that list, where fire operations are based. I hated going there just because of the way the fire people acted. They had no problem taxiing right past you at the hold short line, the hell with what you said on the radio, that you're about to take the runway, next thing a fire aircraft just goes in between you and takes it, makes a hot dog departure and a really low pass downwind. 

No, there was not an active fire. That was drill or screwing off flying.

The opening of the tower fixed that, now I fear.. it's going to go right back.

[Critical AOA]

The scenario is different in that they are accustomed to receiving the royal treatment at certain airports but not others so they quite possibly will have a mindset or a certain expectation at the formerly controlled field that they don't have at the uncontrolled ones until they shake off that mindset and lose the expectation.  It won't be all jet pilots and even the ones it does affect should shake it off rather quickly.  However, if you don't think that the first flight into such an airport there is not potential for this to occur, you are wrong.  It comes down to expectation bias, norms, complacency and other human factors. 

Your experience with the fire pilots is not much different than what is experienced in the mid south with crop dusters.    They rarely make radio calls, fly nonstandard traffic patterns and as you are rolling at the the end of the runway and applying power after announcing your departure on CTAF they will make an intersection take off right in front of you without saying a thing.  However I do not let it deter me from flying into those airports.  I know how they are so I adapt.  I keep a sharp eye out (which I normally do anywhere, even at a controlled field), fly standard patterns and make all the right radio calls.   

I currently fly from both controlled and uncontrolled airports and will continue to do so.  However, I will admit that I will probably have a little trepidation when I first fly into any of the airports shortly after losing its tower. 

[Pump Scout]

Three interesting closures:
OSH – Home of EAA / Airventure

My understanding of Airventure week is that the contracted controllers are replaced by FAA controllers for the week. In theory, Airventure shouldn't be affected by this. Honestly, even though OSH has huge runways, the rest of the year they're not overly busy. Any commercial traffic goes elsewhere, and general aviation activities are only as busy as many other airports around WI that are without towers.

[♠SARKID♠]

My point was that they aren't going to cancel either of those activities because of lack of controllers.  The activities will simply bring them back for those weeks.

FDK's actually pretty busy, and I would imagine the fact that the tower isn't even a year old will cause some gnashing of teeth.

They bring in a temporary tower and controllers to run FDL (Fond Du Lac) just to the south of OSH during Airventure, normally an uncontrolled airport.  I agree that they'll do the same for OSH.

[bflynn]

I looked up the towers being closed in NC.  All of them have less traffic than my home field, which is uncontrolled.  Only one of the five has regularly scheduled commercial flights.  I flew into one of them a few weeks ago and couldn't figure out why they had a tower.

The fact is, it is PILOTS, not ATC that make flying safe.  If ATC was required for safety, we'd never fly without it.

[Walkman]

Not a pilot, so this may be a dumb question...

Heard the part of a local news report this morning that one of the towers closing was in the next metro over (20 minutes east). What caught my attention is that this airport is home the WMUs school of aviation as well as the ANG base. I'm sure the ANG base is fine, but it seemed to me that closing a tower on a very active airfield with college student pilots isn't the safest idea. Am I overreacting?

[a2capt]

About the only thing it will deprive them of is frequent access to the radio with ATC interaction.

There are many more heavy flight school operations operating out of uncontrolled fields. The system is absolutely setup to handle it.

[Walkman]

About the only thing it will deprive them of is frequent access to the radio with ATC interaction.

There are many more heavy flight school operations operating out of uncontrolled fields. The system is absolutely setup to handle it.

Cool. Just wonderin'. Thanks.

[Woodsy]

^ Presumably those private activities are more then capable of bringing in contract controllers during the couple weeks of their events.

I can tell you that LAL will have controllers for Sun n Fun. 

[SJFedor]

Not a pilot, so this may be a dumb question...

Heard the part of a local news report this morning that one of the towers closing was in the next metro over (20 minutes east). What caught my attention is that this airport is home the WMUs school of aviation as well as the ANG base. I'm sure the ANG base is fine, but it seemed to me that closing a tower on a very active airfield with college student pilots isn't the safest idea. Am I overreacting?

Maybe a little. Murfreesboro (MBT) is a non-towered field with MTSU's aerospace program, as well as the othefr traffic that's in and out of there, and they manage just fine w/o a tower.

Shame that Columbus, IN (BAK) was on the list, that's the field that NESA MAS uses. Granted, the other 50 weeks of the year it's not a terribly busy place.