tower closures affecting PilotEdge

[Anthony Santanastaso]

What a shame. I can't believe how much CT is losing, too; so many airports that have a regular place in my log book.

[Keith Smith]

What's painful is that they're cutting the towers which cost the least to run (contract towers). The contract program has been shown to be considerably more cost effective than government-run towers from what I understand. I assume they're doing this because removing government jobs is non-trivial. So, they're achieving the cost savings, but they're slicing out more than they would've had they closed government-run towers instead.

I was having a chat with Anthony about this the other day. Run properly, non-controlled airports generally do quite well, even the busy ones. The big risk here is that there will be a lot of pilots who are based at these fields who might unfamiliar with non-towered operations simply because they don't utilize non-towered airports. For that reason, I would probably void the airports which recently lost their towers until the dust settles and pilots get acquainted with how it all works.

[Anthony Santanastaso]

I was having a chat with Anthony about this the other day. Run properly, non-controlled airports generally do quite well, even the busy ones. The big risk here is that there will be a lot of pilots who are based at these fields who might unfamiliar with non-towered operations simply because they don't utilize non-towered airports. For that reason, I would probably void the airports which recently lost their towers until the dust settles and pilots get acquainted with how it all works.

And what's amazing is that almost everyone at Operation Raincheck were asking Al Schnur about what to do. No one could wrap their heads around the fact that they just treat the airports as uncontrolled. They were even asking about pattern entry procedures!

I just hope that they keep the CTAF frequencies; otherwise, UNICOM is going to get incredibly busy.

[Calvin Waterbury]

Guys, they are not leveling these airports to build a mall You'll be able to enjoy the airport long after the tower is closed.

I don't know if I completely agree with this. Given the traffic volume in L.A., increasing staff and establishing towers at non-towered fields would be a better (safer) tack. Seems like the first thing to do when closing the airport for development, malls, industry, etc. is to close the tower. I'll be doing some research into past airport closures to see if this is the pattern. Does anyone know if this was discussed in any detail in "One-Six Right?"

Has Mayor Daley visited Los Angeles recently?

[Keith Smith]

What is unsafe about closing the towers at IFP and WHP? SMO and HHR should have towers, and that is going to continue to be the case, but some of the more remote airports that barely see any traffic...I'm fine with those towers closing, sequestration or not.

[Calvin Waterbury]

What is unsafe about closing the towers at IFP and WHP? SMO and HHR should have towers, and that is going to continue to be the case, but some of the more remote airports that barely see any traffic...I'm fine with those towers closing, sequestration or not.

This is what makes the world go round (without being boring). I appreciate your rebuttal, but as a truck driver for twenty years the closing of any facility or even the reduction of service gets my attention. Closing a tower and leaving the airport is like leaving the parking lot, but closing the truckstop. I can understand the reasons why facilities are closed, but I don't like it. At the end of the day and given sequestration was originally instituted to protect property, I hope you are right and I am wrong.

[jtek]

Closing a tower and leaving the airport is like leaving the parking lot, but closing the truckstop. I can understand the reasons why facilities are closed, but I don't like it.

I agree with this. We, the general aviation community, should be fighting any reduction in service. It's a slippery slope that ends in user fees and nobody except the airlines being able to use the NAS. In Santa Monica, the neighborhood coalitions that have been trying for years to close down the airport are using this threatened tower closure to strengthen their cause.

It is also true that none of the towers being closed in So Cal needed to be open. I went on AirNav.com and checked the operational statistics of the tower closure airports, and compared them with airports that have always been uncontrolled. F70 (French Valley, Temecula) is uncontrolled and sees about the same amount of traffic as FUL and WHP, including a lot of jet traffic. I've flown there many times and never felt unsafe. KOXR is an especially sleepy example, with only 155 ops/day (half of F70's) and nowhere near any bravo or charlie airspace. No need for a tower there.

So I guess my point is, tower closures suck, but at least they're closing ones that make sense.

[kullery]

Additional tower closure information is available at: http://www.faa.gov/news/media/Contract_ ... idance.pdf

[bravowren]

What is unsafe about closing the towers at IFP and WHP? SMO and HHR should have towers, and that is going to continue to be the case, but some of the more remote airports that barely see any traffic...I'm fine with those towers closing, sequestration or not.

Re WHP, if you were going to base your opinion solely on operational statistics, I would have to agree with you. But comparing WHP to other smaller airports with similar statistics is not accurate because of the busy airspace. The tower at WHP is constantly handling transitioning traffic to BUR and VNY (both VFR and IFR), which are each 4 miles away. WHP sits in a niche carved out below BUR airspace, and the only way to approach it from the S or E is through the class C. Also, the approach to WHP from the north is through the narrow Newhall pass, which intersects with the final approach on the VNY ILS, the busiest GA approach in the world. Also WHP is home to 5 news helicopters, and the LA Fire dept heavy choppers, with a lot of hovering traffic below 2000' in the near vicinity.

I'm not saying that we pilots can not fly safely without a tower, but the workload on the sometimes-stressed BUR controllers is going to increase, even without clueless pilots busting their airspace. Yes, I'm going to have to wait longer for my clearance, and I'm OK with that. But my concern is safety margins beng decreased, and I do feel there are numerous FAA-employee controlled towers that could have been safer to close.

To compound matters, in a bonehead move, the FAA has issued a directive today banning the previously scheduled appearance of BUR and VNY tower controllers at a special emergency meeting scheduled 3 days before the tower closure, to discuss airspace safety and best-practice procedures.

Here is the text of the email from the WHP airport manager.

"I just received word from the FAA in Washington, DC, that they will not allow for their employees to attend our meeting on Thursday, April 4th. This means that no Burbank or Van Nuys tower personnel will be present. Luckily though, Mike and Ed from Our tower will still be in attendance and will share their considerable knowledge and expertise on WHP and the surrounding airspace."

[Keith Smith]

Great point about WHP. Very, very odd that they're not allowing VNY/BUR controllers to attend that meeting. Pilots are going to have a LOT of questions regarding VNY and BUR, I would think!