FAA Makes Decision to Close Air Traffic Control Towers

Jeffrey Jaynes · « **on:** March 22, 2013, 03:30:01 PM »

Today the FAA announce the closing of several contract towers in the US due to cost issues with staffing the facilities. The Official FAA News release is here:

http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/new...fm?newsId=14414

and the direct link to the closing list is here:

http://www.faa.gov/news/media/fct_closed.pdf

Now what do we do? How does this affect how we provide services at these fields? Will we simulate the "closure" of ATCT's on VATSIM as well?

Sometimes the things the FAA comes up with can be completely ridiculous and totally infuriating. What was that thing about "blood on the runway"? Some of these Towers are VERY busy. Over 150,000 operations a year.

Que sera sera...

JJ

Brighton McMinn · « **Reply #1 on:** March 22, 2013, 11:57:13 PM »

Quote from: Jeffrey Jaynes

Now what do we do? How does this affect how we provide services at these fields?

"No traffic observed between you in the field..."

JK,

We simply simulate them as closed towers, just like we have been other closed fields. For example, KCXO, Lone Star airport in Houston has a tower (and I'm not happy about it closing, nor will Daniel Blell) but when it closes realworld, it will be closed on VATSIM as well, just like any other airport with out a tower. ZHU simulates all tower closures and complies with tower staffing hours that can be found on something like airnav.

Kris Kendrick · « **Reply #2 on:** March 23, 2013, 05:40:46 PM »

One of the many things that I enjoy about VATSIM is that is designed to be an experience free of social politics. We come here to fly, control and have fun. There is absolutely no question that these tower closures in the real world are politically motivated. I am not sure what the official stance from VATSIM, VATUSA or the individual ARTCC's will be as these events unfold, but for me, personally when I am on CTR, I am going to continue to operate these towers as if they are open so as to continue to provide the best possible service to all pilots who enjoy this hobby as much as I do.

At Memphis, it is not very often when we get traffic at the airports on the list anyway... it is also not often when we get a pilot flying for Eastern airlines, but it does happen from time to time. So I am going to treat "legacy airlines" the same way I treat the new "legacy towers"... come on over to Memphis, fly with us, have fun and I will be here to provide service with southern hospitality!

I may be accused of not being a real world purist to the letter and I accept that, but I also noticed early this morning (and almost every morning for that matter) that there was not one single ARTCC open in the entire United States of America, that does not seem to really jive with the real world either, does it?

Kenneth Bambach · « **Reply #3 on:** March 24, 2013, 12:55:46 AM »

KLAL, home of Sun-n-Fun is on that list. There is no way that event can be held at a non- towered field. Something has to give. Either keep the tower open or else cancel / move the event. For the life of me, I can't imagine the FAA canceling the event at KLAL. There would be a GA revolt for certain. Regardless, vZMA intends to hold our annual event there with a fully staffed tower. Thats the benefit when your controllers don't get paid...sequestration or not!!

Rick Rump · « **Reply #4 on:** March 24, 2013, 12:27:08 PM »

Quote from: Ken Bambach

KLAL, home of Sun-n-Fun is on that list. There is no way that event can be held at a non- towered field. Something has to give. Either keep the tower open or else cancel / move the event. For the life of me, I can't imagine the FAA canceling the event at KLAL. There would be a GA revolt for certain. Regardless, vZMA intends to hold our annual event there with a fully staffed tower. Thats the benefit when your controllers don't get paid...sequestration or not!!

The Administrator can allow it to be open for that period of time. There is nothing preventing them from doing that. Do not forget, this is something that is being forcefully done to make the sequester have an impact, not something mandated by the actual written language in the sequester. It is up to each Agency head to comply with the funding reduction as they see fit. There have been other ways the FAA could have saved a decent fair bit of change.
I mean the FAA does have a lot of non-controlling staff they could have furloughed.

William Lewis · « **Reply #5 on:** March 24, 2013, 08:59:21 PM »

Similar to ASN, Talladaga Airport, they open a temporary tower for race week. I am sure the same thing will happen for Lakeland and Oshkosh.

Kevin Copeland · « **Reply #6 on:** March 25, 2013, 07:11:15 AM »

Quote from: Kris Kendrick

I also noticed early this morning (and almost every morning for that matter) that there was not one single ARTCC open in the entire United States of America, that does not seem to really jive with the real world either, does it?

Well...that's because most of us have real lives and that requires us to have a job, school, ect.
Pay me what I am making now and I'll be on every morning.

[political rant]
This is all a show so later down the road when they decide to steal this 85 billion from us they will look like heroes.
It's all too predictable...
I urge everyone to write their Congressmen and Senators and vent your frustrations with an inept group of people who seem to not have a clue
[/political rant]

Don Desfosse · « **Reply #7 on:** March 25, 2013, 09:47:07 AM »

This has been discussed over the last few days amongst the ATMs and DATMs.

The VATUSA standard will continue, as the rest of VATSIM, to provide Local control services where Local control services are provided in the real world. That means that if these facilities close, whether it be for an hour, a day, a week, a month, or forever, we will mirror what the real world does.

I do, however, for a yet-undetermined transition time (thought to be a small number of weeks), support the notion that has been proposed by a few of the ATMs, to allow Local services to be provided on an as-requested basis, if requested by a specific pilot, on a case-by-case basis where the controller feels that workload allows. Please be very clear: this will be allowed for a very short transition time solely to allow for a buffer to allow our ATC and pilots to adapt to the change.

Folks, politics has no place on VATSIM. I don't like any facility closing, and this forum is no place to debate whether or not those decisions are "good" or not. But, VATSIM is about providing our members a simulation based on reality. The current reality changes on occasion. We, as our RW counterparts, will deal with that, the best that we can recognizing that this is still meant to be a fun hobby (not saying chasing hourly or daily NOTAMs), and do the best that we can for our members.

As was mentioned, I suspect that most of these facilities don't get a ton of traffic on VATSIM while controllers are online, so I suspect that this is not a huge game changer for us. Let's not turn it into a major issue with pages and pages of discussion. In our environment on VATSIM, it's not worth it. I encourage you to channel your passion into improving the experience for our members.

Rahul Parkar · « **Reply #8 on:** March 25, 2013, 01:46:22 PM »

Quote from: Don Desfosse

This has been discussed over the last few days amongst the ATMs and DATMs.

The VATUSA standard will continue, as the rest of VATSIM, to provide Local control services where Local control services are provided in the real world. That means that if these facilities close, whether it be for an hour, a day, a week, a month, or forever, we will mirror what the real world does.

I do, however, for a yet-undetermined transition time (thought to be a small number of weeks), support the notion that has been proposed by a few of the ATMs, to allow Local services to be provided on an as-requested basis, if requested by a specific pilot, on a case-by-case basis where the controller feels that workload allows. Please be very clear: this will be allowed for a very short transition time solely to allow for a buffer to allow our ATC and pilots to adapt to the change.

Folks, politics has no place on VATSIM. I don't like any facility closing, and this forum is no place to debate whether or not those decisions are "good" or not. But, VATSIM is about providing our members a simulation based on reality. The current reality changes on occasion. We, as our RW counterparts, will deal with that, the best that we can recognizing that this is still meant to be a fun hobby (not saying chasing hourly or daily NOTAMs), and do the best that we can for our members.

As was mentioned, I suspect that most of these facilities don't get a ton of traffic on VATSIM while controllers are online, so I suspect that this is not a huge game changer for us. Let's not turn it into a major issue with pages and pages of discussion. In our environment on VATSIM, it's not worth it. I encourage you to channel your passion into improving the experience for our members.

When did this become the standard, if we allow pilots to dictate their weather conditions, why not allow these to be controlled? I was taught and have taught that it is controller's discretion. Am I wrong? Many ARTCCS have taught me this, from ZNY to ZJX to ZME, to name a few.

How will this be mandated? Because honestly I will treat some of these as open when I control. If that is a problem, don't hesitate to show me the door.

Cheers
Rahul

Kris Kendrick · « **Reply #9 on:** March 25, 2013, 03:41:21 PM »

Rahul,

Most people that read your reply will agree with it completely, but will be afraid to say "+1". But I am proudly saying +1!

I am heeding the advice of VATUSA1 and not commenting on the decision made in the real world, this is not the proper place for it.

It is, however, the proper place to discuss the operations of the network in a respectful manner. I have also been taught the same thing... at "controllers discretion" or "as workload allows". If I can "see" the aircraft coming in and out of Paducah on April 7th the same way that I "see" the aircraft coming out of Memphis, I cannot understand the harm that is inflicted upon the network or to fellow pilots if we continue to provide the best service we can. There is not additional visibility required or additional bandwidth used. Heck, I will not even charge VATSIM any extra for the service, I'll volunteer.

I have a squeaky clean record on the network. It sure would be interesting to get demerits for "over-controlling" towers on a simulated air traffic controlling system. But I suppose worse things can happen to a fella.

Marcus Becker · « **Reply #10 on:** March 25, 2013, 04:12:09 PM »

I would like to pose a question for those who will "over-control".

What are you going to do when you have 2 aircraft parked at one of these fields for departure and one decides to follow you because of nostalgia and contact an overlying controller and the other decides to follow real world procedure. Because of your decision to control a field that would be Class E in the real world, you cause an incursion. Who's at fault? Charts will be updated to say that the field is in fact Class E and we all prefer our pilots to be informed, right?

It is simply my opinion, but I'm with the side of VATUSA here. If there isn't a controller there in the real world, there shouldn't be one there in ours. It would cause too much confusion in an already confusing virtual world.

Rahul Parkar · « **Reply #11 on:** March 25, 2013, 04:14:47 PM »

I agree, discussing the real world choice is a moot point.

To take a quote from Don and interpret it myself,
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]I encourage you to channel your passion into improving the experience for our members.[/quote]

I do that by choosing to control an uncontrolled as long as the pilot is okay with me doing that and I am not so busy that it will detriment my service.

Now, I will bow out and allow Don and others to respond, I am sure they have well reasoned intelligent responses as to why I may be wrong, (it's not hard, I'm usually wrong.)

I'm not here to be a contrarian, ironically to the contrary of what many of you may think, I am just putting a different light on the situation.

Cheers
Rahul

Kris Kendrick · « **Reply #12 on:** March 25, 2013, 04:30:25 PM »

Quote from: Marcus Becker

What are you going to do when you have 2 aircraft parked at one of these fields for departure

Marcus, I will fall over dead from the shock that there are actually 2 aircraft at one of the fields on the list!

Zach Hutcherson · « **Reply #13 on:** March 25, 2013, 04:53:05 PM »

Quote from: Kris Kendrick

Marcus, I will fall over dead from the shock that there are actually 2 aircraft at one of the fields on the list!

Which I think is the point, Kris. My two cents are this: these fields are negligible when it comes to operations. The combined total of the list MAY receive a handful of operations a month. Instead of dwelling over this and coming up with a system that is not uniform and consistent across the division, why not just say, "Alright, they're closed" and move on. It's no different than reflecting Runway Closure NOTAMs. I know of a situation to where a runway was closed for an entire year on VATSIM because it was also closed in the RW. I don't see why we base our operations on the RW, and then once the RW does something different (particularly something relatively minor like this) it becomes a huge deal. Simply adopt what is practical from the RW, which includes any changes that occur.

We are still providing the same level of service to the pilot's who use those fields, but instead we now provide the services of a Class E airfield (non-towered) instead of controlled, towered airfield. The only real changes are not clearing aircraft to land and depart, not maintaining a ground control, and VFR Flight Followings are advised to change to advisory with field in sight. IFR Aircraft still get approaches into the field (then turned to UNICOM for landing), except the age old one in one out rule now applies. Aircraft on the ground can still get IFR Clearances, just utilizing the departure release method. There are plenty of still operational Class D fields to get the experience of VFR/IFR Class D. We are not taking anything away that changes any actual operations, it's all just procedural.

I guess in short, my viewpoint of it is this: the closing of the towers really doesn't effect anything, just a minor procedural change. These fields get little traffic, and a majority of IFR Services can still be provided utilizing Class E non-towered methods. Over complicating simple practices are just unnecessary, especially in this instance. I am in favor of simulating these closures with the transition time Don has proposed, and then moving on to more pressing matters.

Kris Kendrick · « **Reply #14 on:** March 25, 2013, 05:06:09 PM »

I cannot argue any of that Zach. I have a feeling this topic is going to be closed very soon and the discussion will be over. But I will leave with this, in an effort to enhance the simulation of real world operations, I am stepping up monitoring possible Part 91.17 violations... 8 hours means 8 hours!