VATUSA Forums
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: 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 (http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=14414)
and the direct link to the closing list is here:
http://www.faa.gov/news/media/fct_closed.pdf (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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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!!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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]
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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!
-
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.
-
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!
-
Why not implement your own tower to every little farm strip across the nation then? If there is an aircraft flying to the field, they must need a tower service, right? I don't see the logic in opening a tower that isn't open. You can still provide friendly and professional service as they will in the real world.
Bringing 91.17 into this is quite comical. Find the line that defines extreme, and you'll be on your way to a much more enjoyable experience on the network.
-
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.
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 uncontrolled instead of controlled. The only real changes are not clearing aircraft to land and depart, not maintaining a ground control, and VFR Flight Followings are handed off 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 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 uncontrolled 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.
But we don't uniformly use r/w procedures on VATSIM, plenty of runway closures are ignored... Read the NOTAMs hourly and then compare VATSIM runway ops.
You're trying to implement something uniformly across a division that is severely fragmented, once training standards are consolidated, uniformity will follow.
Don't fix the font when the text is wrong, a saying from a front end dev I work with.
Cheers
Rahul
-
Zach, based on your last response, you're definitely worrying about the wrong things to standardize.
[blockquote]Class E (P/CG "Controlled Airspace" #5) = controlled airspace. May be non-towered, but it is indeed controlled with non-radar separation for IFR flights until radar separation can be provided, if ever.
Handoff (.65 5-4-1) = transfer or radar identification from one controller to another. Accomplished physically with an index finger, verbally with a phone call or otherwise, or automatically with the radar system.
Radio communication transfer (.65 2-1-7) = "Contact Saginaw Approach on 126.45."[/blockquote]
The last two are not the same thing!
The comment about real world procedures was also a little off base given that your boss just said we will be using the real world procedure. That for another day...
-
Zach, based on your last response, you're definitely worrying about the wrong things to standardize.
[blockquote]Class E (P/CG "Controlled Airspace" #5) = controlled airspace. May be non-towered, but it is indeed controlled with non-radar separation for IFR flights until radar separation can be provided, if ever.
Handoff (.65 5-4-1) = transfer or radar identification from one controller to another. Accomplished physically with an index finger, verbally with a phone call or otherwise, or automatically with the radar system.
Radio communication transfer (.65 2-1-7) = "Contact Saginaw Approach on 126.45."[/blockquote]
The last two are not the same thing!
The comment about real world procedures was also a little off base given that your boss just said we will be using the real world procedure. That for another day...
I do apologize. I did not realize my diction and word choice would be dissected to the letter. I will make sure to clarify that in future posts and use phraseology pursuant to the 7110.65 and FAR 1. I think everyone understood what was being stated, though, which is that these airports are not disappearing off the map, simply transitioning to a new classification of Airspace, which still allows us to provide operations pursuant to Class E, which does include IFR operations. And as for real world procedures, I am not sure what you are referring to, but, I will make it clear then: I agree with Don. I think you are referring to the statement about things turning into a huge deal, in which case it is in line with what Don was saying, which is that minor changes should not require long, unnecessary discussions. We simulate the Real world to the best of our ability, and when a change occurs that is in line with what can be simulated , we should adopt it uniformly. I hope this makes things clearer, and I have edited my above post to reflect exact phraseology.
-
You guys just about hit the nail on the head. We do the best we can to simulate RW, but within certain "soft bounds" required to accommodate "VATSIMisms." For example, no, we don't go chasing NOTAMs minute by minute, hour by hour; that is very impractical and a great way to kill a hobby. Rahul is spot on when he talks about desiring standardization. But there are practical limits for us too. The two aircraft example is great. My point is, if, while you are following correct ATC procedure (including terminating radar service, if he's reached that point), and Joe Pilot specifically asks you for the favor of a nostalgic "Cleared to Land" when he's inbound to Paducah on April 7th, by all means, give it to him. But don't even think about sending a "contact me" to John Pilot who is on the ground at Paducah taxiing to any runway (the one Joe Pilot's using or not); it is a nontowered airport. We do not force air traffic control in airspace and at facilities where none exists RW.
-
With this clarification from Don, my faith in our mission has been restored. "Soft bounds" is exactly what keeps this hobby interesting to a wide variety of users. My original take on how these changes would be implemented on the network were more black and white and that appears to be incorrect. My original statement also seems black and white and that was poorly written.
On the two plane issue, I joked about how rare that is. But joking aside, the way I would handle that situation if a nostalgic pilot called up expecting Class D services and the other guy is realistically operating under Class E rules, I would notify the "Class D guy" that there is other traffic on the ground and to monitor Unicom, not the other way around. I do not think it is appropriate to screw up the experience of a guy who is actually following the rules, just because we feel like it.
My fear was that if I am online at 3 in the morning and there is one guy online in the entire airspace, some old codger like me calls up and says... 'remember the good ole days?', that there would be some sort of violation for going back in time to the good ole days of early 2013 and providing a service that no longer exists. One poster suggested offering tower services at every farm strip in the country, then talked about extremes. That I would consider extreme and inconsistent with our mission of simulating real world ops whenever we can and to the best of our ability.
I know that there are some controllers that will not allow pilots to fly out of date arrivals and departures. I understand that not every pilot on the network has the means to have the most up to date waypoints in their FMS available. So the way I look at it, I use my discretion to answer two questions... 1. Can I accomplish this with the resources I have including time and understanding of what the pilot is going to do, and 2. Will this deviation not interfere with other pilots enjoyment of this hobby. If I answer no to either or both, then I go to plan B, I just take positive control. Again, it's about discretion. No need to rewrite rules and policies and lose track of more pressing issues on the network... nor becoming so robotic that pilots would rather get a root canal, or worse... sign off and fly offline without us!
This is the way I operate and it appears to work. The way this network feels and operates is up to us.
-
Zach,
I think a number of us were confused when you said "I don't get why we base our operations on the real world... ," after Don had said we will be (to an extent). I think that was the basis of Rahul and Marcus's responses, though I can't really speak for them. Re-reading your quote it looks like you meant to say something else -- that this isn't a big deal. I agree.
-
Zach,
I think a number of us were confused when you said "I don't get why we base our operations on the real world... ," after Don had said we will be (to an extent). I think that was the basis of Rahul and Marcus's responses, though I can't really speak for them. Re-reading your quote it looks like you meant to say something else -- that this isn't a big deal. I agree.
Ah, I see, that's understandable now. I guess revised wording would be "Since we base our operations on the RW, I don't understand why proportionally minor changes in the RW become large issues in VATSIM, when they don't affect the services we offer to our members. When it is practical to do so for VATSIM, let's adopt the RW changes uniformly and move on with other issues."
-
Don, I agree there are practical limits, but they are not completely impractical either, you probably understand what I am getting at.
Zach and Don : Please understand I am not trying to make a large issue of a small change, I simply do what I can to bring up edge cases (usually I fix them, but this isn't a piece of software), because edge cases can not be ignored. They need to be addressed, sometimes this can be quick, easy and painless, other times, it's hard and painful. It varies.
To all, the reason I bring up these edge cases, is because we're pushed to try and adopt uniformity and singularity in a fragmented system (See Android as a resemblance to how divisional training is conducted, some ARTCC training programs are jelly bean, others are gingerbread) and there are 20 other variations. The ultimate goal should be to get all training systems to Jelly bean, because once that happens, these discussions won't need to be had. Because the uniformity will already be there.
How (and whether) that is implemented is not my call, but know I will do my best to help that cause.
P.S. Don, you are correct in that we should never force control, but we should provide it if requested. And your representation of the soft bounds was perfect in my opinion. Just a note I thought should be made a point.
Cheers!
Rahul
-
And some get to live another day....
The FAA has released (26 Mar 2013) a three-part phase-in period for closing 149 of the nation’s contract control towers. The shutdowns will start on April 7, when 24 federal contract towers will close, followed by 46 on April 21, and the remaining 79 on May 5 (see the full list below).
Contract Towers Currently Scheduled to Close on 07 Apr 2013 (24)
FYV DRAKE FIELD FAYETTEVILLE AR
RYN RYAN FIELD TUCSON AZ
FUL FULLERTON MUNI FULLERTON CA
RAL RIVERSIDE MUNI RIVERSIDE CA
RNM RAMONA RAMONA CA
WHP WHITEMAN LOS ANGELES CA
EVB NEW SMYRNA BEACH MUNI NEW SMYRNA BEACH FL
HWO NORTH PERRY HOLLYWOOD FL
LEE LEESBURG INTL LEESBURG FL
OMN ORMOND BEACH MUNI ORMOND BEACH FL
TIX SPACE COAST RGNL TITUSVILLE FL
OJC JOHNSON COUNTY EXECUTIVE OLATHE KS
DTN SHREVEPORT DOWNTOWN SHREVEPORT LA
LWM LAWRENCE MUNI LAWRENCE MA
BTL W K KELLOGG BATTLE CREEK MI
HSA STENNIS INTL (HSA) BAY ST LOUIS MS
ISO KINSTON RGNL JETPORT AT STALLINGS FLD KINSTON NC
ASH BOIRE FIELD NASHUA NH
TZR BOLTON FIELD COLUMBUS OH
CXO LONE STAR EXECUTIVE HOUSTON TX
GTU GEORGETOWN MUNI GEORGETOWN TX
RBD DALLAS EXECUTIVE DALLAS TX
SSF STINSON MUNI SAN ANTONIO TX
TIW TACOMA NARROWS TACOMA WA
Contract Towers Currently Scheduled to Close on 21 Apr 2013 (46)
GEU GLENDALE MUNI GLENDALE AZ
GYR PHOENIX GOODYEAR GOODYEAR AZ
MER CASTLE ATWATER CA
SNS SALINAS MUNI SALINAS CA
WJF GENERAL WM J FOX AIRFIELD LANCASTER CA
GON GROTON-NEW LONDON GROTON (NEW LONDON) CT
FMY PAGE FIELD FORT MYERS FL
LAL LAKELAND LINDER RGNL LAKELAND FL
OCF OCALA INTL-JIM TAYLOR FIELD OCALA FL
PGD PUNTA GORDA PUNTA GORDA FL
SPG ALBERT WHITTED ST PETERSBURG FL
AHN ATHENS/BEN EPPS ATHENS GA
MCN MIDDLE GEORGIA RGNL MACON GA
DBQ DUBUQUE RGNL DUBUQUE IA
ALN ST LOUIS RGNL ALTON/ST LOUIS IL
MDH CARBONDALE IL
BAK COLUMBUS MUNI COLUMBUS IN
GYY GARY/CHICAGO INTL GARY IN
IXD NEW CENTURY AIRCENTER OLATHE KS
TOP PHILIP BILLARD MUNI TOPEKA KS
BVY BEVERLY MUNI BEVERLY MA
ORH WORCESTER RGNL WORCESTER MA
ESN EASTON/NEWNAM FIELD EASTON MD
FDK FREDERICK MUNI FREDERICK MD
MTN MARTIN STATE BALTIMORE MD
STC ST CLOUD RGNL ST CLOUD MN
GLH MID DELTA RGNL GREENVILLE MS
HKY HICKORY RGNL HICKORY NC
AEG DOUBLE EAGLE II ALBUQUERQUE NM
RME GRIFFISS INTL ROME NY
OUN UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA WESTHEIMER NORMAN OK
SWO STILLWATER RGNL STILLWATER OK
SLE MCNARY FLD SALEM OR
TTD PORTLAND-TROUTDALE PORTLAND OR
CXY CAPITAL CITY HARRISBURG PA
NQA MILLINGTON RGNL JETPORT MILLINGTON TN
BAZ NEW BRAUNFELS MUNI NEW BRAUNFELS TX
CNW TSTC WACO WACO TX
HYI SAN MARCOS MUNI SAN MARCOS TX
TKI COLLIN COUNTY RGNL AT MC KINNEY DALLAS TX
VCT VICTORIA RGNL VICTORIA TX
OLM OLYMPIA RGNL OLYMPIA WA
RNT RENTON MUNI RENTON WA
MWC LAWRENCE J TIMMERMAN MILWAUKEE WI
OSH WITTMAN RGNL OSHKOSH WI
HLG WHEELING OHIO CO WHEELING WV
Contract Towers Currently Scheduled to Close on 05 May 2013 (79)
DHN DOTHAN RGNL DOTHAN AL
TCL TUSCALOOSA RGNL TUSCALOOSA AL
TXK TEXARKANA RGNL-WEBB FIELD TEXARKANA AR
IFP LAUGHLIN/BULLHEAD INTL BULLHEAD CITY AZ
OXR OXNARD OXNARD CA
SAC SACRAMENTO EXECUTIVE SACRAMENTO CA
SDM BROWN FIELD MUNI SAN DIEGO CA
VCV SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LOGISTICS VICTORVILLE CA
BDR IGOR I SIKORSKY MEMORIAL BRIDGEPORT CT
DXR DANBURY MUNI DANBURY CT
HFD HARTFORD-BRAINARD HARTFORD CT
HVN TWEED-NEW HAVEN NEW HAVEN CT
OXC WATERBURY-OXFORD OXFORD CT
APF NAPLES MUNI NAPLES FL
BCT BOCA RATON BOCA RATON FL
SGJ NORTHEAST FLORIDA RGNL ST AUGUSTINE FL
SUA WITHAM FIELD STUART FL
ABY SOUTHWEST GEORGIA RGNL ALBANY GA
LZU GWINNETT COUNTY - BRISCOE FIELD LAWRENCEVILLE GA
RYY COBB COUNTY- MCCOLLUM FIELD ATLANTA GA
IDA IDAHO FALLS RGNL IDAHO FALLS ID
LWS LEWISTON-NEZ PERCE COUNTY LEWISTON ID
PIH POCATELLO RGNL POCATELLO ID
SUN FRIEDMAN MEMORIAL HAILEY ID
BMI CENTRAL IL RGNL ARPT AT BLOOMINGTON NORMAL IL
DEC DECATUR DECATUR IL
UGN WAUKEGAN RGNL CHICAGO/ WAUKEGAN IL
HUT HUTCHINSON MUNI HUTCHINSON KS
MHK MANHATTAN RGNL MANHATTAN KS
OWB OWENSBORO-DAVIESS COUNTY OWENSBORO KY
PAH BARKLEY RGNL PADUCAH KY
EWB NEW BEDFORD RGNL NEW BEDFORD MA
OWD NORWOOD MEMORIAL NORWOOD MA
HGR HAGERSTOWN RGNL- RICHARD A HENSON FLD HAGERSTOWN MD
SBY SALISBURY-OCEAN CITY WICOMICO RGNL SALISBURY MD
DET COLEMAN A. YOUNG MUNI DETROIT MI
SAW SAWYER INTL MARQUETTE MI
ANE ANOKA COUNTY-BLAINE ARPT(JANES FIELD) MINNEAPOLIS MN
BBG BRANSON BRANSON MO
COU COLUMBIA RGNL COLUMBIA MO
HKS HAWKINS FIELD JACKSON MS
OLV OLIVE BRANCH OLIVE BRANCH MS
TUP TUPELO RGNL TUPELO MS
GPI GLACIER PARK INTL KALISPELL MT
EWN COASTAL CAROLINA REGIONAL NEW BERN NC
INT SMITH REYNOLDS WINSTON SALEM NC
JQF CONCORD RGNL CONCORD NC
TTN TRENTON MERCER TRENTON NJ
SAF SANTA FE MUNI SANTA FE NM
ITH ITHACA TOMPKINS RGNL ITHACA NY
CGF CUYAHOGA COUNTY CLEVELAND OH
OSU OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY COLUMBUS OH
LAW LAWTON-FORT SILL RGNL LAWTON OK
PWA WILEY POST OKLAHOMA CITY OK
OTH SOUTHWEST OREGON RGNL NORTH BEND OR
PDT EASTERN OREGON RGNL AT PENDLETON PENDLETON OR
LBE ARNOLD PALMER RGNL LATROBE PA
LNS LANCASTER LANCASTER PA
CRE GRAND STRAND NORTH MYRTLE BEACH SC
GYH DONALDSON CENTER GREENVILLE SC
HXD HILTON HEAD HILTON HEAD ISLAND SC
MKL MC KELLAR-SIPES RGNL JACKSON TN
BRO BROWNSVILLE/ SOUTH PADRE ISLAND INTL BROWNSVILLE TX
CLL EASTERWOOD FIELD COLLEGE STATION TX
SGR SUGAR LAND RGNL HOUSTON TX
TYR TYLER POUNDS RGNL TYLER TX
OGD OGDEN-HINCKLEY OGDEN UT
PVU PROVO MUNI PROVO UT
LYH LYNCHBURG RGNL/ PRESTON GLENN FLD LYNCHBURG VA
SFF FELTS FIELD SPOKANE WA
YKM YAKIMA AIR TERMINAL/ MCALLISTER FIELD YAKIMA WA
CWA CENTRAL WISCONSIN MOSINEE WI
EAU CHIPPEWA VALLEY RGNL EAU CLAIRE WI
ENW KENOSHA RGNL KENOSHA WI
JVL SOUTHERN WISCONSIN RGNL JANESVILLE WI
LSE LA CROSSE MUNI LA CROSSE WI
UES WAUKESHA COUNTY WAUKESHA WI
LWB GREENBRIER VALLEY LEWISBURG WV
PKB MID-OHIO VALLEY RGNL PARKERSBURG WV
-
And some get to live another day....
The FAA has released (26 Mar 2013) a three-part phase-in period for closing 149 of the nation’s contract control towers. The shutdowns will start on April 7, when 24 federal contract towers will close, followed by 46 on April 21, and the remaining 79 on May 5 (see the full list below).
Contract Towers Currently Scheduled to Close on 07 Apr 2013 (24)
LEE LEESBURG INTL LEESBURG FL
Dang, and I was really looking forward to the "clear to land" voice from good ole Billy (fictional country boy name) when I come to my home airport (closest airport to my r/w home and work) from my once a month "International" flight to and from Lima, and/or Bogota.
Just kidding... I think it's designated an "International" because of occasional flights to and from the Bahamas.
-
OK, folks, listen up.... Especially ATMs that need to clearly communicate our plan forward on tower closures to their people. We will follow the RW closure schedule.
Tonight, 3/29, over a week before the FIRST tower closing date of 4/7, I heard a controller terminate service to a pilot, letting him know the tower was closed "due to sequestration." Really? Already? Even the pilot questioned it. And the controller came back and said, "Well, it's closed for sequestration, so it's closed." The worst thing was.... I was so upset at hearing this, I looked the airport up so I could make this post clear about how early that "closure" was being simulated.... AND THE AIRPORT ISN'T EVEN ON THE LIST -- THE TOWER IS STAYING OPEN!
C'mon folks...... I know this was probably an isolated incident, but that is unacceptable. ATMs, point your folks to this thread and make sure everyone knows what the rules are. Very simple -- we provide services for the same facilities the RW controllers, when they do.
-
...a'capiche
-
The state of Texas has decided to pick up the tab on the closing towers and none of the towers in Texas will close.
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/ho...ure-4391840.php (http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/TxDOT-to-fund-control-towers-slated-for-closure-4391840.php)
-
At Boca Raton ( KBCT) the airport authority is looking at collecting a minimal landing fee to fund the TWR as remaining open.
-
Is there any desire from VATUSA to entertain a "cool off" period before implementing these tower closure simulations?
Let me explain a little further... If anyone follows anything that the federal government does, you will completely understand that what is threatened is not always followed through. The latest news out of Texas is a prime example of how quickly this type of information can change.
I would humbly propose that VATUSA refrain from simulating these closures until a period of time (to be decided) has passed, and tower closures are confirmed and actually dark before we commit to simulating the closure. I think it's only fair to approach this in a calm (walk don't run) manner, and not attempt to puddle jump with the FAA press releases.
-
Hi Mark,
Thanks for your input; I do appreciate it. Yes, there were multiple approaches bantered about, running the gamut from ignoring the closures entirely to just closing everything on 4/7, regardless of FAA implementation date. Though no solution will please 100% of everyone, I believe that, as I said earlier without trying to chase hourly or daily NOTAMs, the direction to do what the RW does, is a reasonable compromise. I'm not going to chase hourly or daily NOTAMs, I don't expect any of the ATMs to, and I certainly don't expect any controller to. I'm hoping common sense will prevail and we react to things that are cast in Jello or more firm (things that look like they will stick for a month or more), not daily whims. I appreciate the walk, don't run analogy; the folks in Boston will tell you I'm a strong proponent of that. But I did want to get a little ahead of the 4/7 date solely to ensure we were handling this situation in as much of a standardized method as possible. Unfortunately, my crystal ball isn't working (otherwise I'd have hit the lottery and would be retired in Aruba ), so am relying on ATMs' common sense on how to implement this in each of the ARTCCs for the affected facilities. If nothing else, let's hope that all the RW closure stuff gets resolved quickly, and treat this as something to inject a little "freshness/flexibility/spontanaity/challenge/(or whatever you want to call it)" into our hobby. Thanks again - your concern and thoughts are certainly valid!
-
Hi Mark,
Thanks for your input; I do appreciate it. Yes, there were multiple approaches bantered about, running the gamut from ignoring the closures entirely to just closing everything on 4/7, regardless of FAA implementation date. Though no solution will please 100% of everyone, I believe that, as I said earlier without trying to chase hourly or daily NOTAMs, the direction to do what the RW does, is a reasonable compromise. I'm not going to chase hourly or daily NOTAMs, I don't expect any of the ATMs to, and I certainly don't expect any controller to. I'm hoping common sense will prevail and we react to things that are cast in Jello or more firm (things that look like they will stick for a month or more), not daily whims. I appreciate the walk, don't run analogy; the folks in Boston will tell you I'm a strong proponent of that. But I did want to get a little ahead of the 4/7 date solely to ensure we were handling this situation in as much of a standardized method as possible. Unfortunately, my crystal ball isn't working (otherwise I'd have hit the lottery and would be retired in Aruba ), so am relying on ATMs' common sense on how to implement this in each of the ARTCCs for the affected facilities. If nothing else, let's hope that all the RW closure stuff gets resolved quickly, and treat this as something to inject a little "freshness/flexibility/spontanaity/challenge/(or whatever you want to call it)" into our hobby. Thanks again - your concern and thoughts are certainly valid!
Thank you Don. I understand, and we will proceed accordingly. Thank you for your consideration.
-
Rumor has it, the RW Texas DOT is picking up the tab for the towers do to close in Texas. Therefore, scheduled tower closings in Texas may not happen. ZFW will keep an eye on this and will follow suit should this be the case. Leave it up to the state Texas. Awesome!
-
Rumor has it, the RW Texas DOT is picking up the tab for the towers do to close in Texas. Therefore, scheduled tower closings in Texas may not happen. ZFW will keep an eye on this and will follow suit should this be the case. Leave it up to the state Texas. Awesome!
post #29
-
The Federal Aviation Administration says it will delay the closure of 149 air traffic control towers at small airports until June, The Associated Press reports.
--
By Associated Press, Updated: Friday, April 5, 2:32 PM
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is delaying the closing of 149 airport control towers until mid-June in order to deal with legal challenges.
The first 24 closures had been scheduled for Sunday.
The Federal Aviation Administration said Friday the closures will be delayed until June 15. Trade groups representing companies that operate the towers under contract for FAA filed a lawsuit Thursday in federal court in Washington.
The agency says about 50 airport operators and communities have also indicated they may want to pay for operation of the towers themselves, and more time is needed to work out those details.
FAA has previously said the closures are necessary to accommodate automatic spending cuts.
-
Gotta love it....Sequestration = closed facilities
Litigation = open facilities.
Only in America....land of bureaucracy and land of the law degree, where things aren't mutually exclusive
-
May 10, 2013
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced today that DOT has determined that the recently enacted Reducing Flight Delays Act of 2013 will allow the FAA to transfer sufficient funds to end employee furloughs and keep the 149 low activity contract towers originally slated for closure in June open for the remainder of fiscal year 2013. The FAA will also put $10 million towards reducing cuts and delays in core NextGen programs and will allocate approximately $11 million to partially restore the support of infrastructure in the national airspace system.
###
http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/new...fm?newsId=14634 (http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=14634)