Who would control this airport?!

[Ryan Barnes]

Hello all.

So I lately did some random airport searching around the pacific area, and I found this airport, PKWA. It is within Oakland Oceanic Airspace (ZAK), however it has a control tower. After looking at AirNav, the ARTCC it belongs to is HCF, but after going through HCF position table, it doesn't appear to be a position part of HCF.

So in terms of VATSIM, who owns this towered airport in the middle of ZAK?

[Toby Rice]

Ryan,

At one point HCF proposed to open PKWA to the division. However, after further review we decided to hold off on the project to give way to more pressing matters within HCF.  The idea is still on the table, but at this time we’re not actively pursuing opening the airport.

[Brad Littlejohn]

Hello all.

So I lately did some random airport searching around the pacific area, and I found this airport, PKWA. It is within Oakland Oceanic Airspace (ZAK), however it has a control tower. After looking at AirNav, the ARTCC it belongs to is HCF, but after going through HCF position table, it doesn't appear to be a position part of HCF.

So in terms of VATSIM, who owns this towered airport in the middle of ZAK?

Who would control this field? This would be the military.

http://www.airnav.com/airport/pkwa

This shows the Atoll being a private use field, owned by the US Army. They would have control over it, making it a military field, not a civilian one.

For something like this, we would take precedence from somewhere like PGUM. They have a tower, has its own Center, but for all intents and purposes, is part of ZAK. For that, it is treated like any tower, or TRACON. However, with it being part of ZAK, the Pacific Partnerships may come into play on that.

BL.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

Who would control this field? This would be the military.

http://www.airnav.com/airport/pkwa

This shows the Atoll being a private use field, owned by the US Army. They would have control over it, making it a military field, not a civilian one.

For something like this, we would take precedence from somewhere like PGUM. They have a tower, has its own Center, but for all intents and purposes, is part of ZAK. For that, it is treated like any tower, or TRACON. However, with it being part of ZAK, the Pacific Partnerships may come into play on that.

BL.

Well, mil has no bearing on vatsim, right?  We don't have separate mil control organizations.  We get all kinds of people flying out of Kelly, Randolph, Laughlin, and NAS Corpus, for example, and we assume control responsibility.

But being closer to new New Zealand than Alaska, why would you think it's something that would logically be part of ZAK as opposed to HCF?

[Brad Littlejohn]

Who would control this field? This would be the military.

http://www.airnav.com/airport/pkwa

This shows the Atoll being a private use field, owned by the US Army. They would have control over it, making it a military field, not a civilian one.

For something like this, we would take precedence from somewhere like PGUM. They have a tower, has its own Center, but for all intents and purposes, is part of ZAK. For that, it is treated like any tower, or TRACON. However, with it being part of ZAK, the Pacific Partnerships may come into play on that.

BL.

Well, mil has no bearing on vatsim, right?  We don't have separate mil control organizations.  We get all kinds of people flying out of Kelly, Randolph, Laughlin, and NAS Corpus, for example, and we assume control responsibility.

On the contrary. we have VUSN and VUSAF controllers who are not only looking at controlling areas like the Nellis RAPCON and Range, but also all of KEDW and Joshua, to the point where they are looking at drafting up LOAs between the bordering sectors for use.

But being closer to new New Zealand than Alaska, why would you think it's something that would logically be part of ZAK as opposed to HCF?

Because it is covered in the ZAK_W sector, and almost 2200nm west of the southwest border of HCF. PGUM isn't part of HCF, let alone PGRO, PGSN, and PGWT. While Guam basically has its own center, they would be under ZAK, not HCF. For HCF to cover those, HCF's sector would literally as big as the entire CONUS.

BL.

[Toby Rice]

Before anyone gets completely confused, HCF runs Guam on VATSIM.  HCF does not run PKWA, but we have looked into it in the past.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

On the contrary. we have VUSN and VUSAF controllers who are not only looking at controlling areas like the Nellis RAPCON and Range, but also all of KEDW and Joshua, to the point where they are looking at drafting up LOAs between the bordering sectors for use.

It's not inherent.  As you said, that requires LOAs with the ARTCC that owns it.  They don't have ownership of those fields.  The vUSN has no LOA with ZHU, for example, and the vUSAF LOA is out of date enough that I need it updated if they want to ever utilize it.

[Mark Hubbert]

Gentlemen,
Guam used to be a facility that had nobody to manage it, as VATUSA 7, I proposed to allow HCF to manage that facility.  It was approved.  Oakland Oceanic is not responsible for any facilities only airspace.  I suspect the field you are referring to would fall under the responsibility of VATUSA 7.  If he feels that this facility needs to come under control of an established facility than he can make the recommendation and it will be reviewed.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

Gentlemen,
Guam used to be a facility that had nobody to manage it, as VATUSA 7, I proposed to allow HCF to manage that facility.  It was approved.  Oakland Oceanic is not responsible for any facilities only airspace.  I suspect the field you are referring to would fall under the responsibility of VATUSA 7.  If he feels that this facility needs to come under control of an established facility than he can make the recommendation and it will be reviewed.

Are you aware of any other lost airports out there?  I imagine this would mostly be a problem in the Pacific.  It may be worthwhile to see if there's a known list of forgotten airports that could use some service every once in a while, even if only top-down.

[Mark Hubbert]

Honestly, I do not have a known list of other airports.  Top Down Service would not be possible because Oakland Oceanic is not a radar facility.  In the case of Guam, Guam is a CERAP to put it in laymans terms, Guam has an approach control position that is more expansive in terms of distance and altitude coverage so in essence they are providing the equivalent or similar as a Low Center Coverage combined with approach.  I'm not sure what set up other facilities have. 

This situation falls under the responsibility of VATUSA 7 and therefore Brayden would be the person to initiate any updates or changes etc.

[Matthew Kosmoski]

Top Down Service would not be possible because Oakland Oceanic is not a radar facility.

Excellent point.

[Krikor Hajian]

Top Down Service would not be possible because Oakland Oceanic is not a radar facility.

Excellent point.

I see where you’re coming from, but couldn’t a controller provide top down service non-radar/procedurally? Bear in mind I’m not entirely familiar with how this is handled IRL, but couldn’t you give an aircraft a cruise clearance in conjunction with an airport name “UAL55 cruise FL55, Midway Atoll Airport,” thus authorizing them to also complete a published approach? Then for departures, treat it as an uncontrolled airfield with IFR releases and then obtain position reports to ensure they’re clear.

Like I said, this may not be how it’s done and just my 2 cents.

[Mark Hubbert]

Oakland Oceanic is handled via position reports supplied by the pilots.  Oakland Oceanic has no authority over the airspace surrounding any facility.  Case in point, based on time estimates, Oakland Oceanic will transfer control of an aircraft to a radar facility based on an estimated time of arrival to a specific fix in the flightplan. 

We are starting to get off topic with this thread so I will say again, Oakland Oceanic is the responsibility of VATUSA7 as are any faculties that are within that same airspace area.  Any changes of operations will be at the discretion and recommendation of VATUSA 7. 

[Brayden Manzella]

Ryan,

At one point HCF proposed to open PKWA to the division. However, after further review we decided to hold off on the project to give way to more pressing matters within HCF.  The idea is still on the table, but at this time we’re not actively pursuing opening the airport.

I have spoken with Toby about this again in length, and we have both agreed to hold off on exploring these facilities at this time. It's something we may explore down the road, but for now, nothing will be changing.