<p>I’m the polar opposite of a frequent flyer, but my luck is that I am scheduled to fly out of a regional airport in April that will be losing–due to sequestration–its control tower. The flight would be a commuter prop job that will connect to a major hub for a regular jet.</p>
<p>I called the airline to ask my options and their contingency plans. They told me that until they receive “official notification” I have no options and they have no plans.</p>
<p>It is quite possible they will not cancel my flight and take off and land without a control tower. I did a bit of research, which seemed to conclude that controless take offs and landings can be safe, but not as safe as with control. As one put it, removing the tower adds risk.</p>
<p>Any agreement or disagreement?</p>
<p>So, I’d prefer to change my flight, and go with a different itinerary and airline. I wonder how much of a hassle that would be. Incidentally, it’s business, and my flight is being paid for, so the hassle is not all mine.</p>
<p>My parents used to fly, and often used airports without control towers. With their radios, all the pilots can hear each other (and if in populated areas, the control towers of other airports) so they are not in danger of running into each other.</p>
<p>I know there are regional airlines that fly in and out of airports without control towers. I’m not sure what you are worried about. Are you thinking this airport, for some reason, would be much less safe than some other airports?</p>
<p>Williamson County Regional Airport Director Doug Kimmel said in a previous article that a big concern will be safety.</p>
<p>The safety at airports across the country would be certainly compromised without the control towers operating that are currently in place, Kimmel said.</p>
<p>Mark Hanna, director of the Abraham Lincoln Capital Airport in Springfield, said the lack of a tower can have dire consequences. In 1996, a United Express flight landing in Quincy collided with a twin-engine turboprop plane that was taking off, killing all 14 people on the planes. Hanna became the director of the airport about two years later.</p>
<p>If a tower was there, its highly likely that that accident would have been prevented, Hanna said.</p>
<p>I have flown aircraft in many airports without towers. It isn’t a big deal. Pilots receive extensive training regarding flying without towers. Each airport has a unique frequency so that all the pilots flying there can hear what the others are doing. They announce their location and if they are in the process of landing or taking off. I have seen numerous charters and private jets fly without towers. I never had any problem.</p>
<p>A local tower is for air traffic control in and out of the airport. Regional centers monitor air travel other than actual traffic on the ground and in the zone around the actual airport. If the regional airport isn’t that busy, the existing system can handle the take-offs and landings easily. There have been plans at various times to eliminate local air traffic control entirely. Much of what the tower does is control the movement of planes around the airport. At a busy place, there may be dozens of planes moving about. In most airports, next to none. We have the system we have because it provides extra layers of safety and no one wants to get blamed for a crash.</p>
<p>I have no idea but I wouldn’t be surprised if the FAA doesn’t set out some extra safety rules for small aircraft, the kind that aren’t scheduled, for airports where the tower is shut.</p>
<p>I would prob agree that flying w/o control tower is ever so slightly less safe. It must help that it’s a regional airport and isn’t LAX or DFW.</p>
<p>But there is disagreement about what cuts sequestration are causing.
To be completely objective(and thereby non-political) some feel the necessary mandatory cuts are causing inconveniences. Others feel the cuts are less specifically mandated, but harsher cuts are specifically being chosen to make a political point. I don’t know the answer. But in the Op’s case, regardless of the reason, a cut is very possible.</p>
<p>I’d rather fly without a control tower than without a pilot. When airports start turning off runway lights to save money on electric is when I start walking at night instead of flying.</p>
<p>If you consider all of civilian aviation, and not just scheduled commercial airlines, I think most flights operate at uncontrolled airports on one end or the other or both. And all pilots have experience flying in and out of uncontrolled airports.</p>
<p>I do worry about certain things when I fly, but this has never been, and I doubt it ever will be, on my list.</p>
<p>I accept that a commercial flight in and out of an airport without a tower can fall in the “safe” range. But, and I haven’t decided or inquired, I feel that since my reservation was made with the expectation of a tower, there should be no problem with a change or refund.</p>
<p>Since I don’t think there’s any significant difference in safety between having a control tower and not having one at a small regional airport with a few scheduled flights by regional airlines, I really don’t see it that way. And I wouldn’t if I were the airline. They’ve promised to carry you and your luggage from Point A to Point B, and they’re just as capable of doing that safely as they were when you bought your ticket. I’m quite sure there was no promise on the airline’s part about what government-provided services would be there on the other end.</p>
<p>In general, and knowing nothing about the particular airline or airport in question, I think regional airlines are a greater safety concern than uncontrolled airports.</p>
<p>But I understand that the idea of having no control tower sounds scary to a person who doesn’t know very much about aviation–and it surely doesn’t help that the FAA calls an airport with no tower an “uncontrolled airport”! I’m sorry this makes you so nervous. But I sincerely don’t think you need to worry about the control tower.</p>
<p>(I’m not sure I’m happy with the tone of this post, latichever. Parts of it, such as the phrase, “a person who doesn’t know very much about aviation,” sound dismissive and condescending. I’m sorry. That’s really not my intention. I’m just not quite sure how to fix it–especially in the short window when CC will let me edit. Please understand, no offense is intended.)</p>
<p>No offense taken. I’m often across the Housatonic from the Sikorsky plant, BTW. </p>
<p>Flying doesn’t particularly bother me. I used to do it often but not lately. This is a regional airline owned by a major carrier at a small regional airport where it’s the only commercial carrier. Years ago, there was 737 service on the short, mile long runway. The ascent angle was so steep, I know what it’s like to be on a rocket, and it went into a dive on the landing. From the relevant Wikipedia entry: “In order to obtain take-off speed with these jets on full flights, it was not uncommon for passengers and/or luggage to be offloaded to reduce weight, or for the pilots to wait on the runway for a favorable wind.”</p>
<p>I’d just rather change my plans, but if I have to, I’ll do it.</p>
<p>If anyone else is familiar with sailplanes, then they will commonly fly with neither a control tower or radio contact to other aircraft. It’s not considered necessary. Accidents are very rare, and mid-airs even less so. It should also be noted that per mile travelled, flying is just about the safest form of transport - far safer than driving. I seriously wouldn’t worry about flying w/o a control tower. </p>
<p>Put it this way - the airline won’t do anything that they consider to be unsafe, because
a) they want their aircraft back in one piece. They’re expensive.
b) the pilot wants to get home alive too - if you are in a plane crash, then so is he, and he’s got a vested interest in avoiding that situation too
c) if there’s a plane crash, then the reputation of the airline is going to take a beating, and that’s never good for profits.</p>
<p>Oh, right, I kind of forgot that my name is Sikorsky! I actually have nothing at all to do with the helicopter company. I chose this user name as a self-deprecating commentary on my parenting style.</p>
<p>But I do have experience flying in and out if uncontrolled airports. That doesn’t give me a moment’s worry.</p>
<p>I’m personally not crazy about flying into uncontrolled airports, but that’s only because I rarely do it. We almost always fly into airports under tower control. But I’m comfortable with other pilots flying me into them, as if one is going to do that regularly, they are very probably familiar with the airports and procedures. There are far more things to worry about than lack of a control tower when flying.</p>
<p>The thing is, I’m sure that the control towers that are being shut down are at airports with very little traffic. And soon after you take off, you start talking to the enroute controllers anyways, and are under radar contact. You are under far more threat of collision going to some of the controlled airports, say, in Southern California, where there are SO many airplanes in a limited airspace. The evasive actions I’ve had to take have almost always been in SoCal airspace, usually going into Burbank, always under ATC control. Just too many airplanes, the Big Sky theory doesn’t help as much.</p>
<p>So I don’t know if it helps much, latichever, but I’d think you have a valid concern if the airport is fairly busy (I’d doubt it is), or if it’s near airports with tons of traffic. Otherwise, I wouldn’t worry about it. I’m sure the airline won’t refund.</p>
<p>If you look at some of the links on this page, you will notice that some of the regional airlines won’t participate in voluntary safety programs, some of which are merely data gathering. </p>
<p>I’m familiar with corporate risk management. They make cold-blooded cost benefit decisions. Is it cheaper to redesign this unsafe car, or cheaper to fight and pay off claims piecemeal? e.g., Pinto or Explorer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Won’t know until I ask them. I might ask for a change to a different airport. I’ll report back.</p>
<p>Flying regional airlines is definitely more dangerous than flying with the majors, for a multitude of reasons. I specifically do not book my children on regionals, especially if they are not jets, unless I have no other choice. I will book them a circuitous route if necessary, particularly in the winter. For me? Not so important.</p>
<p>I think you should absolutely ask them, if you’re uncomfortable. But I think if you are trying for a refund or to fly on a different day, they will be suspicious that you’re just trying to avoid the change fees. If you ask for a same day change that avoids the non-tower controlled airport, you might have a leg to stand on. All you’re really doing is asking them to waive the change fee, right, and get you a different routing? I’m pretty sure my favorite airline, Delta, would do it for me in a heartbeat, because I fly them all the time. Not sure about the others, but seems like it’s worth trying, if you’re uncomfortable.</p>
<p>For me, it’s moot. The tower closings are being phased in, and in my case not until May 5, several weeks after my flight. </p>
<p>It will be interesting to see how this plays out, but I’ll be warching from an armchair. I did raise an objection to my Senator–who is leading the charge to keep the towers open. (It would be edging into politics–or, at least, economics–to say we should be expanding not contracting our infrastructure.)</p>
<p>Now I get back to be concerned only about flying a prop job out of a regional through the NYC metropolitan skies to Philadelphia–although I know it will be more dangerous to drive to the airport.</p>
<p>So good, you don’t have to worry about it then.</p>
<p>I know that intellectually people realize that driving is far more dangerous, but something about the lack of control seems to really bother people. I guess I’d be more concerned about flying the prop aircraft in winter weather, but chances are that most of that is over anyways.</p>
<p>Either way, a glass or two of wine right before the flight definitely helps with the concern. Not that you want to get drunk, but it does help you relax!</p>
Sometimes when I fly commercial, I am bothered by the fact that all I have is a little window to look out. I keep wondering, how can those people up front fly this big, complicated airplane without my help spotting the airport and looking out for traffic?</p>
<p>^^Funny. If it makes you feel better, in a big complicated airplane, the pilots are probably not flying by VFR flight rules. They are flying IFR, using instruments, under radar control. In my airplane, at certain airports, we don’t even need to see anything to land. No runway, lights, anything, it’s a little disconcerting.</p>
<p>As far as traffic, besides the controllers to help you, most aircraft are equipped with transponders and computers that tell you of conflicts, and even direct avoidance maneuvers. We usually don’t see much of the traffic unless it’s close. And there is the big sky theory (plenty of sky out there, for not that many airplanes). Though that’s probably not too comforting.</p>