. The only reason it is controlled in the first pace, is airlines.
I would not fly into GA-heavy KVNY if it was AFIS only. I wish you luck with that!
Airborne_Again wrote:
That is certainly a risk, but it doesn’t have to be that way. About half the towers in Sweden are operated by private ATC providers and we haven’t yet seen GA being locked out.
Here is a 2014 write up on the US program for contract towers. It is for towers and not the enroute system. You must also remember that about 90% of all IFR airports in the US don’t need or use a tower, but all use ATC for departure control and center. The proposal in question is regarding the ATC departure and Center along with the FAA operated towers.There are only 516 airports in the US with control towers, but there are 10 times that number that have a paved runway and 30 times that number of unpaved GA airports. Towers are not the issue.
In 1982, FAA began the FCT Program as a pilot program to contract air traffic services for five low-activity “level 1” control towers that were closed as a result of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization strike. By 1993, the Program had grown to 27 towers, and in 1994 Congress provided funding for a multi-year program to convert additional FAA low-activity towers to contract operations. The Program was further expanded in 1998 when Congress provided funding for a cost-sharing program, which allows airports that would not normally qualify for the FCT Program access by permitting its sponsors to pay for a portion of the costs to operate the tower, with FAA providing at least 80 percent of the cost.
Today, there are 250 towers in the FCT Program; 228 towers are fully funded by FAA, 16 are part of the cost-share program, and 6 towers are used by the Air National Guard.5 Three contractors operate the towers in seven geographic areas. The current contracts, which run from February 1, 2010, to September 30, 2014,
are worth nearly $600 million. The administrative functions of the Program are overseen by FAA’s Contract Tower and Weather Group (CTWG) with safety
oversight provided by the Agency’s Aviation Safety Organization. FAA is requesting $138 million in FY 2013 to operate the FCT Program, $8 million of which is for the cost-share program.
James_Chan wrote:
I would not fly into GA-heavy KVNY if it was AFIS only. I wish you luck with that!
Yes of course. The single busiest GA airport in the world is the reason why GA cannot do without airline sized ATC in the rest of the world. It’s like saying that the week of Airventure at Osh proves (super) heavy ATC is a requirement all year long there.
If you get up early and depart Van Nuys before 6 AM, there won’t be a soul in the tower. 
Too bad I was gone a few days to miss out on the comments. I will call AOPA today and get some info on funding of the FAA and will report back.
But the whole concept of free flight and ADS-B was to have system where separation was provided inside the cockpit where it belongs. Today this is provided by ATC for IFR traffic to IFR Traffic via radar which means hugh areas of the sky that are buffered. That will be reduced with ADS-B. ATC also provides for IFR Traffic to be separated from VFR traffic using a combination of Radar and eyeballs both for the IFR traffic and the VFR traffic. Since the system of separation and radar coverage is there anyway, in the name of safety VFR flight following is provided workload provided.
So once ADS-B is fully implemented I really see no reason for enroute ATC. In terminal areas they will probably act as traffic guards sequencing airplanes for arrival and departures.
This basically means that the number of FAA controllers will be cut back or reassigned to other positions and retrained.
The one thing that is great in the US which is not provided in Europe is weather avoidance issued by ATC. In the US a lot of controllers have radar which will help in avoiding weather via radar returns. In Europe they say deviate as necessary. In the US they might say, “there is a line of heavy precip beyond that it is clear and if you deviate 20 deg to the right, looks like you will be in some light rain but it looks doable”.
So that is a service with ADS-B I will miss but in Europe its not available anyway.
Ah. Van Nuys. I had a brake failure (diaphragm in the master cylinder split) in a Piper TriPacer at Van Nuys after being instructed to expedite a runway crossing. Nothing like hurtling towards a 90 degree turn in a milkstool with no brakes!
Fortunately, there was amongst all the shiny bizjets (the first mechanic we came to genuinely asked “What’s a TriPacer?”) an old airport geezer who had a brand new diaphragm, date stamped 1968, still in its original packaging. Normally they don’t allow maintenance on the ramp at Van Nuys but I think they turned a blind eye to us because we would be gone quicker if they left us be, I don’t think two grubby people in a grubby old TriPacer covered in Aeroshell Fluid 41 nestled between two Gulfstreams was the image they wanted to project :-)
NCYankee wrote:
You must also remember that about 90% of all IFR airports in the US don’t need or use a tower, but all use ATC for departure control and center.
It is the airlines that require a tower. GA does not. So why should GA pay for it? Next question is why should European airports close to GA because the tower is unmanned? They are open 24/7 in the US?
Peter wrote:
I think the European arguments against route charges are mostly concerning safety e.g.due to a lack of surveillance, they cannot be implemented for VFR – unless done as some kind of e.g. annual lump sum “road tax” payment – and this leads to a great deal of “illegal VFR” flying by aircraft over 2000kg, with plenty of crashes triggered by the general lack of airspace access and resulting inability to avoid hazardous wx
they cannot be implemented unless a flight plan is mandatory and has been filed, which leads to yet more “illegal VFR”
GA is well placed to make these “safety” points because, let’s face it, a great deal of anti-GA regulation is done in the name of safetyRoute charges here are way more than 5 euros… more like 50+ for an average trip within one country.
Once again it is a new phenomenon regarding what I coined as route charges. This is not charged through the ATC system at Brussels but rather by the airport of departure or destination in this case EDMS. The fee is paid to the airport. Yes you do have to file an IFR flight plan. Whether you TO or Land on a Z or Y plan its immaterial to the charging airport as long as the registration shows up as an IFR flight. They decide to charge you whatever they feel they can get away with that is why it is 5 Euros, with VAT of course for each flight.It does not matter if it is under 2000 Kg.
Regarding VFR if you cross countries borders you must file an VFR flight plan. That is my understanding. Filing a flight plan only makes sense in Europe because they dont have flight following. So if there were ever an emergency it would take time to call out the rescuers. Or even to raise the alarm that they should be looking for you.
I think if EDMS started to charge for VFR filed flight plans they would have an uproar but it seems the guys who could afford an IFR ticket are happy not to complain afterall its only 5 Euros if arriving with an IFR flight plan but which was cancelled 100 NM out or more, and an IFR departure even if departing with a Z plan.
It just sets a very bad precedent.
C210_Flyer wrote:
Next question is why should European airports close to GA because the tower is unmanned? They are open 24/7 in the US?
It is far from universally true that they do. But it is often true for larger airports and usually this is because when there is no scheduled traffic they lock the place and there is no staff to let you out or in. In some places you can enter or leave through the local aeroclub or even through a gate with a code lock with the code posted airside. Several towered airports in Sweden have PPR through the local aeroclub when the tower is closed, precisely to make sure that someone can let you in or out.
Airborne_Again wrote:
It is far from universally true that they do
All Avinor airports (state owned) in Norway are either open 24/7 (larger ones), or open for light GA (VFR only) also outside opening hours. The problem is getting in and out when the airport is deserted. As I understand this is up to Avinor to decide. Other airports can be open 24/7 or whatever the owner decide, manned or not. I think, but don’t really know, that IFR requires ATC, but this can be provided from other places if possible. Soon there will be remote towers on all Avinor airports though, which basically means open 24/7 for all traffic, and we will have this WAM system, enabling ATC even in the vallies, everywhere essentially. Anyway, knowing how LT operate, they will probably find some new restrictions and “safety” regulation regardless of technology.
