FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Date: April 5, 2013
Contact: Laura Brown
FAA Extends Tower Closure Date
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announced today that it will delay the closures of all 149 federal contract
air traffic control towers until June 15. Last month, the FAA announced it would eliminate funding for these towers as part of the agency’s required $637 million budget cuts under sequestration.
This additional time will allow the agency to attempt to resolve multiple legal challenges to the closure decisions. As part of the tower closure implementation process,
the agency continues to consult with airports and operators and review appropriate risk mitigations. Extending the transition deadline will give the FAA and airports more time to execute the changes to the National Airspace System.
“This has been a complex process and we need to get this right,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “Safety is our top priority. We will use this additional
time to make sure communities and pilots understand the changes at their local airports.”
As of today, approximately 50 airport authorities and other stakeholders have indicated they may join the FAA’s non-Federal Contract Tower program and fund the tower
operations themselves. This additional time will allow the FAA to help facilitate that transition.
“We will continue our outreach to the user community to answer any questions and address their concerns about these tower closures,” said FAA Administrator Michael
On March 22, the FAA announced that it would stop federal funding for 149 contract towers across the country. A phased, four-week closure process was scheduled to begin this Sunday, April 7. That phased closure
process will no longer occur. Instead, the FAA will stop funding all 149 towers on June 15 and will close the facilities unless the airports decide to continue operations as a nonfederal contract tower.
From: help-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:help-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Robert Grierson
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: CAA: Mutual Help List, Question concerning control tower equation
Steve I remember that formula and how the FAA used it for the Benefit-Costs basis in which to support contract tower funding.
Sitting in on the conference call yesterday with the FAA and US Contract Tower Assoc, the FAA made it clear that it has dumped that process and now
rely on a yet to be publically released "Comprehensive Safety Review conducted by FAA professionals." Whatever that means.
When that document becomes public, we may discover what rationale they used to keep underutilized FAA towers operational while gutting the cost effective
contract tower program.
The criteria for the establishment and/or discontinuance is found in APO 90-70 (google the document). It outlines the benefit cost analysis used, which involves some rather involved weighting methodology.
Reading the document does provide insight into the emphasis placed on air carrier operations, in part because of the perceived risk exposure to larger number of people involved and the mix differential of the aircraft (read mix to mean speed, airspace need,
wake turbulence, etc). The end result is a John Lawson mentioned, a calculated BCA greater than 1.0 versus a BCA less than 1 (14CFR Part 170). The formula that you may be thinking about where the type of operations plays a part in the formula (GA vs. air carrier
vs. military) may actually be the formula used for the old ADAP and current ACIP calculation for funding criteria.
The answer to the board's question is a risk-based response.... the focus is on the number of people. More people have exposure should an aircraft accident occur with an air carrier than with a GA
operation. The exception is if there is a congress-person on board a GA aircraft involved in an accident (tongue firmly in place
). An additional factor is the assumption of larger aircraft with greater speed differential than GA piston aircraft (totally ignoring that GA includes larger
jet operations as well). And then the number of instrument operations come into play, since air carriers are required to operate under those requirements.
One of the impacts not being fully discussed about the closure of towers and the reduction of navaid maintenance is the potential impact on the future closure of navigational aids. There is a BCA
associated with navaid facilities as well. With towers inoperative, that may result in a reduction of instrument approaches (due to a lack of weather reporting capabilities or individual company/insurance policies that restrict/limit operation at nontowered
facilities or to higher minimums in effect). The reduction in numbers may then impact decisions about discontinuance of a navaid (ILS, for instance) and promote the (FAA) goals of ADB-S implementation or consolidation at the TRACONS or CENTERS.
Tough situation all around. Being involved in SMS, I can see the assessment of risk playing out in the current debate. The real question the board should be asking is "what level of risk are we willing
to tolerate?" The FAA is now saying they are willing to accept a higher level of risk than in the past. Affected airports are saying otherwise, in which case, the burden may fall on the airport to support the lower risk assessment through self-funding, lawsuits,
congressional emphasis, etc. Hope this helps.
Stephen M. Quilty, A.A.E. SMQ Airport Services 26757 Haverhill Drive Lutz, FL 33559-8509
The mission of SMQ Airport Services is to support the airport management profession with training and education,
safety audits, SMS and group facilitation, organizational development and assessment, and special research study.
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 9:20 AM, <Richard.Stein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I have a question about equation that the FAA uses (or use to use) for determining if a control tower would be considered for an airport.
Background - Lynchburg Regional Airport is losing its contract control tower next month. We're currently examining several options, including asking the state to use our entitlement funding to continue to operate
the control tower for a few months until a permanent solution is found. One of the questions from the Aviation Board was "Why are Air Carrier operations more important in determining if we get to keep our control tower"?
One piece of the answer is an equation I remember from college that used airline operations, general aviation operations and some other operations to get a result. If the result was over a certain number - you
were more likely to get a tower.
That class was over 25 years ago - I'm glad I remember the equation at all.
My question: What was the equation for determining having a control tower?
Any comments would be appreciated, also feel free to email or call with any questions or comments about the tower closure issue.
Richard M. Stein, A.A.E.
Deputy Airport Director, Operations and Maintenance
Lynchburg Regional Airport
350 Terminal Drive, Suite 100
Lynchburg, VA 24502
(434) 239-9027 (fax)
PLEASE NOTE NEW ADDRESS
Confidentiality statement: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
intended only for the use of the recipient(s) and may contain privileged and
confidential information, including information that is protected under the
HIPAA privacy rules. Any unauthorized review, disclosure, copying, distribution
or use is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please notify
us immediately by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.