I suspect it might be part of a bigger plan, tieing into the ADSB stuff.
But, of course they are only here to help.
Someone pissin on our feet and callin it rain??


https://www.codot.gov/programs/remote-t ... mote-tower

https://denver.cbslocal.com/2018/08/31/ ... -colorado/

In my neck of the state it’s been common knowledge for a couple years that this was happening. FNL is just a test piece for the tech.

I like BDU because stuff like this will never happen. No commercial service = no need for towers or control.

I read about the FNL part.
I don't know what BDU is.
Sounds to me like more wasteful spending??,with possably a bigger eye on us cammouflaged with this is for YOUR good/safety. :>))
And not so necessary, as the last I heard GA was losing 6000 pilots/yr???

The real downside is that there will be less flexibility as exists with either uncontrolled airport or towered airport today. Because the tower controller is not actually there, he will be required to insist on highly limited altitude and procedural track.

LOC accident increase points to over reliance on instrument indications even VMC resulting in less contact training and proficiency. Both instrument and contact techniques can be taught completely, but radar and camera is going to bust pilots based on camera and instrument indications. Legality will work against safety in that pilots will be looking inside to make the numbers legal rather than looking outside and using good contact technique and actually see and avoid by whatever track and altitude is safest.

shortfielder wrote:GA was losing 6000 pilots/yr???

It's been more than 2% per year for 2 decades. For one of those decades, the FAA was forecasting huge increases to pilot certs, completely denying the actual trends. And they are still at it, forecasting Les than 1% per annum losses and magical ATP license increases that are significantly higher than the entire new student start numbers.

In other words, the FAA is totally making up any numbers it uses in this regard.

I find the idea that FNL or BDU need a tower as humor. Truly a joke. The rows and rows of airplanes, each of which was flying more hours on average than the scant few there now by comparison, never truly needed it at any time in the past.

GA is just a vestigal annoyance any longer compared to airlimes for the FAA.

ADS-b is a poorly executed solution to an almost nonexistent problem, and they seem to be busy thinking up new ones to "solve".

...

This may be new to Colorado, but remote tower experiments have been going on for years. Some of these experiments are being done at airport that already have a tower. The goal there is to cut operating costs. Leesburg Executive in Virginia is an example. Although the number of licensed GA pilots is steadily decreasing, the number of commercial flight operations continues to increase. Each airport had a finite capacity for operations. That capacity is supposed to increase with ADS-B because more accurate position information than radar can provide should allow a reduction in separation requirements. Even with that, existing commercial airports don't have the capacity to handle legitimately predicted traffic growth. That means adding commercial operations to other airports to spread the load. That is happening with Paine Field in Washington State. Paine already had a tower, so it isn't a big deal there, but NCRA will either need to add a tower, or a remote tower to add scheduled commercial operations. The strange thing is that the airlines are adopting ADS-B equipment more slowly than GA is. Perhaps that is why they want to take over ATC operations. Maybe they want to exempt themselves from ADS-B implementation.

Flyhound wrote:This may be new to Colorado, but remote tower experiments have been going on for years. Some of these experiments are being done at airport that already have a tower. The goal there is to cut operating costs. Leesburg Executive in Virginia is an example. Although the number of licensed GA pilots is steadily decreasing, the number of commercial flight operations continues to increase. Each airport had a finite capacity for operations. That capacity is supposed to increase with ADS-B because more accurate position information than radar can provide should allow a reduction in separation requirements. Even with that, existing commercial airports don't have the capacity to handle legitimately predicted traffic growth. That means adding commercial operations to other airports to spread the load. That is happening with Paine Field in Washington State. Paine already had a tower, so it isn't a big deal there, but NCRA will either need to add a tower, or a remote tower to add scheduled commercial operations. The strange thing is that the airlines are adopting ADS-B equipment more slowly than GA is. Perhaps that is why they want to take over ATC operations. Maybe they want to exempt themselves from ADS-B implementation.

This is pretty much what they want you to think when the reality is they want to wipe ga off the face of the earth.
They feel we are not smart enough or responsible enough to fly and it's a privilege we don't deserve.
They prefer we just fly commercial and sit at home with our thumbs up our butts.
You really think a tower is required at small uncontrolled airports? You think commercial traffic has anything to do with small airports? If they really cared about what you say they would just ban ga from commercial hubs.
This is a simple case of removing our rights and freedoms one little piece at a time.
This is real serious stuff man,stuff that will affect you in your lifetime.

FWIW, Canada has had a similar system for years. A lot of our smaller airports with commercial traffic have remote towers. It works quote well.

Hank,

How flexible are remote controllers with helicopter, Ag, and pipeline traffic. I have always felt that going up to get down exposed me to more and harder to see traffic. Tower controllers on site have been very cooperative. Does the camera give them that much assurance that would allow flexibility? How is that working up there?

contactflying wrote:Hank,

How flexible are remote controllers with helicopter, Ag, and pipeline traffic. I have always felt that going up to get down exposed me to more and harder to see traffic. Tower controllers on site have been very cooperative. Does the camera give them that much assurance that would allow flexibility? How is that working up there?

Jim, most ag planes that I know of are flying off non towered airports. So just calling on the MF if at all. Helicopters just call in and are cleared in. No requirement to climb to x altitude. Same with us lowfliers.

David

Good to know, David. I got the Hank from your signature box. But then, I am always slightly disoriented/addled.

Government, by nature, has to act like government. When I was involved, I was ordered to get as much blade time and additional flight training periods as allowed so the unit would not have either cut in the budget. No problem! I like to fly. It is more irritating when rear echelon guys increase their sphere of influence at the expense of line guys.

See you soon. I will be at Grande Prairie more days now, so Ed should get tired of me and give me more time with other guys. Ed is the honcho, however. We have to schedule through him.

Contact

contactflying wrote:Good to know, David. I got the Hank from your signature box. But then, I am always slightly disoriented/addled.

Government, by nature, has to act like government. When I was involved, I was ordered to get as much blade time and additional flight training periods as allowed so the unit would not have either cut in the budget. No problem! I like to fly. It is more irritating when rear echelon guys increase their sphere of influence at the expense of line guys.

See you soon. I will be at Grande Prairie more days now, so Ed should get tired of me and give me more time with other guys. Ed is the honcho, however. We have to schedule through him.

Contact

Ya that's throws people off. That was my 180s name. Need to change it.