Re: Non-federal towers

[Kyle Boatright]

It means that the controllers are employed by the local municipality...


"jacjohn" > wrote in message
...
> Ok...
> With all the talk of "non-federal" towers, I got to thinking. What exactly
> does that mean
> to us pilots?
>
> ...without a clue
>
>
> John Y.
> PP-ASEL
>
>

[john smith]

> It means that the controllers are employed by the local municipality...

And possibly reduced operating hours, depending on the budget problems
the local government may be having.
Columbus Ohio closes the tower at KTZR at 7 pm, now. Used to be open
until 11 pm, then 10pm, than 9 pm.

[Bob Gardner]

As I noted in a newsgroup recently, Renton, Washington, is a contract tower,
and the controllers (or the local airport authority, I'm not sure which)
made everything except the runway non-movement areas, where the controllers
have no responsibility or authority. So pilots taxiing out are told to
monitor ground, told not to transmit on the ground control frequency, and if
there is a conflict on the taxiway the two pilots will have to work it out
on their own. No radio transmissions until "Ready for takeoff" on the tower
frequency.

You can dig it out of the A/FD if you look in Special Notices...not a word
in the regular listing.

Bob Gardner

"jacjohn" > wrote in message
...
> Ok...
> With all the talk of "non-federal" towers, I got to thinking. What exactly
> does that mean
> to us pilots?
>
> ...without a clue
>
>
> John Y.
> PP-ASEL
>
>

[Sydney Hoeltzli]

jacjohn wrote:
> Ok...
> With all the talk of "non-federal" towers, I got to thinking. What exactly
> does that mean
> to us pilots?

IME, it's kind of transparent to the users.

It means the controllers are not federal employees but private,
employed by whoever operates the airport (local municipality?).

So far, haven't really noticed any difference except the controllers
tend to be friendlier and if they do make a sequencing or other error,
less inclined to publically chew the pilot's butt for their own
mistake.

Maybe there are some differences in skill or training I don't see,
haven't met them yet though.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Aaron Kahn]

I don't have access to many sectionals, but I believe that it's standard for
the Non-Federal Control Towers to be depicted with the notation "NFCT"

1. Why would it be important to note this?
2. Is this standard on all United States sectionals?

Aaron
CFI / ATP

[Tom S.]

"Sydney Hoeltzli" > wrote in message
...
> jacjohn wrote:
> > Ok...
> > With all the talk of "non-federal" towers, I got to thinking. What
exactly
> > does that mean
> > to us pilots?
>
> IME, it's kind of transparent to the users.
>
> It means the controllers are not federal employees but private,
> employed by whoever operates the airport (local municipality?).
>
> So far, haven't really noticed any difference except the controllers
> tend to be friendlier and if they do make a sequencing or other error,
> less inclined to publically chew the pilot's butt for their own
> mistake.
>

Consider it the difference between the USPS and FedEx.

[RM]

Sydney Hoeltzli > wrote in message >...
> jacjohn wrote:
> > Ok...
> > With all the talk of "non-federal" towers, I got to thinking. What exactly
> > does that mean
> > to us pilots?
>

> Maybe there are some differences in skill or training I don't see,
> haven't met them yet though.
>

I recently took a tour of the soon to be opened tower at Denton, which
will be non-federal.

They're mostly hiring recently-retired federal controllers who don't
want to work odd hours in the middle of the night, etc. any more. They'll
have plenty of skill and training and will be working in a low-intensity
atmosphere. I don't anticipate any particular problems, other than those
generally brought about by continued population expansion.

At least they're improving the airport rather than building McMansions on
the runways.

[Ron Natalie]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message news:oWqPa.31718$N7.3950@sccrnsc03...
> As I noted in a newsgroup recently, Renton, Washington, is a contract tower,
> and the

Contract towers and NFCT aren't synonous. There are federally operated contract
towers (which I suppose ****es off NATCA more than the NFCT's).

[Ron Natalie]

"Sydney Hoeltzli" > wrote in message ...

> FWIW, that isn't the way our local NFCTs work. They use their ground
> frequency and give taxi clearances.

Renton appears to be weird. Most NFCT's are indistinguisable to the pilot.

[Bob Gardner]

They can transmit on the ground frequency to each other...just don't expect
the ground controller to get into the act. Sorry that I did not make that
clear.

Bob Gardner

"Sydney Hoeltzli" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Gardner wrote:
> > As I noted in a newsgroup recently, Renton, Washington, is a contract
tower,
> > and the controllers (or the local airport authority, I'm not sure which)
> > made everything except the runway non-movement areas, where the
controllers
> > have no responsibility or authority. So pilots taxiing out are told to
> > monitor ground, told not to transmit on the ground control frequency,
and if
> > there is a conflict on the taxiway the two pilots will have to work it
out
> > on their own. No radio transmissions until "Ready for takeoff" on the
tower
> > frequency.
>
> Wait a minnut, if the pilots can't transmit on ground, how are they
> supposed to "work out" any conflicts? Is there another freq. available
> for this?
>
> FWIW, that isn't the way our local NFCTs work. They use their ground
> frequency and give taxi clearances.
>
> Cheers,
> Sydney
>

[clyde woempner]

I understood it means the controllers are contracted out, they are not
government employees. A private firm wins a contract to man these towers,
and the firm then provides the controllers. Also it is a step forward to
privatize the air traffic control system, which will more than likely result
in user fee's for briefings etc. Of course I could be wrong and that would
be OK.
Clyde
"jacjohn" > wrote in message
...
> Ok...
> With all the talk of "non-federal" towers, I got to thinking. What exactly
> does that mean
> to us pilots?
>
> ...without a clue
>
>
> John Y.
> PP-ASEL
>
>

[Bob Gardner]

I just talked to Renton tower and they are an FAA contract tower, not a
non-federal control tower.

Bob Gardner

"jacjohn" > wrote in message
...
> Ok...
> With all the talk of "non-federal" towers, I got to thinking. What exactly
> does that mean
> to us pilots?
>
> ...without a clue
>
>
> John Y.
> PP-ASEL
>
>

[Slav Inger]

Bob Gardner wrote:
>
> They can transmit on the ground frequency to each other...just don't expect
> the ground controller to get into the act. Sorry that I did not make that
> clear.
>

That's pathetic. If there's an incident, I sure hope the right person
gets blamed.

- Slav Inger
- PP ASEL IA @ YIP

[Mike]

(RM) wrote in message
>
> I recently took a tour of the soon to be opened tower at Denton, which
> will be non-federal.
>

Any news on when the tower will finally be operational?


Mike

[Peter R.]

Slav Inger ) wrote:

> Bob Gardner wrote:
> >
> > They can transmit on the ground frequency to each other...just don't expect
> > the ground controller to get into the act. Sorry that I did not make that
> > clear.
> >
>
> That's pathetic. If there's an incident, I sure hope the right person
> gets blamed.

Doesn't this "negotiation" successfully occur every day at thousands of
uncontrolled airports throughout the world? :)

--
Peter

[Michael]

Peter R. > wrote
> Doesn't this "negotiation" successfully occur every day at thousands of
> uncontrolled airports throughout the world? :)

Sure does. Of course, the same negotiation for the use of the runway
also occurs successfully every day at thousands of uncontrolled
airports throughout the world. Kind of makes you question the
necessity for a tower at Renton at all, doesn't it?

Not that the FAA is the ultimate source of wisdom, but when they say a
facility is not busy enough to need a tower, they are usually right.
What NFCT really means is this - we're not busy enough to actually
need a tower, but we want to pretend like we're a big airport and have
one anyway.

Michael

[Peter Duniho]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> What NFCT really means is this - we're not busy enough to actually
> need a tower, but we want to pretend like we're a big airport and have
> one anyway.

You can probably thank the City of Renton and/or the Boeing Company for
that, since it's a matter of civic and corporate pride to have a tower at
the airport where the 737s and 757s are assembled.

Or maybe there's an actual reason for having a tower, given that the airport
isn't exactly quiet, and does have jet traffic mixing with GA.

I don't know the exact reason. I agree that in general, if there's little
enough traffic to not need positive ground control, I'd question the need
for a tower at all. Conversely, if there's a need for a tower, regardless
of the amount of traffic, I'd think there'd be justification for ground
control as well. The whole thing sounds pretty silly to me.

Which is, I suppose, the point.

Pete

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
news:oWqPa.31718$N7.3950@sccrnsc03...
>
> As I noted in a newsgroup recently, Renton, Washington, is a contract
tower,
> and the controllers (or the local airport authority, I'm not sure which)
> made everything except the runway non-movement areas, where the
controllers
> have no responsibility or authority. So pilots taxiing out are told to
> monitor ground, told not to transmit on the ground control frequency, and
if
> there is a conflict on the taxiway the two pilots will have to work it out
> on their own. No radio transmissions until "Ready for takeoff" on the
tower
> frequency.
>

Hmmm.... Seems to me every pilot that operated on a taxiway there would be
in violation of FAR 91.129(i).

[Peter Duniho]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
> Hmmm.... Seems to me every pilot that operated on a taxiway there would
be
> in violation of FAR 91.129(i).

Why? That regulation doesn't apply to non-movement areas.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> Why? That regulation doesn't apply to non-movement areas.
>

It applies to runways and taxiways, it says nothing of "non-movement areas".


§ 91.129 Operations in Class D airspace.

(i) Takeoff, landing, taxi clearance. No person may, at any airport with
an operating control tower, operate an aircraft on a runway or taxiway, or
take off or land an aircraft, unless an appropriate clearance is received
from ATC. A clearance to "taxi to" the takeoff runway assigned to the
aircraft is not a clearance to cross that assigned takeoff runway, or to
taxi on that runway at any point, but is a clearance to cross other runways
that intersect the taxi route to that assigned takeoff runway. A clearance
to "taxi to" any point other than an assigned takeoff runway is clearance to
cross all runways that intersect the taxi route to that point.

[Peter Duniho]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
arthlink.net...
> > Why? That regulation doesn't apply to non-movement areas.
>
> It applies to runways and taxiways, it says nothing of "non-movement
areas".

Why would it say anything of non-movement areas? It DOES NOT APPLY to
non-movement areas.

I taxi all the time in the non-movement areas at my home airport, as well as
any number of other airports. The pavement I am taxiing on is a taxiway,
but because it's a non-movement area 91.129(i) doesn't apply.

Your assertion is that I am in violation of 91.129(i) every time I do this?

I realize that you love to argue just for the sake of the troll, but this
time you are really off the deep end. The situation at Renton sounds
screwed up, to be sure, but if they want to classify the entire airport
except the runway as a non-movement area, then no ATC clearance is required
to taxi around the airport (except on the runway of course).

Pete

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> Why would it say anything of non-movement areas? It DOES NOT APPLY to
> non-movement areas.
>

I didn't bring up non-movement areas, you did.


>
> I taxi all the time in the non-movement areas at my home airport, as well
as
> any number of other airports. The pavement I am taxiing on is a taxiway,
> but because it's a non-movement area 91.129(i) doesn't apply.
>

What do you base that on? The regulation says "runway or taxiway", it
doesn't say "runway or taxiway, except those designated as non-movement
areas".


>
> Your assertion is that I am in violation of 91.129(i) every time I do
this?
>

Read the regulation, it's not complicated.


>
> I realize that you love to argue just for the sake of the troll, but this
> time you are really off the deep end.
>

You're an extremely poor judge of character.


>
> The situation at Renton sounds
> screwed up, to be sure, but if they want to classify the entire airport
> except the runway as a non-movement area, then no ATC clearance is
required
> to taxi around the airport (except on the runway of course).
>

FAR 91.129(i) says differently. I wouldn't get too excited about it, some
regulations are violated regularly without consequence.

[Newps]

Peter Duniho wrote:


>
> Why would it say anything of non-movement areas? It DOES NOT APPLY to
> non-movement areas.
>

Not having been there an easy way to set it up is to announce on the
ATIS or by other means that all aircraft are to taxi to the runway in
use. I accomplish a similar thing on the midshift by issuing all IFR
clearances by ATIS. You get a transponder code and a taxi clearance
from me, the rest of the clearance is covered by the ATIS.

[Peter Duniho]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
arthlink.net...
> I didn't bring up non-movement areas, you did.

No, actually YOU did when you replied to a post that specifically said that
the taxiways had been designated non-movement areas. You should read the
posts to which you reply a little more carefully.

> What do you base that on? The regulation says "runway or taxiway", it
> doesn't say "runway or taxiway, except those designated as non-movement
> areas".

Non-movement areas are implicitly excluded from the requirement for an ATC
clearance. While they physically can include a taxiway, those are not
ATC-controlled taxiways and as such, 91.129(i) doesn't apply. There is no
need for them to be mentioned explicitly in the regulation.

> Read the regulation, it's not complicated.

You're right, it's not. And yet you still seem confused. Odd.

> > I realize that you love to argue just for the sake of the troll, but
this
> > time you are really off the deep end.
>
> You're an extremely poor judge of character.

Perhaps. But even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

> FAR 91.129(i) says differently. I wouldn't get too excited about it, some
> regulations are violated regularly without consequence.

Put up or shut up. If you can find me one single FAA inspector that is
willing to agree with your stance that an ATC clearance is required to taxi
in non-movement area, I will happily admit I was wrong. Otherwise, the only
conclusion is that you have no point and are arguing just for the sake of
the troll.

Pete

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> No, actually YOU did when you replied to a post that specifically said
that
> the taxiways had been designated non-movement areas. You should read the
> posts to which you reply a little more carefully.
>

Is that how it works? Gee, I would have thought the person that referred to
non-movement areas in the message I was responding to would be considered
the person that brought it up.


>
> Non-movement areas are implicitly excluded from the requirement for an ATC
> clearance. While they physically can include a taxiway, those are not
> ATC-controlled taxiways and as such, 91.129(i) doesn't apply. There is no
> need for them to be mentioned explicitly in the regulation.
>

What do you base that on?


>
> You're right, it's not. And yet you still seem confused. Odd.
>

You believe I brought non-movement areas into this discussion. Clearly, I'm
not the one that's confused.


>
> Perhaps. But even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.
>

I suppose so, but you're still batting .000.


>
> Put up or shut up. If you can find me one single FAA inspector that is
> willing to agree with your stance that an ATC clearance is required to
taxi
> in non-movement area, I will happily admit I was wrong. Otherwise, the
only
> conclusion is that you have no point and are arguing just for the sake of
> the troll.
>

I've already posted the regulation supporting my position, you've provided
nothing in support of yours. Looks like it's you that needs to put up or
shut up.

Of course, based on your history, you'll do neither.

[Sydney Hoeltzli]

Newps wrote:

> Not having been there an easy way to set it up is to announce on the
> ATIS or by other means that all aircraft are to taxi to the runway in
> use. I accomplish a similar thing on the midshift by issuing all IFR
> clearances by ATIS. You get a transponder code and a taxi clearance
> from me, the rest of the clearance is covered by the ATIS.

How does one handle read-backs?

Sydney

[Newps]

Sydney Hoeltzli wrote:

> Newps wrote:
>
>> Not having been there an easy way to set it up is to announce on the
>> ATIS or by other means that all aircraft are to taxi to the runway in
>> use. I accomplish a similar thing on the midshift by issuing all IFR
>> clearances by ATIS. You get a transponder code and a taxi clearance
>> from me, the rest of the clearance is covered by the ATIS.
>
>
> How does one handle read-backs?

The end of the ATIS message says..."All IFR aircraft are cleared to
their destination airport, via the Billings Two departure, then as
filed. Maintain one two thousand or your requested lower altitude,
expect your transponder code on taxi. All aircraft contact Billings
120.5, advise you have..." Only one guy normally reads back his
clearance, so he does, the normal way.

[Peter Duniho]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
arthlink.net...
> Because you wrote the message I was responding to.

Bull. Here's your original reply. As you'll note, Bob Gardner wrote the
message to which you were responding:

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
>
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
> news:oWqPa.31718$N7.3950@sccrnsc03...
> >
> > As I noted in a newsgroup recently, Renton, Washington, is a contract
> tower,
> > and the controllers (or the local airport authority, I'm not sure which)
> > made everything except the runway non-movement areas, where the
> controllers
> > have no responsibility or authority. So pilots taxiing out are told to
> > monitor ground, told not to transmit on the ground control frequency,
and
> if
> > there is a conflict on the taxiway the two pilots will have to work it
out
> > on their own. No radio transmissions until "Ready for takeoff" on the
> tower
> > frequency.
> >
>
> Hmmm.... Seems to me every pilot that operated on a taxiway there would
be
> in violation of FAR 91.129(i).

> The AIM is not regulatory, the regulation says nothing about non-movement
> areas.

Well, perhaps you'd prefer a quote from the ATC handbook. From "3-7-2. TAXI
AND GROUND MOVEMENT OPERATIONS":

"NOTE -- 2. Movement of aircraft or vehicles on nonmovement areas is the
responsibility of the pilot, the aircraft operator, or the airport
management."

You ARE familiar with the ATC handbook, right?

> The regulation does apply to taxiways.

You can say that 'til the cows come home, it doesn't make it true.

However, you've been sufficiently discredited in this thread. I don't see
any need to rub your face in it, so please, feel free to make whatever lame
reply you think you need to. I don't intend to embarass you any further.
Besides, you'll do that well enough yourself in your next reply.

Pete

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> Bull. Here's your original reply. As you'll note, Bob Gardner wrote the
> message to which you were responding:
>

I don't see any message from Bob Gardner in the discussion of FAR 91.129(i).


>
> Well, perhaps you'd prefer a quote from the ATC handbook. From "3-7-2.
TAXI
> AND GROUND MOVEMENT OPERATIONS":
>
> "NOTE -- 2. Movement of aircraft or vehicles on nonmovement areas is the
> responsibility of the pilot, the aircraft operator, or the airport
> management."
>

Swell. So what's your point?


>
> You ARE familiar with the ATC handbook, right?
>

Extremely familiar.


>
> You can say that 'til the cows come home, it doesn't make it true.
>

It's true regardless what you or I say.


>
> However, you've been sufficiently discredited in this thread. I don't see
> any need to rub your face in it, so please, feel free to make whatever
lame
> reply you think you need to. I don't intend to embarass you any further.
> Besides, you'll do that well enough yourself in your next reply.
>

In this thread you've stated that the person responding to a subject is the
person that brings up that subject and that FAR 91.129(i) does not apply to
taxiways. I'll leave it to the more astute readers of this forum to decide
for themselves which of us has been discredited and should feel
embarrassment.

[John Godwin]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
thlink.net:

> In this thread you've stated that the person responding to a subject
> is the person that brings up that subject and that FAR 91.129(i) does
> not apply to taxiways. I'll leave it to the more astute readers of
> this forum to decide for themselves which of us has been discredited
> and should feel embarrassment.

At my home airport, we have taxiways which lie in both Movement and Non-
movement areas and are delineated by single solid and single dashed lines.
The areas are described in AIM 2-3-6(c) (and figure 2-3-21); we MUST get
clearances to taxi in the movement and not in the non-movement areas. A
courtesy informational call to Ground Control is sometimes appropriate when
taxiing to the movement areas when you can't be seen from the tower.

--
John Godwin
Silicon Rallye Inc.

[[email protected]]

this guy is a net troll, he's using at least (6) other usernames,
killfile him ASAP, below is his posting history

http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?enc_author=aLo_UhMAAACqeZKH24Ly4UNtt449SfjF WMj6vob75xS36mXc24h6ww


see the link above, he is using
at least (10) other usernames on Usenet, they include


MARCO R
ROBERT J. KOLKER
ROBERT MORIEN
NEWPS
ASK A DIFFERENT
ROBERT KOLKER
EARL KIOSTERUD
therefore, he has no credibility- merely another net troll