173 ATC Towers to Close

[John Carlyle]

The sequester is hitting ATC towers. Here's the story from CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/05/travel/air-traffic-towers-closing/index.html?hpt=h\
p_t2

Here's a list of the 173 towers to be closed:
http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/Facilities_Could_Be_Closed.pdf

-John, Q3

[Paul Remde]

Wow, that affects some extremely busy towered airports in the Minneapolis
area. I don't know if those airports can operate safely without a control
tower.

Paul Remde

"John Carlyle" wrote in message
...

The sequester is hitting ATC towers. Here's the story from CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/05/travel/air-traffic-towers-closing/index.html?hpt=h\
p_t2

Here's a list of the 173 towers to be closed:
http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/Facilities_Could_Be_Closed.pdf

-John, Q3

[[email protected][_1_]]

Isn't that the point?

..Gov once again employing emotional extortion to get what they want?

By cutting or threatening cuts that are overwhelmingly "bottom-up", and exact maximumal suffering and exposure upon the general public, "we" are far more likely to cave in to .Gov's insatiable desire for more $$ and/or control.

Throw in a few "public safety" and "for the children" clauses and you have covered 90% of modern political rhetoric.

[son_of_flubber]

On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 6:03:24 PM UTC-5, Paul Remde wrote:
> I don't know if those airports can operate safely without a control
> tower.

There will be 'h--- to pay' if there is an accident related to the closures.

[Bill D]

On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 4:19:35 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> Isn't that the point?
>
>
>
> .Gov once again employing emotional extortion to get what they want?
>
>
>
> By cutting or threatening cuts that are overwhelmingly "bottom-up", and exact maximumal suffering and exposure upon the general public, "we" are far more likely to cave in to .Gov's insatiable desire for more $$ and/or control.
>
>
>
> Throw in a few "public safety" and "for the children" clauses and you have covered 90% of modern political rhetoric.

More likely to turn the screws on the 1%. Many private jet insurance policies limit operations to tower controlled fields.

[[email protected]]

The Lone Star Executive in Conroe, not Houston as the FAA list shows, has no commercial flights, maybe a few charters now and then. I don't see why they ever needed a tower.

ASW27BV

[Tony[_5_]]

This is the first I've ever heard of that.

Most of the airports in Kansas on the list...I have no idea why they have towers, except that most of them get 1 regional flight a day or something.

[Dale Watkins]

No active control tower - airspace would change - I have more areas to fly to.

That would be interesting .

Zen

[Mike the Strike]

Great - more unencumbered airspace for sailplanes!

Mike

[Steve]

Back in my teaching days, many years ago, one of the things I liked to
ask the class to consider was this: Imagine a government agency with
only two tasks: (1) building statues of Benedict Arnold and (2)
providing life-saving medications to children. If this agency's budget
were cut, what would it do?
The answer, of course, is that it would cut back on the medications
for children. Why? Because that would be what was most likely to get
the budget cuts restored. If they cut back on building statues of
Benedict Arnold, people might ask why they were building statues of
Benedict Arnold in the first place.

The example was deliberately extreme as an illustration. But, in the
real world, the same general pattern can be seen in local, state and
national government responses to budget cuts.

The above is from a recent column by Thomas Sowell.

[BobW]

On 3/5/2013 7:26 PM, Steve wrote:
>
> Back in my teaching days, many years ago, one of the things I liked to
> ask the class to consider was this: Imagine a government agency with
> only two tasks: (1) building statues of Benedict Arnold and (2)
> providing life-saving medications to children. If this agency's budget
> were cut, what would it do?
> The answer, of course, is that it would cut back on the medications
> for children. Why? Because that would be what was most likely to get
> the budget cuts restored. If they cut back on building statues of
> Benedict Arnold, people might ask why they were building statues of
> Benedict Arnold in the first place.
>
> The example was deliberately extreme as an illustration. But, in the
> real world, the same general pattern can be seen in local, state and
> national government responses to budget cuts.
>
> The above is from a recent column by Thomas Sowell.
>
Since this *is* RAS, after all, just to "keep this thread legal," thanks for
this spot-on, illustrative - yea, soaring? - word picture of a form of reality
with which every soaring pilot must interact!

Bob ==> :) <== W.

[Sarah[_2_]]

This is not quite right. This list was announced before the sequester as a list of POSSIBLE closures. Says so right at the top.

The actual list of closures hasn't yet been announced, as far as I know. It will be about half of these.

On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 4:38:04 PM UTC-6, John Carlyle wrote:
> The sequester is hitting ATC towers. Here's the story from CNN:
>
> Here's a list of the 173 towers to be closed:
>
> http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/Facilities_Could_Be_Closed.pdf

[kirk.stant]

On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 3:38:04 PM UTC-7, John Carlyle wrote:

> Here's a list of the 173 towers to be closed:

Well, to be precise, it's a list of towers that COULD be closed - the list has around 216 towers listed. It's more likely a list of low-use or contract towers. FAA would choose 173 from the list.

I like the way the story says some planes "need control towers to land". With TCAS (and in the future, ADS-B, maybe)the need for a tower at a little-used airfield is reduced to ground control. So now the pilot has to do some of that "pilot sh!t", in the words of the immortal Goose!

I can just see a bunch of 787s (some trailing smoke due to minor battery problems...) and Barbie Jets duking it out in the pattern like a busy glider contest finish ("Land long, Delta, American is right behind you!").

Is this a great country or what!

Kirk
66 (for real now!)