Non-federal towers

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

"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