Non-federal towers

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

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

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

(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

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

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

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
newsWqPa.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).

"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.

"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.