Non-federal towers

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

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.

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

"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

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

"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.

"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

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

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