I like my privatized airport :)

John Galban wrote:
"Tom S." wrote in message ...

"Mike Granby" wrote in message
...

I'm based at THV (York) so I get in and out of LNS quite a bit. The
controllers there are indeed very helpful, but I never realized it was a
contract tower. You live and learn, I guess. How would one go about
confirming whether another airport was a contract tower or not, I wonder?

On the sectional or other chart it says "NFCT" for Non-Federal Control
Tower.


There is a differece. NFCT does mean Non-Federal control tower, but
very few contract towers are NFCT. NFCT signifies that the tower is
contracted by the airport owners/managers. In other words, the FAA
has no involvment in procuring services for the tower. A "contract
tower" is where the FAA has contracted with a private company to
provide ATC services. An NFCT usually exists where a municipality
wishes to have a tower, but there are not enough annual operations on
the field to justify the FAA paying for it. The municipality is free
to pay for their own tower and contract.

In the end it is irrelavant as all towers must train their controllers
to the same specs as FAA controllers. All non FAA towers get periodic
inspections from the FAA tower with jurisdiction for that area. As an
example my tower oversees Bozeman, MT. Out tower chief occasionally
goes over there to inspect paperwork, etc.

"John Galban" wrote in message
m...

Quite true. The type of tower (FAA,FCT or NFCT) makes zero
difference to pilots. I always wondered why they put "NFCT" in front
of the tower freq. on the sectional chart. It adds clutter and gives
no useful information.


Do they still do that?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message nk.net...
"John Galban" wrote in message
m...

Quite true. The type of tower (FAA,FCT or NFCT) makes zero
difference to pilots. I always wondered why they put "NFCT" in front
of the tower freq. on the sectional chart. It adds clutter and gives
no useful information.


Do they still do that?

Now that you mention it, I think they did quit cluttering the chart
with that designation, though I still see it in the AFD occasionally.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

"John Galban" wrote in message
om...

Now that you mention it, I think they did quit cluttering the chart
with that designation, though I still see it in the AFD occasionally.


"NFCT" was removed from the sectional chart legend about ten years ago, but
airports with NFCTs continued to have NFCT in their airport data blocks for
several years after that. I believe Airborne Airpark in Wilmington, OH,
currently has an NFCT, but it has no NFCT in it's data block.

Byron Miller wrote:

I have been learning to fly and hanging out at KLNS (Lancaster PA) for
years, and it has been a privatized airport tower ever since i've known
about it.

Nicest controllers, safe airport and friendly skies. They're not any more
incompetant than a "guvenment" controller and most certainly they enjoy
aviation and the lifestyle just as much as anyone else could!



I would like to second this opinion based on my positive experiences
flying out of San Carlos, CA (KSQL), a contract tower. They sure are
easier to deal with than the folks at nearby Hayward (HWD), a unionized
tower.

There are two separate issues at play in the debate. First, we pilots
represented by organizations like AOPA don't want to have to pay
anything for air traffic services. Second, federal air traffic
controller employees represented by a labor union want to get paid well
and preserve their jobs. The union would like you to believe that
allowing the government to hire contractors means pilots will have to
pay for ATC, however the two issues are not related in this way.

The choice by the government to employ contractors to run a tower
instead of unionized federal employees is actually a good thing for us
pilots who don't want to pay for air traffic services, because the
contract towers are significantly cheaper for the government to operate,
while actually providing a statistically higher level of safety to
pilots according to a recent government audit from the Inspector
General's office conducted at the request of the ATC labor unions. You
can download the report here and judge the data for yourself:

http://www.oig.dot.gov/item_details.php?item=1161

While there are many opinions on this issue, the data presented in the
report seems clear.
-angus

"Angus Davis" wrote in message
...

While there are many opinions on this issue, the data presented in the
report seems clear.

I am not sure if I have enough information to reach a conclusion on this.
The report does, indeed, indicate that FAA VFR towers have 5 times more
deviations than contracted VFR towers. The report also says that these are
self-reported deviations and that no system is in place to routinely report
or attempt to report all deviations.

So either I have to conclude that contracted towers are 5 times safer than
FAA towers or I have to conclude that there is a data collection issue here
and the data is therefore insufficient to draw a conclusion. I personally
conclude the latter -- even if contrated towers are "safer," it is hard for
me to believe that they make only 20% of the errors as FAA towers if other
factors were held equal.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
s.com...

1. At MGW on an IMC day on takeoff from Runway 18 with terrain
obscured I was given the instruction "Cleared for Takeoff -- Turn Left
on Course" which is clearly contrary to the published departure procedure
and would take me into terrain.


They probably just said that because whatever you filed would mean a left
turn from a south departure to proceed on course. Turn left on course
doesn't mean you have to start a left turn as soon as your wheels are off
the runway. They can't deny you the DP, if a published IFR departure
procedure is not included in an ATC clearance, compliance with such a
procedure is the pilot's prerogative.



2. At JST on an ILS approach with weather intermittently below approach
minimums when I was inside the final approach fix I was given the
instruction "Alternate Missed Approach Instructions -- Proceed Direct
MGW" -- I was unable to confirm terrain clearance at such a busy time of
flight and the controller would not verify terrain clearance either (note
I was not on a vector and was below the MEA so he had no responsibility
for
terrain clearance at that point if I accepted the instructions). After
some on-air discussion, the controller finally gave me a "Center assigned
heading" which reflected that Center verified terrain clearance.


Did they arbitrarily send you to MGW, or did you tell them at some point
that you'd like to proceed to MGW in the event of a miss? Again, "proceed
direct MGW" doesn't mean you must start a left turn to MGW at the MAP.

"K. Ari Krupnikov" wrote in message
...

Isn't there some sort of "standard DP" that says you need to climb at
a certain gradient (250fpnm or so?) absent specific published DP for
the airport? Are you saying that gradient would have taken you into
terrain?


Yes, but it applies only at airports with SIAPs. If no specific DP is
published, then the "standard DP" will ensure obstacle clearance to the
minimum IFR altitude; cross the
departure end of the runway a minimum of 35 feet AGL, climb at least 200
feet per
nautical mile, and climb to 400 feet above field elevation before turning.

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
s.com...

In this case, there was a published DP with an initial climb to the right.
However, ATC gave me alternate takeoff instructions with a turn to the
left, and looking at the approach chart to MGW you can see that a left
turn off of runway 18 does indeed come uncomfortably close to terrain.
MGW Tower seemed unaware of the departure procedure, and in fact
when I specifically requested it I was told "Unable due to traffic --
Cleared
for takeoff, Climb on runway heading"; that procedure ALSO comes
uncomfortably close to terrain. The published procedure with a turn to
the right is indeed the only rational procedure for departing this
airport,
even if that means (as in my case) volunteering to delay an IMC departure
until the conflicting traffic is clear.


Due to traffic? What traffic? You said it was IMC, so the tower can't have
any VFR traffic approaching on a right downwind. If you're departing RWY 18
the winds must favor that runway, so any IFR inbound traffic would likely be
on the ILS RWY 18. SVFR operations are to be authorized only when they do
not delay IFR operations. I just don't see how traffic could preclude you
from flying the DP.

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
s.com...

The instructions were from a controller at a non-federal control tower.
So it was a controller who was not an FAA employee. When I mentioned
"non-towered" that was my error; I meant "non-Federal towered".


My A/FD is almost two years old, but it indicates MGW is an FAA Contract
Tower and JST is still an FAA tower.