Quote:
Originally Posted by surreal1221  Yeah. . .well, you're going to get stepped on. . . 
That idea, is a horrible one.
Once the FAA realizes that "safety" no longer matters to even pilots, they will make a number of the facilities (at the local / tower level) uncontrolled. . .and, do exactly what you are suggesting.
Does that make it right? Does it provide the level of safety that is required for the near by population? Does it provide the level of safety, and seperation standards for IFR and VFR flights in the local area?
No. . .and, well, if anyone in the FAA has any sort of integrity left in their bones (controllers excluded. . .I'm speaking about the mangers), they know the right decision is to negotiate a contract, with the status quo pay, or better, so that they can attract ATC-CTI, VRA, and retiring military controllers to take over the scopes.
Do I see that happening...nope. |
I don't think pilot controlled fields are necessarily less safe than towered airports. In fact, there is one towered airport where I used to fly regularly where I felt the tower only added to frequency congestion and increased the chances of a mid-air.
As far as CRW, according to Airnav's data, I can point you to several pilot controlled fields with the same number of operations per day and can name one off the top of my head (KFDK) that has nearly twice as many daily operations with no control tower. There is no reason the number of operations at CRW couldn't be handled without a control tower.
The problem here to me is more one of expectations. The pilots EXPECTED the tower to be open and don't want to get violated, so didn't know how to react right away. Never the less, I can't see why a message on the ATIS wouldn't satisfactorly address the issue.