The other thing is that the on-airport fire crew almost never saves anybody’s life. In fact there is no recorded incident in the UK since WW2 when an on-airport fire crew saved anybody’s life in GA – this came out at a Govt presentation a few years ago. This appears to be because people crash outside the airport perimeter (and nobody can get there fast enough) or they crash too thoroughly and everybody dies in the fire (if they are not dead already). I know this is not true everywhere (e.g. I am told there were accidents in Croatia where people were saved) but it is clearly rare. And one guy with a fire extinguisher can’t do much anyway when you have say 200 litres of burning avgas.
The problem with mandating a personal presence is that any person is a large fixed cost, and brings closer the point at which the airfield become unviable, or restricts the hours during which the airfield can be open (because outside those hours there isn’t enough traffic to pay the staff cost).
Remote towers will presumably be resisted by ATC unions, but in the long term they should preserve many airfields which would have otherwise gone to waste.
Does having a remote tower imply having no fire crew?
ATC costs much more than a fire crew which is probably doing many other jobs anyway.
Peter wrote:
Does having a remote tower imply having no fire crew?
Of course not. This whole fire-stuff is only discussed here because someone asked or suggested that remote towers could lead to completely unmanned airfields.
As it is now, the remote towers (at least in Germany) are a multi-million Euro thing which will only be installed at airports (Saarbrücken, Erfurt and maybe a few more). All of these have control zones, scheduled airline traffic, security, firefighters, cargo handlers and everything else. But it will save them three shifts of tower staff and considering the wages DFS personnel receive, even a million Euro investment will be recovered within a couple of years.
MedEwok wrote:
But, if we talk about the typical German GA airfield manned by a single Flugleiter and maybe some restaurant staff, what can they really do?
Remote towers is a thing that makes commercial airline traffic more flexible, safer (so they claim), and cheaper. It has nothing to do with GA. GA doesn’t need towers. There is no regulation in Norway that say a tower is needed for GA. What the regulation say is for IFR approaches in IMC, an AFIS unit, ATC or some other service approved by the authority is needed. That other service could be another tower close by, or whatever is needed for the approach to be “safe” in IMC. I don’t know exactly what, but a manned tower at the airport is no requirement for any GA flights. It’s just the most natural and practical, I guess.
What makes remote towers interesting here in Norway, for GA, is that the smaller public Avinor airports have very unpractical opening hours, at least for recreational GA. Closed on Saturdays, closed early in the evening. Doesn’t open before 10 am in the morning and so on. You can get special permission however, or a special card (which I have given up on getting hold of). With that permission (or card) you are allowed to use Avinor airports also outside opening hours, but only VFR day. The airport can be void of people when it’s closed. I mean, not a singe person in sight. The requirement is blind transmission on the tower channel. With remote towers there will be no opening hours. The tower just gets “manned” whenever it is needed. This is particularly useful for ambulance flights, since they they now can land in IMC at will, without having to wait for the tower to be manned. For GA it means the airports are open 24/7 for IFR and VFR and in all kinds of weather. So it is a huge improvement, at least in theory. How it actually will be, we just have to wait a year and see. Still, unless it is within the administration opening hours, the airport will be void of people. On the other hand, maybe not. It could very well mean that GA comes back to the smaller Avinor airports. The airports themselves are first class from a flight technical point of view, and placed all along the coast, some 40-45 of them. It could even make IFR rating worth while (for those interested 
it certainly would increase the usefulness several notches). I hope it will be OK, but Avinor is Avinor, and they don’t make these remote towers for “us”, but for airline traffic and themselves.
Eventual other manned services, like fire fighters for instance, has nothing to do with these towers and is irrelevant for GA.
LeSving wrote:
has nothing to do with these towers and is irrelevant for GA.
Sorry, but it is not. I really get tired of repeating myself that GA – General Aviation – is a lot more than just private pilots flying single engine piston aircraft. By definition GA is everything in aviation which is not airline or government (ie. military and poilice). And everybody who charges money for his services inside the GA sector needs firefighting otherwise he can’t go to that specific destination.
Before EU money was spent on upgrading Oban Airport, EGEO, and Argyle and Bute Council took over management, it was managed by the fuel supplier, who had an elderly fire engine parked outside his office.
what_next wrote:
Sorry, but it is not. I really get tired of repeating myself that GA – General Aviation – is a lot more than just private pilots flying single engine piston aircraft. By definition GA is everything in aviation which is not airline or government (ie. military and poilice). And everybody who charges money for his services inside the GA sector needs firefighting otherwise he can’t go to that specific destination.
It’s not like that in Norway, and as far as I know, the regulations we have are more or less straight from ICAO (but don’t kill me if I’m wrong ) Also, GA is subdivided way too much for the expression to have any real practical meaning, at least for all of us operating within GA. In a regulatory sense, the divisions doesn’t go between GA/not GA in any case.
We have
A “small” airport can only have aircraft with MTOW less than 5700 kg. However, large vs small is no reflection of airport physical dimensions, it’s more an administrative and functional thing, lights, terminals, approaches, obstacles, rescue and so on. “Large” airports are sized (those administrative and functional things) progressively according to aircraft and what kind of traffic and volume of traffic. There are no requirement for firefighters for “small” airports, only for “large” airports, maybe not all large airports either. For commercial passenger traffic, I think there is a requirement for rescue readiness that is higher than without it though, also for “small” airports. At ENOP, a “small” airport, this is done with a car that has fire fighting equipment, combined with the town’s own fire brigade, police and ambulance.
Then we have:
GA is of course GA in Norway also, but it’s this “everything else” that is normally seen as “GA” in the everyday sense of the word, and it covers much more than private pilots flying SEPs. GA, in this sense, is every single thing that is NOT commercial airline traffic and is NOT other commercial with MTOW > 5700 kg and/or more than 10 passengers.
You can do commercial operations on “small” airports (with restrictions as above), but not scheduled airline traffic regardless of size of aircraft. Also, a private 737 must use a “large” airport regardless due to MTOW. But all SET commercial and non commercial as well as many biz jets can use “small” airports. However, there is no requirement to actually use an airport at all, where all the mentioned stuff comes into effect, except for scheduled commercial flights. How else are you going to bring people and gods around with helicopter to remote sites?
All Avinor airports, regardless of physical size, are “large” airports. There are no restrictions on anything there, other than the size of many of them, which will restrict the aircraft that can use them. These smaller ones were originally sized for Twin Otters, but are now sized for Dash 8s regarding runway and approaches. Remote towers will (hopefully) make them open 24/7 for everybody. But, things that require firefighters etc, scheduled airlines and larger non scheduled commercial flights will of course still require it. This means, without special arrangements, it will be open 24/7 only for “GA”. “GA” in this case, could mean a private C-130 for that matter as long as it is not a commercial flight.
My point is simply that with remote towers, these Avinor airports suddenly becomes much more accessible and available for GA. Scheduled commercial flight will not see any difference in the operating aspects.Still, if it weren’t for commercial flight in the “not other” category (not “GA”), we would have no need for any towers at all.
tschnell wrote:
Given that in Germany generally either ATC or an AFISO has to be on duty for any flight operation
Why isn’t there a general revolt in Germany about this remnant from WWII that has no reason for being and no place in a changing world … or what is the reason? Airfields operate all over Europe, including highly-regulated Switzerland, without a permanent AFIS presence. What possible arguments justify its continued existence? But maybe that’s a bit too far off-topic.
Reading further, I think @what_next answered my question …. because German pilots want it. If the German pilot population feels the benefits outweigh the disadvantages, then by all means … that means the majority of the (negative) comments about the permanent presence requirement likely come from non-Germans.
And reading the comments even further, it is clear how much national and cultural differences play a role in this type of discussion. It reminds me of when I took some Germans (sorry, that’s just who it happened to be) on a wilderness canoe trip in northern Canada. One week into a two week trip it sunk in that there is no legal requirement to tell anyone where we were going or when we would get back or to come looking if we didn’t show up. We were a week away from any assistance should it be necessary to paddle to it ourselves. They were horrified that the government would allow us to be so irresponsible with our own lives. ;-) It was explained in advance, but it didn’t really register.
I think the fear of unmanned airports is not rational. Fear of CFIT, bad weather, mechanical troubles, etc is perfectly rational. But most people die in aircraft accidents off airport, not on the tarmac.
A month or two in the US should cure anyone of the fear. There are other risks in flying that are much greater. Once you’ve got the airport in sight, you’re usually home free.
