 |
from The Big Sky Weekly Newspaper
|
|
A Tower Retrospective, Part I
by Thomas J. Nagorski At a recent trade show I received many questions about the control tower soon to be commissioned at Gallatin Field. Let's revisit this controversial subject. Gallatin Field is classified as an "uncontrolled" airport with regards to mandatory communications or equipment requirements placed on pilots. There is no obligation to communicate with anyone. Use of standard traffic patterns, radio position reports, and constant vigilance has proved this a safe and efficient method of operating in the area. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) staffs Flight Service Stations (FSS). These facilities exist to aid pilots with weather briefings, enroute communications, flight plans, and emergency support. When a station was located at an airport, Flight Service personnel also provided weather observations, and broadcast traffic advisories to aircraft in the pattern. Such was the situation at Gallatin Field. Traffic advisories provided by FSS are a service to pilots. FSS has no authority to control the actions of area traffic, nor is communicating with FSS mandatory. FSS has no authority to provide permission to land. More noteworthy is the weather observation responsibility of Flight Service. A field with instrument approach procedures needs an observer on the airport so that it may be closed to aircraft on visual flights (VFR flights) when conditions are below the minimums for fair-weather flying. Without this on-field report, aircraft arriving on instrument approaches need higher ceilings and better visibility in order to spot any VFR traffic which might be in the area. The FAA, in a round of budget cuts, closed all the Flight Service Stations located throughout the states and consolidated them into large Automated Stations. The office at Great Falls handles traffic for all Montana. Now, when getting a weather briefing, rather than your specialist being able to peer out the window towards Bozeman Pass, we talk to people one-hundred miles away sitting in a building with no windows. When the FAA closed the FSS at Gallatin Field two issues became a concern.
The FAA agreed to sponsor a weather observer at the field after FSS shut down. Gallatin Airport Authority, the airport's governing body [and owner], contracted with the weather services company to also provide traffic advisories. This contracted, non-government facility is referred to as "Unicom." About this time an automated surface observation station (ASOS) was commissioned and shortly thereafter the FAA decided to cancel its sponsorship of manned observations at Gallatin Field. The automated station on the field maintained the quality of the field's instrument approaches. If the Authority wished to continue providing Unicom service local taxpayers would need to cover the entire cost of the contract since the weather observation subsidy was being withdrawn. When evaluating the wisdom of erecting a control tower, certain facts can not be denied.
Next week we'll conclude with the creation of the tower. A Tower Retrospective, Part II by Thomas J. Nagorski Last week we covered the events leading up to the creation of a control tower at Gallatin Field. With the closing of the Flight Service Station (a facility serving our uncontrolled airport) and the subsequent canceling of manned weather observations, the changes taking place could confuse a public not studied in national aerospace infrastructure. Let's review the big questions.
These facts were not clearly presented to the public by the Authority. Quite to the contrary. A local paper reported, "Airport officials...said they had to choose between letting the FAA replace all human communications with an automated weather machine or digging into their pockets and building a tower." This conveniently confuses two issues, and is patently false! Gallatin Airport Authority was not forced into an "either-or" decision. Instead, the Authority wanted a tower and saw this as an opportunity to construct one. This recounting is not merely personal opinion. The Gallatin Field airport manager is on record as stating there is a need for a control tower at Gallatin Field, and has mentioned in passing, its "obvious improvement to safety." Yet, to date, the public has seen no facts to support these claims. The Federal Aviation Administration, when evaluating the merits of erecting and staffing a control tower at the field, has not been able to justify the need based on their cost/benefit analysis. However, if given the option of staffing an existing tower, FAA's cost/benefit analysis supports this expense. So, what cost/benefit analysis has Gallatin Airport Authority conducted to justify building this $1-million+ facility for the FAA to staff? None. The assumption that the tower will improve safety is specious. Although a pilot has the obligation to communicate with a ground-based controller, it remains the pilot's responsibility to SEE and AVOID traffic. The tower will have no "big picture" of aircraft in the area. There will be no radar with this facility. All the tower will do is sequence landing traffic exactly what is already being done on our own. Other options existed besides erecting a control tower: Funding supplemental weather observers; funding contract Unicom (surface radio) operators; do nothing; or fight to retain Flight Service Stations legislatively (as is being done by Californians in a bill introduced in the U.S. Congress called the "Community Flight Safety Act.") The general aviation pilot community was ready to assist the Authority in finding a reasonable solution, but we were never seriously approached for our opinions. How is this tower construction funded if its need has not been clearly presented to the public? This public airport is owned and governed by the Gallatin Airport Authority. Board members are appointed by Gallatin County Commissioners to five-year terms. The Authority operates with complete autonomy from the County Commission. You have no opportunity to vote on these appointments. The airport has access to general county tax dollars, but it has turned this money back to the county for the past several years. Without the Authority spending general tax dollars, the County Commission has no motivation to monitor Airport activities. The Authority operates without County oversight, and the public has no means to limit the taxes imposed by the Authority, so the airport has been able to amass a $5-million war chest. Previously, it has argued the need for these reserves for normal maintenance and improvements. When challenged to support their justification for spending $1-million+ of our tax dollars on this structure, the answer received was that it is not being built with tax dollars. Instead, "The Authority is using money from reserves from boardings and cuts they get from post cards, drinks, whatever else is sold in the airport." (This, ignoring the fact that all funds collected to support government are taxes.) Eventually, Gallatin Field will need a tower. What concerns its opponents is not the structure but the process which allowed this to arise without public oversight. Just because the funds existed, this is no excuse for fiscal unaccountability. Such a reserve fund supports arguments that Gallatin Fields' fees and lease rates have been higher than that necessary to cover normal costs. In making this major decision, the board failed to conduct due diligence through independent, non-government sources to confirm that this purchase was both in the public's best interest, AND was an investment the public desired at this time. We do not build schools without bond issues presented for public vote. We do not create new interstate overpasses without citizen input. We do not install traffic lights without discussing community impact. So why are we permitting this control tower to be constructed without any of these normal checks and balances? Things such as the tower "appear," and we are powerless to stop its development. We do not and cannot vote for airport authority board members. So how can we promote responsible citizenship and attention to government actions when we are regulated out of the process? Without the checks and balances that interacting with taxpayers produces, can we trust government agencies to exercise fiscal responsibility and self control? With the tower, Gallatin Airport Authority failed to interact with taxpayers to arrive at a solution which suits the community. If my understanding of the control tower decision chain is in error, I eagerly await corrections. I'm still waiting.
Happy (con)trails. See you upstairs --
|
.gif){kind=logo}
(c) 1998, 2024