Talk:Non-towered airport

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the airport project.

Comments per request

The statement 'traffic volume does not warrant' is for me misleading if not incorrect. There are airports that warrent a tower but various issues allow it to operate without one. These can include local opposition, finances, construction lead time, FAA red tape and other issues. Also, does this cover the airport operation when the tower is closed? The section on Landing and depating procedures read a lot like a how to which is not what a wiki is for. I suspect this can be reworded and reduced in size to eliminate this concern. Vegaswikian 17:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good points! I'll work on this more soon. —Mets501 (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what about uncontrolled "untowered" but with a FSS. Technically it is an uncontrolled airport but people are there only to provide advisory service only--[User:Captain433180|Captain433180]] 04:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

never mind--Captain433180 04:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Non-towered airport

I'm not convinced that this rename was right. The article still covers airports that have towers that are not operational, correct? If so, the title is very misleading. Vegaswikian 05:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I don't think this rename was correct. If I'm not mistaken, all non-towered airports are called "uncontrolled" even if they lie in controlled airspace, and "uncontrolled" also covers airports at times when the control tower is closed. —Mets501 (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After looking I found this, which talks about ATC's relationship to landing at uncontrolled airports which lie in controlled airspace, and says that the only thing that makes an airport "controlled" or "uncontrolled" is the presence of a control tower. —Mets501 (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Informally, I've seen both "non-towered" and "uncontrolled" used for these airports, at least in North American publications. "Non-towered" should cause less confusion, since in some cases the airspace itself is still controlled. In the US, the FAA also seems to prefer the term "non-towered" (sometimes without the hyphen) — here's an example from an FAA safety advisor that specifically objects to the term "uncontrolled": [1]. Finally, it's important to note that the word "tower" refers to the ATC unit, not the building, so when the ATC unit is closed, there is no tower per-se. Sometimes, especially at places like fly-ins, a temporary "tower" might just a person sitting in a lawnchair with a radio. David 19:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes

I made for changes to the flow of the article and well as added footnote and added refs. I have to admit that it is very U.S. leaning because that is what I know. Any input from else where in the world would be great. Desertpilot (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]