Columbus (OH) Tower Design Requires More Eyes | Aero-News Network
Aero-News Network
RSS icon RSS feed
podcast icon MP3 podcast
Subscribe Aero-News e-mail Newsletter Subscribe

Airborne Unlimited -- Most Recent Daily Episodes

Episode Date

Airborne-Monday

Airborne-Tuesday

Airborne-Wednesday Airborne-Thursday

Airborne-Friday

Airborne On YouTube

Airborne-SpecialEpisode-12.15.25

AirborneNextGen-
12.16.25

Airborne-Unlimited-12.10.25

Airborne-AffordableFlyers-12.11.25

AirborneUnlimited-12.12.25

AFE 2025 LIVE MOSAIC Town Hall (Archived): www.airborne-live.net

Tue, Sep 30, 2003

Columbus (OH) Tower Design Requires More Eyes

Now, It Just Looks Like Another 'Jobs' Program

Now that it's built, and equipment is moving in, what might be a "hole" in design simulation software is starting to show up, at the new Port Columbus (OH) International Airport tower.

The tower, 224 feet tall, was supposed -- everyone assumed -- to have given unobstructed views of all the movement areas at the airport. As long as they didn't put the equipment in there, it probably would have, too -- but with the screens and things in place, some of the controllers have told the press that it's going to take more people up there, to see what needs to be seen. Besides, the tower, they now know, can't face two directions at once. After all, it has just 16 sides.

The FAA now plans to use double crews in the tower, to make sure everything that needs to be seen, will be seen.

Controllers had suggested raising the floor; the FAA noted that, if that were done, they couldn't see enough of the sky.

The tower, located between the two main runways, will need 25% more union controllers than the present design, raising the total complement from 48 to 60. [That's what the government calls, 'doubling' --ed.]

The tower, slated to become operational in April, was hosting tours, when one of the alert controllers noticed he couldn't see part of the north runway. Sure enough, when he repositioned himself to see that area, he couldn't see other things. Thus began some lively discussions.

The contractor said that seeing all movement areas wasn't part of the specification. Sure enough. Oops...

FMI: www.faa.gov

Advertisement

More News

Aero-News: Quote of the Day (12.18.25)

“These new aircraft strengthen our ability to respond quickly, train effectively and support communities nationwide. Textron Aviation has been a steadfast supporter in helpin>[...]

Classic Aero-TV: Viking Twin Otter 400--Bringing the DHC-6 Back Into Production

From 2011 (YouTube Edition): Rugged, Legendary, STOL Twin Makes A Comeback The de Havilland Twin Otter is an airplane with a long history, and it gained a reputation as a workhorse>[...]

NTSB Final Report: Rans Employee Flying Club Rans S-6ES Coyote II

A Wind Gust Lifted The Right Wing And The Airplane Turned To The Left Analysis: The pilot was departing from a 2,395-ft-long by 50-ft-wide turf runway. The pilot reported that afte>[...]

ANN FAQ: Submit a News Story!

Have A Story That NEEDS To Be Featured On Aero-News? Here’s How To Submit A Story To Our Team Some of the greatest new stories ANN has ever covered have been submitted by our>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (12.18.25): Braking Action Advisories

Braking Action Advisories When tower controllers receive runway braking action reports which include the terms “medium," “poor," or “nil," or whenever weather con>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

© 2007 - 2025 Web Development & Design by Pauli Systems, LC