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-Unlimited-07.07.25

Airborne-NextGen-07.08.25

AirborneUnlimited-07.09.25

Airborne-FlightTraining-07.10.25

AirborneUnlimited-07.11.25

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

Classic Aero-TV: Up Close And Personal - The Aeroshell Aerobatic Team at Oshkosh

From 2014 (YouTube Version): One Of The Airshow World's Pre-Eminent Formation Teams Chats About The State Of The Industry At EAA AirVenture 2014, ANN News Editor Tom Patton gets th>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (07.13.25): Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN)

Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN) An ultra-high frequency electronic rho-theta air navigation aid which provides suitably equipped aircraft a continuous indication of bearing and dis>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Linx (07.13.25)

Aero Linx: Doobert Hi, we're Chris & Rachael Roy, founders and owners of Doobert. Chris is a technology guy in his “day” job and used his experience to create Doobe>[...]

NTSB Prelim: Pitts S2

The Airplane Was Spinning In A Nose-Down Attitude Before It Impacted Terrain On June 20, 2025, at 0900 eastern daylight time, a Pitts Aerobatics S-2B, N79AV, was destroyed when it >[...]

Airborne 07.09.25: B-17 Sentimental Journey, Airport Scandal, NORAD Intercepts

Also: United Elite Sues, Newark ATC Transitions, Discovery Moves?, Textron @ KOSH The Commemorative Air Force Airbase Arizona is taking its “Flying Legends of Victory Tour&rd>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

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