[Note: The inspiration for this article was an online comment from USC economics Professor Matthew Kahn suggesting the Remote Airport Towers could be a work-from-home opportunity. He was commenting on a View from the Wing article suggesting the FAA is missing an opportunity to improve air traffic control and safety. His article is based on a recent report by the Reason Foundation’s Ginger Evan and Marc Scribner.
As background, the Remote Airport Tower concept is exactly what it suggests, as sensors (e.g., high-definition cameras) and connectivity allow human air traffic controllers to operate remotely from a given airport. The upfront capital cost savings for such an approach is significant (measured in the $3 to $4 million cap-ex compared to $ 100 M+ for a traditional airport tower). It also has an operational cost advantage by sharing air traffic controllers among multiple airports. Finally, having controlled airspace offers potential safety improvement.
The following is the @Viodi response to Professor Kahn’s comment, as well as Marc Scribner’s response to @Viodi.
“From a rural America perspective, the members of @ACAConnects & @NTCAconnect have the fiber and technical expertise to make remote towers feasible. Time for a special assignment for broadband and #aviationgeek @MatthewMPolka to convince the @FAANews to get going on this initiative!
“The good news is the problems with FAA aren’t on fiber connectivity. The bad news is they stem from an unwillingness and/or lack of necessary in-house technical competence to settle on remote towers design, instrumentation, and operating requirements for certification.”
With that as background, the following argues that maybe there is a new opportunity for an outside coalition to commercialize this 20+ year old concept.]
Low-Cost Electric Aviation Needs Low-Cost Traffic Control #
@marcscribner is the subject matter expert on this topic. With that said, could there be a new coalition to make this happen? Are there private-public partnerships that wouldn’t have been possible before last week? One of the promises is that low-cost electric aviation could make rural air travel and shipments economically possible without subsidies, as NASA’s Regional Air Mobility Report suggests. As an aside, NASA indicates that America is home to over 5,000 airports.
One of the implications of NASA’s report is that airfields could turn into energy hubs, which would be needed for electrification. Could these airfields, which are largely in rural areas, have co-located data centers? Perhaps the rent revenue from a data center operation could pay for the remote towers, sensors, and connectivity.
In many ways, the electronic surveillance security that a data center needs is probably not too different than what is required for a remote tower. NASA envisioned solar-powered microgrids to generate electricity for these electrified airfields of the future. That’s great, but it might not be practical everywhere.
Perhaps Small Modular Reactors Could Be Part of a Defensive Solution #
Small Modular Reactors might be another way to generate the necessary power. Before last week, SMRs would have been a non-starter given the slow regulatory approval process. Is there a national defense argument to be made for upgrading rural airports, which could be the opportunity for SMRs to contribute to the power needs?
First, let’s go back to 1946 and §47103. National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems. The second sentence in Title 49 USC 47103 indicates that national defense is one of the reasons for the laws in that section.
“The Secretary of Transportation shall maintain the plan for developing public-use airports in the United States, named ‘the national plan of integrated airport systems’. The plan shall include the kind and estimated cost of eligible airport development the Secretary of Transportation considers necessary to provide a safe, efficient, and integrated system of public-use airports adequate to anticipate and meet the needs of civil aeronautics, to meet the national defense requirements of the Secretary of Defense (emphasis added), and to meet identified needs of the United States Postal Service.”
Fast-forward to last week, and the Executive Order that could spark a revival of U.S. nuclear power
@MattLoszak analyzes how the Departments of Energy and Defense could spur the growth of the factory-built small modular reactors, perfect for data center-type applications, by deploying them on their sites throughout the country.
It might be a stretch to think that civilian airports could qualify as military or DoE sites. On the other hand, maybe they could serve as another layer of eyes and ears of the U.S. defense network (could remote towers have seen the balloon that floated overhead a few years back?).
Could the Many Questions Lead to New Opportunities? #
There are many questions to address, such as
- Would the combination of Remote Towers with airport electrification make a business case?
- Could Remote Towers be a no-cost feature of airfield data centers?
- Would defense applications open up new opportunities for electricity generation that weren’t possible before?
@marcscribner and the Reason Foundation have been fighting the good fight to keep the flame of Remote Towers alive in the U.S. Perhaps a new coalition, outside the traditional aviation industry, could help them press the case with Congress and the Administration to start implementing this technology that will make air travel safer.
Leave a Reply