Airport Advisories at Non-Towered Airports (2016)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

8 chapter three LITERATURE REVIEW Much of the literature on airport advisories focuses on pilot communications: that is, radio calls in the traffic pattern regarding pilot intentions. The authors of this report endeavored to determine the degree, and in what manner, airports (whether FBO, airport, or other personnel) provide advisories to pilots transmitting “request airport advisory” by means of the radio [typically the Common Traffic Advisory frequency (CTAF), UNICOM (Universal Communications), or a combined CTAF/UNICOM]. The CTAF is defined as: A designated frequency for the purpose of carrying out airport advisory practices while operating to or from an airport that does not have a control tower or an airport where the control tower is not operational. The CTAF is normally a UNICOM, MULTICOM, flight service station (FSS) frequency, or a tower frequency (FAA 1990, p. 1). As a stand-alone frequency, CTAF is intended to serve the needs of pilots to communicate intentions with other pilots. A stand-alone CTAF generally would not be used for the issuance of airport advisories. UNICOM is defined as: A nongovernment air/ground radio communication station which may provide airport information at public use airports where there is no tower or FSS. On pilot request, UNICOM stations may provide pilots with weather information, wind direction, the recommended runway, or other necessary information. If the UNICOM frequency is designated as the CTAF, it will be identified in appropriate aeronautical publications (FAA 2014a, p. 4-1-4). FAA explains that if UNICOM is unavailable, “wind and weather information may be obtainable from nearby controlled airports via Automatic Terminal Information Service (ATIS) or Automated Weather Observing System (AWOS) frequency” (FAA 2014a). Admittedly, this option may not be available to a pilot, depending on the location of the airport and its proximity to the pilot’s location. MULTICOM is defined as: A mobile service, not open to public correspondence use, used for essential communications in the conduct of activities performed by or directed from private aircraft (FAA 1990, p. 1). A MULTICOM is not intended to be used for communication of airport advisories because it is a private frequency. Flight Service Stations (FSSs) are defined as: Air traffic facilities which provide pilot briefings, flight plan processing, inflight radio communications, search and rescue (SAR) services, and assistance to lost aircraft and aircraft in emergency situations. FSSs also relay Air Traffic Control (ATC) clearances, process NOTAMs, broadcast aviation meteorological and aeronautical information, and notify Customs and Border Protection of transborder flights (FAA 2015, para. 3). With the move toward automating FSSs to off-airport sites, their role in providing airport adviso- ries has been reduced. The FAA has minimized costs with the automation of FSS, but this has placed the responsibility of providing airport advisories on the airport operator at airports that previously had an FSS on-airport.

9 OVERVIEW An airport may have a full-time or part-time ATCT or FSS located on the airport, a full-time or part- time UNICOM station, or no aeronautical station. At airports without an ATCT (non-towered), pilots may have one or more options (ranging from the most traditional to more technologically advanced) for obtaining useful airport information, including winds and runway(s) in use: 1. Observing the segmented circle 2. Communicating with FSS 3. Communicating with UNICOM operator 4. Communicating on CTAF 5. Communicating on a combined CTAF/UNICOM 6. Listening to AWOS/ASOS 7. Using automated UNICOM 8. Using Super AWOS Plus Automated UNICOM (Super AWOS). Observing the Segmented Circle The first option, observing the segmented circle, is possibly the lowest-tech option, requiring the least amount of funds for ongoing maintenance. According to the AIM, “At those airports without an operating control tower, a segmented circle visual indicator system, if installed, is designed to provide traffic pattern information” (FAA 2014a, p. 4-3-5). The segmented circle visual indicator system consists of, at a mini- mum, a segmented circle with a conventional wind cone at the center. Additional components may include: 1. Landing direction indicator 2. Landing strip indicators 3. Traffic pattern indicators 4. Right-turn indicators 5. Closed field signal (FAA 2013b, p. 2). The segmented circle is designed to aid pilots in locating airports and also provide a centralized location for this system on the airport. Common at GA airports, the segmented circle is located at a position to provide maximum visibility to pilots in the air and on the ground (see Figure 2). Communicating with FSS The second option, communicating with FSS, was once a common occurrence at airports with an on-field FSS (Figure 3). Today this is not common, especially in light of the consolidation of on-airport FIGURE 2 Segmented circle system (Source: Money Turf Aviation).

10 FSS toward Automated FSS that began in the early 1980s. Granting the FSS contract to Lockheed Martin has hastened this process (Kraus and Waite n.d.). Communicating with UNICOM Operator The third option, communicating with an on-airport UNICOM operator, is quite common. Of the 204 air- ports included in the study, 188 (representing 92%) have an assigned UNICOM frequency. UNICOM is a physical station, possibly an aeronautical radio in the airport manager’s office or the FBO, and is staffed by one or more individuals. UNICOM, during operating hours, provides airport advisories, includ- ing winds and runway(s) in use. This frequency may also be used by pilots to request fuel, catering, courtesy car, and so forth. Pilots sometimes equate UNICOM to Aircraft Communications Address- ing and Reporting System (ACARS), developed by Aeronautical Radio, Incorporated (ARINC), but UNICOM is not as sophisticated. UNICOM is a frequency that allows a pilot to communicate with a ground station, rather than simply other pilots (which is typical with CTAF) (Figure 4). FIGURE 3 Flight service specialist (Courtesy of FAA). FIGURE 4 UNICOM operator (Source: Skyport Holdings Tampa, LLC dba Volo Aviation).

11 According to the AOPA (AOPA n.d., para. 3): Originally, 122.8 MHz was the standard UNICOM frequency for all airports. As flying activity and the number of airports increased, 122.7 MHz and 123.0 MHz were added to accommodate the increased traffic. Although three UNICOM frequencies were unable to handle the general aviation traffic, additional frequencies were unavail- able. Unfortunately, the aeronautical frequency spectrum was fully committed as a result of the increased air traffic demand. To open up more frequency channels, the existing aeronautical frequency spectrum of 118 MHz to 136 MHz, consisting of 360 channels with a 50 kHz bandwidth, was reduced to 25 kHz bandwidth, thus creating 720 channels. AOPA successfully lobbied for additional frequencies when this change took place. Four more UNICOM frequencies became available: 122.725 MHz, 122.975 MHz, 123.050 MHz, and 123.075 MHz. There are great variations in the quality of airport advisories and the training of staff issuing the advi- sories by means of the UNICOM. In addition, some confusion exists among student pilots and pilots as to the degree of control a UNICOM operator possesses. Indeed, UNICOM does not issue landing or takeoff clearances and is not the equivalent of ATC. UNICOM operates only in an advisory capacity. Consider the following true story as presented in the December 2000 issue of AOPA Flight Training: A student pilot, flying solo in four-mile visibility, was five miles from a non-towered airport when he called uni- com [sic] to get an advisory. The Unicom [sic] operator said that the active runway was 32, right-hand traffic, and that there was a light crosswind. The student acknowledged the advisory and set up for a 45-degree entry to downwind for Runway 32. As he turned downwind, he saw the glare of a landing light ahead and suddenly realized he was set up for a head-on collision with a Cessna 172. The Cessna was on downwind for Runway 14, and the two aircraft missed one another by about 100 feet. Not far behind the Cessna was a Piper Cherokee also on downwind for Runway 14. The Cherokee pilot had to take evasive action. The unicom [sic] frequency bristled with angry voices saying the active runway was 14. Totally confused, the student pilot departed the pattern in the wake of reprimands from the pilots with whom he had just had a close encounter. Somewhat shaken, the student entered the pattern for Runway 14 and landed safely. A CFI who had been on board the Cherokee talked to the student on the ground. The student had some interesting notions of the responsibilities and authority of the unicom [sic] operator. He believed the unicom [sic] operator was much like a tower air traffic controller who directs pilots to land on specific runways. The student didn’t hear any position reports on the unicom [sic] frequency from aircraft that were in the pattern for Runway 14. He believed he had been directed to land on Runway 32 by the unicom [sic] operator, and by God that’s what he was going to do. The instructor made it clear to the student that the unicom [sic] provides airport advisories about wind speed and direction and the runway most favorable for those wind conditions. The unicom [sic] operator does not provide a clearance to land. This person is usually a desk clerk at the FBO who is scheduling airplanes, sell- ing products, processing charges, and answering the phone in addition to providing airport advisories over the unicom [sic] frequency. Chances are the person isn’t even a pilot. In this case, the unicom [sic] operator had been too busy to pay attention to what runway pilots were using, and she simply saw from the wind instruments that the light crosswind was favoring Runway 32. She reported this to the student. This was a valuable lesson for the student pilot. He learned that the unicom [sic] is not a control tower. He learned the importance of observing aircraft in the pattern, listening to their position reports, and visually determining the runway in use. The traffic flow at non-towered airports functions well when pilots work together by observing what’s going on in the traffic pattern, by listening to the common traffic advisory frequency for other aircraft reporting their positions, and by announcing their own positions as well. The unicom [sic] report is a place to start, but it must be supplemented with looking and listening when approaching a non-towered airport (Hiner 2000, para. 1-7). Two lessons may be learned from this story. First, the UNICOM operator may not have had suf- ficient training or was too distracted to issue an accurate airport advisory. Indeed, the advisory issued may be completely contradictory to the flow of current aircraft traffic at that airport. Second, the UNICOM operator only advises pilots but does not issue clearances. Further, pilots greatly benefit by supplementing airport advisories issued by UNICOM by, for example, listening to CTAF radio transmissions and observing the airport wind sock and traffic flow. At non-towered airports, pilots and ground vehicle operators can be more involved in airport safety by speaking up to correct an inaccurate UNICOM broadcast. It is in their best interest to do so, if appropriate. Within the AIM, FAA presents suggested UNICOM communication procedures for pilots: 1. In communicating with a UNICOM station, the following practices will help reduce frequency congestion, facilitate a better understanding of pilot intentions, help identify the location of aircraft in the traffic pattern, and enhance safety of flight: (a) Select the correct UNICOM frequency. (b) State the identification of the UNICOM station you are calling in each transmission.

12 (c) Speak slowly and distinctly. (d) Report approximately 10 miles from the airport, reporting altitude, and state your aircraft type, aircraft identification, location relative to the airport, state whether landing or overflight, and request wind infor- mation and runway in use. (e) Report on downwind, base, and final approach. (f) Report leaving the runway. 2. Recommended UNICOM phraseologies: (a) Inbound PHRASEOLOGY- FREDERICK UNICOM CESSNA EIGHT ZERO ONE TANGO FOXTROT 10 MILES SOUTH- EAST DESCENDING THROUGH (altitude) LANDING FREDERICK, REQUEST WIND AND RUNWAY INFORMATION FREDERICK. FREDERICK TRAFFIC CESSNA EIGHT ZERO ONE TANGO FOXTROT ENTERING DOWNWIND/BASE/FINAL (as appropriate) FOR RUNWAY ONE NINER (fullstop/touch-and-go) FREDERICK. FREDERICK TRAFFIC CESSNA EIGHT ZERO ONE TANGO FOXTROT CLEAR OF RUNWAY ONE NINER FREDERICK. (b) Outbound PHRASEOLOGY- FREDERICK UNICOM CESSNA EIGHT ZERO ONE TANGO FOXTROT (location on air- port) TAXIING TO RUNWAY ONE NINER, REQUEST WIND AND TRAFFIC INFORMA- TION FREDERICK. FREDERICK TRAFFIC CESSNA EIGHT ZERO ONE TANGO FOXTROT DEPARTING RUNWAY ONE NINER. “REMAINING IN THE PATTERN” OR “DEPARTING THE PATTERN TO THE (direction) (as appropriate)” FREDERICK (FAA 2014a, p. 4-1-5). In both of these instances, the pilot is requesting wind and either runway information (inbound) or traffic information (outbound). The person staffing the UNICOM is the individual tasked with providing this information to the pilot. Communicating on CTAF The fourth option, communicating on CTAF, is extremely common but generally not for the purposes of obtaining an airport advisory. This frequency is used by pilots to self-announce their intentions by communicating with other pilots in the vicinity of the airport. Pilots monitoring CTAF can learn about the runway(s) in use by listening to position reports and intentions of other pilots but likely will not gain information about current winds. In essence, airport advisories generally are not avail- able on CTAF. Communicating on a Combined CTAF/UNICOM The fifth option, communicating on a combined CTAF/UNICOM, occasionally exists at airports. In this case, the same frequency is shared by CTAF and UNICOM. Although this can be confusing to pilots, airports with separate frequencies have also reported confusion on the part of pilots. In essence, when a pilot contacts a combined CTAF/UNICOM, who the pilot is speaking to depends on what is said. If the pilot calls “traffic,” the pilot is speaking to pilots of other aircraft. This is common when self-reporting a position and intention. The pilot does not expect a response from other aircraft. However, when the pilot calls “UNICOM,” the pilot is speaking to the UNICOM operator and expects a response from someone at a ground station. In summary, the airport facilities, in the form of the aeronautical station or CTAF, often guide pilot behavior. As one pilot explained on StudentPilot.com: It’s not “wrong” to ask for an advisory on UNICOM. The issue is more about the quality of the information you can expect to receive. There are some airports where the quality is very high; there are others where the quality is very low or non-existent. Traditionally “good” UNICOM people give information about winds and the runway in use (note that does not mean the best or favored runway). Thus, the information UNICOM gives has become less important and AWOS stations have become more prevalent. A personal preference, but my practice is not to call UNICOM unless I need something (“UNICOM, do you have a courtesy car available?”). I can get the winds from AWOS. I can get the runway predominantly in use from listening to the CTAF (they might not be the same). If there’s nothing to listen to on the CTAF then I choose the runway indicated by the winds on AWOS or a preferential runway system described in the A/FD (posted by user midlifeflyer on http://studentpilot.com/interact/forum/showthread.php?22244-Difference-between-CTAF- and-Unicom, 2005).

13 Listening to AWOS/ASOS The sixth option available to pilots is listening to AWOS/ASOS. These two products, although simi- lar in concept, do have differences. The ASOS is a product of a joint venture of the National Weather Service (NWS), Department of Defense (DoD), and FAA. The ASOS comprises a standard suite of weather sensors and is available from a single vendor. The AWOS is a suite of weather sensors of many different configurations that were procured by FAA or purchased by the airport from three vendors in the United States. AWOS/ASOS is common for obtaining current airport weather but generally not for obtaining an airport advisory. However, some airports are able to audibly append broadcasts with current infor- mation. Information such as runway/taxiway closures, construction activity, wildlife activity, sky- diving activity, unmanned aerial systems (drones) activity, and signs or lights out of service represent the types of information that may be broadcast by means of AWOS/ASOS in an appended fashion. Although some of this information is also available through the NOTAM system, generally with sev- eral days of advance notice, some airport managers point out that pilots operating at their airport do not regularly check NOTAMs. Thus, these airports have found it effective to place this information on AWOS/ASOS with an appended broadcast. It is in the interest of the airport to verify with the FAA whether NOTAMs may be audibly appended to the AWOS/ASOS broadcast. Some dynamic activity, such as skydiving, may require constantly changing updates by airport staff, and providing this infor- mation through an appended AWOS/ASOS broadcast can be most effective. Specifically regarding skydiving activity, the FAA states there are more than 300 active sky diving centers and clubs in the United States operating more than 500 skydiving aircraft, referred to as jump planes. The FAA partnered with the U.S. Parachute Association to create a pamphlet and video, both of which are titled “Flying for Skydive Operations.” The purpose of these informational materials is to describe specific flight operations and safety issues that are needed when flying skydivers. Although the materials are meant for the jump plane pilot, airport management with skydiving activ- ity on airport also will benefit from this information (FAA 2000). Even without appended broadcasts, as current winds generally determine the runway(s) to use, the weather report can be useful in determining which runway(s) to use. According to the FAA (FAA n.d., p. 4-3-28), “At uncontrolled airports that are equipped with ASOS/AWSS/AWOS with ground- to-air broadcast capability, the one-minute updated airport weather should be available to you within approximately 25 NM of the airport below 10,000 feet.” However, pilots may be using a runway that prevailing winds do not favor, which explains the only partial usefulness of AWOS/ASOS for obtaining an airport advisory (Figure 5). Using Automated UNICOM The seventh option, interacting with an automated UNICOM, provides automation to a common UNICOM station. Specifically, an automated UNICOM generally provides weather (altimeter, vis- ibility, wind, crosswinds, wind shear); preferred runway based on current conditions; and auto- matic radio “echo-check.” Pilots activate the automated UNICOM with radio clicks (three clicks for weather; four clicks for radio check). According to FAA (FAA 2014a, p. 4-1-9): Many airports are now providing completely automated weather, radio check capability and airport advisory information on an automated UNICOM system. These systems offer a variety of features, typically selectable by microphone clicks, on the UNICOM frequency. Availability of the automated UNICOM will be published in the Airport/Facility Directory and approach charts. This option allows a non-towered airport to provide the two most common components of an air- port advisory (runway in use and radio check) in an automated fashion, negating the need to staff a UNICOM station. Airports equipped with this technology have the ability to issue airport advisories in an automated fashion, thus negating the need to staff a UNICOM station with trained personnel.

14 Although benefits are apparent with a human voice that can respond to unique requests, the auto- mated UNICOM frequency can enable a non-towered airport to provide radio checks and airport advisories with fewer staff, while enhancing safety at the airport. Using AWOS Plus Automated UNICOM (Super AWOS) The eighth option, interacting with an AWOS plus automated UNICOM (Super AWOS), provides more information than an automated UNICOM but in a similar fashion. Super AWOS provides all the services of a traditional AWOS but also greets pilots, provides runway-in-use advisories, provides radio “echo-check” capabilities, and advises pilots of traffic in the area. The Super AWOS is able to detect traffic in the local area and inform pilots of the Super AWOS, along with instructions on how to use it, such as “Good Morning. Potomac Airfield, automated UNICOM. Click your mic three times for an advisory, four times for a radio check” (Potomac Aviation n.d.). Emerging Technology Automated Micro Tower Interacting with an automated micro tower allows pilots to receive ATC-like services at a non- towered airport. This innovative self-contained system serves as an automated control tower and a weather service. By means of artificial intelligence, a micro tower knows the airport’s runways, approaches, and traffic patterns; is able to monitor the CTAF; and continually senses real-time weather conditions. What makes this option unique is that the micro tower is able to listen to aircraft communications and respond appropriately. This is the first step for a non-towered airport in moving toward a towered environment in an economical fashion. No personnel are needed to operate the micro tower. Indeed, one provider produces a 100% solar, global modem-supported unit (Potomac Aviation Technology n.d.). FIGURE 5 AWOS (Source: Wikimedia, Famartin).

15 RESEARCH Little research has been conducted on airport advisories. Most research on operations at non- towered airports focuses on the role of the pilot in ensuring safety of flight. Other research presents the integration of technology to benefit users in light of the larger national airspace system. Still other research points out the GA aircraft accident rate with a focus on communications as a causal factor. The lack of research on airport advisories is important because it points to the general focus on the role of pilots, rather than that of airports and UNICOM operators, in non-towered airport safety. Sloan (2000), in a study on collision avoidance at non-towered airports, argues that “the number of collisions and fatalities at non-towered airports indicates that there is room for improvement in the area of safety regarding the procedures for operating at such airports” (p. 70). Sloan’s study also considered how flight instructors teach entries to the traffic pattern to their student pilots. To reduce the risk of operating at non-towered airports, Sloan suggests a number of methods (including Emerging Technology Remote Tower Interacting with a remote tower is the most advanced and expensive option for an airport, but like the micro tower, a remote tower allows an airport to introduce ATC-like services at a non-towered airport. Unlike the micro tower, this option allows for human input into the airport environment. It is not automated; rather it is an air traffic control tower staffed from a distance—that is, remotely. This option allows an airport to have an air traffic control tower without the need to staff the tower. Controllers at a remote location can handle operations at multiple airports, introducing sig- nificant efficiencies into the process. This option is even more cost-effective than a contract tower. Remote towers are currently in place at various locations around the world. The first was installed at Örnsköldsvik Airport in Sweden, which is the first airport in the world to be controlled from a distance. High-resolution digital video cameras, meteorological sensors, microphones, and other devices at the remote airport are linked in real time to the remote tower center. At the staffed remote tower center, images from the remote airport are projected onto panoramic liquid crystal display screens that can provide a complete 360° view. In essence, rather than an air traffic control- ler viewing traffic from the control tower cab window, the air traffic controller views traffic on a screen from a remote location (“Remote control” 2013). Controllers at the remote tower center have complete control over all sensors, lighting, alarms and other tower systems at the remote airfield, as well as air traffic management tools. All surveil- lance video footage can be recorded and stored to allow for future retrieval. This can be helpful, such as in an accident investigation. According to vendors of this technology, the remote tower operation is completely transparent to pilots. In other words, pilots would not necessarily know that the controllers with whom they are communicating are located at a remote, off-airport loca- tion (“Remote control” 2013). In the United States, Leesburg Executive Airport is the site of the FAA’s first test of a remote tower, in cooperation with Saab Sensis Corporation. According to an October 2015 article in USA Today, Leesburg Executive Airport has 14 high-definition cameras from Saab mounted in a crow’s nest that feed video to 55-inch television screens in a windowless room at the airport. The screens replicate the 360-degree view from a standard tower. Compressed air blows rain or bugs off the glass to keep the view clear. Two microphones pipe in the sound of jet engines revving ( Jansen 2015). If this test is successful, additional airports throughout the United States could benefit from this technology. FAA also recently announced that Fort Collins–Loveland Municipal Airport in Colorado will be a similar test site in 2016. Cost savings and enhanced airport safety appear to be driving these efforts. According to Paul Rinaldi, president of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, “I think this technology gives us the ability to expand air-traffic control and enhance the safety of the system” ( Jansen 2015, para. 20).

16 checking NOTAMs and reviewing the Aviation Forecast Discussions) but does not recommend use of UNICOM to request an airport advisory. Colavito et al. (2014) discussed the infrastructural deficiencies at non-towered airports. The authors argued that “shortfalls” exist at these non-towered airports that negatively affect operations in the areas of flight delay, extended flight paths, and safety. The authors proposed an Integrated Communication, Navigation, and Surveillance (ICNS) system at these airports to stimulate a more efficient national air- space system. Just what type of ICNS, funding, and the extent of the system are open to interpretation. According to the 24th Joseph T. Nall Report, produced by the AOPA, the 1,402 GA aircraft accidents in 2012 resulted in 378 fatalities. The Nall Report states that 75% of noncommercial fixed-wing accidents were found to be pilot related, and 74% of noncommercial helicopter accidents were found to be pilot related. Commercial fixed-wing and commercial helicopter accidents found to be pilot related represent 73% and 69% of accidents in these groups, respectively. As defined by the report, pilot-related accidents refer to those arising “from the improper actions or inactions of the pilot” (AOPA 2015, p. 12). Most pilot-related accidents were caused by inadequate or inaccurate flight planning or decision-making or the hazards present during the high-risk phases of flight (such as landing and takeoff). Landing accidents continue to outnumber takeoff accidents by more than two to one. Although these pilot-related causes represent about three-quarters of GA accidents, the report does not reference airport advisories as a cause. GUIDANCE Much of the guidance in the area of airport advisories actually refers to pilot advisories, which is not the primary focus of this synthesis. There is a general lack of guidance for airports in the proper way in which to issue airport advisories to pilots. Even so, it is important for airport operators and, more specifically, UNICOM station operators to be familiar with the guidance that applies to non-towered airports, even if that guidance is also appropriate to pilots. Table 2 presents a listing of guidance on this topic, which is summarized in this chapter. Grant Assurance 19: Operation and Maintenance Requires airports at all times to be operated in a safe and serviceable condition. 14 CFR Part 91.113: Right-of-Way Rules Addresses aircraft right-of-way rules, which are clearly applicable in a non-towered airport environment. AC 150/5210-20: Ground Vehicle Operations on Airports Provides guidance to airports in developing a ground vehicle operator training program and provides immediate guidance useful to ground vehicle operators driving vehicles at non-towered airports. FAA Guide to Ground Vehicle Operations Promoted by the FAA as “A Comprehensive Guide to Safe Driving on the Airport Surface” (FAA n.d.). Presents suggestions for ground vehicle operators at non-towered airports. AC 90-66A: Recommended Standard Traffic Patterns and Practices for Aeronautical Operations at Airports Without Operating Control Towers Presents regulatory requirements and recommended procedures for aeronautical operations at airports without operating control towers. Recommends traffic patterns and operational procedures for aircraft that are beneficial for ground vehicle operators and airport operators. AC 90-42F: Traffic Advisory Practices at Airports Without Operating Control Towers Presents ways in which pilots communicate their intentions and obtain airport/traffic information when operating at non-towered airports, which is useful for UNICOM operators. Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) Safety Advisor Presents recommendations for aircraft operations at non- towered airports, including requesting airport advisories from the UNICOM station. FAA Pilot Handbook, Chapter 13—Airport Operations Discusses use of visual wind indicators and segmented circle visual indicator system by pilots, which is useful for operators of non-towered airports. 47 CFR Part 87.213 FCC regulation governing aeronautical advisory stations. TABLE 2 GUIDANCE

17 Grant Assurance 19: Operation and Maintenance Federally obligated airports must comply with FAA grant assurances. Specifically, Grant Assurance 19 requires: The airport and all facilities which are necessary to serve the aeronautical users of the airport, other than facili- ties owned or controlled by the United States, shall be operated at all times in a safe and serviceable condition and in accordance with the minimum standards as may be required or prescribed by applicable Federal, state and local agencies for maintenance and operation (FAA 2014b, p. 9). Non-towered airports must consider how to operate in a safe manner, especially in light of the haz- ards associated with aircraft operating in a non-towered environment. 14 CFR Part 91.113: Right-of-Way Rules Although 14 CFR Part 91 applies to pilots, and not necessarily to airports, it is beneficial to be aware of the pilot requirements spelled out in Part 91, especially as they may pertain to airport advisories. 14 CFR Part 91.113 addresses aircraft right-of-way rules, which are clearly applicable in a non- towered airport environment. 14 CFR Part 91.113 requires pilots to see and avoid other aircraft. Although 14 CFR Part 91.113 does not address vehicles, whether from the pilot’s or vehicle driver’s perspective, the FAA (FAA 2002) states, Every year there are accidents and incidents involving aircraft, pedestrians, and ground vehicles at airports that lead to property damage and injury, which may be fatal. Many of these events result from inadequate security measures, failure to maintain visual aids, a lack of such aids, and inadequate vehicle operator training. AC 150/5210-20: Ground Vehicle Operations on Airports Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5210-20 provides guidance for ground vehicle operators at airports. Although the purpose of this AC is mainly to provide guidance to airports in developing a ground vehicle operator training program, it provides immediate guidance useful to ground vehicle operators driving vehicles at non-towered airports, often airport maintenance/operations/aircraft rescue fire- fighting (ARFF) personnel. Within this AC, the FAA stresses that “aircraft ALWAYS have the right of way over vehicles” (FAA 2002, p. 3). The FAA states that, “two-way radio control between vehi- cles and fixed-base operators or other airport users should avoid frequencies used by aircraft” (FAA 2002, p. 3). Following this advice will minimize frequency congestion and allow frequencies to be used as intended. In other words, discussing mowing plans or lunch breaks on CTAF is discouraged. Airports are encouraged by the FAA to develop rules and regulations pertaining to vehicle opera- tions. In addition, the FAA notes that loss of situational awareness on the part of ground vehicle operators is a contributing factor in runway incursions and aircraft–vehicle collisions on the airfield. Within this AC, the FAA recommends ways to enhance driver situational awareness. FAA Guide to Ground Vehicle Operations The FAA has also produced “FAA Guide to Ground Vehicle Operations: A Comprehensive Guide to Safe Driving on the Airport Surface” (FAA n.d.). Of particular importance to readers of this report, the FAA guide presents suggestions for ground vehicle operators at non-towered airports and identi- fies most effective practices. Specifically, the FAA recommends that ground vehicle operators not only monitor the airport frequency but also broadcast intentions so that pilots operating at or in the vicinity of the airport will be aware of the ground vehicle operator’s intentions. AC 90-66A: Recommended Standard Traffic Patterns and Practices for Aeronautical Operations at Airports Without Operating Control Towers In AC 90-66A, the FAA encourages pilots to supplement airport advisories with all available infor- mation, including “visual indicators, such as the segmented circle, wind direction indicator, landing

18 direction indicator, and traffic pattern indicators which provide traffic pattern information” (FAA 1993, p. 2). This guidance supports the general notion that pilots desire current, airport-specific information [such as winds and runway(s) in use], and often rely on the UNICOM operator or other sources of information at non-towered airports for this information. AC 90-42F: Traffic Advisory Practices at Airports Without Operating Control Towers Although dating to 1990, AC 90-42F remains relevant with guidance to pilots operating at non- towered airports. It explains two ways for pilots to communicate their intentions and obtain airport/ traffic information when operating at non-towered airports. First, pilots may communicate with an FSS that is providing airport advisories on a CTAF. Second, pilots may make a self-announced broadcast on a CTAF. The AC does not include a third option: communicating with a UNICOM to obtain airport advisories. It appears this AC is more focused on pilot advisories (FAA 1990). Proposed Discontinuation of Airport Advisory Service On June 30, 2015, FAA published in the Federal Register a Notice of Proposed Policy: “Discon- tinuation of Airport Advisory Service in the Contiguous United States, Puerto Rico, and Hawaii.” FAA is proposing to discontinue all three of the “advisory type services” at 19 airports within the contiguous United States. FAA explains in the Notice that since Lockheed Martin was awarded the FSS contract in 2005, the number of FSSs has been reduced “from 58 to 18 to the current number of 5” (“Discontinuation of Airport Advisory Service in the Contiguous United States, Puerto Rico, and Hawaii” 2015, p. 37356). According to the Notice, “the Flight Services Quality Assurance Evaluation Group found low usage at the locations still receiving the service. At 18 of the 19 remaining locations, a sample of historical data reflects that pilots contact the [Remote Airport Advisory] RAA service an average of less than 1 time per day” (FAA 2015, p. 37357). However, the FAA (FAA 2015, p. 37357) also states: Additionally, pilots are using other information resources, such as, Automated Surface Observing Systems (ASOS), Automated Weather Sensors System (AWSS), Automated Weather Observing System (AWOS), Uni- com [sic], and other commercial aviation information services. The combined resources provide the pilot the same or higher level of flight information as RAA service and the service has become redundant. With these older technologies being phased out and fewer services provided by FSS, airports are considering how to fill the gap. With an interest in ensuring airport safety, managers of many non- towered airports are arranging for airport advisories to be issued by airport, FBO, or other personnel. These advisories can replace the airport advisories once offered by FSS. AOPA Safety Advisor The AOPA presents recommendations for operations at non-towered airports in the organization’s Safety Advisor, Operations and Proficiency No. 3 (AOPA 2003). According to the AOPA: Regulations and procedures can’t cover every conceivable situation, though, and the FAA has wisely avoided imposing rigid operating regulations at non-towered airports. What is appropriate at one airport may not work at the next. Some airports have special operating rules because of obstacles or hazards, while other rules may promote a smooth and efficient flow of traffic or keep aircraft from overflying unsympathetic airport neighbors (AOPA 2003, p. 1). Of significance in the AOPA Safety Advisor is that non-towered airports without an FSS on the field generally have a dedicated UNICOM frequency. “Usually staffed by fixed-base operation (FBO) employees who provide airport information, the UNICOM is usually the CTAF” (AOPA 2003, p. 5). The AOPA is quick to point out, “UNICOM operators are not required to communicate with pilots, and if they do, there are no standards for the information conveyed” (AOPA 2003, p. 5). This may explain why some non-towered airports do not provide airport advisory services to pilots.

19 The Safety Advisor also recognizes the importance of automated weather observing equipment, whether in the form of an AWOS or ASOS. Pilots are encouraged by the AOPA to “monitor these sys- tems, if available, before takeoff and 20 to 30 miles out when approaching the airport to land” (AOPA 2003, p. 5). “At airports without automated information,” the AOPA states, “you’ll [pilots will] need to contact UNICOM for information.” This would indicate, at least from the AOPA perspective, that an AWOS or ASOS is a substitute for an audible airport advisory. However, to maintain a sufficient level of safety, airports without an AWOS or ASOS would benefit from providing audible airport advisories. Without automated weather or audible airport advisories, pilots must determine the active runway, based on prevailing winds, on their own. Echoing FAA guidance, the AOPA encourages pilots to “overfly the airport at least 500 feet above the traffic pattern, and look for the windsock, wind tee, or tetrahedron” (AOPA 2003, p. 10). FAA Pilot Handbook, Chapter 13—Airport Operations The FAA Pilot Handbook is a complete resource for pilots and also contains useful information for airport staff and UNICOM operators. In particular, chapter 13 presents information related to airport operations. “It is important for a pilot to know the direction of the wind. At facilities with an operat- ing control tower, this information is provided by ATC. Information may also be provided by FSS personnel located at a particular airport or by requesting information on a CTAF at airports that have the capacity to receive and broadcast on this frequency” (FAA 2013a, p. 13-10). Thus, this resource guides pilots toward the UNICOM frequency, if available, to obtain current wind information and determine the runway in use. 47 CFR Part 87.213: Aeronautical Advisory Stations (UNICOMs) Within 47 CFR Part 87.213, airport operators will find FCC guidance addressing the scope of UNICOM services. First, if used to issue advisories, UNICOM operators shall “provide service to any aircraft station upon request and without discrimination” (FCC 1990, p. 225). It also states that “UNICOM transmis- sions must be limited to the necessities of safe and expeditious operation of aircraft such as condition of runways, types of fuel available, wind conditions, weather information, dispatching, or other neces- sary information” (FCC 1990, p. 225). It also says that “on a secondary basis, UNICOMs may transmit communications which pertain to the efficient portal-to-portal transit of an aircraft, such as requests for ground transportation, food, or lodging” (FCC 1990, p. 225) and that “UNICOMs may communicate with aeronautical utility stations and ground vehicles concerning runway conditions and safety hazards on the airport” (FCC 1990, p. 225). SUMMARY As discussed in this chapter, multiple options are available to airport operators for providing current airport information to pilots. Whether the options are low tech or high tech, airport operators have adopted numerous platforms for promoting airport safety by conveying much-needed information to pilots. Regardless of the facilities available and services offered at non-towered airports, much of the guidance available in the literature encourages pilots to contact the UNICOM station, if available, to obtain current winds and runway(s) in use. If a non-towered airport does not provide this service, pilots must utilize visual wind indicators. Although pilots are resourceful and use available means to be informed, airport operators can be proactive in ensuring all airport users are informed and operat- ing with the same information by issuing airport advisories by means of the UNICOM or appending AWOS/ASOS broadcasts.