Conventional staffed tower
The benchmark every digital tower is measured against: controllers in a cab with a direct view of the airfield.
Verdict: Still the default for busy airports; out of reach for most small fields on cost and staffing.
Busy airports where traffic justifies a building and full staffing
Airports whose traffic meets FAA tower criteria and can fund a building, or that qualify for the FAA Contract Tower Program.
Project-specific. Construction costs appear in FAA and airport capital planning documents; ask your FAA Airports District Office for comparable projects.
What it is
A purpose-built building with a glass cab, radios, a light gun and controllers on duty for the tower's published hours.
In the US it is staffed either by the FAA or by a contractor under the FAA Contract Tower Program.
Strengths
- The established standard: every procedure and rule assumes it.
- Direct view out of the window, with no dependence on a data link.
Limits
- A building to site, construct and maintain, and controllers who must be on the field.
- Many towers close overnight; when they do, the airspace usually reverts and pilots self-announce.
- Hard to staff at small airports; controller shortages affect towers that already exist.
How it scored
On the same published criteria as every other option.
| Criterion | Score | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Small-airport fit | Limited | Rarely justified on cost or staffing at a small airport. |
| On-site footprint | Limited | A staffed building with a cab. |
| Controller location | Limited | Controllers must be on the field. |
| Night, low-visibility and backup coverage | Partial | Limited by staffed hours and the view from the cab. |
| US build, support and FAA alignment | Strong | The FAA standard. |
| Operational track record | Strong | Decades of operation. |
| Cost transparency | Partial | Costs documented in public planning records, project by project. |