Athens airport staff urge caution as FAA-linked vendors demo remote "digital tower" technology

Athens airport authority members and air-traffic staff spent the bulk of the meeting examining a proposal for a remote, camera-driven "digital" control tower that FAA-affiliated vendors have been piloting in other locations.

Jessica, the airport’s air traffic manager, said staff joined virtual and on-site briefings with a contractor testing remote towers and relayed that vendors currently have part-time pilot sites in Broward, Florida, and in New Jersey. "They would have to have … a building room whether it's in this building or they build a separate building for it," Jessica said, summarizing the vendor pitch about condensed 360° camera displays and infrared capability.

The vendor selling points — notably a lower price point and remote siting — prompted immediate operational and safety questions from controllers and authority members. A controller on the panel said the proposal condenses a 360° view to a 220° display and asked how controllers would maintain separation when two aircraft are in close pattern positions. "If you condense 360 to 220 and I have two skyhawks right here and I maintain visibility between them — what is the FAA saying for that?" the controller asked.

Russ, an operations staff member, and other experienced controllers raised doubts about whether the FAA has a completed "safety case" showing the remote system can match on‑tower situational awareness. One participant with long experience in remote‑tower pilots said the FAA has struggled to produce a robust safety management case and has centralized pilot evaluation at a technical center in New Jersey. "I don't think it's going to be anytime soon," that participant said, calling the concept promising for non-towered fields but problematic when converting an existing staffed tower.

Members also focused on how game‑day traffic would be handled. Several cited Athens' busy football-day operations, which require close, real‑time coordination among controllers, ground operations and line crews. "What are you going to do on a game day? How's that going to work?" one member asked. Staff and members agreed remote technology may be suitable for airports without on‑site towers but flagged the complexity of converting an existing, busy tower to a remote system.

Participants discussed staffing implications. Vendors suggested remote operations could be staffed centrally and potentially reduce local staffing costs; controllers and some authority members pushed back, arguing that consolidation could still require equal or different staffing levels and that the FAA and airlines must accept procedural changes before passenger service could be preserved.

The authority did not take formal action on the concept. Instead, members directed staff to develop a coordinated strategy: compile technical questions for FAA review, determine political engagement (federal and state), and assemble a working group that includes air-traffic staff, authority members and key stakeholders to prepare a position and next steps before any decision or formal pilot participation. Chair Polly said the authority should not "sit back and wait" and assigned follow-up tasks to staff while encouraging interim collaboration with incoming director Abraham Ramirez.

Why it matters: A move to remote towers, if pursued, could change staffing models, surveillance and safety procedures at Athens. Authority members emphasized that any decision would require solid FAA validation, careful operational planning for high-traffic days and likely political work to secure funding or approvals.

Next steps: Staff will gather more technical details from vendors and FAA contacts, assemble a cross-stakeholder strategy group, and prepare a short briefing for the incoming director and the authority’s next meeting. No vote or procurement decision was made at this meeting.