FAA contractor demos remote 'digital' tower at authority meeting; members urge caution on safety and staffing

At its regular meeting, the Athens‑Clarke County Airport Authority heard from staff that FAA representatives and a contractor have been testing remote or “digital” tower technology at pilot sites and visited the airport to discuss whether the system could be a fit.

Jessica, a tower controller with about eight years on site, and authority staff described the system as a compact console with panoramic video screens and camera arrays that can be installed off‑site and stream real‑time views to air‑traffic staff. Staff said pilot locations include larger testbeds (mentioned in the meeting as Broward and a facility associated with the FAA technical center in New Jersey) and that the technology is still in early stages.

Why it matters: remote towers could change how control services are delivered and which sites require a staffed tower, with implications for airline operations, emergency coordination and staffing at airports that host sporting events or other peak traffic days.

Authority members raised multiple operational questions. One member said the FAA and contractor have struggled to satisfy safety reviewers and that a formal safety case has not been completed: “There’s still not a safety case that’s been done that shows that this can be done safely,” the member said. Members and tower staff pointed to specific concerns about multiple and crossing runways at Athens‑area facilities, backup power and procedures for losing connectivity or power, and whether one remote operator could safely monitor multiple airports during busy periods such as game days.

Staff recommended next steps focused on internal alignment and external coordination. The authority agreed the immediate priorities are to (1) develop a position and strategy within the authority on remote towers, (2) involve the incoming airport director in that strategy, (3) engage with FAA and state officials to understand certification timelines and technical requirements, and (4) pursue political coordination where appropriate with congressional or state representatives if funding or pilot decisions are at stake.

The authority did not take a formal vote on adoption or opposition to the technology at the meeting. Members said they want more information before any policy position is adopted and recommended briefing the incoming director and convening a technical working group to evaluate operational impacts.

What’s next: staff and members agreed to compile the remote‑tower materials and to schedule follow‑up discussions with the new director once in place.