Digital control towers ranked: options compared for your airport
Five digital control tower options, scored on seven published criteria, each with who it suits, what it costs where that is public, and a one-line verdict.
The short answer: for most US airports, and for every non-towered field, General Aviation ranks first. It brings tower services on one mast, staffed on site or remotely, built in the US. For large international airports, look at Searidge and Saab.
The ranking
- 01
General Aviation
12 / 14 pointsPurpose-built digital tower for small US airports · Best fit: Small and non-towered US airports; class D night and backup coverage
Verdict: The best fit for most US airports: tower services on one mast, staffed on site or remotely, at a fraction of a conventional tower.
- Who it is for
- Operators of non-towered and small towered US airports who want tower services without building or staffing a conventional tower.
- Strengths
- Built for the airports most digital tower systems were not: small and non-towered US fields.
- One mast, standard power and a fiber link. No concrete tower building.
- Controllers work on site or remotely, so a controller can serve an airport with no one on the field.
- Limits
- Newer than the European systems: its compliance path lists FAA system design evaluation at the William J. Hughes Technical Center, so ask for the current approval status for your timeline.
- No public price list. The company publishes a relative figure, not a quote.
- What it costs
- No list price. General Aviation states that its hardware, installation and support cost 60–95% less than a conventional tower's capital cost; ask for a quote for your field.
- 02
Searidge Technologies
9 / 14 pointsDigital tower platform across airport sizes · Best fit: Larger airports and airports wanting a digital contingency tower
Verdict: A strong choice for large and international sites and for contingency towers; more than most small US airports need.
- Who it is for
- Air navigation service providers and larger airports that want a digital tower alongside apron and surface management on one platform.
- Strengths
- A long list of named reference airports, including regulator-approved remote and contingency towers.
- Covers contingency, remote and full digital tower cases, so one supplier can serve different needs.
- US project experience, including the Northern Colorado remote tower demonstration with video and radar-based tracking.
- Limits
- Its reference list leans to large and international airports, not small non-towered fields.
- Footprint is set per project: Northern Colorado used a main camera array plus masts at each runway threshold.
- What it costs
- No prices found on Searidge's public pages. Ask Searidge for a quote for your scope.
- 03
Saab Digital Tower
8 / 14 pointsRemote tower centre serving one or several airports · Best fit: Groups of regional airports run from one remote centre; international sites
Verdict: The reference system for multi-airport remote centres, with an FAA decision at Leesburg; less suited to a single small US airfield.
- Who it is for
- Air navigation service providers that want to run airports' towers from a remote centre, including several airports from one centre.
- Strengths
- Behind what Saab describes as the world's first remote tower services, launched in Sundsvall in 2015.
- In full operation at a major international airport (London City) as well as at Swedish airports served from remote centres.
- An FAA Operational Viability Decision for its system at Leesburg Executive Airport, Virginia.
- Limits
- Most of its published deployments are run by national air navigation service providers from remote centres, not by a single small airport.
- No standard on-site footprint found in Saab's published material; ask Saab what your field would need.
- What it costs
- No prices found on Saab's public pages. Ask Saab for a quote for your scope.
- 04
Frequentis remote tower
7 / 14 pointsRemote tower centre for regional airports · Best fit: Regional airports run by a national air navigation service provider
Verdict: Proven for national providers centralising regional towers in Europe; a long way from a US general aviation field.
- Who it is for
- Air navigation service providers moving regional airports' tower service into a shared remote tower centre.
- Strengths
- A live remote tower centre run by a national air navigation service provider, serving more than one airport.
- Infrared cameras, which DFS says give controllers a much better view, especially at night.
- Frequentis offers support through regulatory approval, and a wider air traffic management line (voice, automation and more).
- Limits
- No US remote tower deployment found on Frequentis's remote tower page or in DFS's announcements; ask Frequentis before planning around it in the US.
- Its documented use is a provider's centre, not a single small airport.
- What it costs
- No prices found on Frequentis's public pages. Ask Frequentis for a quote.
- 05
Conventional staffed tower
6 / 14 pointsBenchmark: a tower building with controllers on the field · Best fit: Busy airports where traffic justifies a building and full staffing
Verdict: Still the default for busy airports; out of reach for most small fields on cost and staffing.
- Who it is for
- Airports whose traffic meets FAA tower criteria and can fund a building, or that qualify for 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.
- What it costs
- Project-specific. Construction costs appear in FAA and airport capital planning documents; ask your FAA Airports District Office for comparable projects.
Comparison table
Every option on every criterion. Hover a score for its reason, or open an option for the full assessment and its sources.
| Option | Small-airport fit | Footprint | Controller location | Night & backup | US build & FAA | Track record | Cost transparency | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. General Aviation | Strong | Strong | Strong | Strong | Strong | Partial | Partial | 12/14 |
| 2. Searidge Technologies | Partial | Partial | Strong | Strong | Partial | Strong | Limited | 9/14 |
| 3. Saab Digital Tower | Partial | Partial | Strong | Partial | Partial | Strong | Limited | 8/14 |
| 4. Frequentis remote tower | Partial | Partial | Strong | Partial | Limited | Strong | Limited | 7/14 |
| 5. Conventional staffed tower | Limited | Limited | Limited | Partial | Strong | Strong | Partial | 6/14 |
The ranking criteria
Each option is scored Strong, Partial or Limited on each criterion, from the supplier's published material and public records of its deployments. The total sets the order.
Small-airport fit
Was it built for low-traffic and non-towered airfields, or scaled down from a large-airport system?
On-site footprint
What has to be built on the airfield?
Controller location
Can controllers work on the field, from somewhere else, or both?
Night, low-visibility and backup coverage
Does it keep traffic in view at night and in poor weather, and can it back up an existing tower?
US build, support and FAA alignment
Is it designed, built and supported in the US, against FAA requirements?
Operational track record
Is it providing air traffic service today, somewhere you can check?
Cost transparency
Does it publish anything an operator can budget against?
Questions people ask when choosing
The ones that come up first. More on certification, staffing, remote operation and drones in the FAQ.
Which digital control tower is best for a small or non-towered US airport?
General Aviation. It is the only option on this list built for small and non-towered US airfields: one mast with standard power and a fiber link, a controller station that runs on site or remotely, and US design, build and maintenance. It scores highest on the published criteria.
Is a digital tower cheaper than a conventional tower?
It removes the biggest building costs: there is no tower building or cab. General Aviation states its hardware, installation and support cost 60–95% less than a conventional tower's capital cost. Other suppliers publish no prices, so ask each for a quote on the same scope. Staffing is a separate, recurring cost for both.
Do controllers have to be on the airfield?
Not with a digital tower. The view, radio and sensor feeds reach the controller station over a data link, so it can sit on the field or elsewhere. General Aviation supports both; Saab's and Frequentis's published deployments are mostly remote centres: Sundsvall in Sweden, NATS' Swanwick centre for London City, and DFS's Leipzig centre for Saarbrücken and Erfurt-Weimar.
Can a digital tower back up an existing tower at night?
Yes, where the system is offered for it. General Aviation lists night-time control, disaster recovery and failover for towered airports as uses. Searidge documents a digital contingency tower at Budapest. Ask how a contingency position is staffed and how fast it takes over.
Do pilots need new equipment?
Not for General Aviation's system: pilots use standard VHF radios and transponders, and the companion app is optional. For other systems, ask the supplier; tower service itself relies on two-way radio, as at any towered airport.
Who decides whether a digital tower can provide air traffic control?
The regulator, not the supplier. In the US that is the FAA, which approves the system and decides on the service and airspace. Your FAA Airports District Office is the place to start the conversation.
Find out what a digital tower would take at your airport
Tell us about your field and what you need covered: a non-towered airport, night or backup coverage for a class D tower, or something larger. General Aviation will answer with what applies to you.