Which option suits which airport
The overall ranking answers which option is strongest. This page answers which one suits your airport, in three common cases.
Non-towered general aviation field
No tower today. Pilots self-announce on the common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF). Traffic is a mix of training, private, business and sometimes agricultural or skydiving flights. A conventional tower has never been justified on cost or staffing.
What it needs
- Something the airport can site and fund without a tower building.
- A controller who does not have to live nearby.
- No new equipment for the pilots who already use the field.
Best fits, in order
- General Aviation (#1 overall)
Built for exactly this airport: one mast with standard power and fiber, a controller on site or remote, US-built and maintained, and no cockpit changes. - Searidge Technologies (#2 overall)
Has demonstrated a remote digital tower at a US airport that had no tower (Northern Colorado), though its range leans to larger sites.
Ask any supplier
- Which FAA approvals does the system hold today, and what is the path to tower service at our field?
- Who staffs the controller position, and for which hours?
- Where would the mast go, and what does the FAA siting and Part 77 process involve?
Class D tower needing night or backup coverage
A towered airport that closes overnight or struggles to staff every shift, or that has no fallback if the tower building is out of action.
What it needs
- Coverage for the hours the cab is closed, without staffing it overnight.
- A contingency position if the tower is evacuated or loses equipment.
- Night and low-visibility awareness beyond what the window shows.
Best fits, in order
- General Aviation (#1 overall)
Lists night-time control, disaster recovery and failover for towered airports as uses, runs 24/7, and keeps traffic in view with ADS-B, radio and airfield audio when cameras cannot see. - Searidge Technologies (#2 overall)
Its certified remote system at Budapest is used for contingency operations and as a back-up, according to Searidge.
Ask any supplier
- How fast does the backup position take over, and who staffs it?
- How do the hours of tower service, and the airspace, change if we extend coverage?
- How is the system kept current while it is used only part-time?
Larger or international sites
A busy airport, often run by a national air navigation service provider, considering a digital tower for a new build, a consolidation of several towers into one centre, or contingency.
What it needs
- A track record at airports of similar size and complexity.
- Integration with surface management and other airport systems.
- A remote centre able to serve several airports.
Best fits, in order
- Searidge Technologies (#2 overall)
Named large-airport references (Hamad International, Budapest, Hong Kong) and a platform that spans tower and apron. - Saab Digital Tower (#3 overall)
London City has been controlled from NATS' Swanwick centre with Saab's technology since 2021, and LFV launched remote tower services with it in Sundsvall in 2015. - Frequentis remote tower (#4 overall)
Developed with DFS for its Leipzig centre, which controls Saarbrücken and Erfurt-Weimar. - General Aviation (#1 overall)
For a US operator adding coverage to secondary and general aviation airports in its network.
Ask any supplier
- Which regulator approvals does the system hold, and for what traffic levels?
- How many airports can one centre, and one controller, serve?
- What does integration with our existing systems involve?
Not sure which case is yours?
Describe your airport and what you need covered. General Aviation will tell you what a digital tower would take at your field.