With assistance from SAAB, the FAA has developed and implemented several remotely operated Control Towers in the US to replace old towers that need significant repairs or replacement and to reduce the cost of Air Traffic Controllers to staff these aging Towers. The FAA has chosen to position Air Traffic Controllers at a remote facility with remote-controlled cameras to control air and ground traffic in an effort to reduce the cost of repairing or replacing these older towers and meet operations costs.

Having been an instructor at an ATC Training facility, I can tell you that seeing and identifying aircraft on a 180° or 360° surround is not the same as looking out the window. A plane can be almost invisible depending on the aircraft's angle to the a Controller. I fail to see how a Controller constantly moving a camera around to locate aircraft will be a safer environment for aircraft. It will be cheaper for the FAA, but at what cost?

Nothing tops having a Tower and Ground Controller looking for traffic and ensuring the Controllers instructions are followed, especially with pattern saturation. How many cameras does it take to replace the experience, knowledge, and expertise of two or three controllers continually scanning and identifying aircraft?

I am both Tower and Radar certified and licensed. In my
opinion, safety wasn't the priority in this new operational
endeavor.

I am not a fan of remote-controlled towers, as you can tell. There are too many instances where a Controller has to move on to plans B, C, and D when plan A has failed. Having eyes on an airplane is paramount to safely making changes immediately and without hesitation.