Digital Towers

Italy: a hypothetical future state

105 airports assessed. 18 have no tower and meet a tier 1 to 3 rule (3 / 6 / 9). 24 towered airports fit tiers 1 to 3. A hypothetical set of 2 centres covers them. 1 public traffic source loaded.

Hypothetical. Illustrative. Not a recommendation of any authority. Every number here comes from a stated rule applied to public data. It describes a what-if, not a plan, forecast or advice to any country, airport or authority.
105airports assessed
18no tower, tier 1 to 3
24towered, tier 1 to 3
0isolated, tier 4
2hypothetical centres
9.7 millionpeople near a gap airport

Orange, teal, pink and grey dots are suggested tiers. Hollow rings are towered airports that fit a tier. White-ringed orange dots are hypothetical centres. Green outlined dots are remote or digital towers already listed on this site. Basemap: OpenStreetMap data via Protomaps.

What it could enable

  • Service where there is none. 18 airports have no tower but meet a traffic or infrastructure rule. Remote service could give them separation or advisory service they cannot justify as a conventional tower. About 1.9 million people live within 50 km of one of them and of no towered airport.
  • Fewer, shared positions. 24 towered airports fit tiers 1 to 3. Serving some of them from 2 shared centres could change how towers are staffed, equipped and replaced when they age.
  • Different working pattern. A centre of about 21 airports lets part-time airports share a controller across the day, and lets busy periods at different airports fall on different positions.
  • Already moving. 1 airports here are listed on this site as remote or digital (operational, trial or planned). See them.

The gap in numbers

TierNo tower todayTowered today
Tier 1: Full remote tower service318
Tier 2: Part-time remote tower64
Tier 3: Remote advisory (AFIS-like)92
Tier 4: Surface awareness only0n/a
Large hub, left alonen/a13
Traffic on gap airports
839 thousand passengers (3 airports with a figure)
Population
59.0 million (World Bank 2024)
People in cities of 15,000+
34.0 million
Within 50 km of a gap airport
9.7 million
... and of no towered airport
1.9 million
Near only an isolated airfield
0
Airports with air-ground service already
14 of the gap airports have an AFIS-type frequency listed
Data quality. 3 of the 18 airports without a tower that meet a rule have a traffic figure; the rest are placed by runway, size class and scheduled-service flag only. Covers commercial passenger traffic. Movements and general aviation are not in this table.

Candidate airports

AirportTierClassPassengersMovementsCentre
Lampedusa Airport
LICD · Lampedusa
Tier 1No tower, scheduled passenger service360,046n/a
Crotone Sant'Anna Pythagoras Airport
LIBC · Isola di Capo Rizzuto (KR)
Tier 1No tower, scheduled passenger service343,528n/a
Comiso Airport
LICB · Comiso
Tier 1No tower, scheduled passenger service135,774n/a
Foggia Gino Lisa Airport
LIBF · Foggia (FG)
Tier 2No tower, scheduled passenger servicen/an/a
Trento-Mattarello Airport
LIDT · Trento (TN)
Tier 2No tower, scheduled passenger servicen/an/a
Cuneo International Airport
LIMZ · Levaldigi (CN)
Tier 2No tower, scheduled passenger servicen/an/a
Bolzano Airport
LIPB · Bolzano (BZ)
Tier 2No tower, scheduled passenger servicen/an/a
Salerno Costa d'Amalfi Airport
LIRI · Salerno
Tier 2No tower, scheduled passenger servicen/an/a
Marina di Campo Airport
LIRJ · Campo nell'Elba (LI)
Tier 2No tower, scheduled passenger servicen/an/a
Foligno Airfield
LIAF · Foligno (PG)
Tier 3No tower, infrastructure proxy (no traffic figure)n/an/a
L'Aquila–Preturo Airport
LIAP · L'Aquila
Tier 3No tower, infrastructure proxy (no traffic figure)n/an/a
Palermo-Boccadifalco Airport
LICP · Palermo
Tier 3No tower, infrastructure proxy (no traffic figure)n/an/a
Reggio Emilia Airport
LIDE · Reggio Emilia (RE)
Tier 3No tower, infrastructure proxy (no traffic figure)n/an/a
Biella-Cerrione Airfield
LILE · Cerrione (BI)
Tier 3No tower, infrastructure proxy (no traffic figure)n/an/a
Varese-Venegono Airport
LILN · Venegono Superiore (VA)
Tier 3No tower, infrastructure proxy (no traffic figure)n/an/a

Hypothetical centres

Centre siteAirportsTier 1 / 2 / 3Farthest
Florence Airport, Peretola
Existing staffed tower facility
3114 / 7 / 10442 km
Reggio Calabria Airport
Existing staffed tower facility
117 / 3 / 1393 km

Responsible implementation

A tier on this page is a starting question. These are the topics any real plan would need to answer. Public guidance:

Safety case and regulator approval

Each service needs its own safety case and approval before it carries traffic. A design approval for equipment is a different step from permission to run a service. This site's records name no regulator for Italy yet; the national supervisory authority would decide.

Controller workforce and training

Remote work changes the job: new displays, new failure modes, and new competence checks. A plan would cover who moves, who trains, how existing controllers choose, and what happens to current staff and their conditions.

Communications and surveillance

Radio, video and surveillance links must meet the latency and quality the safety case assumes. Tier 1 and 2 airports need reliable cameras, redundant links and a surveillance picture for traffic that radar or ADS-B cannot see from the ground.

Contingency and redundancy

Every centre needs a fallback: a second path for data, a backup position, and a rule for what the airport does when a link fails (hold, divert, revert to advisory). Centres that serve many airports need a plan for losing all of them at once.

Cybersecurity

A centre is a single high-value target. It needs the same protections as other air traffic systems: segmented networks, supply-chain checks, logging, and tested recovery.

Community and labour engagement

Airports, airlines, pilots, unions, local governments and neighbours should be in the process before decisions, not after. Jobs can move away from small airports, and that is a real cost to a community.

Sources