Poland: a hypothetical future state
59 airports assessed. 8 have no tower and meet a tier 1 to 3 rule (0 / 1 / 7). 13 towered airports fit tiers 1 to 3. A hypothetical set of 1 centres covers them. 1 public traffic source loaded.
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. 8 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 966 thousand people live within 50 km of one of them and of no towered airport.
- Fewer, shared positions. 13 towered airports fit tiers 1 to 3. Serving some of them from 1 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
| Tier | No tower today | Towered today |
|---|---|---|
| Tier 1: Full remote tower service | 0 | 8 |
| Tier 2: Part-time remote tower | 1 | 5 |
| Tier 3: Remote advisory (AFIS-like) | 7 | 0 |
| Tier 4: Surface awareness only | 0 | n/a |
| Large hub, left alone | n/a | 4 |
- Traffic on gap airports
- 0 passengers (0 airports with a figure)
- Population
- 36.6 million (World Bank 2024)
- People in cities of 15,000+
- 22.7 million
- Within 50 km of a gap airport
- 7.2 million
- ... and of no towered airport
- 966 thousand
- Near only an isolated airfield
- 0
- Airports with air-ground service already
- 5 of the gap airports have an AFIS-type frequency listed
Candidate airports
| Airport | Tier | Class | Passengers | Movements | Centre |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Warsaw Radom Airport EPRA · Radom | Tier 2 | No tower, scheduled passenger service | n/a | n/a | |
| Warsaw Babice Airport EPBC · Warsaw | Tier 3 | No tower, infrastructure proxy (no traffic figure) | n/a | n/a | |
| Mielec Airfield EPML · Mielec | Tier 3 | No tower, infrastructure proxy (no traffic figure) | n/a | n/a | |
| Piła Airfield EPPI · Piła | Tier 3 | No tower, infrastructure proxy (no traffic figure) | n/a | n/a | |
| Częstochowa-Rudniki Airport EPRU · Rudniki | Tier 3 | No tower, infrastructure proxy (no traffic figure) | n/a | n/a | |
| Suwałki Airfield EPSU · Suwałki | Tier 3 | No tower, infrastructure proxy (no traffic figure) | n/a | n/a | |
| Toruń Airfield EPTO · Toruń | Tier 3 | No tower, infrastructure proxy (no traffic figure) | n/a | n/a | |
| Poznań-Bednary Airfield EPPB · Pobiedziska | Tier 3 | No tower, infrastructure proxy (no traffic figure) | n/a | n/a |
Hypothetical centres
| Centre site | Airports | Tier 1 / 2 / 3 | Farthest |
|---|---|---|---|
| Łódź Władysław Reymont Airport Existing staffed tower facility | 21 | 8 / 6 / 7 | 367 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:
- EASA ED Decision 2023/005/R, guidance material on remote aerodrome air traffic services
- UK CAA: remote aerodrome air traffic services (CAP 670 and approval policy)
- EUROCAE ED-240A, minimum performance standards for remote tower optical systems
- FAA Digital Tower Systems page
- FAA AIP Program Guidance Letter 26-06 (design approval is not operational approval)
- ICAO Doc 4444, PANS-ATM, the procedures that remote services must still meet
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 Poland 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
- OurAirports: airports, runways, frequencies.
- GeoNames cities of 15,000 or more; World Bank population.
- Eurostat table avia_paoa, passengers on board by reporting airport (latest year available per airport, mostly 2025)
Towers already listed for Poland: remote and digital sites in Poland.