Digital Towers

Sweden: a hypothetical future state

88 airports assessed. 13 have no tower and meet a tier 1 to 3 rule (0 / 6 / 7). 20 towered airports fit tiers 1 to 3. A hypothetical set of 3 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.
88airports assessed
13no tower, tier 1 to 3
20towered, tier 1 to 3
1isolated, tier 4
3hypothetical centres
596 thousandpeople 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. 13 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 93 thousand people live within 50 km of one of them and of no towered airport.
  • Fewer, shared positions. 20 towered airports fit tiers 1 to 3. Serving some of them from 3 shared centres could change how towers are staffed, equipped and replaced when they age.
  • Different working pattern. A centre of about 11 airports lets part-time airports share a controller across the day, and lets busy periods at different airports fall on different positions.
  • Awareness for isolated fields. 1 isolated airfields could get surface awareness (cameras and surveillance) without any air traffic service.
  • Already moving. 10 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 service014
Tier 2: Part-time remote tower66
Tier 3: Remote advisory (AFIS-like)70
Tier 4: Surface awareness only1n/a
Large hub, left alonen/a1
Traffic on gap airports
0 passengers (0 airports with a figure)
Population
10.6 million (World Bank 2024)
People in cities of 15,000+
7.1 million
Within 50 km of a gap airport
596 thousand
... and of no towered airport
93 thousand
Near only an isolated airfield
0
Airports with air-ground service already
13 of the gap airports have an AFIS-type frequency listed
Data quality. 0 of the 13 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
Mora Airport
ESKM · Mora
Tier 2No tower, scheduled passenger servicen/an/a
Gällivare Airport
ESNG · Gällivare
Tier 2No tower, scheduled passenger servicen/an/a
Kramfors-Sollefteå Höga Kusten Airport
ESNK · Nyland
Tier 2No tower, scheduled passenger servicen/an/a
Lycksele Airport
ESNL · Lycksele
Tier 2No tower, scheduled passenger servicen/an/a
Vilhelmina South Lapland Airport
ESNV · Vilhelmina
Tier 2No tower, scheduled passenger servicen/an/a
Torsby Airport
ESST · Torsby
Tier 2No tower, scheduled passenger servicen/an/a
Skövde Airport
ESGR · Skövde
Tier 3No tower, infrastructure proxy (no traffic figure)n/an/a
Karlskoga Airport
ESKK · Karlskoga
Tier 3No tower, infrastructure proxy (no traffic figure)n/an/a
Sveg Airport
ESND · Sveg
Tier 3No tower, scheduled passenger servicen/an/a
Hagfors Airport
ESOH · Råda
Tier 3No tower, scheduled passenger servicen/an/a
Eskilstuna Airport
ESSU · Eskilstuna
Tier 3No tower, infrastructure proxy (no traffic figure)n/an/a
Pajala Airport
ESUP · Pajala
Tier 3No tower, scheduled passenger servicen/an/a
Hemavan Airport
ESUT · Hemavan
Tier 3No tower, scheduled passenger servicen/an/a

Hypothetical centres

Centre siteAirportsTier 1 / 2 / 3Farthest
LFV Remote Tower Centre Stockholm
Existing remote tower centre (operational)
2511 / 9 / 5484 km
LFV Remote Tower Centre Sundsvall
Existing remote tower centre (operational)
63 / 2 / 1405 km
Kiruna Airport
Existing staffed tower facility
20 / 1 / 1133 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 Sweden 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