Landing NORDO at KDCA [Archive]

Shell Management

26th Mar 2011, 17:14

From the NTSB:

NTSB INVESTIGATING AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICE INTERRUPTION AT WASHINGTON'S NATIONAL AIRPORT
The National Transportation Safety Board today opened an investigation into an air traffic control service interruption incident that occurred early Wednesday morning at Washington Ronald Reagan National Airport (DCA) in Arlington, Virginia.

On March 23, 2011, between approximately 12:04 am and 12:28 am EDT, an air traffic control service interruption occurred when two air carrier aircraft and controllers at the Federal Aviation Administration's Potomac Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) were unable to establish contact with the supervisory controller working alone in the DCA control tower.

The last radio transmission made by the tower controller before the service interruption occurred at 11:55 pm EDT on March 22. At 12:04 am EDT on March 23, American Airlines flight 1012, operating as a scheduled 14 Code of Federal Regulations part 121 flight between Dallas-Fort Worth and DCA, was instructed to contact Washington tower by approach controllers at TRACON.

Following numerous attempts to contact the DCA tower, the flight crew executed a missed approach. The crew reported to TRACON their inability to make contact with the DCA tower; TRACON then vectored the aircraft back to the airport for another approach.

The approach controller and the TRACON supervisor on duty made several attempts to contact the tower controller via telephone, but were unable to establish contact. The TRACON approach controller advised the crew of American flight 1012 that the tower was apparently unattended, and that the flight would be handled as an arrival to an uncontrolled airport.
The flight was again cleared for approach, and instructed to switch to the tower frequency. At 12:12 am, the crew returned to the tower frequency, still unable to make contact with the tower, made position reports while inbound, and landed on runway 1.

United Airlines flight 628T (UAL628T), operating as a scheduled 14 CFR 121 passenger flight from Chicago-O'Hare International Airport to DCA, was advised of the service interruption by the TRACON approach controller and subsequently transferred to the tower frequency at 12:22 am.

The United flight, unable to make contact with the tower, made position reports on the tower frequency while inbound, and landed at 12:26 am.
At 12:28 am, American flight 1012, on the ground at DCA, established contact with the tower controller, and normal services were resumed.
The controller in the tower at the time of the incident, along with other FAA officials at DCA, were interviewed by the NTSB today. The controller, who had 20 years' experience, 17 of those at DCA, indicated that he had fallen asleep for a period of time while on duty. He had been working his fourth consecutive overnight shift (10 pm - 6 am). Human fatigue issues are one of the areas being investigated.

The NTSB will be interviewing officials at the TRACON facility tomorrow.
NTSB Air Traffic Control specialist Scott Dunham is the investigator-in-charge. He is being assisted by an NTSB human performance specialist. Parties to the investigation are the FAA and the National Air Traffic Controllers union.

Citing a fatal aircraft accident and two incident s that occurred in a 23-month period between 2007 and 2009, on Monday, March 21, the NTSB issued a safety recommendation letter to the FAA asking the agency to improve the safety of air traffic control operations by prohibiting air traffic controllers from providing supervisory oversight while performing operational air traffic duties.

The FAA Adminstrator, Randy Babbitt said that "as a former airline pilot, I am personally outraged that this controller did not meet his responsibility to help land these two planes."

It seems that FAA have failed to grasp the concept or corporate responsability or a just culture.:sad:

I don't understand how two airline crews thought landing without clearance at night when alternative nearby airports were open was acceptable behaviour.:\

con-pilot

26th Mar 2011, 17:30

I don't understand how two airline crews thought landing without clearance at night when alternative nearby airports were open was acceptable behaviour

I reckon that there is a lot you do not understand about flying then. There was absolutely nothing wrong nor dangerous about the aircraft landing without someone awake in the tower. Besides that, what makes you think they landed without permission?

Study the regs.

:rolleyes:

Shell Management

26th Mar 2011, 17:35

It just shows the poor safety culture in US airlines.

Its not a matter of reading regs old boy but on assessing the risks.

stepwilk

26th Mar 2011, 17:48

Amazing how incredibly difficult nonpilots think that flying is.

Shell Management

26th Mar 2011, 17:52

Its also very easy for vehicles to be driven on to the runway too...

You are falling into the trap of professional arrogance and complacency.

I seem to recall a couple of cases where pilots have struggled to even take off on the correct runway or land at the correct airfield.

con-pilot

26th Mar 2011, 17:59

It just shows the poor safety culture in US airlines.

Its not a matter of reading regs old boy but on assessing the risks.

Are you a professional pilot? If so, what type and how much experience do you have?

Old boy.

BOAC

26th Mar 2011, 18:02

Without wishing to encourage SM, whilst I know that landing at an uncontrolled airport in daytime is ok (yes, and even amazingly finding our way to the apron/gate!!!), do FARs have any restrictions on IFR/night traffic?

Shell Management

26th Mar 2011, 18:06

Ah, I guess you (con-pilot) are one of the group of people who confuse flying hours (getting away with it) and type ratings as a substitute for risk assesment and mindfulness.:mad: So prevalent in the US.:ugh: It like US pilots all wish they were flying air mail in DH4s .:yuk:

BOAC. The night time aspect is particularly concerning.

stepwilk

26th Mar 2011, 18:07

"I seem to recall a couple of cases where pilots have struggled to even take off on the correct runway or land at the correct airfield."

There are incompetents in every endeavour, doesn't mean everybody needs "help taxiing" or controllers to tell them where to go and how to fly. Large airplanes land at uncontrolled airports all over the world, day and night--including the U. S.--every day.

con-pilot

26th Mar 2011, 18:20

Ah, I guess you (con-pilot) are one of the group of people who confuse flying hours (getting away with it) and type ratings as a substitute for risk assesment and mindfulness. So prevalent in the US. It like US pilots all wish they were flying air mail in DH4s .

BOAC. The night time aspect is particularly concerning.

Yeah, I got away with it for over 21,000 hours of flying all over the world. :rolleyes:

It is quit obvious you are not a professional pilot and the only knowledge you have of professional flying is what you see on TV and read in the newspapers.

Now as for this little condescending statement.\

"I seem to recall a couple of cases where pilots have struggled to even take off on the correct runway or land at the correct airfield."

Yes, it happens. However, the vast majority of such incidences occur at controlled airport that are manned, with awake controllers. Which makes your point mute and not relevant.

People like you is the reason myself and many other real pilots do not visit this forum that much.

Too many so called, non aviation experts that don't have a clue what they are talking about and resort to using insulting language and made up crap.

Oh, along with being a retired pilot, I'm also an NTSB Aircraft Accident Investigator.

stepwilk

26th Mar 2011, 18:34

SM, it's really not a matter of hours or ratings, it's simply one of having some concept of how aircraft are operated. Even a moderately experienced private pilot understands the principle of landing at an uncontrolled airport and can do the "risk assessment," as you call it.

What you're doing is a bit like my criticizing a ship's captain for "docking dangerously," or whatever, when I haven't the faintest idea how docking is done.

And to criticize the "poor safety culture" of U. S. airlines beggars belief. (Particularly from somebody from the country whose premier airline captain, at the time, singlehandedly caused the worst airline disaster in history.)

galaxy flyer

26th Mar 2011, 18:45

SM

I recently landed at night at an uncontrolled airport, located in uncontrolled airspace at Palau. With two airliners in the pattern! Was that dangerous?

Everyday, around the world, airliners land without ATC, is that dangerous? Is the oil industry's helicopter ops in the Gulf of Mexico dangerous? Yes, it is about risk management, it is also about running an airline and serving passengers safely. The US system has a demonstrably safe system, as safe as Europe's. Perhaps, safer. No US carrier would have an engine failure on take-off and cross the Atlantic (BA); have been criticized publicly for poor safety culture (AF, with several recent hull losses, including crashing an A320 with passengers on-board flying an airshow); had three pilots fail at understanding aircraft systems (TUI at AMS). Then again, how's the oil industry doing at safety analysis?

You keep posting here with no demonstrated knowledge of aviation. Would you like to inform us of your experience in aviation, particularly in risk analysis in airline operations?

Before the slagging begins, BA was well within their operating certificate and the FARs in operating KLAX to EGLL with three. It was not, perhaps, the most public relations oriented decision.

sevenstrokeroll

26th Mar 2011, 19:18

Dear Shell Management...thanks for the LAUGHS>

But, as a US Pilot, HOW DARE YOU!

Let us review...I personally have been cleared for takeoff, in beautiful weather, while there was a FUEL TRUCK stopped right in the middle of the runway. I asked ATC to verify that we were cleared for takeoff and they got angry with me..things like: clean the wax out of your ears, you are cleared for takeoff.

I then said: DO YOU SEE THE FUEL TRUCK ON THE RUNWAY? Takeoff clearance was then cancelled by tower.

I was better off that day without ATC. Perhaps that night, American and United were better off too.

There is risk in every operation. One of my brother pilots was killed while cleared to land at KLAX because ATC forgot they had cleared another plane into position and hold at an intersection of the runway.

Quite frankly, I would not have diverted to Dulles because of this. I would look at my copilot and say: I'll bet ATC fell asleep...they only have one guy on duty now. You see, I was based at DCA for 10 years plus.

Shell Management, you would have to understand that DCA has a noise curfew and there aer only a few exceptions and at that time at night...NOTHING IS HAPPENING. AND IF there was a vehicle on the runway, they should be monitoring ATC and have a clearance to operate on the runway.

Granted, I might do some extra clever things like switch to ground freq and give a shout out there too. I might even flash my landing lights. I would be extra watchful, but having been cleared for takeoff right into a fuel truck, I've learned that lesson years ago (by the way, the airport in question was usually a poster child for FOG)

By the way, wasn't it a euorpean pilot who tookoff at tenerife and hit a pan am????

I'm with you con-pilot.

Shell Management...the truth about flying is this...the captain, PIC whatever you like to call it is the final authority as to flying the aircraft. If he wanted to be totally fancy he could have declared an emergency and proceeded under the emergency authority of the pilot in command.

but they didn't need to.

AS to randy babbit (famous for being half of babbit and costello), for him not having heard of things like this happening, he is lying. I've heard about things like this since I started flying 35 years ago. He is trying to save his ASS because he could have ordered two guys on duty at all towers at all times along time ago.

sevenstrokeroll

26th Mar 2011, 19:30

there has been a complaint about the title of this thread. when I first started it, the information was not clear. NORDO was as good a term as any, THEN.

So, if you would like to change the thread to SLEEPY TIME CONTROLLER @ DCA...FINE..

otherwise, you guys knew what it was all about and that's the name of that tune.

69rooster

26th Mar 2011, 20:26

Believe it or not, We pilots do not need ATC to safely land airplanes.

Lord Spandex Masher

26th Mar 2011, 22:51

con-pilot

26th Mar 2011, 23:02

But there is a difference between landing at a controlled airport without any 'control' and landing at an uncontrolled airport.

For a start there are procedures that are followed at an uncontrolled airport to ensure people know what other people are doing.

What procedures were in use at the controlled - but temporarily uncontrolled - airport to ensure the same?

To blithely say that we do not need ATC to land somewhere shows a distinct lack of lateral thought and vision about this particular situation. Even for a 21,000 hour wonder.

Getting personal now are we. That's okay with me, I'll not make a fuss.

No, we do not need ATC pemission to land everywhere. Surprised you don't know that or that you are unaware of that. Of course if you are not an experienced pilot, you wouldn't would you.

At least being a 21,000 hour pilot, I do know what I am talking about, you obviously do not.

Getting personal now are we. That's okay with me, I'll not make a fuss.

No, we do not need ATC permission to land everywhere. Surprised you don't know that or that you are unaware of that. Of course if you are not an experienced pilot, you wouldn't would you.

At least being a 21,000 hour pilot, I do know what I am talking about, you obviously do not.

For someone who just joined last year and only have 290 posts, you're quite the expert. So I've given my background to lend credit to my views on this subject, why don't you share yours?

I'll not hold my breath.

galaxy flyer

26th Mar 2011, 23:17

LSM

Not to doubt your background, but there is no difference in how one would operate at an uncontrolled airport versus a "temporarily" uncontrolled airport. Tower freq becomes a CTAF freq. During the PATCO strike, LaGuardia was uncontrolled at night and that is exactly how we operated. It was still in a TCA, so ATC had to clear us for a visual approach or an IAP, then it wax up to us to go over to tower and make announcements per AIM. We even managed to find the MAT on our very own! Amazing, but then I learned at an uncontrolled airport. I have flown in IMC without a controller and lived to tell the tale, as do many other pilots and passengers.

In the final analysis, controllers coordinate the routing and flight levels of all known traffic, so as we dont hit each other. They no more control planes than they controlled the terrorists on 9/11.

BOAC. No FAR restrictions on night or VFR.

GF

Lord Spandex Masher

26th Mar 2011, 23:25

Con,

Are you too swept up in your own self importance to realise that there is a difference between landing at an uncontrolled airport and landing at a controlled airport that has, for whatever reason, become uncontrolled?!

What relevance has my post count got to this subject? What difference does my join date make? It's not the same as the date I started flying so utterly irrelevant again.

I could, if I chose, proudly display my flying experience, both military and civil, for you all to see but again it's irrelevant and you wouldn't know if it's accurate or a blatant lie. Besides, I don't feel the need to do so anyway. So what's your point?

No, we do not need ATC permission to land everywhere. Surprised you don't know that or that you are unaware of that. Of course if you are not an experienced pilot, you wouldn't would you.

Did my reference to controlled and UNcontrolled airports not make that clear to you? Is it only experienced pilots that fly into uncontrolled airports? No, my very first hour was flown at an uncontrolled airport. So shock horror a sub 21,000 hour pilot understands how uncontrolled airports operate. Golly!

Enjoy your scotch.

Lord Spandex Masher

26th Mar 2011, 23:30

GF, my point, which I failed to deliver, is that not everybody may be aware of that if they don't regularly operate to uncontrolled fields. The turds could have hit the turbines spectacularly in this situation.

Edit, many uncontrolled airports have specific procedures and routes that must be complied with. What are the published procedures at KDCA for uncontrolled operations?!

sevenstrokeroll

26th Mar 2011, 23:33

OK boys and girls...DCA is a controlled airport as long as it is a controlled airport...and when does it become uncontrolled? The moment ATC fails to operate. ATC failed to operate at the TOWER level, wise heads took over and landed using uncontrolled airport operations.

When aTC started to operate again, it again was controlled.

Sadly, ATC in the public eyes means one thing, but in reality we all know that the only priority ATC has is to seperate instrument traffic. Everything else is a lower level of priority.

no one would be taking off from DCA with the tower closed unless they received a Radar Release...indeed no one would be taking off because of the noise curfew.

Approach control properly seperated IFR traffic inbound to the airport. It was quite reasonable to land using uncontrolled airport ops. No one else was flying into the airport without IFR seperation.

sheesh.

con-pilot

26th Mar 2011, 23:53

Are you too swept up in your own self importance to realise that there is a difference between landing at an uncontrolled airport and landing at a controlled airport that has, for whatever reason, become uncontrolled?!

First off, read the post just above yours for the answer of how to operate at a controlled airport that has become uncontrolled. All it takes is common sense, experience and judgment. If you lack such attributes, so be it and land somewhere else, where the tower can 'talk you down'. I certainly would not like to push a pilot into a situation you/they cannot handle.

As for the self importance bit, you started off with insults, not me. I don't consider myself important enough to insult people I have no knowledge of and do not know.

I could, if I chose, proudly display my flying experience, both military and civil, for you all to see but again it's irrelevant and you wouldn't know if it's accurate or a blatant lie. Besides, I don't feel the need to do so anyway. So what's your point?

When you are challenging experience pilots on subjects such as we are discussing, one believes that all should give some idea of one's background and experience to lend credence to their views. Especially when that person uses insults in an attempt to make points, such as you did.

Call it common courtesy.

Did my reference to controlled and UNcontrolled airports not make that clear to you? Is it only experienced pilots that fly into uncontrolled airports? No, my very first hour was flown at an uncontrolled airport. So shock horror a sub 21,000 hour pilot understands how uncontrolled airports operate. Golly!

Sad to say my very first hour was flown at a controlled RAF Station, so I guess I was not as fortunate as yourself. However, in sequential 40 plus years I operated off of many, many uncontrolled airports, in fact some airports that in fact were not actual proper airports.

Again, I, as many other experienced pilots here have stated that there was no danger involved landing at DCA as is under discussion. If you have a problem with that, so be it.

But believe it or not, you are not the know all, end all of aviation safety.

Course neither am I, but I know that.

Enjoy your scotch

Thank you, I shall. :ok:

stepwilk

26th Mar 2011, 23:59

This thread has deteriorated into uselessness, between the FlightSim players, SLFs and once-upon-a-pilots who resort to rhetoric to distort points.

I don't trust anybody who doesn't post their certificates and experience, particularly those who condescend to say, "I -could- tell you all about my time as the ace of the base, but I'm too busy to bother."

What this site really could use is a filter to separate the wheat from the goats, if you know what I mean. Like a database of all license numbers and holders, including all the phony Indian ones. But it's too late for that.

con-pilot

27th Mar 2011, 00:05

1599163, there you go.

galaxy flyer

27th Mar 2011, 00:14

One salient fact in this operation--KDCA is located in Class B airspace and not just any Class B airspace, the DCA Flight Restricted Zone. No traffic except specially cleared airliners and few GA that require very specific controls, including armed guards (all this is public info), so the chances of any "pop-up" traffic or uncontrolled traffic are nearly ZERO! Any planes approaching the FRZ will be intercepted and followed 24/7. There would have been far greater mid-air or ground threat to the airliners had this event occurred at, say, Memphis or Minneapolis at night. So, the only conceivable threat to these airliners might be ground traffic, which is pretty unlikely as these two flights were the only operating. So, the safety implications are pretty small. Legally, the FAA might have a case about the pilots landing w/o a clearance, but considering the circumstances, that ain't happenin'

GF

Lord Spandex Masher

27th Mar 2011, 00:22

Sorry Con, but I'm only regurgitating part of your post at the top of the page. How's that insulting?

I'll reiterate about showing off ones experience. This is the internet. I could say anything and you wouldn't be able to prove it either way. Much the same as me not being able to prove you have zero hours? So what is the point?

First off, read the post just above yours for the answer of how to operate at a controlled airport that has become uncontrolled. All it takes is common sense, experience and judgment.

I already know. But what I don't know is if anybody else does and if they did what their reaction would be in the same situation. Neither do you.

If you lack such attributes, so be it and land somewhere else, where the tower can 'talk you down'. I certainly would not like to push a pilot into a situation you/they cannot handle.

No tower has ever "talked me down". That isn't their job.

Again, I, as many other experienced pilots here have stated that there was no danger involved landing at DCA as is under discussion. If you have a problem with that, so be it.

How do you know there was no danger involved? Could you see the unseen danger?

As for the self importance bit, you started off with insults, not me.

Again, what's insulting about using the information about yourself that you so readily proffer. However, you just immediately decided that I did not know what I was talking about.

But believe it or not, you are not the know all, end all of aviation safety.

I have never claimed to be.

stepwilk,

particularly those who condescend to say, "I -could- tell you all about my time as the ace of the base, but I'm too busy to bother."

I take it that's aimed at me. I'm not, never have been and never will be ace of the base. Much to my chagrin. I'm not too busy to bother. As I said to Con, I could tell you anything and you couldn't prove it either way.

Ok. 21,100 hours. All heavy jet time.

Feel better?!

aterpster

27th Mar 2011, 00:27

My 25 cents worth: DCA is a primary airport in a full time Class B Surface Area. Thus, the airport is not a full or part-time uncontrolled airport. If it were me I would feel uncomfortable that I was unable to contact the tower. And, I have no doubt approach control would have been unable to shed any light on the matter.

So, and this is strictly the way I operated, I would invoke the principle of "the least cost of being wrong." I wouldn't be able to process what may or may not be wrong at this highly sensitive airport. Also, what assurance do I have that the runway is clear? If this were an authorized uncontrolled airport in my ops specs the company may very well have a responsibility for checking the runway for night operations. Not so at DCA.

That's enough of a confusion factor for me; I would have diverted to IAD.

I am not arguing the legalities because sitting here at the comfort of my desk I don't know what violations, if any, I would cause by landing at DCA under the circumstances. I do know that diverting to IAD would not create either a legal or possible safety issue.

sevenstrokeroll

27th Mar 2011, 01:06

aterpster

what would you have done if IAD had a TRW in progress? what would you have done if you couldn't get approach/departure control if you went around?

There are so many what ifs...as I've said before, a maintenance vehicle on the runway would have required a clearance from ATC.

IF ATC wasn't answering the radio, the maintenance vehicle wouldn't go on the runway. They would probably drive to a telephone and call someone in the tower. Or the police. Or use their cellphone.

Other planes wouldn't be on the runway without a clearance awaiting takeoff,as I've mentioned there is a noise curfew and you can't takeoff at this time frame.

and, if someone had just landed without ATC clearance, they would have the CTAF on their radio and the inbound plane could speak and coordinate with them.

Lord Spandex Masher

27th Mar 2011, 01:11

IF ATC wasn't answering the radio, the maintenance vehicle wouldn't go on the runway.

Or maybe they would. THey could just assume because ATC weren't answering that nobody would land!

aterpster

27th Mar 2011, 01:15

sevenstrokeroll:

aterpster

what would you have done if IAD had a TRW in progress? what would you have done if you couldn't get approach/departure control if you went around?

But, that is "what ifing" circumstances that did not exist that night.

If IAD had a TRW I would know a lot about it from having scoped it inbound to DCA. I would then consider BWI as well as IAD.

sevenstrokeroll

27th Mar 2011, 01:22

dear lord spandex masher

if I couldn't raise someone on the radio like the tower at DCA, the first thing that would come into my mind is that MY freaking radio had quit, or that someone had turned off the speaker/headphone switch.

I don't think you have a clue...

a mx vehicle driver wouldn't make that assumption...he would investigate...after all he has the luxury of being on the ground.

Lord Spandex Masher

27th Mar 2011, 01:34

SSR,

a mx vehicle driver wouldn't make that assumption...he would investigate

How do you know? There appears to be a lot of assuming going on. You assume they'd check, you assume they wouldn't be on the runway. But, you don't know!

I've witnessed a bird scaring vehicle enter a runway without permission before. In LVP's. He got lucky. But let's stop assuming things shall we.

Pugilistic Animus

27th Mar 2011, 01:35

you mess up there in that ADIZ they put a nice light on for you to see better...:\

bubbers44

27th Mar 2011, 01:35

We landed our airliners at night at the old B52 base at the west end of Puerto Rico every night with no controller. We usually cancelled our IFR clearance before switching to advisory frequency to simplify things and not have to cancel after landing. Pretty simple procedure but uncommon for our airline. DCA would make it more difficult because it should be controlled but isn't. I think I would go around and sort it out with approach control like the first arrival did. If approach says treat it like an uncontrolled airport then it is easy. ATC is for traffic separation, they have little control of how you conduct your approach or taxi as long as you are not going to hit another moving vehicle. They should have just closed the tower at 11:00 and made it uncontrolled to make things simple and he could sleep in his own bed. Sleeping sitting up sux.

MarcK

27th Mar 2011, 01:57

sludge

27th Mar 2011, 13:12

Question: Are we "up here" because ATC is "down there", or is ATC "down there" because WE are "up here"? Methinks the ATC boys need a real attitude check. :)

bigjames

27th Mar 2011, 14:02

quick question here. apologies if it has already been addressed (i have read all posts and seems not). did either pilot switch back to approach frequency and ask to confirm tower freq or question the lack of response?

BOAC

27th Mar 2011, 14:11

Try NTSB initial report post #38?

EDIT: BJ - your'e absolutely right!! Should have gone to Specsavers..................

bigjames

27th Mar 2011, 14:20

thank you sir.

actually it is # 36 on my page now, but nonetheless i appreciate the pointer.

having re read that post, i really fail to see what the issue is here. the captains of the respective aircraft followed TRACON inx, they did not just willy nilly land on their own. i am sure if approach had told them to go to IAD they would have. in my view they followed proper procedure and in consultation with approach landed visual. what am i missing here?

clivewatson

27th Mar 2011, 14:33

I get the impression that Spandex and Shell are trying to say that they might have been more "wary" about landing in such a situation, and I tend to agree.

Of course landing at an un-controlled airport is no big deal - it's just a case of following the relevant procedures. However, what happened here is that a controlled airport suddenly became degraded to un-controlled.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that someone (or something) could have been legitimately cleared onto the active runway by the controller before he fell asleep. With a tube load of passengers sitting behind me on a dark night, I would want to be SURE that the runway was clear. Better that than just steaming in because one knows "that they don't need to be talked down." Better to be "really" careful, even if you are a "really" experienced pilot.

Whatever one's view, the debate isn't helped by a pi$$ing contest.

sevenstrokeroll

27th Mar 2011, 14:43

clivewatson.

I gave an example or two when a CONTROLLED AIPORT TOWER OPERATOR/Controller cleared an airplane to takeoff or land with a vehicle or other airplane on the runway. One ended in death. And the other, when confronted by the pilot (me) was told that I was still cleared for takeoff.

How can you know if there is something on the runway or not when a CONTROLLER can make a mistake like I have outlined?

For starters, you look out the window of your plane.

I would like to think that a vehicle on the runway at night would have its lights on.

Planes have hit dear, trucks, birds, other planes all with an operating tower.

IF a pilot determines that an airport is reasonably safe to land on and reasonably has determined that Tower is not operating properly, landing using uncontrolled airport ops is reasonable.

BOAC

27th Mar 2011, 15:03

Whatever one's view, the debate isn't helped by a pi$$ing contest. - wise words.

clivewatson

27th Mar 2011, 15:28

Sevenstrokers

I don't disagree with you - making a "reasoned" judgment is a personal thing, and you are entitled to express your opinion, just as Spandex and Shell are.

I am in complete agreement with you.....mistakes do happen at controlled airports, but I'll bet my shirt that FAR MORE mistakes happen at un-controlled ones....and for sure even more runway incursions happen at night.

If some readers prefer to exercise more caution than you when faced with the same set of circumstances, that is their prerogative. Is it really necessary to insult them by suggesting that "they haven't got a clue," simply because their measure of caution differs from yours?

Finally, just as an aside, and despite your tally of years and hours, the following statement of yours demonstrates that you hadn't fully thought through a point that YOU thought worthy of mention...

There are so many what ifs...as I've said before, a maintenance vehicle on the runway would have required a clearance from ATC. IF ATC wasn't answering the radio, the maintenance vehicle wouldn't go on the runway.....perhaps Spandex and Shell figured that someone/something may have been cleared onto the runway, but never told to get off!

clivewatson (clueless, and not a real pilot)

con-pilot

27th Mar 2011, 17:31

....perhaps Spandex and Shell figured that someone/something may have been cleared onto the runway, but never told to get off!

I was not going to post here again, but I just cannot let anything that silly go unanswered.

Sigh.

Right then, the sleeping controller clears an airport vehicle (and it would have to be an airport vehicle to be cleared on an active runway) onto the runway. So this airport vehicle, with its normal lights on, plus its hazard/caution lights, plus the flashing bright yellow light on the top of its cab, goes out on the runway and then turns all of its lights off. I mean the lights would have to be turned off, otherwise the pilots would see the airport vehicle on the runway.

Okay, let's get even sillier. Say it was an unauthorized, non-airport vehicle. It goes out on the runway, bypassing a myriad of security checkpoints and systems that exists at DCA. Then it stops in the middle of the runway. You really think that the tower controller, even a wide awake one, would see it, at night? Not that they look out the windows that much anyway. No, there would a 99% chance they would not see the unauthorized, non-airport vehicle either.

You might as well worry about someone going out on the runway and digging a 50 foot by 50 foot hole in the middle of it.

Oh, was incorrect about my flying time, I have 21,101 hours, all in the Space Shuttle. :p

stuckgear

27th Mar 2011, 18:29

You might as well worry about someone going out on the runway and digging a 50 foot by 50 foot hole in the middle of it

snort!

con, i think you may be beating your head against a wall on this one. Despite SM's own post, which included this:

The approach controller and the TRACON supervisor on duty made several attempts to contact the tower controller via telephone, but were unable to establish contact. The TRACON approach controller advised the crew of American flight 1012 that the tower was apparently unattended, and that the flight would be handled as an arrival to an uncontrolled airport.

Controlled/uncontrolled looks like an alien concept to some, or that some controlled airports go uncontrolled at certain times, and dont even start on pilot controlled lighting ! :E

Helen49

27th Mar 2011, 18:54

A lot of interesting, amusing and at times frightening comments in this thread. However most of the comment is from the flying fraternity as opposed to the ground staff.

Most people with 'airport operations' experience know only too well the kind of swiss cheeses which can and do find their way on to runways and other parts of the manoeuvring area at even the best 'controlled airports'! Lots of incident reports over many years to prove it.

Before landing on any runway without clearance, particularly at night or in low visibility, ask yourself 'what if'? You will be surprised at the unexpected answers which will become evident!!

sevenstrokeroll

27th Mar 2011, 19:19

IF ATC cleared a vehicle on to the runway, wouldn't they have done it via radio? And the vehicle would be obligated to keep the radio on. And a smart controller would have combined frequencies (ground and tower) at this time of night, so the vehicle would have heard the position reports of the inbound airliner.

NOPE, boys and girls, it is another battle of wills. Come in low visibility and wonder if something is on the runway...I am concerned about this at all times, controlled or uncontrolled.

Some of the reasoning seems to overlook the lack of traffic at this noise curfew impacted airport.

I dare say it is safer to land at DCA, at the time this incident happened, without controllers, then during the normal hectic daylight operations.

And I was based AT DCA. I flew there all the time. Some really crazy stuff, add in helicopters from the pentagon crossing the potomac.

Its so darn funny...this situation , handled by professional pilots, is such a topic of discussion.

yet flying a 747 on 3 engines from LAX and coming up short of destination of London is just dandy.

I think its an American thing vs a European thing.

misd-agin

27th Mar 2011, 19:19

There are numerous flights, every night, that land at uncontrolled airports, fully approved by the regulating authorities.

IMO the first crew did it text book. G/A, advised that airport was now considered 'uncontrolled', and landed.

And the lawyers, and snipers, have had 4 days to consult their books to decide, with dozens, or hundreds, of manhours, exactly why they believe it was wrong. :yuk:

ehwatezedoing

27th Mar 2011, 19:21

Helen49, it is not landing without a clearance it is landing in what became de facto an uncontrolled airport.
The initial confusion was sorted out with an overshoot followed by what they had to do in uncontrolled airport. And as said sevenstrokeroll it was at night low traffic, noise curfew.

there is no difference in how one would operate at an uncontrolled airport versus a "temporarily" uncontrolled airport. Tower freq becomes a CTAF freq.

End of the story.

Actually, there is also something we have up north which is called DRCO.
RCO and DRCO (TP 2228E-19) - Transport Canada (http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/publications/tp2228-rco-drco-3554.htm)
Might be the next security step Shell will have in sight to keep things under "control" :suspect:
I'm kidding.

Now, about the ARCAL... :p

stuckgear

27th Mar 2011, 19:26

sevenstroke, i may be incorrect but isn't it a requirement for ground vehicles to monitor the tower freq when at uncontrolled status ? From my experience it's been SOP for ground vehicles to report on freq. when in the manouvering area (to prevent possible conflict with an aircraft that may be attempting to use the facilities with inop radio) during uncontrolled status.

This thread is starting to look like a 'US bad, EU good' ideology.

TacomaSailor

27th Mar 2011, 19:34

I (SLF) am confused about the commotion caused by the NORDO approach and landing at DCA the other night. The press is acting as if this is an unusual and dangerous situation. Professional pilots are going back and forth about the safety of landing at DCA when the tower did not respond.

What is confusing me is that in late January I was on a scheduled flight from Charlotte to SW Florida International (RSW). We were a little late on departure and arrived at RSW at about 23:55 local. Our captain announced that the RSW tower was closed for the night and that “Miami control” (I am not sure who he meant) would have to manage our approach and landing. He explained they were busy and we might have to circle for a while. In no way did he make the situation sound unusual or problematic.

We did hold for 45 minutes and watched two other flights land at RSW ahead of us. Eventually we made an uneventful landing at RSW – 75 minutes late.

The announcements by the captain and discussion with the cabin crew made it seem like landing in the early AM at a large airport with no tower control was a normal and expected event. Is that not the case?

If our RSW approach and landing was normal and expected – why the commotion about DCA?

Lord Spandex Masher

27th Mar 2011, 20:06

There is nothing inherently dangerous about flying to and landing at an uncontrolled airport. Or an airport that becomes uncontrolled at a promulgated time.

The difference is KDCA is a controlled airport, it became uncontrolled because the controller fell asleep. Nobody expected it and nobody really knows exactly when it happened. So if I had checked in on the tower frequency and got no response how the hell would I know what had been going on prior to that.

Let's take Con's idea of a big hole in the runway. That actually happened to me once at a major international airport in the UK. It required the Ops vehicle to go and inspect it then to leave the runway to escort the repair team back. We had just checked in with the tower who informed us of the situation. So, big hole, no vehicles with nice flashy lights and a controller who was awake. Remove the controller, I land without clearance and end up in a big hole.

There is a lot of assumption from, apparently, experienced pilots. Assumption is the mother of all f*** ups and discretion is the better part of valour.

misd-agin

27th Mar 2011, 20:06

Tacoma - bingo!

The probably reason that you had delays into RSW that night was because MIA center radar coverage doesn't go as low as the approach control radar, which was unmanned at that time of night.

So MIA center had to verify the preceeding flight had landed before it could allow the next aircraft to start the approach. That would make the spacing perhaps 8-10 minutes, vs. 2-3 minutes in a typical radar environment.

So what procedures do your flight use that night/early AM to land at RSW? The same procedures the flights used in DCA. The difference was RSW was shutdown while DCA had a controller that had fallen asleep, and then had the airport declared uncontrolled.

Danger difference between the two? Zip. But your flight, and the several other flights that night, didn't make the news. Which is the point the many professional pilots have been trying to make on pprune, it was a non-event from an operational perspective. Nuisance? Yes.

Manning issue? IMO no(single controller during quiet periods has been going on for DECADES).

Fatigue or health issue? Maybe.

Post 9/11 security concerns? Perhaps.

clivewatson

27th Mar 2011, 20:10

I dare say it is safer to land at DCA, at the time this incident happened, without controllers, then during the normal hectic daylight operations.

Sevenstrokes, you obviously hold your ATC colleagues in high esteem. Many a true word is spoken in jest.

pattern_is_full

27th Mar 2011, 20:16

"If our RSW approach and landing was normal and expected – why the commotion about DCA?"

Well, because at this particular airport it was neither normal nor expected. As I said earlier, I expect there was a brief "What the hell...?" moment in the cockpit when the first aircraft tuned to tower frequency and got no response.

However - as handled - it was a perfectly legal and safe response to the situation - even if not normal and expected.

I'm a little worried by the folks here who think it would have been that much safer with the tower operating normally. Not to imply that ATC is not important - but anyone who assumes that because the person in the tower is awake, that:

> (s)he won't screw up and let someone else onto the runway, or

> (s)he will do that job fine, but someone else won't screw up and wander onto the runway anyway...

- is making a very scary assumption, IMHO. And one given the lie by countless previous accidents and incidents.

With tower ATC operational, I'd have been paying a lot of attention to the runway and surroundings on final.

With the tower not operational, I'd have been paying a lot +1 of attention to the runway and surroundings on final.

@ Lord Spandex - I'd just add that here in the States, you can't get anywhere near even the right seat of a transport-class aircraft without being tested multiple times on uncontrolled airport operations and procedures on the way up. And while I can't speak to the military-trained side - those climbing the ladder through the commercial side would have put in their time (lots) on commuter flights to uncontrolled airports. We have a lot of 'em. Even more so at oh-ack-emma. ;)

sevenstrokeroll

27th Mar 2011, 20:28

stuckgear...great point!

my comment about safety at night, uncontrolled, vs the amazingly hectic operation in daylight, controlled at DCA is simply this...Crossing runway traffic, multiple runway operations, helicopters at low altitude crossing the approach corridor...simply put, less planes, less problems.

tacoma sailor

believe it or not, if you make an instrument approach to an airport without an operating controll tower, you may have to park the plane, find a telephone and CALL via telephone the ATC center which cleared you for the approach to let them know you landed safely.

that might take 10 or 15 minutes

and THEN and only then could ATC clear the next plane for an instrument approach.

when the tower is open, as soon as you land, they let ATC center or tracon know you have landed safely and the next plane is on its way inbound.

visibility3miles

27th Mar 2011, 21:27

The controller was suspended. I've read no indication that the runway lights or navigation aids were shut off. It helps that pilots fly over the Potomac River which does not have lights. The airport is bracketed by bridges bearing car traffic over the river, and lights on either shore.
at night.

Diverting to IAD or Andrews without clearance could get you shot down. BWI might be the best place to divert to if you are talking to approach control. Uncontrolled airport, uncontrolled landing. They don't have a lot of late night flights.
When pilots were unable to contact the National tower just after midnight Wednesday, they conferred with a controller at the Potomac Terminal Radar (TRACON) facility, who advised them that the tower appeared to be unmanned. He informed them that if they opted to land there, they should use procedures appropriate for an “uncontrolled” airport.
I thought that noise abatement procedures came into effect before then (as in, minimize landings.)

Union says towers with one air traffic controller on duty are unsafe - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/union-says-towers-with-one-air-traffic-controller-on-duty-are-unsafe/2011/03/25/AFcGcUXB_story.html)

sevenstrokeroll

28th Mar 2011, 02:59

if your flight is delayed, there is an exemption allowing you to land late.

I think DCA is one of my favorite airports...and I am being serious.

for some reason Atlanta is my least favorite airport.

aterpster

28th Mar 2011, 13:57

Wall Street Journal, Sunday, 3/27

The air-traffic control supervisor who created a furor last week by nodding off at Washington's Reagan National Airport also has sparked an industry debate over how pilots should respond to such situations.

When the lone controller on duty in the tower around midnight failed to reply to repeated radio transmissions from a pair of jetliners, both pilots quickly decided to land anyway. There wasn't discussion with approach controllers at a separate facility about diverting to one of the region's other fields. Audio tapes indicate the first jet was on the ground only a few minutes after the initial sign of a communication problem. Both planes, carrying a total of more than 160 people, landed safely.

Now, a number of safety experts inside and outside government contend the pilots also shoulder blame in the incident. These experts fault the cockpit crews for forgoing what they contend would have been a safer option to land elsewhere, or at least stay in a holding pattern to determine why the Reagan National tower went silent for more than half an hour.

The first jet was a Boeing 737 operated by AMR Corp.'s American Airlines unit, followed by an Airbus A320 flown by the United Airlines unit of United Continental Holdings Inc. The pilots of another American Airlines jet descended below 2,000 feet and also were preparing to touch down without receiving landing clearance from the tower, when the dozing controller came back on the frequency.

"It was clearly inappropriate to land without a clearance" from the tower and "it is preposterous to say there was no violation and it was a perfectly safe procedure," said Loretta Alkalay, the former top lawyer for the Federal Aviation Administration's Eastern region.

If a tower controller can't be reached for any reason, she said, "it is absolutely not up to the pilots to decide to land as though it was an uncontrolled airport."

Pilots have procedures for landing at fields that aren't manned by controllers, including checking weather conditions, broadcasting positions frequently on a common frequency and listening to what activity there may be on runways or taxiways. But when an airport tower is scheduled to be manned round the clock—as is Reagan National—Ms. Alkalay said she "never heard of a situation where the FAA says it's okay for pilots to decide, on their own, it's safe to land."

Richard Healing, a former member of the National Transportation Safety Board, said Sunday that he was "more than a little surprised" the jets landed instead of flying on to nearby Baltimore-Washington International Airport or Dulles International Airport in the Virginia suburbs.

The biggest potential hazards stemmed from planes or vehicles crossing runways in the darkness, without anyone alerting the pilots of the landing jets. "The safest approach would have been to divert," according to Mr. Healing. "It might have inconvenienced some passengers, but it wouldn't have compromised safety."

On Sunday, a spokesman for the NTSB said "the actions of the flight crews are one of the things" under investigation.

A United Airlines spokeswoman declined to comment.

An American Airlines spokeswoman said its pilots complied with procedures "clearly spelled out by the FAA," and didn't require tower clearance once Reagan National was deemed to be an uncontrolled airport. She said the weather was good, crews were aware of other airborne traffic and also followed appropriate procedures to taxi to the gate.
So far, the FAA's focus has been almost entirely on what controllers did wrong. The head of the agency last week said he was "personally outraged" by the tower controller's behavior, while other FAA officials began looking at the budget implications of eliminating single-person staffing at towers. On Friday, the agency reminded approach controllers—often located dozens of miles from airports and who have authority over a much larger swath of air space—that "proper procedures dictate that they must offer pilots the chance to divert" if a control tower remains silent.

But as new details about the Reagan National incident emerged over the weekend, they prompted stepped-up criticism faulting the pilots for poor decision-making. Even some commercial pilots, who described infrequently landing at airports without local-controller assistance when it was past the scheduled closing time of those towers, said the United and American crews should have sought more information and probably taken more time to assess the situation.

An FAA spokeswoman said pilots have wide latitude in deciding where to land, as long as an airport isn't officially closed. According to tradition and practice, pilots also have the right to disregard controller commands if they believe there is an emergency situation or safety threat. But in this case, according to safety experts critical of actions by the pilots, the crews apparently failed to adequately exercise their independent judgment once the approach controller indicated it would be appropriate for the planes to land on their own.
Since the jets didn't report any fuel emergencies or other onboard difficulties, these experts said, there was no compelling safety reason to get on the ground as fast as possible. "I think they should have diverted ...and for the FAA to condone what happened is a big mistake," according to Greg Feith, a former safety board investigator who now runs his own aviation consulting firm. Neither the pilots nor the approach controllers "would have known if there happened to be a truck or a disabled aircraft stuck on the runway," according to Mr. Feith. And since there were fully-staffed airports open, less than 20 miles away, landing there would have been "in the interest of aviation safety."

According to the FAA, about 100 small, uncontrolled airports around the U.S. serve commercial traffic but don't have controllers at any time. Mr. Feith and other safety experts said that for airline pilots who land at those locations, the approaches and touchdowns are planned in advance with specific conditions and restrictions in mind. Unexpectedly going in without tower clearance, they said, reduces safety margins and can be especially hazardous if there is some sort of emergency. Certain U.S. airlines expect pilots to divert whenever there is a problem establishing communication with an airfield's tower.

Calling for a nationwide review of the air-traffic control systems backup procedures, FAA chief Randy Babbitt on Friday said: "I am determined to make sure we do not repeat Wednesday's unacceptable event."

BOAC

28th Mar 2011, 14:39

Oh boy! That will liven the thread up!

stuckgear

28th Mar 2011, 14:44

sounds like there are some looking to make a career advancement out of a non event situation.

As per Shell Management's post here (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/446668-landing-nordo-kdca-2.html#post6332230) the following is extracted:

The approach controller and the TRACON supervisor on duty made several attempts to contact the tower controller via telephone, but were unable to establish contact. The TRACON approach controller advised the crew of American flight 1012 that the tower was apparently unattended, and that the flight would be handled as an arrival to an uncontrolled airport.
The flight was again cleared for approach, and instructed to switch to the tower frequency. At 12:12 am, the crew returned to the tower frequency, still unable to make contact with the tower, made position reports while inbound, and landed on runway 1.

So, by following FAA advice, and instruction, the crew are being subject to investigation for compliance with SOP's, advice and instruction, in a non event and a procedure which is routinely conducted and no incident occurred, which could potentially be a career ender for the crews involved.

FAA chief Randy Babbitt on Friday said: "I am determined to make sure we do not repeat Wednesday's unacceptable event."

How's that Randy ? you going to put more controllers into the system ? No ? so, your just going to hang crews out to further your PR and career potential?

or is it just buck passing to divert away from failures in the FAA, under your watch to lay the a trumped up charge of charge blame elsewhere?

"It was clearly inappropriate to land without a clearance" from the tower and "it is preposterous to say there was no violation and it was a perfectly safe procedure," said Loretta Alkalay, the former top lawyer for the Federal Aviation Administration's Eastern region.

Ah, so it would be an amalgamation of all three then, Puck passing, diversionary tactics and a chance to make a name for themselves/further a personal agenda.

Hopefully ALPA (?) will be supporting these guys as will the legal departments of the carriers concerned. I really would like to see a combined legal attack by the likes of ALPA and the carriers come back and bite Babbit's a$$ for this shameless piece of self aggrandisement.

The biggest threat to the safety, security and stability of this industry is those seeking political furtherment.

clunckdriver

28th Mar 2011, 15:08

Golly chaps, tomorow Im flying into the USA and have to land at no less than TWO airports without ATC , dont know how I will sleep tonight after reading all this stuff, Oh, wait a minute, havnt I been doing this for about fifty years without bending any tin? The pilots used the correct procedures period! As for FAA lawyers spouting of, havnt they been a major part of the reduction in GA over the last few years? {Even with Tort reform they just cant quit with their endless money grabs from the industry}

heavy.airbourne

28th Mar 2011, 15:24

A sloppy and faulty organization undermanning safety critical facilities is now hitting out at whoever they can lay blame on to cover their own negligence. Poor guys!

stuckgear

28th Mar 2011, 15:34

clunckdriver,

do let us know how you get on, i'm really running through my worry beads for you :hmm:.

The other thing to consider is that while Babbit et al. go on seeking the limelight, they are in effect presenting the situation that they dont actually support the advice, instructions or SOP's mandated by errr.. their own adminsitration!.

hows that corner looking that you're painting yourself into Randy ?

galaxy flyer

28th Mar 2011, 15:45

Ms Alkalay should quote an actual FAR violated before making that statement. Other than "careless and reckless", which is always charged with a specific FAR violation, what regulation was violated?

First, two airliners operated by two different companies with four crew members AND the FAA ATCOs decided landing was appropriate and legal. No specific regulation was cited because there isn't one requiring a clearance to land except when ATC is present. It wasn't in this case, it was asleep.

Second, the crews exercised caution, even missing the approach and reporting to ATC that the tower was not answering their radio calls. Potomac tried to call via landline to contact them. So, they advised the crews to treat it like an uncontrolled field and the crews did so according to the reports. Being KDCA is the reason this has all blown up with a variety of "expert" opinions in the news.

Lastly, I'm with a largish corporate flight department as the Safety officer. Clearly, diverting would be THE safest, least controversial action and I would certainly not criticize any pilot, in my department or on Pprune, for doing so, a perfectly reasonable action. However, I fail to see any reason to pounce on these crews for landing, either. Forget the "what ifs" and just look at the facts as they happened--a perfectly good airport, where ATC was temporarily out of touch, no traffic conflicts (strictly controlled and patrolled FRZ within Class B airspace) and no NOTAMs on runway construction. Other than the possibility of an earthquake opening a large hole in the runway just as the controller fell asleep.

PS, I was acquainted with Randy at Eastern, he was on the MEC as a Captain rep while not actually flying as a Captain, he held the bid as a bypass, I think, but was a A300 FO. Then, he was the President of ALPA despite not being on any active airline's seniority list. Now, because of his sometime airline career and union membership he is now the FAA Administrator. Draw your own conclusions.

finfly1

28th Mar 2011, 16:36

Quick read-in noted several posters have apparently not listened to the audio of this event which is all over the internet, although I did not see it posted here. Versions posted on-line range from 3 to 7 minutes.

And I just read elsewhere that FAA is talking about trimming four billion dollars from their next-year budget.

stuckgear

28th Mar 2011, 17:02

GF,

Ms Alkalay should quote an actual FAR violated before making that statement. Other than "careless and reckless", which is always charged with a specific FAR violation, what regulation was violated?

Because she cannot ?

two airliners operated by two different companies with four crew members AND the FAA ATCOs decided landing was appropriate and legal. No specific regulation was cited because there isn't one requiring a clearance to land except when ATC is present. It wasn't in this case

Indeed and there it is. Playing to 'the peanut gallery' looking to build their own careers with no incident, no violation of the FAR's, ATCO's, Pilots all in agreement on the situation. yet someone starts throwing their weight around making spurious allegations.

it's literally nauseating.

in reference to your comment:

Clearly, diverting would be THE safest, least controversial action

Agreed, however perhaps pulling the comforter over the head and not getting out of bed would be the safest, least controversial action, but that doesnt get aircraft & crew, passengers & cargo from one place to the other.

finfly,

And I just read elsewhere that FAA is talking about trimming four billion dollars from their next-year budget.

Yep, hence my point about Babbit's statement:

"I am determined to make sure we do not repeat Wednesday's unacceptable event."

So, what's he going to do to prevent potentialy fatigued ATCO's being on duty solo ? Put more into the system while shaving the budget?

So whaddya going to do there Randy? You made the statement, you tell us!

Or perhaps he'll shave the budget and prevent ATCO's being on duty potentially fatigued and solo, by erm.. shutting down more centers ? Or maybe limiting the periods when certain towers are controlled, thus increasing uncontrolled status hours ?

Hows that corner looking Randy ?

SeenItAll

28th Mar 2011, 17:49

Despite the vitriol being spewed in this thread, I really think there is more agreement than disagreement. While there may be nothing inherently less safe about operations into an uncontrolled airport than into a controlled one, this case was a bit different because it may not have been apparent to all parties that KDCA had become uncontrolled. For example, before falling asleep the controller may have cleared maintenance vehicles onto the runway. These vehicles may have remained blissfully unaware that monitoring only the ground frequency was now inadequate for them to be aware of landing aircraft. Then because these vehicles were still making their way towards the runway, or perhaps because the pilot's glance down the runway's length was a tiny bit cursory, the holes in the swiss cheese suddenly line up.

While certainly this potential chain of events is rather far-fetched; but because it could happen, it probably made landing at KDCA just a bit risker during those 20 minutes than otherwise.

aterpster

28th Mar 2011, 18:40

We can waltz around the U.S. definition of uncontrolled airport all we want. But, the definition that will count is whatever FAA legal alleges if, in fact, they do because of this "situation."

sevenstrokeroll

28th Mar 2011, 19:22

I am enjoying all this HubBub. The FAA figures that if they flap their arms enough the political figures on capitol hill will be impressed.

Randy Babbit is a hypocrit on safety...he really is. He headed up ALPA and enforced a seniority integration policy which would put 20 year veterans as copilots while those with 3-7 years experience would be captains.

Nice Randy!

And FAA Layers...well those freaking lawyers weren't there were they? IF anything happens to those crews I suggest we all FLY BY THE BOOK, requesting multiple readbacks and stablized approaches from 20 miles out.

AS I have mentioned I've seen and so have YOU EXPERIENCED PILOTS, ATC clear vehicles on the runway and then clear a plane to takeoff or land...oblivious to the problem.

Dear Randy...I'll put it this way: Hey officer Krupke...KRUP YOU

iskyfly

29th Mar 2011, 00:42

These vehicles may have remained blissfully unaware that monitoring only the ground frequency was now inadequate for them to be aware of landing aircraft.

I don't think that ground vehicles would ONLY be monitoring the ground freq when on an ACTIVE runway.

sevenstrokeroll

29th Mar 2011, 01:26

I do think that there should have been an effort to contact the DCA fire department by tracon land line. the fire fighters could have raced over to the tower to investigate.

I'll bet that tracon doesn't even have their phone number...depending upon tower to do the contacting in other sorts of emergencies.

regarding vehicle on the runway...the runway is usually served by tower freq and it should be on tower freq...indeed, with one controller at this time of night, the two positions and freqs (tower and ground) should have been combined into tower only.

Ditchdigger

29th Mar 2011, 02:43

I'm neither controller nor pilot, but on the morning that the story broke, when discussing this very question with the controller who is currently asleep in my bed (and I'm no way going to wake her up for clarification), she immediately said the pilots were technically in violation, because it's Class B Airspace. We didn't get any further into it than that. Based on the not unhappy outcome, she doubted it would be made an issue, but apparently on that count she was wrong.

Ms Alkalay should quote an actual FAR violated before making that statement. Other than "careless and reckless", which is always charged with a specific FAR violation, what regulation was violated?

Again, I'm not going to wake her, but how about this one?

3-2-3. Class B Airspace

a. Definition. Generally, that airspace from the surface to 10,000 feet MSL surrounding the nation's busiest airports in terms of IFR operations or passenger enplanements. The configuration of each Class B airspace area is individually tailored and consists of a surface area and two or more layers (some Class B airspace areas resemble upside-down wedding cakes), and is designed to contain all published instrument procedures once an aircraft enters the airspace. An ATC clearance is required for all aircraft to operate in the area, and all aircraft that are so cleared receive separation services within the airspace. The cloud clearance requirement for VFR operations is "clear of clouds."

b. Operating Rules and Pilot/Equipment Requirements for VFR Operations. Regardless of weather conditions, an ATC clearance is required prior to operating within Class B airspace. Pilots should not request a clearance to operate within Class B airspace unless the requirements of 14 CFR Section 91.215 and 14 CFR Section 91.131 are met. Included among these requirements are: ....

(Bold added.)

I'm speculating that the TRACON could have legally cleared them for the approach, but landing being a different operation than shooting the approach, lacking a specific landing clearance from the tower, they were in violation.

On edit: http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/ATpubs/AIM/Chap3/aim0302.html

Also on edit: Which of course means the TRACON controller screwed up as well...

galaxy flyer

29th Mar 2011, 03:22

Potomac TRACON did clear them to operate in the Class B airspace and stated that KDCA was now an uncontrolled airport. The pilots operated in accordance with the AIM and the controller's instructions. KLGA was an uncontrolled airport when the tower was closed at night, same procedures. Tonight, an airplane inbound to a one of the DC Three uncontrolled airports are cleared for visual approaches and land with a clearance. End of Story.

If the TRACON controller and the watch supervisor did not have that authority, is that the crew's fault?

GF

sevenstrokeroll

29th Mar 2011, 03:26

bubbers44

29th Mar 2011, 06:30

The pilots did everything right. The first arrival missed to give the controllers time to make it an uncontrolled airport then landed at this uncontrolled airport. It is not rocket science. I guess some pilots elsewhere disagree but I am so happy I grew up in the land of the free. You can actually do what makes sense and is totally legal here.

Lord Spandex Masher

29th Mar 2011, 09:30

Agreed, however perhaps pulling the comforter over the head and not getting out of bed would be the safest, least controversial action, but that doesnt get aircraft & crew, passengers & cargo from one place to the other.

Of course, it is always safer to stay in bed (probably). Flying is a compromise and there are risks involved but those risks are known. They are controlled and minimised by following procedures and safety limits. I am not ignoring the fact that occasionally a bit of lateral thinking is required but this instance doesn't really warrant it.

So, lets ignore safety for the sake of convenience and getting the job 'done'?

Press-on-itis, Get-home-itis; call it what you will but that attitude has been the cause of many accidents over the years. Suggest you visit the Crash at Cork Airport thread and you will be able to read what happens when you ignore safety procedures in an effort to 'get in'.

Did those passengers, crew and aircraft get from one place to the other. Well yes they did. They went through the pearly gates, upside down in a twisted pile of flaming metal. Job done?

The biggest threat to the safety, security and stability of this industry is those seeking political furtherment.

The biggest threat to the safety, security and stability of hundreds of passengers lives are the two people in the flight deck. You are the last line of safety for your passengers. As I've already stated and you already know there are risks to flying. Why you would want to take extra unnecessary risks is beyond me.

Bubbers, DCA is not an uncontrolled airport.

stuckgear

29th Mar 2011, 10:21

LSM, thanks for the armchair lecture. After 10+ years I remain incident free and consiently place safety as the main criteria for every flight. You seem to be missing the factual picture, either that maybe because you don't understand the system within the FAA or maybe because you don't want to climb down from your previous stated position.

Likewise to your assertion; an unwillingness to consider the regulatory basis and neglect for the regulations set forth by the administrator and the advice by TRACON could likewise be considered a significant detriment to safety.

The incident at Cork has no relevance to the discussion in this thread to suggest that others are not safe by citing that incident is both disingenuous and a non sequitur.

Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda...

The crew remained in compliance with the regs. and TRACON's procedural advice. There was no incident, no conflict with ground vehicles or other aircraft. In effect a non event.

It could likewise be postulated that had they diverted, the workload for the controllers in placing two aircraft into traffic where it was not scheduled, filed or expected could have caused conflict with other traffic.

Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda...

But then that didnt happen. There was no conflict, likewise with the action in accordance procedures advised and in compliance with the regs that was undertaken.

Edit to Add:

Its very easy to sit at your desk and ruminate over the events of the course of a few days and a reach a 'holier than thou' conclusion and concoct an argument to hang these guys out dry, but you were not there, you were not in that position, they complied with the regs set forth by the administrator, they complied with the advice of TRACON and SOP's there was no incident and no conflict with other aircraft ground vehicles or a 50' hole suddenly dug in the runway.

So we can conclude that you are happy to not only standby, but also cheerlead, seeing colleagues burned at the stake so that some politico or lawyer can make a name for theselves or further their career, when no conflict, no disregard for the regs, no disregard of the advice of TRACON took place and in fact the event was conducted, by the book, by all concerned.

Lord Spandex Masher

29th Mar 2011, 10:53

It could likewise be postulated that had they diverted, the workload for the controllers in placing two aircraft into traffic where it was not scheduled, filed or expected could have caused conflict with other traffic.

:ugh: Are you really implying that pilots, when planning a diversion, should consider controller workload!?

There was no incident, no conflict with ground vehicles or other aircraft. In effect a non event.

This time. Had this had another outcome I'm sure you'd be singing a different tune.

There was no conflict, likewise with the action in accordance procedures advised and in compliance with the regs that was undertaken.

Can you show me the procedure and regulation that allows you to land at a controlled airport without landing clearance. This was not an emergency. This was not a radio failure. There was no urgent need to land.

Can you also tell me how well informed TRACON were about the state of the airfield at DCA. I don't mean the lack of response from the controller that's a given. I mean what state the runway was in, who was on the runway, what movements were occuring at the time, why there was no response etc.?

The Cork thread is relevant as it shows the worst outcome for a case of press-on-itis. It was suggested reading not a comparison with this situation.

but you were not there, you were not in that position

Nope, and neither were you.

Its very easy to sit at your desk

Actually I'm not sitting at a desk.

So we can conclude that you are happy to not only standby, but also cheerlead, seeing colleagues burned at the stake so that some politico or lawyer can make a name for theselves or further their career

Must you be soooo dramatic? Have I called for their heads to roll? Am I championing the advancement of the bureaucrats? No. A fair attempt at denigration but - FAIL.

stuckgear

29th Mar 2011, 10:53

On the note of safety issues; There is also a wider context to consider here in that if active aircrews are subjected to a 'witch hunt' following operation in compliance with the regs, in compliance with SOPs and the advice of ATCOs when no incident or conflict is encountered, then how does it stand for crews to have to second guess that every decision made during operation that is in compliance with the regs, with ATC with SOPs could result in a 'career ender' ?

If anything, the potential career advancment motives of Babbit and Alkalay undermines the regulatory base of the FAA and its safety standards by leaving crews doubtful of the regs, SOPs and advice of ATC.

Babbit and Co are not only playing a dangerous game, they are, in effect, in conflict with the mandate of their own regulatory body.

stuckgear

29th Mar 2011, 11:11

LSM,

Now you must be trolling.

Are you really implying that pilots, when planning a diversion, should consider controller workload!?

Don't be infantile, i neither stated nor implied that as well you know.

This time. Had this had another outcome I'm sure you'd be singing a different tune.

Or the hundred other times. What if they had diverted and hit a ground vehicle at the diversion airport, you'd definately singing a different tune "They should have continued with the planned destinatton, TRACON cleared them yadda yadda yadda.

Again, that is an infantile argument.

Can you show me the procedure and regulation that allows you to land at a controlled airport without landing clearance

try reading this:

The approach controller and the TRACON supervisor on duty made several attempts to contact the tower controller via telephone, but were unable to establish contact. The TRACON approach controller advised the crew of American flight 1012 that the tower was apparently unattended, and that the flight would be handled as an arrival to an uncontrolled airport.
The flight was again cleared for approach, and instructed to switch to the tower frequency. At 12:12 am, the crew returned to the tower frequency, still unable to make contact with the tower, made position reports while inbound, and landed on runway 1.

In terms of 'press-on-itis' that is your claim. However:

The approach controller and the TRACON supervisor on duty made several attempts to contact the tower controller via telephone, but were unable to establish contact. The TRACON approach controller advised the crew of American flight 1012 that the tower was apparently unattended, and that the flight would be handled as an arrival to an uncontrolled airport.
The flight was again cleared for approach, and instructed to switch to the tower frequency. At 12:12 am, the crew returned to the tower frequency, still unable to make contact with the tower, made position reports while inbound, and landed on runway 1.

You could go back and re-read this thread from the start, but you wont. You've set your stall up and that's it, you're sticking by it representing all kinds of possible theories, i'm just suprised you havn't postulated the possibility of a heard of wildebeast dashing majestically across the tarmac on landing, which couldda happened cos the tower controller was asleep.

http://www.dadwagon.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/ObviousTroll-150x150.jpg

Lord Spandex Masher

29th Mar 2011, 11:23

Ahhh the troll defence.

Yes, yes, yes, I must be a troll because I don't agree with you. Good argument. :D

It could likewise be postulated that had they diverted, the workload for the controllers in placing two aircraft into traffic where it was not scheduled, filed or expected could have caused conflict with other traffic.

Postulated:
1.to claim; demand; require
2.to assume without proof to be true, real, or necessary, esp. as a basis for argument
3.to take as self-evident; assume

So if we divert the controller might be so busy he'll control us in to conflict with another aircraft. I don't want to be put in to conflict with another aircraft so it is safer to not divert.

Your quotes are not regulations.

Can you show me the procedure and regulation that allows you to land at a controlled airport without landing clearance. This was not an emergency. This was not a radio failure. There was no urgent need to land.
????? Still waiting.

aterpster

29th Mar 2011, 13:17

ditchdigger:

Again, I'm not going to wake her, but how about this one?

Your cite is not a federal aviation regulation.

stuckgear

29th Mar 2011, 13:32

Ahhh the troll defence.

Yes, yes, yes, I must be a troll because I don't agree with you

You are not grasping what not only myself and other posters have already stated. I've suggested it to you already; Go back and re-read the thread.

You are hi-jacking the discussion in order that it revolves around *you*.

Seeing as you like positing definitions..

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, [...] disrupting normal on-topic discussion

That, LSM, makes you a troll.

http://www.dadwagon.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/ObviousTroll-150x150.jpg

Now some of us would like to actually have an adult and mature discussion as to Babbit et al. and the statements and implications regarding the authority that regulates us.

Unfortunately, some have migrated off of this thread already due to the inability to actually have a factual discussion that doesnt revolve around *you*, the troll.

Lord Spandex Masher

29th Mar 2011, 13:45

C'mon stuckgear, where have I posted off topic?

I'm not hijacking the discussion so that it revolves around me. I wasn't involved in this incident so it obviously doesn't revolve around me or anybody else posting on this thread. Including you.

What I have asked is for you to post the relevant regulations that allow you to land at a controlled airfield without a clearance. Information that you have, so far, spectacularly failed to provide.

Unfortunately, some have migrated off of this thread already due to the inability to actually have a factual discussion that doesnt revolve around *you*, the troll.

As you are the only person yelling troll at every opportunity you've just made a very good effort at describing yourself. :D

Now some of us would like to actually have an adult and mature discussion as to Babbit et al. and the statements and implications regarding the authority that regulates us.

Now be a good boy and post the information and facts that back up your statements and we can carry on the discussion from there.

stuckgear

29th Mar 2011, 14:22

Now be a good boy and post the information and facts that back up your statements and we can carry on the discussion from there.

for the third time the answers to your questions are already in the thread go back and re-read.

And again i challenge your cite that i am yelling troll at every opportunity. If you go back and re-read the thread i've attempted to remain on topic of the thread, i am only calling one person a troll. YOU.

So again your purported assertion is disingenuous, incorrect and inflammatory.

The answers to your repeated questions are already in the thread and have advised you to go back and re-read the thread a number of times, the answers you seek are there. Do your own homework.

Now be a good boy [...]

Thats 'Sir' good boy to you.

con-pilot

29th Mar 2011, 14:36

Thats 'Sir' good boy to you.

Oh, I do rather like that I do.

One more thing, whatever you do, don't tell him how much flying time you have. :p

Lord Spandex Masher

29th Mar 2011, 14:41

Stuckgear, in the last couple of pages of this thread the only posts off topic are yours. That isn't an assertion it's a fact.

Yet again you have failed to post the actual regulations or links to the regulations which say that you can land at a controlled airport without clearance. Emergency, yes. Radio failure, yes. This particular incident was neither of those, so under which regulation did they land without a clearance?

I've read the thread several times and there are NO regulations or links posted to such effect.

If you can please do post them instead of that silly picture of a troll. Good lad.

Thats 'Sir' good boy to you.

That, LSM, makes you a troll.

And that, dear boy, is Lord Troll to you.

Con, I've re-counted - 21,102 ISS:p

sevenstrokeroll

29th Mar 2011, 14:49

IF you read the book, "The Republic" by Plato, you will find an interesting argument...something like...is it a chair if someone can't sit in it? is it an ear if it cannot hear?

Well, I say that a controlled airport, when there is not one single active controller becomes, by virtue of the platonic argument, UNCONTROLLED.

Therefore uncontrolled aiport operations come into play.

AS to the nutty argument about ''state of the runway"...truck on the runway etc...that problem could exist at a controlled aiport...a recent report shows pilots taking off on runways too short for their loads due to work on runways at...(wait for it) O'Hare airport (chicago). And the controllers were right there on duty...wide awake.

The decision to "open" or "close" an airport rests with airport managing authority (and any letters of agreement they generate). DCA was OPEN. Air Traffic Control was inop. Airport managing authority didn't close the airport...and that's that.

Its that simple.

AS far as the diversion concept. Why? It costs alot of money to divert. There might not be assistance to passengers at diversion fields. I have stated that I have been based at DCA...also , in combination, IAD and BWI. I would rather land at intended destination unless there was a great reason not to. There wasn't a great reason to divert.

IT is generally agreed that when tower is inop, you use CTAF procedures, announcing position and intention. There isn't anything on the approach plate or 10-9 page saying...THIS ISN"T THE CASE AT DCA.

The FAA got caught with their pants down and Randy and Company are trying to save their personal ASS.

Those who can are line pilots

Those who can't are chief pilots

those who can't be chief pilots become FAA administrators.

Lord Spandex Masher

29th Mar 2011, 15:01

SSR, do you really operate by virtue of the platonic argument or do you comply with Federal Regulations and SOPs?

Maybe you can post a link or the actual regulation that states that you may land at a controlled airfield without clearance ignoring emergency or radio failure cases as this situation was neither of these.

When the single controller falls asleep it does not automatically change the airfield status and procedures from controlled to uncontrolled. It was still a controlled airfield.

stuckgear

29th Mar 2011, 15:04

seven stroke, true enough.

The FAA got caught with their pants down and Randy and Company are trying to save their personal ASS.

what i'm finding a concern towards i posted earlier before the 'chair' started interjecting... is that there is also a wider context to consider here in that if active aircrews are subjected to a 'witch hunt' following operation in compliance with the regs, in compliance with SOPs and the advice of ATCOs when no incident or conflict is encountered, then how does it stand for crews to have to second guess that every decision, made when flying the line, that is in compliance with the regs, with ATC with SOPs could result in a 'career ender' ?

If anything, the potential career advancment motives of Babbit and Alkalay undermines the regulatory base of the FAA and its safety standards by leaving crews doubtful of the regs, SOPs and advice of ATC. And there lies the greatest safety factor.

Babbit and Co are not only playing a dangerous game, they could be considered, in effect, to be in conflict with the mandate of their own regulatory body.

con-pilot

29th Mar 2011, 15:16

Maybe you can post a link or the actual regulation that states that you may land at a controlled airfield without clearance ignoring emergency or radio failure cases as this situation was neither of these.

Actually you have it backward, there is no regulation that prohibits such.

If you think or believe there is, you find a link or the actual regulation that does so.

One more point, if an aircraft loses communications and is on an IFR flight plan/clearance, where do you believe the aircraft is required to land, by regulation?

By the way, my 50 by 50 foot analogy, was not in fact an analogy. It happened to a US Air Force C-130, at an controlled airport, with awake controllers, at night.

aterpster

29th Mar 2011, 15:22

sevenstrokeroll:

IT is generally agreed that when tower is inop, you use CTAF procedures, announcing position and intention. There isn't anything on the approach plate or 10-9 page saying...THIS ISN"T THE CASE AT DCA.

The approach charts for DCA do not indicate that it is a part-time tower. Thus, it is a full-time tower. AIM 4-1-9 discusses CTAF procedures at airports without operating control towers.

If you were in the lurch that night at DCA and you concluded that the tower was now a non-operating tower, that would be your judgment to make. However, it would not have been my judgment had I been in that same lurch. I suspect that is how the testimony would divide at any possible hearing.

The FAA got caught with their pants down and Randy and Company are trying to save their personal ASS.

I can't get inside their pompus minds in this case. You very well may have it right, though.

Those who can are line pilots

Those who can't are chief pilots

Those who can't be chief pilots become ALPA officials.

those who can't be chief pilots become FAA administrators.

You missed one. I added it for you. :)

Lord Spandex Masher

29th Mar 2011, 15:24

Con, I want to see a regulation that allows you to land at a controlled airport without clearance, ignoring emergencies - this wasn't - and radio failures - this wasn't. We don't fly around doing everything that we are not prohibited from doing.

In the case of a radio failure I know where it is supposed to land. But this was not a case of a radio failure was it?!

Lord Spandex Masher

29th Mar 2011, 15:30

I can't find your FAR's but I did find this in a NASA ASRS:

Federal Airworthiness Requirement (FAR), which requires aircraft operating into airports with an operating control tower to establish two-way radio communications with the control tower (unless aircraft are not equipped for two-way communications).

So, Operating control tower - Tick. Equipped for two way comms - Tick. Established two way comms - Cross. Landed without clearance - Tick. Oops.

Sorry, no FAR reference numbers.

If you're in the states you should be able to find the actual regulation that this relates to. Anyone brave enough to post it here?

stuckgear

29th Mar 2011, 15:32

here's a couple of leads for you

4-1-5. Communications Release of IFR Aircraft Landing at an Airport Without an Operating Control Tower Aircraft operating on an IFR flight plan, landing at an airport without an operating control tower will be advised to change to the airport advisory frequency when direct communications with ATC are no longer required. Towers and centers do not have nontower airport traffic and runway in use information. The instrument approach may not be aligned with the runway in use; therefore, if the information has not already been obtained, pilots should make an expeditious change to the airport advisory frequency when authorized.

4-1-9. Traffic Advisory Practices at Airports Without Operating Control Towers
(See TBL 4-1-1 (http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/ATpubs/AIM/Chap4/aim0401.html#z282c6ROBE).)
a. Airport Operations Without Operating Control Tower
1. There is no substitute for alertness while in the vicinity of an airport. It is essential that pilots be alert and look for other traffic and exchange traffic information when approaching or departing an airport without an operating control tower. This is of particular importance since other aircraft may not have communication capability or, in some cases, pilots may not communicate their presence or intentions when operating into or out of such airports. To achieve the greatest degree of safety, it is essential that all radio-equipped aircraft transmit/receive on a common frequency identified for the purpose of airport advisories.
2. An airport may have a full or part-time tower or FSS located on the airport, a full or part-time UNICOM station or no aeronautical station at all. There are three ways for pilots to communicate their intention and obtain airport/traffic information when operating at an airport that does not have an operating tower: by communicating with an FSS, a UNICOM operator, or by making a self-announce broadcast.
3. Many airports are now providing completely automated weather, radio check capability and airport advisory information on an automated UNICOM system. These systems offer a variety of features, typically selectable by microphone clicks, on the UNICOM frequency. Availability of the automated UNICOM will be published in the Airport/Facility Directory and approach charts.
b. Communicating on a Common Frequency
1. The key to communicating at an airport without an operating control tower is selection of the correct common frequency. The acronym CTAF which stands for Common Traffic Advisory Frequency, is synonymous with this program. A CTAF is a frequency designated for the purpose of carrying out airport advisory practices while operating to or from an airport without an operating control tower. The CTAF may be a UNICOM, MULTICOM, FSS, or tower frequency and is identified in appropriate aeronautical publications.
TBL 4-1-1
Summary of Recommended Communication Procedures

Communication/Broadcast Procedures

Facility at Airport

Frequency Use

Outbound

Inbound
Practice Instrument
Approach
1.
UNICOM (No Tower or FSS)
Communicate with UNICOM station on published CTAF frequency (122.7; 122.8; 122.725; 122.975; or 123.0). If unable to contact UNICOM station, use self-announce procedures on CTAF.
Before taxiing and before taxiing on the runway for departure.
10 miles out. Entering downwind, base, and final. Leaving the runway.

2.
No Tower, FSS, or UNICOM
Self-announce on MULTICOM frequency 122.9.
Before taxiing and before taxiing on the runway for departure.
10 miles out. Entering downwind, base, and final. Leaving the runway.
Departing final approach fix (name) or on final approach segment inbound.
3.
No Tower in operation, FSS open
Communicate with FSS on CTAF frequency.
Before taxiing and before taxiing on the runway for departure.
10 miles out. Entering downwind, base, and final. Leaving the runway.
Approach completed/terminated.
4.
FSS Closed (No Tower)
Self-announce on CTAF.
Before taxiing and before taxiing on the runway for departure.
10 miles out. Entering downwind, base, and final. Leaving the runway.

5.
Tower or FSS not in operation
Self-announce on CTAF.
Before taxiing and before taxiing on the runway for departure.
10 miles out. Entering downwind, base, and final. Leaving the runway.

FAR14, CFR 91.131

Sec. 91.131

Operations in Class B airspace.

(a) Operating rules. No person may operate an aircraft within a Class B airspace area except in compliance with Sec. 91.129 and the following rules:

(1) The operator must receive an ATC clearance from the ATC facility having jurisdiction for that area before operating an aircraft in that area.
(2) Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each person operating a large turbine engine-powered airplane to or from a primary airport for which a Class B airspace area is designated must operate at or above the designated floors of the Class B airspace area while within the lateral limits of that area.
(3) Any person conducting pilot training operations at an airport within a Class B airspace area must comply with any procedures established by ATC for such operations in that area.
(b) Pilot requirements.
(1) No person may take off or land a civil aircraft at an airport within a Class B airspace area or operate a civil aircraft within a Class B airspace area unless--
(i) The pilot in command holds at least a private pilot certificate;
(ii) The pilot in command holds a recreational pilot certificate and has met--
(A) The requirements of Sec. 61.101(d) of this chapter; or
(B) The requirements for a student pilot seeking a recreational pilot certificate in Sec. 61.94 of this chapter;
(iii) The pilot in command holds a sport pilot certificate and has met--
(A) The requirements of Sec. 61.325 of this chapter; or
(B) The requirements for a student pilot seeking a recreational pilot certificate in Sec. 61.94 of this chapter; or
(iv) The aircraft is operated by a student pilot who has met the requirements of Sec. 61.94 or Sec. 61.95 of this chapter, as applicable.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (b)(1)(ii), (b)(1)(iii) and (b)(1)(iv) of this section, no person may take off or land a civil aircraft at those airports listed in section 4 of appendix D to this part unless the pilot in command holds at least a private pilot certificate.
(c) Communications and navigation equipment requirements. Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft within a Class B airspace area unless that aircraft is equipped with--
(1) For IFR operation. An operable VOR or TACAN receiver or an operable and suitable RNAV system; and
(2) For all operations. An operable two-way radio capable of communications with ATC on appropriate frequencies for that Class B airspace area.
[(d) Other equipment requirements. No person may operate an aircraft in a Class B airspace area unless the aircraft is equipped with--
(1) The applicable operating transponder and automatic altitude reporting equipment specified in Sec. 91.215 (a), except as provided in Sec. 91.215 (e), and (2) After January 1, 2020, the applicable Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast Out equipment specified in Sec. 91.225.]

and to re-iterate for the umpteenth time...

The approach controller and the TRACON supervisor on duty made several attempts to contact the tower controller via telephone, but were unable to establish contact. The TRACON approach controller advised the crew of American flight 1012 that the tower was apparently unattended, and that the flight would be handled as an arrival to an uncontrolled airport. The flight was again cleared for approach, and instructed to switch to the tower frequency. At 12:12 am, the crew returned to the tower frequency, still unable to make contact with the tower, made position reports while inbound, and landed on runway 1.

Lord Spandex Masher

29th Mar 2011, 15:45

4-1-5. Communications Release of IFR Aircraft Landing at an Airport Without an Operating Control Tower

4-1-9. Traffic Advisory Practices at Airports Without Operating Control Towers

Irrelevant.

So it was the TRACON controller who officially changed the official status of DCA to uncontrolled? Can you show me the regulation that states he has the authority to do that?

According to transcripts of the radio communication between the pilot and a controller at the Potomac center on Wednesday morning, a third aircraft also approached the airport during the incident on Wednesday. “So you’re aware, the tower is apparently not manned,” the controller told the pilot of the third plane, an American Airlines flight. “We’ve made a few phone calls; nobody’s answering. So, two airplanes went in the past 10 to 15 minutes, so you can expect to go in to an uncontrolled airport.”
“Is there a reason it’s not manned?” the American pilot is heard asking.

“Well, I’m going to take a guess and say that the controller got locked out,” the Potomac controller responded. “I’ve heard of it happening before.”

“That’s the first time I’ve heard it,” the pilot said.

“Fortunately, it’s not very often,” the controller said. “It happened about a year ago. But I’m not sure that’s what happened now, but anyway, there’s nobody in the tower.”

“Interesting,” said the pilot, apparently exasperated.

After a few seconds, the Potomac controller reported, “The tower’s back in business.”

“That was a close call,” said the pilot, who sounded relieved.
“Wasn’t it, though?” the Potomac controller replied.

con-pilot

29th Mar 2011, 16:05

Con, I want to see a regulation that allows you to land at a controlled airport without clearance, ignoring emergencies

As far as I know, there is no regulation that expressly allows you to land at a controlled airport without clearance, excepting the posted regulations posted here. Conversely there is no regulations that prohibits one from doing so.

If is not prohibited, it is by default legal.

If the control tower at an controlled airport is closed or out of service for any reason, it is considered an uncontrolled airport. The regulations for operating at an uncontrolled airport have been posted here.

Just what do you not understand about that? It's quite simple.

If you had been there and not landed, I ,for one, would not have had any criticism of your actions.

If I had been there, I would have landed.

BOAC

29th Mar 2011, 16:10

I can see the lawyers ordering their new sports cars now.

Lord Spandex Masher

29th Mar 2011, 16:20

If the control tower at an controlled airport is closed or out of service for any reason, it is considered an uncontrolled airport.

It may be an airport without control but it is certainly not an uncontrolled airport.

aterpster:
The approach charts for DCA do not indicate that it is a part-time tower. Thus, it is a full-time tower.

Sec. 91.129

(i) Takeoff, landing, taxi clearance. No person may, at any airport with an operating control tower, operate an aircraft on a runway or taxiway, or take off or land an aircraft, unless an appropriate clearance is received from ATC. A clearance to “taxi to” the takeoff runway assigned to the aircraft is not a clearance to cross that assigned takeoff runway, or to taxi on that runway at any point, but is a clearance to cross other runways that intersect the taxi route to that assigned takeoff runway. A clearance to “taxi to” any point other than an assigned takeoff runway is clearance to cross all runways that intersect the taxi route to that point.

How about this one?

stuckgear

29th Mar 2011, 16:26

LSM,

you really seem to be having a hard time getting your head around this it's really quite simple.

you can cite what you want as irrelevent, but it's actually relevent.

4-1-5. Communications Release of IFR Aircraft Landing at an Airport Without an Operating Control Tower

4-1-9. Traffic Advisory Practices at Airports Without Operating Control Towers

as con has clearly stated:

If the control tower at an controlled airport is closed or out of service for any reason, it is considered an uncontrolled airport. The regulations for operating at an uncontrolled airport have been posted here

Many airports in the US have hours in which they are controlled, reverting to uncontrolled status, when the tower is closed. during periods when the tower is closed, uncontrolled, does not mean that the airport is closed to traffic, it is in uncontrolled status.

here we go running around this loop yet again

and that the flight would be handled as an arrival to an uncontrolled airport. The flight was again cleared for approach, and instructed to switch to the tower frequency

de facto, when a controlled airport is not controlled it is uncontrolled.

misd-agin

29th Mar 2011, 16:31

"Operating control tower" - No.

An airport without an operating control tower is uncontrolled unless the airport is closed.

Lord Spandex Masher

29th Mar 2011, 16:40

Many airports in the US have hours in which they are controlled, reverting to uncontrolled status, when the tower is closed

Then perhaps you could enlighten me about the hours that DCA was promulgated as uncontrolled, officially.

Could you also state the regulation that says "for whatever reason".

The fact is that DCA had an operating tower H24 and, therefore, is not an uncontrolled airport.

Read Aterpsters post again.

and that the flight would be handled as an arrival to an uncontrolled airport

Right, so it was the TRACON controller who changed DCA's official status. Is he authorised to do that?

during periods when the tower is closed, uncontrolled, does not mean that the airport is closed to traffic, it is in uncontrolled status
Yes, I'm aware of that.

galaxy flyer

29th Mar 2011, 16:45

The FAR 91 reference calls for an "operating" tower, when one cannot communicate with the tower, it ain't operating. It doesn't have to annotated as "part-time", that's there to alert pilots, not as a regulatory fact. Absent that notice doesn't mean the tower is open, it can be closed by NOTAM or by abandonment. AA crashed an MD-80 at KBDL after the crew was advised that the tower was closed and they struck a ridge due to incorrect altimetry. AA used QFE at the time.

Now, I do think the controller or the watch supervisor may or may not have the authority to advise the crew to proceed as an uncontrolled airport, but they did and the crews acting accordingly. Are crews expected to query or refuse ATC instructions because they want a legal justification for their authority to issue the clearance or instruction?

LSM, why, yes, in America that which is not prohibited is permitted. If they had struck a wayward, unlighted vehicle on the runway, the FAA would have been found negligent for the sleeping ATCO.

Con-pilot. True on the 50 x 50 hole and the C-130, but separately a C-17 ripped a gear off in the same circumstances in the AOR. We're all part of a system and when any part fails, it is a safety problem.

Pugilistic Animus

29th Mar 2011, 17:14

YouTube - United pilots confused on runway

and this occurred with a controller being directly advised of an incursion--she was retrained---I bet the pilots had an enforcement action---:mad:

GarageYears

29th Mar 2011, 17:16

4-1-5. Communications Release of IFR Aircraft Landing at an Airport Without an Operating Control Tower

Ok, I've tried repeating "make it stop, make it stop..." over and over in my head but it's not working.

The Control Tower is OPERATING when it is responding to radio calls. If for WHATEVER reason that is not the case, the airport reverts to UNCONTROLLED.

It doesn't matter what the chart says, H24 or otherwise. What is so hard to understand LSM???

Let's try and spin the scenario differently - let's assume the controller had a heart attack and dropped dead on the floor. Would all this fuss be taking place? Some perhaps, but I suspect the slant would be different.

- GY :ugh:

Lord Spandex Masher

29th Mar 2011, 17:31

If for WHATEVER reason that is not the case, the airport reverts to UNCONTROLLED.

Lets have a look at the FAR that states "for whatever reason" then. Where is it? Somebody post it or a link to it.

Who decides it's now "uncontrolled"? TRACON guy? You? Bob? Who makes that decision? None of the above have the authority do they? Maybe that's why there are promulgated times for operating and not operating towers no? So everybody knows.

con-pilot

29th Mar 2011, 17:33

Okay, I officially give up. Lord Spandex Masher has been given the legal, by US FAA regulations, response on this incident, by many, many posters here, people that do know what they are talking about. Yet never the less he keeps chasing his tail in non-ending circles refusing to accept the correct answer.

So I say close this thread down or move it to Jet Blast.

I'm outta of here.

Lord Spandex Masher

29th Mar 2011, 17:35

Yet you quite happily ignore Aterpsters post? Why's that? Doesn't agree with your views? I see.

PA-28-180

29th Mar 2011, 17:48

" Many airports in the US have hours in which they are controlled, reverting to uncontrolled status, when the tower is closed. during periods when the tower is closed, uncontrolled, does not mean that the airport is closed to traffic, it is in uncontrolled status. "

OK...first and LAST post on this thread.....and the above quote is EXACTLY the type of airport that I trained and worked out of....

First..since WHEN do pilots need to have a LAW degree??

If I can't contact the tower, but have an approach clearance...then I continue on, presuming a comms failure on someones part...will I be a tad more vigilant? YES....and ready to do a go around if needed - YES. Can we simply agree that things are different in the United States compared to England and Europe??? Thanks! :ok:

heavy.airbourne

29th Mar 2011, 17:51

I herewith declare Lord SM the most dominant and prominant desk flyer and welcome him as a new member to my ignore list. Congrats! :D

Lord Spandex Masher

29th Mar 2011, 18:03

If I can't contact the tower, but have an approach clearance...then I continue on, presuming a comms failure on someones part...will I be a tad more vigilant? YES....and ready to do a go around if needed - YES. Can we simply agree that things are different in the United States compared to England and Europe??? Thanks!

You'd look pretty daft if it was a simple case of you tuning the wrong frequency woudn't you?

Heavy airbourne, oh well. Are you going to ignore the FAA and the NTSB too? What an annoying bunch of...umm...desk deskers!

PA-28-180

29th Mar 2011, 18:09

" You'd look pretty daft if it was a simple case of you tuning the wrong frequency woudn't you? "

It's happened before...and will happen again. If I'm on a valid flight plan, then I follow the 'rules of the road". If DCA or ANY other airport is my filed destination.....whats the problem?

stuckgear

29th Mar 2011, 18:13

You'd look pretty daft if it was a simple case of you tuning the wrong frequency woudn't you?

you'd look even dafter diverting for a simple case of tuning the wrong freq.

I herewith declare Lord SM the most dominant and prominant desk flyer and welcome him as a new member to my ignore list. Congrats!

likewise. :ok:

Lord Spandex Masher

29th Mar 2011, 18:14

You'd quite happily land, at a controlled airport, without a clearance just because you tuned the wrong frequency?

you'd look even dafter diverting for a simple case of tuning the wrong freq.

WHy would you divert for an incorrect frequency:confused:

con-pilot

29th Mar 2011, 18:17

Okay, I lied, I had to come back in for this.

Heavy airbourne, oh well. Are you going to ignore the FAA and the NTSB too? What an annoying bunch of...umm...desk deskers!

Just what the hell does the NTSB have to do with what we are talking about? The NTSB is not, repeat not, a regulatory agency. The NTSB does not make regulations, nor do they enforce regulations.

The NTSB will not be involved in this case.

Anyone with even the most casual knowledge of US aviation matters know that. I believe you have been exposed.

galaxy flyer

29th Mar 2011, 18:19

One exception that proves the rule that an airport reverts to uncontrolled status--USAF airports must have the tower manned and operational for the field to be open, if not, the field is closed, operations are not authorized and the Class D is closed. This does not happen at a civilian airport.

Again, I have no objection to diverting, but please don't say the crew was on violation by landing--they weren't and the FAA and NTSB won't conclude they were.

LSM. The difference is he would be landing without a clearance because he would be on the wrong frequency at an operating tower. Our heroes were on the right frequency without a clearance because the tower was not operating.

GF

Pugilistic Animus

29th Mar 2011, 18:21

First..since WHEN do pilots need to have a LAW degree??the FAA is terrible, to pilots...only lawyers win now look at the back pedaling the FAA is doing--when it's directly their fault as well as that sleeping controller...read AOPA and look at how the enforcement actions go...with controllers it's a different story they are retrained no matter how bad they screw up---I think the main precedent for the landing is right there in FAR 91.3, ...but the FAA always sees differently:ugh:

what would YOU LSM have done differently?--as it is always easier to fly some one else's plane from the comfort of home----remembering that the general airspace is a mess and DCA was most likely their clearance limit they arrived on time and lost coms so they had clearance...no?

I just hope the FAA lays blame where it reallybelongs...upon themselves:rolleyes:

Lord Spandex Masher

29th Mar 2011, 18:22

Okay, I lied, I had to come back in for this.

Just what the hell does the NTSB have to do with what we are talking about? I believe you have been exposed.

I assure you that I am fully clothed. A simple case of omission. The NTSB guy. Or Ex NTSB if you want to be really picky. Greig Wotsisname.

The NTSB is not, repeat not, a regulatory agency. The NTSB does not make regulations, nor do they enforce regulations.

The NTSB will not be involved in this case.

Anyone with even the most casual knowledge of US aviation matters know that.

Didn't say it was. Didn't say it did. Happy now?

Lord Spandex Masher

29th Mar 2011, 18:35

GF, at no point have I said the crew violated anything. Indeed I've been trying to get somebody to post the relevant FARs. As of now nobody has.

Also , nobody, not even the TRACON chappy new why the controller wasn't able to reply. It could have been something worse than what actually transpired. Might have been wise to find out before they landed. As it is he woke up, what, 15 minutes later? Was there really any need to rush?

PA, they hadn't lost comms had they. They were still able to talk to the approach/area controller. What would you have done had you landed and then required emergency services? Waited for sleepy to wake up?

aterpster

29th Mar 2011, 18:47

con-pilot:

The NTSB will not be involved in this case.

The NTSB handles appeals of pilots/others who are charged with a violation and ruled against by FAA legal. Step 1 is to request a hearing/appeal before an NTSB administrative law judge.

If the NTSB ALJ also rules against the pilot(s) then the pilot(s) can appeal to the full NTSB Board.

Unrelated to this, the NTSB in its investigative capacity has been more proactive in recent years, electing to investigate some incidents that were not considered to be accidents.

Pugilistic Animus

29th Mar 2011, 18:55

From the transcript it seems approach control was on board with the decision and if they had a real emergency-that required immediate landing how would diverting have helped? in fact, I don't know any law the expressly forbade from landing

sevenstrokeroll

29th Mar 2011, 19:44

everyone, take a deep breath.

was the control tower operative?

no

definition of operative: operative - being in force or having or exerting force;

as to Lord Spandex...obviously not thinking like a real pilot. Let's say you came in with the wrong freq dialed up. An operating tower would keep calling you with landing clearance...UNLESS...dum dum DAHHHHHH:

They didn't want you to land. And if they couldn't give you landing clearance and couldn't get you to respond to go around instructions, A PROPERLY OPERATING TOWER WOULD USE THE LIGHT GUN AND GIVE APPROVED LIGHT GUN SIGNALS (FIELD HAD GOOD VISIBILITY) for either landing clearance or not cleared to land.

AS this didn't happen, the tower was INOPERATIVE and the pilots made a command decision and landed. He used the english language and the tower was not exerting force ( in the form of radio calls) and thus was inoperative.

I truly hope Lord Spandex doesn't wear spandex and doesn't fly EVER in the USA.

It all comes down to what we do here in the USA if the traffic signals on the road become IN OPERATIVE (the operative word). We then treat the inoperative traffic signal as a stop sign, we stop and WHEN SAFE TO DO SO , ENTER THE INTERSECTION, observing regulatory right of way.

Lord spandex mentions the scenario about what if you had an emergency on landing...would you wait for sleepy to wake up? NO, I would take out my cellphone, and as captain would authorize myself to use it and call 911 and get help.

And if my plane blew up on landing, the very competent fire department at DCA would almost certainly notice how bright things got, or the SMELL OF JET FUEL IN THE MORNING>

Lord Spandex...I believe you should divert every flight you ever make...but be sure to divert to yourside of the atlantic.

galaxy flyer

29th Mar 2011, 20:13

SSR

Down, good man, this isn't national survival here, just a civil discussion. LSM is invited here anytime, I'll buy him a beer even. Please don't your ego stand on the way of reasoning.

LSM

FAR 91.129 covers operations in Class D (airport traffic area) and it clearly authorizes ATC to approve deviations from the requirement to have a landing clearance. The published transcripts seem to indicate that Potomac TRACON authorized landings as at an uncontrolled airport. The controller even referenced an earlier event where a controller had been locked out of the facility, so I'm guessing this has happened before and some controllers are not operating "in the dark" when they can't get a facility on the the inter phone.

How long did it take for the first inbound flight to miss, get vectored around and another approach while the TRACON tried to call--easily 12 minutes. Then, we have a second flight, the how process takes about 20-30 minutes.

Everyone banging on how the flights should have diverted have point, but it is, like landing at KDCA, just an opinion, not based on relevant regulations. Past practices within the FAA indicates it was the expected.

Aterpster

I think the NTSB will investigate, will rip the FAA a new one and will get their way. After the KLEX crash, it was expected that there would always be, at least, two controllers on duty. The FAA needs to stand up to the fatigue issues here, not sure how better to do rotating shifts, but this guy was not new at it, knew his responsibilities and failed. I've investigated enough fatigue-related "safety of flight" calls in the USAF to know this controller's story will reveal the truth, even if the FAA keeps it quiet. He may have simply fallen asleep, but I'm betting on either a physical ailment or a previous 72 hour history that doesn't have a lot of sleep for reasons that are not something to brag about. It wasn't even that late.

GF

terrain safe

29th Mar 2011, 20:40

I have read through this with and I am absolutely amazed at Lord SM. I am a UK ATCO, I have no knowledge of procedures in the US, and even I can see that what more knowledgeable people than me have explained a procedure that makes sense. Keep asking show me where it says I can do that is a terribly cock eyed way of looking at anything. I was trained that these are the rules, don't break them but you can do anything else as long as you use common sense. Sadly that is lacking today with more and more small rules being invented to cover someone's ass so that they don't end up in court while we all struggle to comply and not break the rules.

I am more concerned as to why the controller fell asleep. Not to blame them and say they shouldn't have fallen asleep, but as we are all human and our body will overtake our professional needs and we fall asleep in seconds. Anyone who hasn't nearly fallen asleep while driving is lying, this at the end of the day is very similar, so perhaps the procedures for ATCO hours need to be revisited or even created. In the UK we have SCRATCOH which means, among lots of other things, we cannot work more than 2 nights in a row. As we don't work them all the time it is a good idea and helps with fatigue. Perhaps someone could point out the rules in the US. Thanks.

TS

bubbers44

29th Mar 2011, 20:56

KSNA and KDCA are very similar in how they operate. I was based at KSNA with an airline. All departures stopped at 10:00PM and all arrivals stopped at 11:00 PM for jets. That was because of noise abatement policies. The tower was then closed and it became an uncontrolled airport. I have landed after 11:00 many times in twin props with no tower. Once in a Citation but that's another story. We were very quiet. Going from controlled to uncontrolled was a non event. I know this is a little different because it is a jet airliner but can't believe some European pilots have such a hard time grasping these pilots had to deal with a non operating tower when it was supposed to be operating. They landed after discussing the situation with approach and approach approving the procedure. 95% of our US pilots would have done the same thing.

Discussions like this make me so happy I flew on this side of the pond.

stuckgear

29th Mar 2011, 20:58

TS,

We pilots appreciate the work you do in separating us from each other managing the traffic flows that enable the airspace to work as effectively as it does. We also appreciate that like us, you guys are pushed to the limits and experience fatigue

as gf points out:

The FAA needs to stand up to the fatigue issues here

It is despicable that the likes of Babbit cut spending and then start with rhetoric over a non event about investigating those pushed to their limits through spending cuts, those who have ignored the professionals that deal with it day in day out. The EASA FTL thread on this forum is point in case here in the EU.

There was no violation of reg, SOP or ATC advice, nor was there any conflict to the aircraft, yet careers are sought to be made standing on the faces of the pilots and quite likely a controllers who should not have been placed in a situation on duty solo and quite likely fatigued.

galaxy flyer

29th Mar 2011, 21:56

Terrain safe

I think it was his 3rd or 4th consecutive night, not sur of FAA schedules, but I think they rotate around 3 days and a shift change. Overtime then fits in, somewhere. The techs and schedulers in my flight department are concerned about working nights alone, wanting and deserving alarm pendants. What if, this controller had heart attack.

it is worth noting that the crew does have to balance some commercial aspects of diverting. Passengers bought tickets to DCA, if you don't know landing at KIAD, in relation to DCA at midnight, might as well be Cleveland. No thru public transportation, so a bus would have to be contracted with some delay. The planes would have been out of position for the early morning deparur from DCA, so a delay getting the outbound crew from downtown to IAD and position it to DCA. That delay would likely hav knock-on effects. In other words, while we are not supposed to let operational problems affect cockpit decisions, they cannot be ignored, either. The small additional risks have to be considered against all the real operational benefits.

aterpster

29th Mar 2011, 22:33

bubbers44:

KSNA and KDCA are very similar in how they operate. I was based at KSNA with an airline. All departures stopped at 10:00PM and all arrivals stopped at 11:00 PM for jets. That was because of noise abatement policies. The tower was then closed and it became an uncontrolled airport. I have landed after 11:00 many times in twin props with no tower. Once in a Citation but that's another story. We were very quiet. Going from controlled to uncontrolled was a non event.

Those two airports are similar only as to having curfews. As you say, KSNA closes and the Class C airspace disappears. KDCA, OTOH, is a full-time Class B airport.

As to taking off and landing at uncontrolled airports some of us who flew a lot of light aircraft time in addition to the airline, did a lot of uncontrolled airport flying.

In all my years of flight aircraft and airline flying, and instrument flight and ground instruction, I never heard of a airport with a control tower that was published as operating suddenly becoming an uncontrolled airport because pilots couldn't contact the tower.

Before the incident at issue is sorted out, I suspect that Potomac TRACON will be deemed to have operated outside its authority. And, because of the manner in which the TRACON communicated with the two affected flights, that alone will probably prevent any violations being filed against the flight crews.

Lord Spandex Masher

29th Mar 2011, 22:41

SSR,
Lord Spandex...I believe you should divert every flight you ever make
Why?

I truly hope Lord Spandex doesn't wear spandex
You should try it, I reckon it would suit you.

and doesn't fly EVER in the USA.
Why? Is there something wrong or dangerous with the way I operate?

I have attempted to seek clarification on this issue. I've been told it was not forbidden but also that it wasn't expressly allowed. Seemed a bit wooly to me so I asked for further clarification in the form of your FARs. I trust there isn't really anything wrong with me doing that? I also asked if the TRACON guy, as it appears in this case, was authorised to allow them to proceed as if they were operating into an uncontrolled airport and again nobody was able to answer me.

was the control tower operative?

Yes, but the controller wasn't. ;)

GF,
FAR 91.129 covers operations in Class D (airport traffic area) and it clearly authorizes ATC to approve deviations from the requirement to have a landing clearance.

Thank you. That answers my question of who is authorised to allow it. However, would it have to be a unit associated with that particular airport, such as approach or tower or could anybody, ie. the TRACON guy or any other area/approach controller allow it given that communication even by landline with the tower was impossible.

By the way, my incorrect frequency comment was meant to be tongue in cheek!

galaxy flyer

29th Mar 2011, 23:30

Potomac TRACON owns all the airspace in the Washington area, so I would believe they have the authority over the airspace. The KDCA tower is under their jurisdiction.

GF

sevenstrokeroll

30th Mar 2011, 00:16

GF

actually the air space is owned by the center and handed out to tracon, tower etc.

is an airplane without a crew operative?

no?

ok, then a control tower without a conscious controller isn't operative either.

I'm sure a new series of regulations will come about and the idea of ''landing at pilot risk'' so often heard by our rotary wing friends will make a reappearance.

galaxy flyer

30th Mar 2011, 00:27

"Landing at pilot's risk" was used in the AA crash at KBDL. Yes, all airspace is "owned" by the ARTCC, but delegates it to various TRACONs. The facility one level above the ATCT is the TRACON, so I would accept they have the authority to act in this case.

aterpster

i agree that it is unique, but the TRACON controller's comments seem to indicate that not unheard of. He even cited a case where the controller was "locked out" of the facility. Definitive enough for me.

FAR 91.129 is not written in a way that describes exactly who in ATC is authorized to make these decisions. That certainly will be more clearly defined. i also agree that the crews will not be facing enforcement action, uncalled for in my opinion, based on the ATC transmissions. I find it hard to figure out how the Enforcement Division could make a case for action. They would have to propose the crew violated 91.129 by landing without a clearance AND that should have known that the TRACON could not authorize "uncontrolled" operations. And, as a backup, show that an uneventful landing by two airliners was "careless and reckless". A steep hill to climb.

In the KBDL accident, ATC did issue a NOTAM, did make the appropriate announcements, but the TRACON supervisor did get into the closed tower facility and issue the "landing at pilot's risk" transmission. He also was commended for making alerting the crash net on the airport.

FYI, they will soon be tearing down the WW II vintage tower at BDL along with the old terminal. Many EAL memories there!

GF

sevenstrokeroll

30th Mar 2011, 00:34

GF

I studied that AA deal at Bradley...near crash...well at least they made the runway

aterpster

30th Mar 2011, 01:01

sevenstroleroll:

I studied that AA deal at Bradley...near crash...well at least they made the runway

Only by the grace of God, Zeus, or the great black hole at the center of our galaxy.

The TERPs/CFIT aircraft performance issues of that accident are astounding.

My pals in TWA 514 hit trees just like these guys did, except it didn't work out for them.

aterpster

30th Mar 2011, 01:17

gf:

i agree that it is unique, but the TRACON controller's comments seem to indicate that not unheard of. He even cited a case where the controller was "locked out" of the facility. Definitive enough for me.

FAR 91.129 is not written in a way that describes exactly who in ATC is authorized to make these decisions. That certainly will be more clearly defined. i also agree that the crews will not be facing enforcement action, uncalled for in my opinion, based on the ATC transmissions. I find it hard to figure out how the Enforcement Division could make a case for action. They would have to propose the crew violated 91.129 by landing without a clearance AND that should have known that the TRACON could not authorize "uncontrolled" operations. And, as a backup, show that an uneventful landing by two airliners was "careless and reckless". A steep hill to climb.

The hill is steep, indeed, so enforcement action is unlikely. But, the TRACON may take some lumps, which we never hear about.

What bothers me is the feds writing more assinine regulations because of this.

bubbers44

30th Mar 2011, 01:18

Hitting trees is fine if you don't hit the trunk. My first commercial flying job was crop dusting and often landed with leaves on my spray booms. This is such a non event that us US pilots are bored with it. You who keep this thread going need to get a life and let us run our happy aviation community as we feel fit.

Ditchdigger

30th Mar 2011, 01:25

dear person who has a controller sleeping in their bed.

the flights WERE cleared into class B airspace...they were indeed cleared for their entire flight when the flights received their initial clearance at their point of departure.

IF the pilots had lost their ability to communicate and could not proceed VFR to an airport after com failure, then they would be expected to fly all the way to DCA and land.

So your friend, the controller is wrong.

I told her you said she was wrong, and within 10 minutes she'd found the applicable FAR:

Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr;sid=d9a984903ae1b2bbb272a459d1dc067e;rgn=div5;vie w=text;node=14%3A2.0.1.3.10;idno=14;cc=ecfr)
Subpart B—Flight Rules (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr;sid=d9a984903ae1b2bbb272a459d1dc067e;rgn=div6;vie w=text;node=14%3A2.0.1.3.10.2;idno=14;cc=ecfr)
General (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr;sid=d9a984903ae1b2bbb272a459d1dc067e;rgn=div7;vie w=text;node=14%3A2.0.1.3.10.2.4;idno=14;cc=ecfr)

Browse Previous (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr;sid=d9a984903ae1b2bbb272a459d1dc067e;rgn=div8;vie w=text;node=14%3A2.0.1.3.10.2.4.18;idno=14;cc=ecfr) | Browse Next (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr;sid=d9a984903ae1b2bbb272a459d1dc067e;rgn=div8;vie w=text;node=14%3A2.0.1.3.10.2.4.20;idno=14;cc=ecfr)

§ 91.131 Operations in Class B airspace.

(a) Operating rules. No person may operate an aircraft within a Class B airspace area except in compliance with §91.129 and the following rules:
(1) The operator must receive an ATC clearance from the ATC facility having jurisdiction for that area before operating an aircraft in that area.
(2) Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each person operating a large turbine engine-powered airplane to or from a primary airport for which a Class B airspace area is designated must operate at or above the designated floors of the Class B airspace area while within the lateral limits of that area.
(3) Any person conducting pilot training operations at an airport within a Class B airspace area must comply with any procedures established by ATC for such operations in that area.
(b) Pilot requirements. (1) No person may take off or land a civil aircraft at an airport within a Class B airspace area or operate a civil aircraft within a Class B airspace area unless—
(i) The pilot in command holds at least a private pilot certificate;
(ii) The pilot in command holds a recreational pilot certificate and has met—
(A) The requirements of §61.101(d) of this chapter; or
(B) The requirements for a student pilot seeking a recreational pilot certificate in §61.94 of this chapter;
(iii) The pilot in command holds a sport pilot certificate and has met—
(A) The requirements of §61.325 of this chapter; or
(B) The requirements for a student pilot seeking a recreational pilot certificate in §61.94 of this chapter; or
(iv) The aircraft is operated by a student pilot who has met the requirements of §61.94 or §61.95 of this chapter, as applicable.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (b)(1)(ii), (b)(1)(iii) and (b)(1)(iv) of this section, no person may take off or land a civil aircraft at those airports listed in section 4 of appendix D to this part unless the pilot in command holds at least a private pilot certificate.
(c) Communications and navigation equipment requirements. Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft within a Class B airspace area unless that aircraft is equipped with—
(1) For IFR operation. An operable VOR or TACAN receiver or an operable and suitable RNAV system; and
(2) For all operations. An operable two-way radio capable of communications with ATC on appropriate frequencies for that Class B airspace area.
(d) Other equipment requirements. No person may operate an aircraft in a Class B airspace area unless the aircraft is equipped with—
(1) The applicable operating transponder and automatic altitude reporting equipment specified in §91.215 (a), except as provided in §91.215 (e), and
(2) After January 1, 2020, the applicable Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast Out equipment specified in §91.225.
[Doc. No. 24458, 56 FR 65658, Dec. 17, 1991, as amended by Amdt. 91–282, 69 FR 44880, July 27, 2004; Amdt. 91–296, 72 FR 31678, June 7, 2007; Admt. 91–314, 75 FR 30193, May 28, 2010]

.AOLWebSuite .AOLPicturesFullSizeLink { height: 1px; width: 1px; overflow: hidden; } .AOLWebSuite a {color:blue; text-decoration: underline; cursor: pointer} .AOLWebSuite a.hsSig {cursor: default}

I asked her to forward the cite to me. She provided the red text.

It is her considered opinion that as written, the reg means that the pilots needed clearance from the tower, because it's the tower, not the TRACON that is" the ATC facility having jurisdiction for that area ."

Further, as to the question of lost com procedures, it is her opinion that that applies when the aircraft has lost its radios, but not when the tower seems to have lost theirs.
Had there been some indication, i.e. a green light, flashing of runway lights, etc. that would satisfy the requirement for being in communication with the tower. Lacking any such indication that the tower knew they were coming, the aircraft could not rightly claim to be in communication with the tower, and thus, in this case, (because the aircraft had operating radios) could not legally land.

As to the clearance itself, she points out that it's not necessarily so that being cleared for a particular route includes a clearance to the airport itself. If the XYZ VOR is not colocated with the XYZ airport, unless the phraseology used is specifically "XYZ Airport" the clearance could be to the VOR, not the airport. She adds that that may be something many people do not even realize, and that 99.999% of the time it doesn't make any difference, but if the FAA is in the mood to nitpick, they can hang either a controller or a pilot on such a seemingly trivial detail.

Potomac TRACON owns all the airspace in the Washington area, so I would believe they have the authority over the airspace. The KDCA tower is under their jurisdiction.

She also points out that while it may be possible for a TRACON to assume control of an airport's airspace, that to do so requires coordination. Obviously, a sleeping controller can't provide that coordination. At the time in question, Potomac TRACON could not have legally owned the airspace.

Certainly the water is plenty muddy. It'll be interesting to see how this aspect of the drama plays out...

sevenstrokeroll

30th Mar 2011, 01:56

ditchdigger

I would never accept a clearance that wasn't all the way to my destination airport (unless it was expected in the clearance).

In NO WAY were these flights on an IFR clearance to the VOR on the field...they were cleared to DCA airport...and they would not have accepted any other clearance.

TRACON has the authority to issue an approach clearance and that goes all the way to the inches off the runway...a landing clearance is then required IF THERE IS SOMEONE WHO CAN ISSUE THAT CLEARANCE...and there wasn't. A sleeping controller means NO CONTROLLER.

There isn't any room to nit pick. The flights were cleared to the airport on initial ATC clearance at departure.

They were cleared for approach by tracon. It appears an automatic handoff signaled tower a plane was coming in...but no human was awake to realize it.

The airport was NOT CLOSED by the managing authority and was open.

Tower was asleep and pilots acted in a responsible manner.

LOST COM procedures does not just mean you have lost your radio...it means you cannot communicate ....for whatever reason...enemy jamming, sunspots, stuck mike or a myriad of things.

just because the person you sleep with is a controller doesn't mean she is correct.

And it is a huge joke to think that clearances are routinely issued to a VOR and not a destination airport. Ask Bubbers if he would take a clearance to a VOR without expect further clearance to the airport .

It can also be reasonable to EXPECT a landing clearance after being given an approach clearance to a specific runway. In those moments between approach clearance and the end of the runway, if landing clearance is not specifically withdrawn, one should continue to landing if in the opinion of the PIC it is otherwise safe to do so.

I've been in situations where traffic was using poor radio technique and jamming the freq and been asking and asking for landing clearance...there are some airports where an unexpected go around could actually result in a collision.

Ditchdigger

30th Mar 2011, 04:30

just because the person you sleep with is a controller doesn't mean she is correct.

Yeah. It really calls her judgement into question on a whole range of issues, doesn't it? ;)

It can also be reasonable to EXPECT a landing clearance after being given an approach clearance to a specific runway. In those moments between approach clearance and the end of the runway, if landing clearance is not specifically withdrawn, one should continue to landing if in the opinion of the PIC it is otherwise safe to do so.

LOL! You should have heard her tone of voice when she said "No" to that assertion. To summarize her reaction, why bother with the landing clearance at all then?

She walked back in here four different times to make different points about what's wrong with your post. I'm not a fast enough typist to post them all before breakfast time (and it's only 15 past midnight here right now).

Well, I say that a controlled airport, when there is not one single active controller becomes, by virtue of the platonic argument, UNCONTROLLED.

Therefore uncontrolled aiport operations come into play.

Probably the easiest way to sum it up is to say that if your thinking is correct, then if the same thing were to happen at 5 o'clock on a Thursday afternoon, everybody should be expected to land just as they did the other night, because the rules would still be the same, and what we're talking about now is not whether the landings were accomplished safely, but whether they were accomplished within the applicable rules.

(And it won't do you any good to shoot the messenger, which is all I am at this point. I do have to say though, that for her to agree with anything that eminates from the FAA is rather noteworthy in and of itself. Take that for what it's worth.) :)

Amend my previous statement--she's been back a fifth time. Gotta hit the submit reply button before she gets back again....

sevenstrokeroll

30th Mar 2011, 04:58

if it happened at five pm on a thursday, I would do the same damn thing and land.

...no one would be taking off as they wouldn't have a radar release. the runway would be clearly visible...if the tower was not operating, why not? There is a huge litany of ''right of way'' in terms of planes landing.

also, as a practical thing, there really would be more controllers in the tower and at least one of them would be awake.

IF you have been reading the whole thread, you would have read that at an ALPA safety meeting in Washington, a representative of FAA management made a presentation that landing clearance one day would be done away with provided you had received approach clearance and were on an instrument clearance.

the ultimate authority for the safety of flight is the pilot in command...not the controller.

aterpster

30th Mar 2011, 12:10

NTSB has opened an investigation into the issue at DCA:

Press Advisory (http://www3.ntsb.gov/pressrel/2011/110324.html)

Related in a sense, they have also opened an investigation into the circumstances surrounding a Central Florida TRACON request that a Southwest Airlines flight look into the cockpit of an unresponsive light aircraft. They radar vectored the SWA flight to the proximity of the light aircraft.

National Transportation Safety Board
Washington, DC 20594

March 29, 2011

************************************************************

NTSB INVESTIGATING AN INCIDENT INVOLVING AN ATC REQUEST FOR A COMMERCIAL
AIRCRAFT TO FLY NEAR A NON-RESPONSIVE AIRPLANE

************************************************************

The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating an incident
involving a Southwest Airlines airplane that was requested to veer off course
by Air Traffic Control to view into the cockpit of a general aviation
airplane that had been out of radio communication.

On Sunday, March 27, 2011, Southwest Airlines flight 821 was requested by
Central Florida Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) to check on a Cirrus
SR22 that had been out of radio contact for an hour. The TRACON vectored the
Southwest Airlines commercial flight until visual contact was obtained with
the Cirrus.

The NTSB has designated Dan Bartlett as the Investigator-in-Charge.

clunckdriver

30th Mar 2011, 12:19

Well, just back from a jaunt around Eastern Canada and the USA, the F/O and I having read this thread were already very stressed as we fiddled with all those thingamyjigs in the cockpit before starting those pesky GITSO engines. Our first T/O was from our home field, CSE4, WHICH LACKS ANY NAV CANADA ATC STUFF, by now the tension in the pointy end was right up there with my first try at finding the deck on a dirty night, then to add to it a recently de-hibernated Racoon wandered across the runway and no where could we find the wake seperation required behind a departing Racoon! and no ATC to help us. First landing was at our nations capitol {Disnyland on the Rideau} but we were by then safe in tha arms of our ATC system, and were cleared to land no less than three times, so that must make it three times as safe I gues? I could go on about the rest of our day {Clearing US/Canada customs, two more uncontrolled landings, the airports, not the landings, the last leg VFR over the familly farm but it might bring flash backs if I do recount the day} Really folks, Stuck Gear got it right, no tower? use uncontrolled procedures period, dont muddy the waters with a bunch of totally stupid crap, above all fly the airplane! As an end note the biggest mess Ive ever seen was when a fighter in a full burner T/O plowed throught a turboprop , killing and maiming the poor sods on board, a "controlled field," two controllers on duty plus an Opps B assistant, go figure!

Lord Spandex Masher

30th Mar 2011, 12:19

SSR,
no one would be taking off as they wouldn't have a radar release.

Help me clear something up. Do you need a radar release when you are operating at an uncontrolled airport?

Are you implying that you can land at an uncontrolled airport but you can't take off?

Given enough time then that airport is going to get pretty full of aeroplanes.

Ditchdigger

30th Mar 2011, 13:21

also, as a practical thing, there really would be more controllers in the tower and at least one of them would be awake.

Forgive me if I left too much room for interpretation when I said, "if the same thing were to happen at 5 o'clock on a Thursday afternoon". What I meant was not that the lone controller had fallen asleep, (because that was not known until later), but if at 5 p.m. on Thursday, for reasons unknown, the tower was unresponsive to any and all attempts to communicate with it.

And again, we're addressing the specific question of whether the PICs' excercise of their authority in this case might be determined to be contrary to the applicable regulations, not whether safety was compromised. I suspect you'd agree that there's no ironclad relationship between the two.

Perhaps that will change your answer, perhaps not. If you are 100% confident in your knowledge of how the FARs apply to the specific situation, it shouldn't. Certainly, whichever way this all plays out, it will have been an educational experience for everybody...

bubbers44

30th Mar 2011, 13:35

We have all taken off on an IFR clearance at uncontrolled airports. It requires a clearance from ATC via land line with a time block to be airborne or radio contact with the controller on the ground.

Lord Spandex Masher

30th Mar 2011, 13:51

Bubbers, it isn't beyond the realms of possibility that somebody could have been on the runway as they landed then?

iskyfly

30th Mar 2011, 14:39

Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr;sid=d9a984903ae1b2bbb272a459d1dc067e;rgn=div5;vie w=text;node=14%3A2.0.1.3.10;idno=14;cc=ecfr)
Subpart B—Flight Rules (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr;sid=d9a984903ae1b2bbb272a459d1dc067e;rgn=div6;vie w=text;node=14%3A2.0.1.3.10.2;idno=14;cc=ecfr)
General (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr;sid=d9a984903ae1b2bbb272a459d1dc067e;rgn=div7;vie w=text;node=14%3A2.0.1.3.10.2.4;idno=14;cc=ecfr)

§ 91.131 Operations in Class B airspace.

(2) For all operations. An operable two-way radio capable of communications with ATC on appropriate frequencies for that Class B airspace area.

Don't see how this applies to this case. The aircraft had an operable radio capable of communicating with ATC.

sevenstrokeroll

30th Mar 2011, 14:39

dear lord spandex

regarding your post concerning radar release.

if you were at an uncontrolled airport and it was VFR conditions and did not have overlying class B airspace you could takeoff without a radar release.

But if you were at DCA, you would need a clearance to enter class B airspace. if conditions were IFR you would need a clearance.

if dca tower were closed and you could get hold of tracon and IF they would release you, yes you could takeoff.

Chances are tracon would have you wait safely on the ground till things were sorted out. SINCE tracon had not released anyone from DCA for departure, (along with noise curfew) there wouldn't be departing traffic for the inbound traffic to worry about.

You mention to bubbers the possibility of a plane being on the runway while another attempted to land. Quite possible, EVEN WHEN CONTROLERS ARE AWAKE.

see bubbers comment about landline and block of time.

ditchdigger...for the purpose of the discussion time of day would be unimportant.

ElectricWhale

30th Mar 2011, 14:48

There is ALWAYS the possibility that there will be traffic on the runway whether there is a manned control tower or not.

I would speculate that there are more incidents at tower controlled airports than non-controlled airports with regards to runway incursions, near collisions, and actual collisions.

As a pilot that was operating from LAX in 1991 ( LAX Runway Collision (http://safetycrusader.com/Accidents.aspx) ), I can attest that the control tower should be considered, at best, an advisory facility with only the power of suggestion over your aircrafts movements.

The ultimate authority for decisions comes from the cockpit. I think the DCA pilots did a fine job. Their decision can be second guessed to death (and is being second guessed to death), but they had safe, uneventful landings without an operating control tower - which as it turns out happens with part 121 carriers hundreds of times every day.

Ditchdigger

30th Mar 2011, 14:55

Don't see how this applies to this case. The aircraft had an operable radio capable of communicating with ATC.

As I said, she provided the red.

That particular bit was included not becuase of the "letter of the law" specifically, but because she feels that it infers that 2 way communications is a requirement. Certainly, as it applies to this discussion, that is more subject to interpretation than the more precise wording that was emphaized in red above it.

I could go out on a limb and speculate that those who wrote that reg never anticipated ATC failing to communicate because they were asleep. If they had, perhaps they have chosen a few different words.

If anyone is interested, there was a discussion of this at LiveATC Forums. (I say "was", be cause apparently their administration isn't as tolerant of heated debate as the administration here, and the thread is closed.) Poster TC is a controller at KBOS, and he seems to have a very strong opinion on the issue: FAA suspends controller who missed landing of two planes at D.C. | LiveATC.net (http://www.liveatc.net/forums/listener-forum/asleep-in-the-tower-at-dca/)[/COLOR]

Lord Spandex Masher

30th Mar 2011, 15:21

SSR,
EVEN WHEN CONTROLERS ARE AWAKE

You keep saying this but it's not relevant to this situation is it. Yes it happens when they are awake. So what?

I appreciate that nobody was released for departure. Ok, so the TRACON guy who authorised, incorrectly and off the cuff, the uncontrolled option, was he the same guy who would have given a release for a departure?

for the purpose of the discussion time of day would be unimportant.

That's just plain wrong. At night, even if I've been told he's on the runway it's difficult to spot another aircraft. Remind me what color tail lights are? Also, what color are runway lights? Would they both be white?!

aterpster

30th Mar 2011, 15:50

Now that the NTSB has decided to investigate, we will learn a lot when that report comes out.

The FAA does a fairly decent job of investigating itself, but it is not inclined to share its findings with the public.

galaxy flyer

30th Mar 2011, 18:47

Ditchdigger

Please tell your significant other, just about every ATC Departure Clearance is to the destination airport, the exception might be a short range clearance which is very unusual. I was cleared to Paris-LeBourget three times last month. Once by KTEB Clearance Delivery (they used the ICAO identifier LFPB), once more by Gander Oceanic ("cleared to destination LeBourget via NAT...."); lastly by Shannon Radar, coasting in ("cleared to destination via standard routing"). Those clearances don't obviate the need for descent, approach and landing clearances from the operating ATC. That was in one flight.

sevenstrokeroll

30th Mar 2011, 19:21

lord spandex

you forget that since the tragic collision in LAX that most pilots turn on all their lights including landing lights upon taking the runway, so at night there is quite a bit of light over and above nav lights.

you would have to contact approach/departure control to learn if one particular controller would give a relase and another for approach clearance.

you are struggling to justify your views.

in the final analysis, the passengers safely arrived at their intended destination...no need to rent a bus to drive them (potential danger in driving) to their destination after a diversion.

the one bright spot about this whole thing is that some 30 airports around the USA are getting additional controlers on the night shift...that might even please ditchdiggers bed mate.

Ditchdigger

30th Mar 2011, 20:00

Please tell your significant other, just about every ATC Departure Clearance is to the destination airport,

I'll tell her, but she was pretty unequivocal in making that statement, and I'm sure I didn't mis-translate either.

the one bright spot about this whole thing is that some 30 airports around the USA are getting additional controlers on the night shift...that might even please ditchdiggers bed mate.

I'm sure it will please controllers in general, because they have long recognized the risks associated with the lone controller on duty becoming incapacitated, as a matter of both traffic control, and personal safety.

(And it's also been suggested that the smart thing to do, once he woke up, would have been to hit his head really hard on something, and be sure to bleed all over the place. An accident that incapcitates the lone controller is one of the hazards of those single person mids...)

That was her idea. And one could hope it would've resulted in the same outcome with reference to additional staffing. Tis a shame the fellow at DCA was too sleepy to think that fast.

bubbers44

30th Mar 2011, 20:04

...that might even please ditchdiggers bed mate.

It is always great to have someone under you. In the seniority system I mean, so she will probably have at least 50 more controllers below her because of the increased staffing caused by this incident.

I don't think the controller who made it uncontrolled when the tower guy couldn't be woken up will be faulted at all. He did the logical thing under the circumstances to let them land legally. I applaud him for having the guts to do the right thing. They don't make rules specifically for this incident.

Ditchdigger

30th Mar 2011, 20:29

so she will probably have at least 50 more controllers below her because of the increased staffing caused by this incident.

Nope, She's just a plain old controller, not a supe. If she were a supe, I couldn't pass her comments along to all of you with any degree of confidence...

stuckgear

30th Mar 2011, 20:47

the one bright spot about this whole thing is that some 30 airports around the USA are getting additional controlers on the night shift

Well thats a good thing for both controllers and pilots. At least the 'problem' wasn't attempted to be resolved by mandating a 1,500 hour minimum . :hmm:

chuks

30th Mar 2011, 21:27

I bet that the crews will get a slap on the wrist from the Feds for not taking the safest course of action, to deviate to an airport with a functioning tower.

There was no over-riding safety-related reason to land at DCA. If there had been, then, yes, one could use the PIC authority to deviate from the clearance (just for the approach) and to land. In this case, though, I doubt that a safety case could be made for landing at DCA without a clearance, when it would have been (arguably) much safer to divert to IAD.

This is all second-guessing, of course, especially since two safe landings were made. How about if there had been some un-notified movement, though? At that time of night you might well have had someone out doing a runway inspection or some maintenance, operating on a separate frequency from the one used by approaching aircraft. It would have been a case of the controller clearing them for that with "Inform me when you are finished and clear of the runway," ZZzzzz.... and then the approaching aircraft simply assuming that the runway was clearfor landing.

In any case, I think you will find that your IFR clearance is to the approach fix filed in the flight plan. If you have a comms failure then you can leave that fix at the ETA to shoot the approach and land if you have visual at minimums. In this case the TRACON can clear you for the approach but, even if you have the runway in sight, they cannot clear you to land, since they do not "own" that runway; it belongs to the airport control tower. In fact, I don't think you can go below the decision height without clearance from the tower, because that is the boundary between the approach and the landing procedure.

It is interesting that someone mentioned TWA514. They were "cleared for the approach," when they descended to the final approach altitude and collided with Mount Weather. The FE had queried this, to be told by the Captain that clearance for the approach included clearance to the final approach altitude. Later they changed the wording to something like "Cleared for the XXX approach. Maintain XXX feet until passing Round Hill intersection."

Here, although there was no accident, I expect that we will be told that there was no clearance to land and no over-riding reason to land so that these crews had deviated from their clearances and landed without permission. It will be one of those things where a reasonable judgement will be shown in hindsight to have been incorrect, with the Feds indisposed to give anyone a break, especially since the whole thing stems from their under-staffing in the first place!

SeenItAll

30th Mar 2011, 21:29

Maybe this theory probably belongs in Jet Blast, but I am still a bit surprised that the TRACON controller was so quick to declare KDCA uncontrolled in order to permit the AA to land. The reason for my surprise at this quick decision by the TRACON controller is because: (a) s/he was still completely unaware as to why the KDCA tower was incommunicado. (Indeed, the TRACON guy supposedly telephoned the KDCA tower over a shout link, and got no response.) and (b) the AA flight was not in any emergency situation.

Suppose that the real situation at KDCA was roughly the same as the one protrayed at KIAD in Bruce Willis' Die Hard 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Hard_2) flick. Terrorists had taken over the airport and knocked out commuications to the planes. Further, they may have positioned some invisible obstruction on the runway so that any planes that try to land will crash.

Please note that I am not suggesting that this situation was at all likely, but I am a bit surprised the TRACON controller didn't do any more research (e.g., ring up the KDCA fire service, etc.) before deciding that it was OK simply to allow uncontrolled operations. Of course, it seems that this controller knew of other circumstances when communications to towers had failed (e.g., lock-outs), so it seems likely that he was willing to jump to this benign conclusion without considering the more nefarious possible reasons.

sevenstrokeroll

30th Mar 2011, 21:53

I just read two interesting pieces in responsible newspapers on this subject. One, the Houston Chronicle said that a year ago, the controller on duty at DCA was locked out and two jets landed using uncontrolled airport procedures.

Another was an interview with an aviation lawyer...he, in the Washington Post, said the pilots followed the proper protocols and landed safely.

He also went further to say that some secure procedures, not available to the general public due to security concerns, allowed the tracon controller to proceed as he did.

I encourage you to go to google news dot com, search reagan national airport and try to find the articles.

chuks

30th Mar 2011, 22:08

I am just guessing at what the Feds will do. As you probably know, they occasionally go right off the reservation to make stuff up as they go along, as in the case of Bob Hoover. With this one, there will be a strong temptation to make some big CYA moves against the crews, no? You know, a sort of "Hang them all!" move, which the traveling public will simply applaud.

We have already had Mr Babbitt going into a tizz over the fact that someone fell asleep in the middle of the night, as if that were totally unforgivable. In reality, the system did not have anything in place to cope with something that is simply a fact of being human. Trains have "dead man switches" for this very reason; nod off and the train comes to a halt. For a tower, well, perhaps a CCTV link to TRACON, so that they could see why the man went quiet? I am sure someone can come up with some protection for this sort of thing happening.

I think the fairest thing would be an FAA opinion along the lines of "That was okay, sort of, but DON'T DO IT AGAIN!" telling everyone that in future they should divert if there is no reply from the tower for unknown reasons. They can back that up with various ways to figure out what is happening at the airport, of course, but loss of contact with the tower means that a vital safety link is now broken. All it would take is one landing with an un-notified runway obstruction, assuming that it is safe to land without hearing from the tower controller. I cannot see the Feds leaving the tower out of the loop in this way, in future, given the obvious risks.

sevenstrokeroll

30th Mar 2011, 22:15

so, should we carry, controller sleepy time fuel? while there are many airports near DCA, what happens when you fly to PoDunk airport and there isn't another controlled airport within your remaining fuel range (with good weather etc).

obstruction on runway just isn't the only scenario to consider. I would also remind you that if a RUNWAY IS REALLY CLOSED, a requirement for a Large Illuminated X to be placed on runway ends is required.

Lord Spandex Masher

30th Mar 2011, 22:16

you forget that since the tragic collision in LAX that most pilots turn on all their lights including landing lights upon taking the runway, so at night there is quite a bit of light over and above nav lights.

you are struggling to justify your views.

in the final analysis, the passengers safely arrived at their intended destination...no need to rent a bus to drive them (potential danger in driving) to their destination after a diversion.

Yes, but landing lights point forward, if you are landing on the same runway as someone taking off then all you'll see are some nav lights...maybe.

I'm not stating any views, I'm asking questions.

Can't disagree with you on your last point though.

sevenstrokeroll

30th Mar 2011, 22:27

landing lights create quite a bit of illumination, not just in the pointed direction.

sevenstrokeroll

30th Mar 2011, 23:00

if someone can find out about the incident a year ago, it might shed some light on the subject.

galaxy flyer

30th Mar 2011, 23:05

My research revealed that a KTEB tower controller, alone on midnight shift, locked himself out of the cab. He called the TRACON, informed them of the situation, the NY TRACON took control of the airspace and three planes landed under "CTAF" procedures. All a non-event, as expected when the media and high politicians are uninvolved.

It happened during construction on the tower, the incident occurred on July 5, 2009 and was termed "inconvenient" by FAA spokesman Jim Peters.

Other than the cellphone coordination, exactly on point, in my view.

aterpster

30th Mar 2011, 23:08

Lord Spandex Masher:

Yes, but landing lights point forward, if you are landing on the same runway as someone taking off then all you'll see are some nav lights...maybe.

They also reflect a lot of light off the runway, especially a concrete runway as at LAX. LAX was my home base for most of my career. I am almost certain that tragic accident would not have happened had the commuter bird had its landing lights on while waiting in position.

bubbers44

30th Mar 2011, 23:28

Had to get to my den computer to also say if the landing lights are on the runway is lit up so chances of getting landed on are pretty slim. As I said before at least 95% of US pilots would have landed when it was declared uncontrolled. I guess you think our major airline landing in Puerto Rico at the uncontrolled old B52 base was cowboy flying. My airline was disgustingly conservative and non of our pilots thought landing there without an operating control tower was risky. I guess we have a different culture and we just prefer ours. Hope you never have a situation that isn't covered by one of your rules because on this side of the pond we do what makes sense and deal with it on the ground.

I just ask "What would Bob Hoover do". Stole that from one of my born again religious friends. Sorry. His idol started with J. I see Hoover every year at the Reno Air Races.

chuks

30th Mar 2011, 23:34

It will be interesting to read the NTSB report on this incident, to see what they have to say about the actions taken, assuming that the FAA lets things rest for now by suspending the tower controller.

It doesn't take an over-active imagination to see how a controller asleep at the switch might create an unsafe situation for a landing aircraft; otherwise, why have a controller on duty in the first place?

At a major airport you may have some sort of maintenance vehicles operating on their own frequency, one not immediately known to aircraft crews. It is easy to envision a situation where a maintenance crew has been cleared onto an active runway, when they would not be aware of a landing aircraft, nor vice-versa, if the tower controller had quietly nodded off.

If you were landing on a ten-thousand foot runway, could you be 100% sure of spotting a small truck a long way down it in the roll-out zone? You know how we see what we expect to see, not something like one blinking yellow light out there among all the other runway lights. I think one could make the same argument for a departing aircraft sat there "on the numbers" as you come in for a landing. Should you be able to understand what those extra lights mean when your mind is set to "I am cleared to land with the runway in sight?" Hopefully, yes, but I would not want to have to count on that!

At an uncontrolled airport one advantage is that everyone should be on the same advisory frequency; you shouldn't have to wonder if there is someone out on your landing runway who is effectively un-notified to you and out of radio contact with you through no fault of his own.

I just hope that the FAA takes this as a wake-up (Hah!) call; we got "two for free" but let's do something so that it doesn't happen the same way again with a not-so-good result.

galaxy flyer

30th Mar 2011, 23:54

I give up, Chuks, how would a napping ATCO create an unsafe situation? He was on duty because no one at the FAA would allow KDCA to be a designated uncontrolled airport at night. Hell, KLGA was uncontrolled at night at one time, but not KDCA. Something about no-good politicians assume they deserve controllers.

GF

bubbers44

30th Mar 2011, 23:56

It was a minor inconvenience. Get over it. What traffic was he separating you from? How many miles was the plane doing the next arrival? 50-100 miles?

Lord Spandex Masher

30th Mar 2011, 23:59

aterpster, I won't deny that landing lights are reflected from the runway surface, afterall that is how they work. However, the runway itself has it's own lights and the ambient light they produce can do a good job of masking any, some or all of the reflected light. That is my own personal experience. The most obvious lights you see from another aircraft on the runway are the nav lights and even then they ain't that easy to spot.

Bubbers,

I guess you think our major airline landing in Puerto Rico at the uncontrolled old B52 base was cowboy flying. My airline was disgustingly conservative and non of our pilots thought landing there without an operating control tower was risky. I guess we have a different culture and we just prefer ours.

Nope, not at all. If you look back at my posts you will see that I learnt to fly at an uncontrolled airport. I still occasionally operate to an uncontrolled airport. You will also see I have stated that there is nothing inherently dangerous about operating at an uncontrolled airport. Clear enough this time?

Hope you never have a situation that isn't covered by one of your rules because on this side of the pond we do what makes sense and deal with it on the ground.

Why? Have I ever stated a need or a desire to have a rule that covers every eventuality? No, I haven't. What I have done is ask for clarification about this situation. I've been told there is no rule that allows it but no rule that prohibits it. So, therefore, it's ok. Do you not see the contradiction there? It was then that I asked to see the relevant regulation. That is all.

GF,
He was on duty because no one at the FAA would allow KDCA to be a designated uncontrolled airport at night

Do you think that it would be safer for DCA to be uncontrolled at night, obviously bearing in mind what has just happened? At least then everybody would expect it and be prepared for it.

chuks

31st Mar 2011, 00:33

My point is that having a controller fall asleep is far less safe than having no controller at all! There is one set of assumptions for an uncontrolled airport but a far different set for a controlled airport.

For instance, I once had my trusty Beech BE-95 Travel Air crap out on me over at the main terminal of Miami International in the middle of the night. (This was back when I was a starving air taxi pilot saving up for my ATP.) We got hold of our ramp guy who came across with the van and the tow bar, when we got clearance from the Tower to tow the Travel Air back to the Butler ramp on the north side of the airport. So far, so good.

Of course, just pulling onto 09L the towbar went PING! so that we coasted to a gentle halt toward its middle with a very large set of landing lights now bearing down from a couple of miles off, plus the miserable battery, the cause of the original problem, now went completely dead and took the radio and the beacon with it.

Russ the ramp guy, not the sharpest tool in the box at 2 a.m., had carried on a bit in the van with the good radio, not immediately noticing that the towbar had broken; it took a minute to get him back so that we could report to the tower that, umm, we were sort of parked in the middle of 09L for a few minutes! Then we set a new record for two guys pushing a Travel Air up across the steep crown of the runway and then down the other side clear of it.

Isn't aviation sort of like that? It was the middle of the night, nothing had happened for hours, we needed to tow an aircraft, the towbar broke just pulling onto the runway, we lost the beacon and the aircraft radio, plus the bright strobe on the van headed off into the middle distance for a bit, and just then the only arrival since forever showed up!

Who could imagine a controller going to sleep, yet that happened, didn't it? Let's imagine that guy on final just assuming that the runway he was cleared for a visual approach to was clear for landing with not a peep out of the tower, especially since about 50% of it really was! Who could have come up with this clownish scenario as something plausible?

misd-agin

31st Mar 2011, 00:59

Spandex - what happens in the real world is folks that can't, or won't, fly day in day out, for whatever reason, get to sit in their offices, at the perfect temperature, in perfect lighting, for days, while calling everyone they can think off, to figure out - "what would I have done?"

If it's too dark they don't work on the problem. If it's too cold they don't work on the problem. If it's too late they don't work on the problem. If it's too early they don't work on the problem. If their cell phone dies they don't work on the problem. If their wife calls them they don't work on the problem, etc, etc, etc. Why put any time contraint on answering the question, they've got as long as they think they need.

It's pretty funny to see some of them actually performing in a simulator. Reality is a lot different from pretending.

Misd-agin's first law of aviation - "a plane in motion MUST stay in motion", sometimes requires decisions to be made fairly quickly. IMO the guys did fine.

galaxy flyer

31st Mar 2011, 01:20

LSM

Given the normal overnight traffic count at KDCA (and most airports, world-wide), I don't think it matters much, controlled or uncontrolled. Granted LVP, the possibility of really adverse weather might weigh things in favor of having a controller, but VFR night like the one in question, could go either way.

Look at the history of jet mid-air collisions, most occurred in controlled airspace.

USAF training bases are all uncontrolled, except for procedures to separate traffic--works fine without any controller input. There is 20 or more planes in the air, all uncontrolled with students! KLGA without controllers never seemed to compromise safety. OTOH, the "frequency separation" practiced by PATCO did very much compromise safety. Overhead JFK at FL200, given a new frequency where I was greeted by, "NxxxHA, if you are on frequency, TURN IMMEDIATELY TO 090, OPPOSITE DIRECTION TRAFFIC". A DC-9 sped by, co-altitude. It was called a "deal", in PATCO speak.

On the whole, I'd rather have ACAS and no controllers than controllers and no ACAS. But then again, I feel safer at home because I and 50% of my town's residents have weapons at home than I do because of the local police.

I do fly with lots of pilots who would have it otherwise--flying is a reflection of personality. I don't think you are wrong, just that you have a different view of things.

GF

Lord Spandex Masher

31st Mar 2011, 01:24

misd-

I think I understand. You think I sit in an office with no comprehension of reality. You think I don't fly for a living and haven't for more than a decade and a half. You think I can't solve problems and you think I think that the 'guys' didn't do fine.

Is that about right? One word - Wrong.

If that's not what you meant then I can make no other sense of your post.

Must try harder.

BarbiesBoyfriend

31st Mar 2011, 01:33

If I got lost comms on short final and could see the runway was clear, I'd land.

After all, I might cock up the G/A!

Lord Spandex Masher

31st Mar 2011, 01:39

galaxy flyer

31st Mar 2011, 01:48

LSM

I agree on having two controllers on duty at any one time. The FAA was supposed to alway schedule two on-duty after the KLEX crash. The crash was not charged to the FAA, but the NTSB stated that having had two controllers on duty might have prevented the accident when the accident crew mis-identified the active runway.

My office is making it a requirement that anyone working alone must have a "alarm pendant" (like senior citizens have) to give them quick access to emergency response. I am more shocked that the FAA lets workers be alone with a very tenuous means of emergency response. This is now TWO events and perhaps more, unreported or unknown.

GF

aterpster

31st Mar 2011, 01:49

Lord Spandex Masher:

Here is what you stated in Post #200:

Yes, but landing lights point forward, if you are landing on the same runway as someone taking off then all you'll see are some nav lights...maybe.
I'm not stating any views, I'm asking questions. (emphasis added)

So I replied (answered) to your "question" in my Post #204:

They also reflect a lot of light off the runway, especially a concrete runway as at LAX. LAX was my home base for most of my career. I am almost certain that tragic accident would not have happened had the commuter bird had its landing lights on while waiting in position.

Then, in Post #209 you argue with my answer to your "question."

aterpster, I won't deny that landing lights are reflected from the runway surface, afterall that is how they work. However, the runway itself has it's own lights and the ambient light they produce can do a good job of masking any, some or all of the reflected light. That is my own personal experience. The most obvious lights you see from another aircraft on the runway are the nav lights and even then they ain't that easy to spot.

So, I ask: How many times have you landed at night as a captain or F/O on Runway 24R or 24L at LAX?

I have a few hundred times.

Lord Spandex Masher

31st Mar 2011, 03:43

aterpster,

Yes, but landing lights point forward, if you are landing on the same runway as someone taking off then all you'll see are some nav lights...maybe.

That isn't a question. It's a statement and until that point it's about the only one I've made.

aterpster, I won't deny that landing lights are reflected from the runway surface, afterall that is how they work. However, the runway itself has it's own lights and the ambient light they produce can do a good job of masking any, some or all of the reflected light. That is my own personal experience. The most obvious lights you see from another aircraft on the runway are the nav lights and even then they ain't that easy to spot.

That is not an argument as I'm quite clearly agreeing with you. I then stated that the reflected light can be masked to a greater or lesser extent by ambient light - in my experience. Unless my experience of aircraft lights is somehow less important than yours then I don't see how you have a problem with me stating a fact.

How many times have you landed at night as a captain or F/O on Runway 24R or 24L at LAX?

Zero. But unless the concrete you use at LAX has different reflective properties to the concrete used on runways in Europe I don't see how the airport is relevant. How many times have you landed on either runway at SZG, LBA or DUB at night?

grumpyoldgeek

31st Mar 2011, 05:42

LSM, are you Anthony Atkielski?

stuckgear

31st Mar 2011, 08:53

Yes, but landing lights point forward, if you are landing on the same runway as someone taking off then all you'll see are some nav lights...maybe.

and the tail light and the anti-collision lights.

windytoo

31st Mar 2011, 11:18

I don't think LSM is Anthony Atkielski, but he certainly suffers from delusions of grandeur, with his Lord moniker and his condescending attitude. I have no doubt that he will take great delight in replying with a facetious statement, however as the ignore button has now been employed, he will be able to enjoy it far more than I can.
Well done guys for using your Common Sense and landing. Having weighed up the options, the best command decision I have seen made for some time.
p.s. I think we have someone trying to usurp 411's title as most irritating poster. A goal to which LSM aspires, but will probably never achieve.

Lord Spandex Masher

31st Mar 2011, 11:31

Grumpy, I have no idea who that is.

stuckgear, is the tail light not a nav light? Is it white as well? They're rhetorical questions, you don't need to answer them. There are thousands of lights on an airfield from the sodium flood lights to the HI runway lights. Sadly an aeroplane is a small collection of maybe half a dozen lights which are pretty insignificant compared to all the rest.

I know what I can and can't see, an aeroplane on a runway isn't as easy to spot as some people are making out, even if you know it's there.

Anyway, I though you were ignoring me;)

nickpozz

31st Mar 2011, 12:25

Hello all,

Having just read this thread, I thought I would offer my humble opinion.

I would imagine that there are quite a few more threats and risks involved in sending a student on their first solo night nav between uncontrolled country airfields in an old Cessna or Piper than landing a modern airliner with two highly experienced well trained crew at a large international airport, that is for the most part strictly controlled. Personally I think they made a good call and it was within the law.

Before anybody asks me to provide details on my level of experience here they are:

330TT (Hence the "humble" part)

nickpozz

31st Mar 2011, 13:20

Also I think that if they insist on having only one controller on the graveyard shift, then they should make it compulsory for the controller to use one of those chairs that the old school railway switch board operators used.

Basically a normal bar chair without the back rest, except it only has one leg in the center of the seat. Quite easy to balance on while awake however should one fall asleep gravity takes over and the person occupying seat is rudely and abruptly awoken by the floor.

20driver

31st Mar 2011, 17:03

Operating a 121 flight into an uncontrolled field is not a big issue. They would have being in radar contact with Potomac and on the CTAF. There are locations in the US, Steamboat comes to mind, where you have RJ's etc operating into uncontrolled fields with no radar coverage. It is not unsafe to do this as long as that is the plan.

What would have worried me was, why is the tower not responding? It seems no one could answer that and I would have diverted. A lot of strange things can happen. At Newark the power and the back up to the tower was cut by a pile driving crew. At Hartford there was an incident where an MD-80 ingested tree branches on final. The root reason was ultimately bad glazing in the tower cab!

The point being, if something isn't right I'd want to know why before heading on in. It may well have being they had company info from the ground that everything was OK. What surprises me is that the Airport security was not sent to check the tower out.

20driver

Pugilistic Animus

31st Mar 2011, 18:20

Basically a normal bar chair without the back rest, except it only has one leg in the center of the seat. Quite easy to balance on while awake however should one fall asleep gravity takes over and the person occupying seat is rudely and abruptly awoken by the floor.

same process for the person watching the nitration process in the nitroglycerin plant

I think the fairest thing would be an FAA opinion along the lines of "That was okay, sort of, but DON'T DO IT AGAIN!" telling everyone that in future they should divert if there is no reply from the tower for unknown reasons.

Chuks this is the FAA, we're speaking about...not likely, they'll make a big deal of it; start a million enforcement actions,and a million subsequent appeals to the NTSB, but I guess the FAA will find a 'FAR' to screw everyone involved instead of revising their own system; like [B]GF mentioned what if the tower guy had a heart attack?

...but it's never a learning process like you described wrt to FAA enforcement--NEVER!

misd-agin

31st Mar 2011, 19:58

Posted by Lord Spandex Master -

misd-

I think I understand. You think I sit in an office with no comprehension of reality. You think I don't fly for a living and haven't for more than a decade and a half. You think I can't solve problems and you think I think that the 'guys' didn't do fine.

Is that about right? One word - Wrong.

If that's not what you meant then I can make no other sense of your post.

Must try harder.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The post wasn't addressed to you. It was a general observation.

The guys had an unexpected problem to deal with. Number of times it's happened in aviation that the majority of pilots are aware of? Maybe never?

They used standard U.S. 'non-controlled' procedures and went home.

Now, with days of hindsight and numerous calls to subject matter experts and lawyers, the FAA is going "harumph, harumph, how dare they!?" :yuk:

bubbers44

31st Mar 2011, 20:15

I think everybody went home, the controller gets spanked, the FAA took five minutes to decide what went wrong and life goes on. Not a big deal. Solution, don't fall asleep in the control tower. Investigation complete.

chuks

31st Mar 2011, 21:55

Yes, well... I guess it must be that systematic approach to safety that they have tried to get us to apply. This was a systems failure and it needs to be fixed in a systematic way, not by just suspending a guy who fell asleep at oh-dark-30 and thinking that has sorted out the problem!

I think some of us are missing the point by simply saying, "Well done that crew! Safe landing, no probs, nothing to see, please disperse!" This was not the way the system is meant to work and the safety net there had some obvious holes that I would like to see patched up.

To go into chest-pounding mode, suggesting that only a sissy would have done anything but press on to land in somewhat unknown circumstances.... Well, bully for all of you macho men but the point is exactly that we should have a system that doesn't leave us needing to make a decision such as that on the spur of the moment, perhaps overlooking some important considerations. Not least, there was no idea exactly why that tower went quiet. Too, had the controller perhaps cleared a vehicle onto that runway before taking his unscheduled snooze? Again, no real idea, hmmm?

I think we can all envision looking right at the destination runway, all lit up and looking good, with the only obvious problem being "no answer" from the tower, a seemingly minor detail. How about the long chain of possible problems that minor detail might bring with it, though? How about making a mess of the landing, as sometimes happens even to the best of us, and then having no one to hit the crash alarm?

Are you landing without the required fire protection if the man meant to call the Fire Department is asleep at the switch? It seems that way to me, sort of! Of course I had to think that one through; it certainly would not have occurred to me in flight when I was busy sorting this one out!

I would like to see this incident looked into in depth, thoroughly analysed. That is all. If most of you think that it was already sorted out by two safe landings, well.... Good luck with that approach to aviation but it is one I was trained to get over. There is a little more to safety than just skill and daring.

bubbers44

31st Mar 2011, 22:23

It sounds like you live in europe by your response. We don't do things that way here. We think things through and do what makes sense. We don't think we are better than you but we think differently. Our guys did a normal job of what any US pilot would have done. Make the landing legal and land. It was made an uncontrolled airport and they landed. Legally.

Lord Spandex Masher

31st Mar 2011, 22:40

It sounds like you live in europe by your response. We don't do things that way here. We think things through and do what makes sense

You made me laugh with this comment. Of course you are the only nation in the world that does this right?

What a monumental ego you must have.

sevenstrokeroll

31st Mar 2011, 22:49

Lord Spandex Masher.

I have one of those giant egos. If something needs doing, we do it. We don't wait around for a giant edict from the Queen. We do things, we get things done. We don't wait for the European union to issue an opinion. We don't wait for Lawyers who don't know jack about the sky to offer a legal opinion.

We think, we act and we do hope the lawyers will see our way...After all, just waiting for "orders" can screw things up.

I am reminded of an incident at the Pearl Harbor attack in 1941. Two fighter pilots took off, without orders and attacked the enemy. Mind you, not legally at war, no declaration, no nothing.

They got awarded distinguished flying crosses. A noble award in and of itself. But they were placed in nomination of the Congressional Medal of honor (as it is known in the press). They didn't get it. WHY? They were not acting under orders.

BUT YOU SEE< THEY DID THE RIGHT THING ANYWAY>

Many pilots try to do things right. It takes guts to do the right thing.
Yeah, we have monumental egos. Go ahead, make my day.

Lord Spandex Masher

31st Mar 2011, 22:53

You, the Americans, are the only people that do this?

sevenstrokeroll

31st Mar 2011, 23:06

bubbers made the comment and I suported him...you see, you have been questioning judgement of the pilots in question...and we have made our choices and support them.

you finally said, after eons it seemed, that you would have landed too.

why not be upfront.

Lord Spandex Masher

31st Mar 2011, 23:22

Actually Bubbers made the comment

It sounds like you live in europe by your response. We don't do things that way here. We think things through and do what makes sense

Implying that the Europeans are incapable of thought and lack sense. His statement also implies that the Americans, you, are the only people capable of such things.

That is hugely egotistical. Hence my comment.

Do you still support your fellow countryman in his claims that Americans and not Europeans are capable of though and the use of sense?

You do not need a monumental ego to be a pilot. You need a cool head, something which you failed to demonstrate in your previous post.

you have been questioning judgement of the pilots in question

No I haven't, I've been asking questions about the process and legality of the situation. I've made occasional statements about my experiences. But your defensive posture has blinded you to that.

In fact what I actually said was I would probably have landed but, on further thought, I changed my mind (I hope that's ok with you!) and have edited my post accordingly.

sevenstrokeroll

31st Mar 2011, 23:36

cool head

I don't think you know what is required to be a good pilot.

so, while bubbers and I would have landed safely, at the right airport, you would still be circling around waiting for instructions from the royal aircraft establishment.

why not view the movie, "no highway(in the sky)" and be a bit more like professor honey instead of the captain of the reindeer.

Lord Spandex Masher

31st Mar 2011, 23:51

I don't think you know what is required to be a good pilot.

Oh do give me the benefit of your wisdom. I still maintain that a monumental ego isn't required to be a pilot and indeed I consider that it is probably one of the worst things you can have on a flight deck.

you would still be circling around waiting for instructions from the royal aircraft establishment

Not at all. The controller woke up about 15 minutes later did he not. If it was me and if I had chosen to hold, rather than land or divert, I would have landed then perfectly safely.

I see that you ignored the question in my last post. Why won't you answer it?

bubbers44

1st Apr 2011, 00:09

So how many days did you have to decide yes I would land as their decision . Now you say you wouldn't have landed after days of thinking about it. They had a few minutes and I think they did everything right. We just do what makes sense and they did just that.

sevenstrokeroll

1st Apr 2011, 00:14

I would prefer to ignore you...but sometimes you just have to ''wise some guys up a bit.''

how would you know it would only take 15 minutes for someone to wake up?

would you have dipped into your 45 minute reserve fuel?

would you keep circling till you were out of fuel?

yes, in answer to your question, and probably because it become a part of us over here.

Lord Spandex Masher

1st Apr 2011, 00:28

Bubbers,

What difference does it make? I didn't have to make a decision in a few minutes. If I had to make a decision in a few minutes then I would have.

You understand the importance of the word 'probably' in my post?

SSR,
...but sometimes you just have to ''wise some guys up a bit.''

Go for it, I welcome your superior knowledge.

how would you know it would only take 15 minutes for someone to wake up?

I wouldn't. In this case however, that is all I would have had to wait is it not? But neither would I be still circling around as you suggest would I? I mean, I carry some extra fuel but not days worth. I would have made a considered decision instead of rushing to get on the ground.

would you have dipped into your 45 minute reserve fuel?

I would have made a decision before then.

would you keep circling till you were out of fuel?

Is that a serious question?!

yes, in answer to your question, and probably because it become a part of us over here.

So, Europeans are incapable of thinking, solving problems and have no sense? Are you really saying that? Really, on a board heavily populated by Europeans? If I was an American I would be embarrassed by you.

misd-agin

1st Apr 2011, 00:32

LSM - Not at all. The controller woke up about 15 minutes later did he not. If it was me and if I had chosen to hold, rather than land or divert, I would have landed then perfectly safely.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

So you would have burned circles in the sky, with VFR fuel, until what time? What were you waiting for? The door to be unlocked? The controller to get off the toilet? The hostage rescue team to show up? The truck to get off the runway? (all random 'what if' theories posted on pprune)

Sorry, you might find guys that wouldn't land, but I doubt many of them would have held for 15 minutes, even a short divert ahead of them, praying that the tower freq became active again.

So what would have happened at the 12 minutes if you decided to divert? Would you have gone back? What if the unexplained comm loss occurred again? Now what?

20/20 hindsight is easy.

Lord Spandex Masher

1st Apr 2011, 00:46

20/20 hindsight is easy.

Of course, which is why I said IF I had chosen to hold. IF I had chosen to hold I would have given it a sensible amount of time before I reconsidered my options.

So what would have happened at the 12 minutes if you decided to divert? Would you have gone back? What if the unexplained comm loss occurred again? Now what?

No, once I've made a decision I will continue with it until it becomes unviable. Reestablishing contact with the tower doesn't make my decision any less viable. And, like you say, what's to prevent the unknown reason for loss of comms happening again.

I haven't actually stated what I would do in this situation. There are too many unknown variables to make proper 'decision'.

aterpster

1st Apr 2011, 00:51

lsm:

I haven't actually stated what I would do in this situation. There are too many unknown variables to make proper 'decision'.

I agree there are too many unknown variables. That's why I stated early on in this thread that I would have requested clearance to IAD.

My personal choice, and consistent with how I operated safely for 27 years with TWA.

Lord Spandex Masher

1st Apr 2011, 01:14

You can't fault that decision in the slightest. It is the safest course of action despite the vocal majority disagreeing with you.

aterpster

1st Apr 2011, 01:21

lsm:

You can't fault that decision in the slightest. It is the safest course of action despite the vocal majority disagreeing with you.

At least one in the vocal majority said I would be placing my passengers at increased risk of injury by subjecting them to the taxi ride from IAD to wherever. (I presume to DCA)

In my days, IAD was a co-terminal for DCA, so after the diversion to IAD, they would have claimed their checked bags, if any, and taken a taxi perhaps in some cases to a point closer to IAD than DCA.

Lord Spandex Masher

1st Apr 2011, 01:30

At least one in the vocal majority said I would be placing my passengers at increased risk of injury by subjecting them to the taxi ride from IAD to wherever. (I presume to DCA)

Must have missed that little nugget. Grasping at straws springs to mind.

I presume that whoever said that is able to offer passengers a ride home in an armoured limo on a closed road, you know, just to ensure their continued safety!

sevenstrokeroll

1st Apr 2011, 02:16

I said a bus ride, not a taxi.

chuks

1st Apr 2011, 02:35

I am an American citizen. I hold both FAA and European licenses but most of my flying has been in Africa, under conditions that even some of you macho types might find a bit challenging. I think I know how to make up my own mind just about as well as most of you, perhaps even better than some!

My point is that we shouldn't have to be making these decisions at Ronald Reagan National Airport, that the system broke down! I think this incident needs to be looked into seriously so that fixes can be put in place for the next time someone succumbs to the very natural tendency to sleep around midnight. That could be as simple as giving the fire crew a key to the tower and giving TRACON a hotline to the fire station.

On our side, I think it might be a good idea to ask "what if" there were to be an accident with the tower controller asleep. Is the required fire cover in place in that case? I don't think so, given that the controller should be the one to sound the alarm.

I don't need to pass judgement on anyone's actions in this case; I am writing about paying attention to fixing the system. Some of you guys seem to think that there is no problem that skill and daring cannot solve, when the accident record seems to show that you are wrong. Take this one as a wake-up call to fix a few things so that it should not happen again in the same way.

Landing on a runway at an airport that is supposed to be controlled but isn't is not even as safe as landing at an uncontrolled airport, is it? I am not interested in how brave or decisive or chockfull of the right stuff you have to be to do that; I think we should find a way not to have to do that under these circumstances.

I am sure you guys have all been taught the "systems approach" to achieving safety so what is your malfunction? You just don't like to operate that way?

sevenstrokeroll

1st Apr 2011, 03:40

I"ve read some interesting stuff.

I do agree with the concept that the system needs fixing. but, what if there was no conroller to hit the fire alarm?

Well, it is common practice to radio to the company station that one is 'IN RANGE" with an ETA for landing. This is done about 30 miles out...most often with a simple push of a button, or touch screen on ACARS.

IF the plane was expected to land at X time...the staff would be outside waiting for the plane to pull up to the gate. And, if those company employees saw a large ball of fire on the runway, or near the runway, I am sure they would call the fire department.

DCA is a compact airport...One could walk from the gate to the runway in about 2 minutes (if security didn't shoot you first).

Airlines have a form of flight following...and while it is somewhat automatic, if a plane were over due, someone would notice and start things rolling...if the tower were busy sleeping it off.

Non routine flying is almost always a bit more dangerous.

While we don't have all the information, our company procedures would include asking a station agent/staff to actually go out to the runway area and look around to check the landing surface and report by field set to the plane...these procedures are very old school and have been around since we picked up the mail without landing.

I would have loved to do my favorite ''uncontrolled airport entry" flying over the field at 3000 feet, circling to my left and observing the wind sock, traffic pattern indicators in the segmented circle...the wind sock having a light on it for traffic pattern side...

Of course I probably wouldn't do this at DCA as I know it well enough and had the wx info etc.

I am greatly encouraged to learn of a , non public plan, which allows dca to be declared uncontrolled.