ODO NIGHTMARES
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: EARTH
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ODO NIGHTMARES
Okay, Air Traffic Controllers Young and Old, time to do what you do best and give me a piece of your mind!!!
Although I feel like I have a better-than-average grasp on what ODO entails, and do not expect every single situation to have a cut-and-dry answer, I feel this specific situation is simply too complicated regarding how controllers at neighboring facilities have different opinions and interpretations pertaining to ODO's intended application.
A small Part139 facility has had problems in the past with an ARAC just jamming Opposite Direction Military Practice Approaches down their facility's throat without any regard to their local flying community. In the years past, I have personally experienced instances with VFR departing traffic from the duty runway, a small number of ARAC controllers were reluctant to build holes at times as they appear to believe the military opposite direction practice approaches have some sort of priority over duty runway traffic. Although the tower does from time to time accept delays while conducting ODO maneuvers, the neighboring ARAC controllers appear less and less willing to cooperate with what the tower feels is an attempt to maintain the integrity of the airport's traffic flow.
The ARAC used to assume the airport must take all their ODO traffic until the airport's Traffic Manager stepped in and reminded the ARAC's Manager with excerpts from the libraries as to why cooperation and coordination is key, though most of these assertions appeared to fall on deaf ears as several of the same floor controllers would make the same demands the very next day.
The ARAC has been shown 7110.65 Practice Approaches 4-8-11 where it clearly states that no IFR OR VFR traffic will be impeded for practice approaches(within reason). Because of their past unwillingness to cooperate and build holes for VFR departures, periodically the airport controllers are forced to deny practice approaches altogether until the departure or departures have taken place. Keep in mind, unless extreme conditions or emergencies dictate, the airport won't typically disapprove ODO already in progress, but a select few of the ARAC floor controllers along with the DoD ATC management element is making it very difficult to maintain integrity, structure and proper traffic flow at this Part139 facility with their demands.
Admittedly over the last several months, they've been much more cooperative regarding this specific situation, but it's still worth mentioning since they consistently ask for things the airport feels it cannot allow because procedures are not in place to allow safe execution of these maneuvers. A few months back, one of these ARAC Controllers was so brash as to ask the airport to solicit the local pilots to do pattern work to the off-duty rwy35, on a day the duty runway was clearly to be rwy17(wind 180 in excess of 10kts), just so they could continue to ram Opposite Direction Military Practice Approaches into the airport. It has now become practice while the duty rwy is 17 and the airport is conducting local pattern work to the duty rwy, the airport does not accept Opposite Direction IFR Practice Approaches(Military or Civil)-even though the ARAC consistently badgers the airport to take them- because with a runway under 9000 feet, the traffic pattern is short and tight and unless the timing is absolutely perfect, the separation doesn't exist to work a Military Trainer as an IFR ODO Practice Approach into rwy35 as the local pilot is turning left base to rwy17 basically every 30-60 seconds, and without tower radar displays a safe application of the FAA's 7/10 cutoff rule for ODO separation cannot be accurately applied. In an attempt to cooperate in the past, the airport would accept the ODO practice approach and have the local pattern pilot make 360's in the downwind leg until the Military Trainer was out of the way. The problem with that, is then the ARAC will attempt to jam in SEVERAL Military Trainers with minimal arrival separation between each arriving aircraft, which means the local pilot in the VFR pattern is now forced to remain circling east or west of the airfield, not getting even one pass of local pattern work in, ruining the integrity of what the airport is trying to provide their civil flying community. When this scenario was brought up to the ARAC Manager, he implied that the airport should get used to this and accept it as common practice. Therefore to alleviate the abuse of compromising the local pattern to give maximum priority to military practice approaches from the opposite direction, the airport does not allow them to do ODO practice approaches while local pattern work is being conducted to the duty runway. The airport also does not have radar capabilities, only a pair of 7x50 binoculars so it's extremely difficult for the airport's tower to safely and accurately set an ODO sequence while conducting local pattern work, couple that with multiple ODO military practice approaches and it's not exactly a recipe for success.
Although I feel like I have a solid understanding of ODO rules, Practice Approach Rules, Military Procedure rules and various other sections that govern a control tower's sound judgment, I can't help but feel like I'm missing something here, otherwise why else would the ARAC and Military Elements continually ask for something the airport feels they can't give them?
I'd tell you Controllers to respect each other's replies, but where the hell's the fun in that???
All replies are welcome, references are appreciated though common sense needs no reference. Time to weigh in, Ladies and Gentlemen, let the games begin!!!
Although I feel like I have a better-than-average grasp on what ODO entails, and do not expect every single situation to have a cut-and-dry answer, I feel this specific situation is simply too complicated regarding how controllers at neighboring facilities have different opinions and interpretations pertaining to ODO's intended application.
A small Part139 facility has had problems in the past with an ARAC just jamming Opposite Direction Military Practice Approaches down their facility's throat without any regard to their local flying community. In the years past, I have personally experienced instances with VFR departing traffic from the duty runway, a small number of ARAC controllers were reluctant to build holes at times as they appear to believe the military opposite direction practice approaches have some sort of priority over duty runway traffic. Although the tower does from time to time accept delays while conducting ODO maneuvers, the neighboring ARAC controllers appear less and less willing to cooperate with what the tower feels is an attempt to maintain the integrity of the airport's traffic flow.
The ARAC used to assume the airport must take all their ODO traffic until the airport's Traffic Manager stepped in and reminded the ARAC's Manager with excerpts from the libraries as to why cooperation and coordination is key, though most of these assertions appeared to fall on deaf ears as several of the same floor controllers would make the same demands the very next day.
The ARAC has been shown 7110.65 Practice Approaches 4-8-11 where it clearly states that no IFR OR VFR traffic will be impeded for practice approaches(within reason). Because of their past unwillingness to cooperate and build holes for VFR departures, periodically the airport controllers are forced to deny practice approaches altogether until the departure or departures have taken place. Keep in mind, unless extreme conditions or emergencies dictate, the airport won't typically disapprove ODO already in progress, but a select few of the ARAC floor controllers along with the DoD ATC management element is making it very difficult to maintain integrity, structure and proper traffic flow at this Part139 facility with their demands.
Admittedly over the last several months, they've been much more cooperative regarding this specific situation, but it's still worth mentioning since they consistently ask for things the airport feels it cannot allow because procedures are not in place to allow safe execution of these maneuvers. A few months back, one of these ARAC Controllers was so brash as to ask the airport to solicit the local pilots to do pattern work to the off-duty rwy35, on a day the duty runway was clearly to be rwy17(wind 180 in excess of 10kts), just so they could continue to ram Opposite Direction Military Practice Approaches into the airport. It has now become practice while the duty rwy is 17 and the airport is conducting local pattern work to the duty rwy, the airport does not accept Opposite Direction IFR Practice Approaches(Military or Civil)-even though the ARAC consistently badgers the airport to take them- because with a runway under 9000 feet, the traffic pattern is short and tight and unless the timing is absolutely perfect, the separation doesn't exist to work a Military Trainer as an IFR ODO Practice Approach into rwy35 as the local pilot is turning left base to rwy17 basically every 30-60 seconds, and without tower radar displays a safe application of the FAA's 7/10 cutoff rule for ODO separation cannot be accurately applied. In an attempt to cooperate in the past, the airport would accept the ODO practice approach and have the local pattern pilot make 360's in the downwind leg until the Military Trainer was out of the way. The problem with that, is then the ARAC will attempt to jam in SEVERAL Military Trainers with minimal arrival separation between each arriving aircraft, which means the local pilot in the VFR pattern is now forced to remain circling east or west of the airfield, not getting even one pass of local pattern work in, ruining the integrity of what the airport is trying to provide their civil flying community. When this scenario was brought up to the ARAC Manager, he implied that the airport should get used to this and accept it as common practice. Therefore to alleviate the abuse of compromising the local pattern to give maximum priority to military practice approaches from the opposite direction, the airport does not allow them to do ODO practice approaches while local pattern work is being conducted to the duty runway. The airport also does not have radar capabilities, only a pair of 7x50 binoculars so it's extremely difficult for the airport's tower to safely and accurately set an ODO sequence while conducting local pattern work, couple that with multiple ODO military practice approaches and it's not exactly a recipe for success.
Although I feel like I have a solid understanding of ODO rules, Practice Approach Rules, Military Procedure rules and various other sections that govern a control tower's sound judgment, I can't help but feel like I'm missing something here, otherwise why else would the ARAC and Military Elements continually ask for something the airport feels they can't give them?
I'd tell you Controllers to respect each other's replies, but where the hell's the fun in that???
All replies are welcome, references are appreciated though common sense needs no reference. Time to weigh in, Ladies and Gentlemen, let the games begin!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: EARTH
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ODO stands for Opposite Direction Operations. My understanding is very few facilities even allow it anymore, of which many remaining facilities that do allow it, rely on the procedures due to terrain or other obstacles but most aren't being solicited to allow a GCA Box pattern to be run in the opposite direction of the local pattern simultaneously. Shout out to the UK, CHEERS!!!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Around
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We used to employ "ODO" at Heathrow back in the dark days. Usually because an ILS was due for an urgent flight check. It was all fairly straightforward but I don't think it happens now.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: EARTH
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, Most places don't even authorize Opposite Direction Operations because of its inherent dangers. And THANKS DAVE! I'm actually familiar with those references, those sections are how we developed our Letters Of Agreement with the 7mile/10mile cutoffs to effect the one-in-one-out policies of ODO as it was built to be safe first, not necessarily expeditious LOL!
I just find it odd that a neighboring facility puts pressure on the tower to take Military Practice Opposite Direction Approaches when the tower is doing pattern work to the duty runway, and without radar display it's basically impossible to apply the separation properly unless the timing was absolutely perfect. I can't imagine a tower would authorize simultaneous opposite direction Touch-and-go's to the same runway, regardless of how creative a controller may be, it's just seems like a bad idea to authorize it...
I just find it odd that a neighboring facility puts pressure on the tower to take Military Practice Opposite Direction Approaches when the tower is doing pattern work to the duty runway, and without radar display it's basically impossible to apply the separation properly unless the timing was absolutely perfect. I can't imagine a tower would authorize simultaneous opposite direction Touch-and-go's to the same runway, regardless of how creative a controller may be, it's just seems like a bad idea to authorize it...
When I was an ATCO student in the early 1980s, having gained my airfield rating I spent 90 days at Stansted. ODO was a common practice which I had never seen before. ILS approach rwy 23, departure on 05. The method as I remember was to clear the departure for immediate RH turn after departure, ideally when thru 500' while the arrival was checking the outer marker. It scared he s**t out of me as a trainee tower controller!! Hopefully a practice that is long discontinued.
Certainly nothing unusual in days gone by. Often slipped in opposite direction landings & take offs with a/c we could trust ie knew the score & knew what they were doing. Same happened frequently with calibration a/c - they always seemed to want to do the out of use ILS on the opposite direction r/w. Also, at Aberdeen, we didn't have ILS on 35 & in lowish vis & cloud ceiling conditions with 35 in use IFR arrivals made ILS approaches to 17 followed by visual circuits to 35. We handled 400+ movements , nearly all IFR, per day; so it was quite eventful & enjoyable getting 35 departures away in the teeth of 17 ILS arrivals to a visual circuit to 35 ! Also, the noise abatement procedures stated that all arrivals were to be on 17 & all departures on 35 , whenever possible. Needless to say, we weren't very keen to do this as standard procedure, day in day out; & to my recollection we only ever did this if the wx. conditions were such as to preclude a landing on 35.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At my unit we frequently nipped the odd one off or in on the wrong end if the situation suited. Unfortunately the powers that be now require us to carry out a full runway change if we want to do this, so it's not worth it anymore. Shame really.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Wivenhoe, not too far from the Clacton VOR
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
63000TZ You triggered a memory there from the late '60s - early 70's. VC10 doing circuits on 05 (as was) with B707 doing ILS and go-around on 23. Timed to perfection the result was a VC10 climbing over the 707 rolling opposite direction. Both BOAC and both, apparently, quite happy. Unlike the boss who came hurtling up the stairs demanding to know "WTF?" Those were the days.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Wivenhoe, not too far from the Clacton VOR
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To make it really interesting, on one day, take the scenario above and add circuit traffic on 13 with a CAFU Dove doing VDF letdowns on 31. Circuit traffic was left hand to turn crosswind before the intersection!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You hooligan, Bern. Clearly distracted by the SS tower lovely women. Coulda sworn it was 12/30 then...
Those were the days, frightening closing speeds! Required a lot of trust in all concerned . The long gone days when we had lots of fun and really did expedite the traffic! Surprised if it still happens.
Anyone who's been to Lanzarote will tell you it's the norm there; land from the sea (uphill) on 03 and depart towards the sea on 21; there are several extinct volcanoes to the north so pilots prefer to accept a slight tailwind especially if it's IMC.
If the ATIS gives arrival runway as 21 and crew request 03, the reply is 'at your discretion'.
If the ATIS gives arrival runway as 21 and crew request 03, the reply is 'at your discretion'.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Wivenhoe, not too far from the Clacton VOR
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, Talkdownman, memory fades, you could be right. I do remember the lovely women though.
On the subject of opposite direction landings I did observe, whilst then a very wet behind the ears sprog cadet, another trainee do exactly that with two CAFU Doves, one from an ILS Rwy 23 and one from a visual circuit on 05. Both were cleared to land by the trainee tower person and both Doves touched down pretty much simultaneously. The two Doves said nothing. They both rolled to the runway intersection where they stopped facing each other. One said "After you Brian" (or whatever the name was). "Oh no", says the other, "After you". At which point the mentor woke up to the fact that things had not gone according to the book.
On the subject of opposite direction landings I did observe, whilst then a very wet behind the ears sprog cadet, another trainee do exactly that with two CAFU Doves, one from an ILS Rwy 23 and one from a visual circuit on 05. Both were cleared to land by the trainee tower person and both Doves touched down pretty much simultaneously. The two Doves said nothing. They both rolled to the runway intersection where they stopped facing each other. One said "After you Brian" (or whatever the name was). "Oh no", says the other, "After you". At which point the mentor woke up to the fact that things had not gone according to the book.
My first visit to RAE Bedford (then with a 10,000ft runway - bit shorter nowadays) I was treated to the sight of a Hunter doing 1 in 1s to runway 09 and on 27 there was an RAE Andover doing 5.5 deg approaches to an experimental MLS plus a Monarch B720 doing visual circuits.
All 3 aircraft were instructed to overshoot(nowadays go around) at their runway threshold and break left.
All 3 aircraft were instructed to overshoot(nowadays go around) at their runway threshold and break left.
