Landing NORDO at KDCA
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: MD
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ditchdigger
Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
Subpart B—Flight Rules
General
§ 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.
PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
Subpart B—Flight Rules
General
§ 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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ), 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.
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 ), 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.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somwhere between 6 and 15 feet below ground level
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't see how this applies to this case. The aircraft had an operable radio capable of communicating with ATC.
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[/COLOR]
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSR,
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?
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?!
EVEN WHEN CONTROLERS ARE AWAKE
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.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
The FAA does a fairly decent job of investigating itself, but it is not inclined to share its findings with the public.
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somwhere between 6 and 15 feet below ground level
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please tell your significant other, just about every ATC Departure Clearance is to the destination airport,
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.
Originally Posted by Ditchdigger, back in post #32
(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...)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...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.
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.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somwhere between 6 and 15 feet below ground level
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so she will probably have at least 50 more controllers below her because of the increased staffing caused by this incident.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the one bright spot about this whole thing is that some 30 airports around the USA are getting additional controlers on the night shift
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Last edited by chuks; 30th Mar 2011 at 23:15.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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.
Suppose that the real situation at KDCA was roughly the same as the one protrayed at KIAD in Bruce Willis' 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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
I'm not stating any views, I'm asking questions.
Can't disagree with you on your last point though.