Landing NORDO at KDCA

[stuckgear]

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]

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.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

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

[sevenstrokeroll]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.)
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]

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]

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]

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

[Lord Spandex Masher]

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]

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]

"Operating control tower" - No.

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

[Lord Spandex Masher]

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]

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]

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---