Landing NORDO at KDCA
4-1-5. Communications Release of IFR Aircraft Landing at an Airport Without an Operating Control Tower
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
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If for WHATEVER reason that is not the case, the airport reverts to UNCONTROLLED.
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.
Aviator Extraordinaire
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 76
Posts: 2,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
So I say close this thread down or move it to Jet Blast.
I'm outta of here.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: MNL ex CCR ex CLE
Age: 65
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
" 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...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!
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Heavy airbourne, oh well. Are you going to ignore the FAA and the NTSB too? What an annoying bunch of...umm...desk deskers!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: MNL ex CCR ex CLE
Age: 65
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
" 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?
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?
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You'd look pretty daft if it was a simple case of you tuning the wrong frequency woudn't you?
I herewith declare Lord SM the most dominant and prominant desk flyer and welcome him as a new member to my ignore list. Congrats!
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You'd quite happily land, at a controlled airport, without a clearance just because you tuned the wrong frequency?
WHy would you divert for an incorrect frequency
you'd look even dafter diverting for a simple case of tuning the wrong freq.
Aviator Extraordinaire
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 76
Posts: 2,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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? 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.
Heavy airbourne, oh well. Are you going to ignore the FAA and the NTSB too? What an annoying bunch of...umm...desk deskers!
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.
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
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
First..since WHEN do pilots need to have a LAW degree??
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
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
The NTSB will not be involved in this case.
Anyone with even the most casual knowledge of US aviation matters know that.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
con-pilot:
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.
The NTSB will not be involved in this case.
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.
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
operative
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.
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.
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
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
Last edited by galaxy flyer; 29th Mar 2011 at 20:26.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Deepest darkest Inbredland....
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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