Landing NORDO at KDCA
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Discussions like this make me so happy I flew on this side of the pond.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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:
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bubbers44:
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSR,
Why?
You should try it, I reckon it would suit you.
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.
Yes, but the controller wasn't. 
GF,
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!
Lord Spandex...I believe you should divert every flight you ever make
I truly hope Lord Spandex doesn't wear spandex
and doesn't fly EVER in the USA.
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?
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.
By the way, my incorrect frequency comment was meant to be tongue in cheek!
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
GF
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
"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
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
Last edited by galaxy flyer; 30th Mar 2011 at 00:54.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sevenstroleroll:
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.
I studied that AA deal at Bradley...near crash...well at least they made the runway
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.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gf:
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.
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.
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.
What bothers me is the feds writing more assinine regulations because of this.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somwhere between 6 and 15 feet below ground level
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
Subpart B—Flight Rules
General
Browse Previous | Browse Next
§ 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}
PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
Subpart B—Flight Rules
General
Browse Previous | Browse Next
§ 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.
Certainly the water is plenty muddy. It'll be interesting to see how this aspect of the drama plays out...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by sevenstrokeroll; 30th Mar 2011 at 02:12.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somwhere between 6 and 15 feet below ground level
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just because the person you sleep with is a controller doesn't mean she is correct.
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.
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.
Therefore uncontrolled aiport operations come into play.
(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....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
...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.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NTSB has opened an investigation into the issue at DCA:
Press Advisory
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.
Press Advisory
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.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Last edited by clunckdriver; 31st Mar 2011 at 14:31.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSR,
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.
no one would be taking off as they wouldn't have a radar release.
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.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somwhere between 6 and 15 feet below ground level
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
also, as a practical thing, there really would be more controllers in the tower and at least one of them would be awake.
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...