Approach Clearance to Non-Active Runway

[DanielH]

A few months ago I wanted to get some practice on a LOC BC approach to runway 3R. Runway 21L was listed as active per the ATIS. The approach was to a Class D airport underlying Class B airspace. Requested the approach (VFR conditions) and was told by approach controller that "due to new rules I cannot clear you for an approach to a runway that is not active. You may proceed to the airport anyway you like though." Proceeded to runway 3R on the approach and then broke off the approach at circling minimums and headed for 21L.

I have never had a problem and still do not have a problem getting an approach to a runway that is not active at my home airport that is Class C. Does anyone know whether this a Class D airspace rule or for airports underlying Class B airspace??

 

[Velocity173]

A few months ago I wanted to get some practice on a LOC BC approach to runway 3R. Runway 21L was listed as active per the ATIS. The approach was to a Class D airport underlying Class B airspace. Requested the approach (VFR conditions) and was told by approach controller that "due to new rules I cannot clear you for an approach to a runway that is not active. You may proceed to the airport anyway you like though." Proceeded to runway 3R on the approach and then broke off the approach at circling minimums and headed for 21L.

I have never had a problem and still do not have a problem getting an approach to a runway that is not active at my home airport that is Class C. Does anyone know whether this a Class D airspace rule or for airports underlying Class B airspace??

Last year they changed the rules and restricted ATC from issuing clearances to opposite the active runway. Too many close calls and loss of separation in the past. Just another way of 'the man' reducing the efficiency of the ATC system.

EDIT-Looks like you were VFR? Shouldn't be a problem for opposite direction. Maybe a local procedure.

 

[DanielH]

Last year they changed the rules and restricted ATC from issuing clearances to opposite the active runway. Too many close calls and loss of separation in the past. Just another way of 'the man' reducing the efficiency of the ATC system.

EDIT-Looks like you were VFR? Shouldn't be a problem for opposite direction. Maybe a local procedure.

To the VFR- The controller said we could go to the runway however we wanted to get there as long as we maintained VFR he just couldn't give us an approach clearance.

 

[Velocity173]

To the VFR- The controller said we could go to the runway however we wanted to get there as long as we maintained VFR he just couldn't give us an approach clearance.

Yeah it's a stupid rule. Apparently originated because of a near miss out of Reagan National last year. A lot of my friends who do ATC and can't stand it. Say it's a rule to dumb down ATC for controllers who can't multi task and sequence properly.

 

[poadeleted20]

It's my understanding that new rule (precipitated by that goat-rope at DCA a yearor two ago where they got a plane taking off beak-to-beak with another plane on final) on only applies to opposite direction on the same runway. IOW, if 32 is the active, you can't get a practice approach to 14, but you can to 5/23. I hope a controller will correct me if I'm wrong about that.

 

[roncachamp]

Yeah it's a stupid rule. Apparently originated because of a near miss out of Reagan National last year. A lot of my friends who do ATC and can't stand it. Say it's a rule to dumb down ATC for controllers who can't multi task and sequence properly.

It's a rule to satisfy the media, the FAA responded to a non-event. There was no near-miss at Reagan. I don't recall the events exactly, but during a change of runways one aircraft was neglected for a time and left on a heading towards the former active runway. It put them nose-to-nose with another aircraft, but they were separated by altitude.

 

[poadeleted20]

Yeah it's a stupid rule. Apparently originated because of a near miss out of Reagan National last year. A lot of my friends who do ATC and can't stand it. Say it's a rule to dumb down ATC for controllers who can't multi task and sequence properly.

The problem there involved Approach and Tower losing coordination during a runway change, not a controller who can't multi-task/sequence properly. The result was the TRACON was still sending them in south while the Tower started launching north.

 

[HighFlyingA380]

Here at KSUS they were doing a lot of approaches opposite of the active about a week ago. He had a lighting storm that hit and damaged 8R/26L, and it was closed for more than a day for repairs. So 8L was active, but there's no ILS to it, so I often heard people cleared for the 8R or 26L ILS, then circle around to land on 8R. Sounds like that's technically against regs tho...

 

[BillTIZ]

Last year they changed the rules and restricted ATC from issuing clearances to opposite the active runway. Too many close calls and loss of separation in the past. Just another way of 'the man' reducing the efficiency of the ATC system.

EDIT-Looks like you were VFR? Shouldn't be a problem for opposite direction. Maybe a local procedure.

The Class D tower has to accept the opposite direction. And yes, the rules changed to not allow the towers to make the choice. They had too many close calls with opposite direction traffic.

 

[Velocity173]

Quick story on opposite direction. Years ago I was working ATC out of a portable radar room training Navy Korean controllers in Pohang Korea. I was on approach with a Korean controller and my friend was monitoring a Korean guy on flight data. I had a C-141 on about a 5-6 mile final for the visual to rwy 28. I hear tower call the flight data guy and and they speak in Korean for a few seconds and then hang up. A minute later I hear a jet take off of rwy 10. I say 'who the hell was that!' The Korean data guy hands me a Korean Air MD-80 strip with nothing written on it and says 'released.' Crap, he released this guy on his own. 'Reach 12345 Heavy turn right immediately heading...!'

Foreign air carriers with foreign controllers. Good times.

 

[Captain]

I was flying awhile back and was landing at a field with no other traffic. Winds were calm and I requested the straight in. Tower said sorry, opposite direction was active. We talked a bit and he finally said, "hang on". He was gone for a few seconds and came back with "all traffic (I'm the only one) ATIS Mike is current, active runway is (the one I wanted)".

So yeah, guy has to change the ATIS to clear the only plane in the area to land seems like a stupid rule.

 

[poadeleted20]

Anyone remember the old Tim Stivers routine about the Deep Southern Tower controller?

"Hayseed Tower, Aztec 12345, 5 west, inbound, landing."
"Aztec 345, Hayseed, cleared to land runway 9."
"Hayseed Tower, Bonanza 54321, 5 east, inbound, landing."
"Bonanza 321, Hayseed, cleared to land, runway 27."
"Hayseed Tower, Aztec 345, you just cleared me to land on 9 and now you've cleared that Bonanza to land on 27!"
"345 and 321, Hayseed Tower -- y'all be careful now, hear?"

 

[rich0]

Here at KSUS they were doing a lot of approaches opposite of the active about a week ago. He had a lighting storm that hit and damaged 8R/26L, and it was closed for more than a day for repairs. So 8L was active, but there's no ILS to it, so I often heard people cleared for the 8R or 26L ILS, then circle around to land on 8R. Sounds like that's technically against regs tho...

Disclaimer - I'm just a private pilot student, but have been interested in aviation for ages.

Being cleared to approach 26L ILS and then circle to land on 8L is not the same as being cleared to land on 26L.

There are a couple of things going on here. First is the instrument approach side of this. The reason planes would be cleared to approach 26L and circle to land on 8R is that if conditions are IFR the planes can still safely approach since they get into visual conditions on the ILS glideslope. If they just took a guess at a direct approach into 8L then they could wander into an obstruction unless they're using GPS/etc (something not every plane is equipped with, and they don't want to mix up traffic).

I think the other side to this is the whole concept of a clearance. If you're given a clearance then absent any other communication you can proceed to the extent of your clearance. So, if you're cleared on an approach and to land on a runway from 30 miles out and then your radio dies, you can go ahead and follow that clearance and land 15 minutes later without talking to anybody (potentially in IMC where you can't see anybody else). ATC can only void your clearance if they can establish contact with you. This is why planes are generally not cleared to land while 30 miles out. ATC is supposed to manage things so that two planes are never given a conflicting clearance at the same time. If the radios and radar go out for 5 minutes for ATC, then in theory there should be no conflicts (obviously at some point this breaks down).

So, what ATC is trying to do here is to avoid giving conflicting clearances. They are going to put all incoming traffic on non-conflicting approaches in sequence, and then if planes need to circle visually before landing that is something the pilots are responsible for (see and avoid). To some extent maybe that is shifting the blame.

Certainly interested in comments by others who fly instrument or especially from controllers, but I think that's basic gist of clearances. When a controller gives you a clearance it's his job on the line if you end up in a conflict.