Controllers of the magenta line...

Brad Z said:
But that's part of the reason why commercial operators (and their insurers) insist on operating out of towered fields.
Click to expand...

Airline I flew at had numerous flights to uncontrolled airports. Places like Brunswick GA, Muscle Shoals AL, Golden Triangle MS (has a tower now), etc. Other airlines did the same, many of them under that Essential Air Service government deal.
 
kkoran said:
tower controllers are normally certified as Limited Aviation Weather Observers. .
Click to expand...

When I worked towers we were LWO as mentioned above. We could advise aircraft and the official weather observer what we reported but it wasn't official unless the weather observer issued the report.
 
Brad Z said:
I gleaned these preferences working in the airport management industry. Aircraft operator preferences were generally framed to airport authorities as "must haves", even if they weren't.
Click to expand...

Nope, if an airline thinks it can make $$$ they'll run service there. And the airfares are usually very high as that airline is probably the only one servicing that airport. It's all about $$$ since deregulation.
 
I just re-read my post and realized I forgot the word "many" in front of commercial operators. Mea culpa.

Yes, I realize there are plenty of operators who do fly into non-towered airports. My point is that there are many who will insist on going into a towered airport over the non-towered field if the that option is available.
 
I used KBLI as a customs stop years and years ago, and approach control for the airport is up in Canada (Victoria Approach, maybe?). Anyway, a marine layer had just burned off but the ATIS hadn't yet updated to reflect that. We ended up having to shoot the ILS, because apparently Canadian ATC can't allow a visual if the ATIS is still showing IFR at the field, regardless of what the pilots see.

I always thought that was interesting - US airport, but the Canadian rules apply.
 
kayoh190 said:
I always thought that was interesting - US airport, but the Canadian rules apply.
Click to expand...

That is interesting. Maybe it's because the approach airspace goes into Canada. Seems like a Letter of Agreement would be worked out.
 
kayoh190 said:
I used KBLI as a customs stop years and years ago, and approach control for the airport is up in Canada (Victoria Approach, maybe?). Anyway, a marine layer had just burned off but the ATIS hadn't yet updated to reflect that. We ended up having to shoot the ILS, because apparently Canadian ATC can't allow a visual if the ATIS is still showing IFR at the field, regardless of what the pilots see.

I always thought that was interesting - US airport, but the Canadian rules apply.
Click to expand...

Contact approach.. Sort of like SVFR for IFR :).. you take away their responsibility

Edit: Visual approach requires 1000ft ceiling and 3 mile visibility REPORTED weather
 
kkoran said:
Control Zone? You need to update to this century.
Click to expand...

The concept still exists, the problem is that FAA did away with the term. Now in the regs where it used to say "control zone" it says "surface area of controlled airspace designated for an airport." Yeah, that's a whole lot better. They didn't even get rid of the concept of the towered field not being controlled airspace in itself. They did at first, but then they put back the old ATA concept with 91.126.
 
controllers will sometimes remind pilots about the SVFR option by saying, "is there anything SPECIAL I can do for you?" but they can't come out and say, "would you like Special VFR?"

The system isn't broken, you just forgot one of the tools in the bag :)
 
genna said:
Contact approach.. Sort of like SVFR for IFR :).. you take away their responsibility

Edit: Visual approach requires 1000ft ceiling and 3 mile visibility REPORTED weather
Click to expand...

Hmmmm...interesting. I had forgotten about that requirement. I could have sworn I've been cleared for a visual in similar circumstances in the US, but it's entirely possible (read: likely) that my memory is hazy. ;)
 
kayoh190 said:
Hmmmm...interesting. I had forgotten about that requirement. I could have sworn I've been cleared for a visual in similar circumstances in the US, but it's entirely possible (read: likely) that my memory is hazy. ;)
Click to expand...
I know that we landed at an airport that was reporting something like 1/4 mile but we could see it from 20 miles away. They were snowblowing the runway/ramp and it must have gotten on the sensor. I don't remember if we were cleared for the visual or canceled IFR, though. Pretty sure ATC didn't have (or wasn't looking at) the reported weather as it was an AWOS at an uncontrolled field.
 
That surprises me there isn't a way there that an "eyeball" observation can't be taken. There was a time when the controllers in towers at airports that didn't have a Certified Weather Observer were LAWRS qualified. That's limited aviation weather reporting. They would take the observation and issue the METAR. AUTO METARS are sometimes supplemented by visual observations, there is some code for it that I can't recall offhand.
 
luvflyin said:
That surprises me there isn't a way there that an "eyeball" observation can't be taken. There was a time when the controllers in towers at airports that didn't have a Certified Weather Observer were LAWRS qualified. That's limited aviation weather reporting. They would take the observation and issue the METAR. AUTO METARS are sometimes supplemented by visual observations, there is some code for it that I can't recall offhand.
Click to expand...
Easier and cheaper to certify a computer than the humans, and you get what you pay for.
 
denverpilot said:
Easier and cheaper to certify a computer than the humans, and you get what you pay for.
Click to expand...
I suspect they also don't want to make it too easy for weather reporters to "help" pilots out by overriding the machine to fudge the weather.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I suspect they also don't want to make it too easy for weather reporters to "help" pilots out by overriding the machine to fudge the weather.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. Not sure who that protects more though, the 'crats or the pilots.
 
Declare an emergency and take off! Oh wait SVFR, yea, do that. I've never done it and would not have thought about it either.
 
Not questioning your judgement, but did you have an out if you had departed SVFR and climbed through the hole? 30 miles to VFR conditions seems really far if you develop a problem, and turning back might no longer be an option.

I'm thinking about the time years ago I departed an uncontrolled field at 23:00 near ORD. ASOS reported ~3500' overcast, however on climbout I flew into clouds and showers much lower. Dropped down, did a 180 but the departure field was unlighted and in an ocean of black. I slid to my destination about 20mi away, under the deck and over the dense Chicago burbs. Few options and very little time to deal with a problem had one arisen.
 
Last edited:
PaulMKE said:
Not questioning your judgement, but did you have an out if you had departed SVFR and climbed through the hole? 30 miles to VFR conditions seems really far if you develop a problem, and turning back might no longer be an option.
Click to expand...
If he was willing to take off VFR without a Special, I don't think there would be a shortage of options with a Special.
 
luvflyin said:
That surprises me there isn't a way there that an "eyeball" observation can't be taken.
Click to expand...
There is.
luvflyin said:
There was a time when the controllers in towers at airports that didn't have a Certified Weather Observer were LAWRS qualified.
Click to expand...
They still do.
luvflyin said:
That's limited aviation weather reporting. They would take the observation and issue the METAR. AUTO METARS are sometimes supplemented by visual observations, there is some code for it that I can't recall offhand.
Click to expand...
If the observer (controller or otherwise) feels the automated observation isn't representative of the actual conditions, he or she can manually input the corrections into the AWOS or ASOS.
 
A two mile hole 500 feet thick isn't very big. You have 2000 feet laterally, which cuts out almost a mile. So now you have a 1.2 mile hole. You have to climb 2000 feet in that 1.2 miles -- remember 500 below and 1000 above. That's almost four times what a 172 can do, and twice a 182 if you leave it at full throttle (Max performance climb).

You can circle, but it will take more than 30 deg bank. Very tight.
 
Your calculations are off by over 50% for my 182 loaded with only me on a cool morning. Besides, cloud clearances are all good guesses anyway. :cool:
 
timwinters said:
.............ASOS was reporting 600 broken (even though it wasn't).

I called ground, tell them I'm VFR to the west. I'm cleared to taxi to runway 20 but then...

ground (who's the same controller that mans tower): "57D, I can't release you to depart VFR when we're reporting IFR conditions."

me: "Really? What about that hole the size of Rhode Island that's sitting right over the airport?"

ground: "Sorry, can't do it.......................
Click to expand...

Did you ever find out if it was that he didn't see it as Scattered, or he did and thought he was unable to issue a new METAR? Reading through the posts here, everything from Towers can't do it anymore to they can comes up. It doesn't look there is an FSS on the field and unless there is a Weather Service office there, LAWRS qualified controllers should be the official weather reporting there.
 
Nope, didn't ask that question when I spoke with him yesterday. I don't know if it matters, but the controllers at this field are employees of the city. The FAA doesn't think a tower is justified so the city employs three controllers and keeps it open.
 
kkoran said:
There is.
They still do.
If the observer (controller or otherwise) feels the automated observation isn't representative of the actual conditions, he or she can manually input the corrections into the AWOS or ASOS.
Click to expand...

You know this to be a fact? When I worked towers all we could do was call the weather folks (observers) and give them our input. It was still their call and I really don't recall them changing anything unless they did an observation of their own.
 
mscard88 said:
You know this to be a fact? When I worked towers all we could do was call the weather folks (observers) and give them our input. It was still their call and I really don't recall them changing anything unless they did an observation of their own.
Click to expand...

There were, and I am still sure are, many airports that don't have "weather folks (observers)" anywhere near the airport. LAWRS qualified controllers are the official observers.
timwinters said:
Nope, didn't ask that question when I spoke with him yesterday. I don't know if it matters, but the controllers at this field are employees of the city. The FAA doesn't think a tower is justified so the city employs three controllers and keeps it open.
Click to expand...

I suppose that could account for them maybe not being LAWRS qualified to be observers. If there are no certified weather observers anywhere at the airport then I guess we're stuck with the ASOS. On another subject I wonder why it isn't a NFCT?
 
luvflyin said:
That surprises me there isn't a way there that an "eyeball" observation can't be taken. There was a time when the controllers in towers at airports that didn't have a Certified Weather Observer were LAWRS qualified. That's limited aviation weather reporting. They would take the observation and issue the METAR. AUTO METARS are sometimes supplemented by visual observations, there is some code for it that I can't recall offhand.
Click to expand...
I've heard things like,"tower visibility xxx on ATIS. It seems as if I've seen it in METARs too. I've also heard it relayed by approach.
 
luvflyin said:
There were, and I am still sure are, many airports that don't have "weather folks (observers)" anywhere near the airport. LAWRS qualified controllers are the official observers.


I suppose that could account for them maybe not being LAWRS qualified to be observers. If there are no certified weather observers anywhere at the airport then I guess we're stuck with the ASOS. On another subject I wonder why it isn't a NFCT?
Click to expand...

Called the Tower. They are a Non Federal Tower. Not FAA and not a contract tower. I guess NFCT isn't being put on the charts anymore. They are LAWRS qualified and are the official observers. There used to be weather observers at the airport that were paid by the Weather Service but now the Tower does it. They call the sky cover and are not slaves to the ASOS. The coverage that morning was 7/10's
 
Everskyward said:
I've heard things like,"tower visibility xxx on ATIS. It seems as if I've seen it in METARs too. I've also heard it relayed by approach.
Click to expand...

All tower controllers can take the Tower Visibility. They don't need to be LAWRS certified to do that. There are formulas that determine if it will be the prevailing visibility or not. If it's not, then it's added to the remarks.
 
luvflyin said:
The coverage that morning was 7/10's
Click to expand...

I'm sure that's a correct statement. For the average. It was closer to 50% when I was taxiing out (at least that was my guess at the time). 30 minutes later when I decided to put the plane away it was likely 80 to 90%.

It was one of those mornings with post rain waves of low thin clouds rolling thru as the sun tried to burn it off. It varied widely from minute to minute.
 
Last edited:
I was returning home at night, clear and cloudless; a few miles out, AWOS at home said 200 and a 1/4. . .west end of the runway, near the swamp, was fogged. I imagine that's where the sensors are located. No tower, so no problem. Landed on 28 . .
 
timwinters said:
Your calculations are off by over 50% for my 182 loaded with only me on a cool morning. Besides, cloud clearances are all good guesses anyway. :cool:
Click to expand...
That's over 3000 FPM needed at 90 knots. I have yet to see a 182 sustain more than 1500 even solo. Maybe with a strong updraft, but that's not very likely with a hole in the clouds above.
 
MAKG1 said:
That's over 3000 FPM needed at 90 knots. I have yet to see a 182 sustain more than 1500 even solo. Maybe with a strong updraft, but that's not very likely with a hole in the clouds above.
Click to expand...
You need to revisit what you said and what I said....

What I said was factually accurate.
 
Last edited:
Sundancer said:
I was returning home at night, clear and cloudless; a few miles out, AWOS at home said 200 and a 1/4. . .west end of the runway, near the swamp, was fogged. I imagine that's where the sensors are located. No tower, so no problem. Landed on 28 . .
Click to expand...

As long as you weren't in a 'surface area of controlled airspace designated for an airport' (or control zone or class E to the ground as you may wish to say), that's fine. If there was a control zone there, you busted the regs.
 
timwinters said:
You need to revisit what you said and what I said....

What I said was factually accurate.
Click to expand...
I can get 1000 FPM solo in a 182 at 60 knots with 20 flaps. Barely. And only at sea level and at takeoff power. Not that it's a good thing to do that for a 3000 foot climb. It's meant for more like 50, or maybe a few hundred to clear redwoods.
 
MAKG1 said:
I can get 1000 FPM solo in a 182 at 60 knots with 20 flaps. Barely. And only at sea level and at takeoff power. Not that it's a good thing to do that for a 3000 foot climb. It's meant for more like 50, or maybe a few hundred to clear redwoods.
Click to expand...

That seems excessively low. IIRC Try flying at Vy to improve your rate of climb. 20 degrees of flaps at 60 KIAS seems like best angle performance to me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top