DCA tower issues

Ron Levy said:
FAA Order 7110.65, Section 9-2-10. The SFRA "transponder observed" position is providing "security service," not "radar service" or "control," and as such, does not fall within the provision requiring coordination.
Click to expand...

9-2-9.a.:

"When the assigned code is observed, advise the
aircraft to proceed on course/as requested but to
remain outside of Class B, C, and/or D airspace as
appropriate."

If the approach controller fails to issue that restriction he's on the hook for violating it and 2-1-16.b.
 
Oh gawd... The regs are not only illogical, they are factually impossible to follow to the letter because they conflict - Catch 22...
Hyperventilating over whether those airline pilots or TRACON controllers were technically in violation this or that reg is a total waste of bytes and time...
Being that it is an FAA employee who screwed the pooch on this one, there will be ZERO criticism of the actions of the other controllers or the flight crews who calmly and professionally made command decisions and then carried them out... That you can take to the bank...
From our point of view as pilots, the flight crew made the appropriate radio calls, flew the appropriate landing pattern (mostly straight in for miles) and made a routine night landing <yawn> If they had not been able to do that, then the hyperventilating on here would have a basis...

denny-o
 
Jaybird180 said:
But I do find it interesting that Potomac could grant landing authority when the B tower is unmanned--though there's just something not right about this.
Click to expand...

Obviously not the case in the DCA situation, but while talking about this story last night, my dad related an experience he had once where a Center actually gave him a landing clearance - he was flying into Phoenix Sky Harbor back in the 70s and Albuquerque Ctr cleared him to land at PHX. Seems a SE Cessna had crashed into power lines near the airport and took out all power to the city in the surrounding area. Approach and Tower were completely without electricuty and emergency power only covered the runway lights.
 
roncachamp said:
9-2-9.a.:

"When the assigned code is observed, advise the
aircraft to proceed on course/as requested but to
remain outside of Class B, C, and/or D airspace as
appropriate."

If the approach controller fails to issue that restriction he's on the hook for violating it and 2-1-16.b.
Click to expand...
First, 9-2-9 has nothing to do with the DC SFRA. Second, 9-2-10a essentially supports what I said -- that when you're getting the security service from the SFRA freq, you aren't getting radar service and you must make your own B/C/D arrangements (although there's no C-space in the SFRA 30-ring where the security service is required). Whether the SFRA controller joins you on the hook isn't the pilot's concern -- s/he's busted whether the SFRA controller says it or not.
 
Ron Levy said:
First, 9-2-9 has nothing to do with the DC SFRA.
Click to expand...

Oops, I meant 9-2-10.a.

Second, 9-2-10a essentially supports what I said -- that when you're getting the security service from the SFRA freq, you aren't getting radar service and you must make your own B/C/D arrangements (although there's no C-space in the SFRA 30-ring where the security service is required).
Click to expand...
You said, "The SFRA-only tranponder observing positions are not providing 'radar service,' and do not have to coordinate." Nothing in 9-2-10. supports that assertion.

Whether the SFRA controller joins you on the hook isn't the pilot's concern -- s/he's busted whether the SFRA controller says it or not.
Click to expand...
That's not correct. If JO 7110.65 applies at all then all applicable portions must apply, including para 2-1-16 which tells controllers a pilot is not expected to obtain his own authorization through a Class D surface area when in contact with a radar facility.
 
roncachamp said:
Why not? Does Potomac approach have special dispensation from the requirement to coordinate with the tower?
Click to expand...

TMetzinger said:
They're not getting services when they're just in the sfra but outside the bravo.
Click to expand...

+1. No ATC services are provided at all (other than security services).

93.339(a)(7) specifically requires that operations into/through Class D airspace comply with 91.129. (c)(1) of that subpart says:

(1) Arrival or through flight. Each person must establish two-way radio communications with the ATC facility (including foreign ATC in the case of foreign airspace designated in the United States) providing air traffic services prior to entering that airspace and thereafter maintain those communications while within that airspace.
Click to expand...

No, it's not clear. But the folks manning the SFRA frequency are not providing ATC services, and therefore will not coordinate with the Class D tower. If, however, you're talking to Potomac on the regular approach freqency, they may coordinate.
 
wsuffa said:
+1. No ATC services are provided at all (other than security services).
Click to expand...

Which requires radar monitoring of the flight which is by definition a radar service.

93.339(a)(7) specifically requires that operations into/through Class D airspace comply with 91.129. (c)(1) of that subpart says:

(1) Arrival or through flight. Each person must establish two-way radio communications with the ATC facility (including foreign ATC in the case of foreign airspace designated in the United States) providing air traffic services prior to entering that airspace and thereafter maintain those communications while within that airspace.
Click to expand...
Which you obviously take to mean the control tower exclusively. But 91.129 begins with "Unless otherwise authorized...", and radar controllers are normally required to coordinate the transition of Class D airspace so that the pilot need not leave the radar controller's frequency.

No, it's not clear. But the folks manning the SFRA frequency are not providing ATC services, and therefore will not coordinate with the Class D tower. If, however, you're talking to Potomac on the regular approach freqency, they may coordinate.
Click to expand...
The folks manning the SFRA frequency are also required to instruct pilots to remain outside of Class D airspace. If a pilot enters Class D airspace after being instructed to remain outside he's earned a bust, that's true everywhere. If the folks manning the SFRA frequency fail to issue that instruction a Class D bust cannot be sustained.
 
Potomac does not instruct to remain clear of D. When I flew through a D, I had to request freq change to coordinate on my own. I also recall the same when being handled by Patuxent.
 
Roncachamp is wrong about the security services in the SFRA constituting "radar service." Anyone who contacts the Potomac TRACON procedures office can confirm that. But since the regulation informs pilots of this regarding Class D entry, whether the controller follows the book or not, the pilot is responsible if s/he busts D-space while receiving the basic security service without hearing the magic words "radar contact" which signify that radar service is thereafter being provided. This issue is the exact reason why the SFRA controllers say "transponder observed" rather than "radar contact," and this point is explained in the SFRA course which all pilots flying VFR within 60nm of the SFRA center are required to take.

BTW, I'm wondering if roncachamp has taken that course.
 
Ron Levy said:
Roncachamp is wrong about the security services in the SFRA constituting "radar service." Anyone who contacts the Potomac TRACON procedures office can confirm that. But since the regulation informs pilots of this regarding Class D entry, whether the controller follows the book or not, the pilot is responsible if s/he busts D-space while receiving the basic security service without hearing the magic words "radar contact" which signify that radar service is thereafter being provided. This issue is the exact reason why the SFRA controllers say "transponder observed" rather than "radar contact," and this point is explained in the SFRA course which all pilots flying VFR within 60nm of the SFRA center are required to take.

BTW, I'm wondering if roncachamp has taken that course.
Click to expand...

Ron is correct here - and precisely relates what Potomac will tell you if you call. Radar services are NOT provided unless you specifically request them, nor are handoffs coordinated. Potomac also does not provide clearances into the SFRA.

An online reference from FAA is on PP 20 + 21 of the FAA presentation where the agency states that talking with Potomac on an SFRA flight plan "does not include... ATC basic radar services... or VFR flight following" and that "Workload permitting ATC will provide basic radar services and/or VFR flight following upon request."

Let the flyer beware.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I don't think he was intentionally napping - If you read the NTSB press release, it mentions that it was his 4th night shift in a row. Who knows what his sleep schedule was like before that, but I am sure that it will be thoroughly probed.
Click to expand...

And "studied" ad nauseaum for ten or more years just like flight crews with no real action taken...
 
Fearless Tower said:
I don't think he was intentionally napping - If you read the NTSB press release, it mentions that it was his 4th night shift in a row. Who knows what his sleep schedule was like before that,
Click to expand...

When I toured the tower @ SGF a few years ago, the sup told me that they all basically worked 8 hours on and 8 off for 3.5 days and then had 3.5 days off every week ( or something very similar, i don't recall exactly...it's been a while). I do remember well my reaction, surprise and response "wow, how can you guys possibly be 100%...Ever!?!?"
 
Ron Levy said:
Roncachamp is wrong about the security services in the SFRA constituting "radar service." Anyone who contacts the Potomac TRACON procedures office can confirm that.
Click to expand...

With whom of that office did you discuss this matter?

But since the regulation informs pilots of this regarding Class D entry, whether the controller follows the book or not, the pilot is responsible if s/he busts D-space while receiving the basic security service without hearing the magic words "radar contact" which signify that radar service is thereafter being provided. This issue is the exact reason why the SFRA controllers say "transponder observed" rather than "radar contact," and this point is explained in the SFRA course which all pilots flying VFR within 60nm of the SFRA center are required to take.
Click to expand...

Which regulation is that?
 
roncachamp said:
Which requires radar monitoring of the flight which is by definition a radar service.

Which you obviously take to mean the control tower exclusively. But 91.129 begins with "Unless otherwise authorized...", and radar controllers are normally required to coordinate the transition of Class D airspace so that the pilot need not leave the radar controller's frequency.

The folks manning the SFRA frequency are also required to instruct pilots to remain outside of Class D airspace. If a pilot enters Class D airspace after being instructed to remain outside he's earned a bust, that's true everywhere. If the folks manning the SFRA frequency fail to issue that instruction a Class D bust cannot be sustained.
Click to expand...
I wish the controllers here lived in your world.
 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703576204576227111819017454.html?ru=yahoo&mod=yahoo_hs

Wall Street Journal said:
The air-traffic control supervisor who created a furor last week by nodding off at Washington's Reagan National Airport also has sparked an industry debate over how pilots should respond to such situations.

When the lone controller on duty in the tower around midnight failed to reply to repeated radio transmissions from a pair of jetliners, both pilots quickly decided to land anyway.

There wasn't discussion with approach controllers at a separate facility about diverting to one of the region's other fields. Audio tapes indicate the first jet was on the ground only a few minutes after the initial sign of a communication problem. Both planes, carrying a total of more than 160 people, landed safely.

Now, a number of safety experts inside and outside government contend the pilots also shoulder blame in the incident. These experts fault the cockpit crews for forgoing what they contend would have been a safer option to land elsewhere, or at least stay in a holding pattern to determine why the Reagan National tower went silent for more than half an hour.
Click to expand...
 
And now comes the criticism of the pilots, whom some "safety" folks claim never should have landed that night. We have to be protected from everything, including ourselves....

WSJ Link from today, subscription may be required

Now, a number of safety experts inside and outside government contend the pilots also shoulder blame in the incident. These experts fault the cockpit crews for forgoing what they contend would have been a safer option to land elsewhere, or at least stay in a holding pattern to determine why the Reagan National tower went silent for more than half an hour.
................
"It was clearly inappropriate to land without a clearance" from the tower and "it is preposterous to say there was no violation and it was a perfectly safe procedure," said Loretta Alkalay, the former top lawyer for the Federal Aviation Administration's Eastern region.

If a tower controller can't be reached for any reason, she said, "it is absolutely not up to the pilots to decide to land as though it was an uncontrolled airport."
.................
Richard Healing, a former member of the National Transportation Safety Board, said Sunday that he was "more than a little surprised" the jets landed instead of flying on to nearby Baltimore-Washington International Airport or Dulles International Airport in the Virginia suburbs.

.....The safest approach would have been to divert," according to Mr. Healing. "It might have inconvenienced some passengers, but it wouldn't have compromised safety."
.......................
"I think they should have diverted ...and for the FAA to condone what happened is a big mistake," according to Greg Feith, a former safety board investigator who now runs his own aviation consulting firm. Neither the pilots nor the approach controllers "would have known if there happened to be a truck or a disabled aircraft stuck on the runway," according to Mr. Feith. And since there were fully-staffed airports open, less than 20 miles away, landing there would have been "in the interest of aviation safety."
Click to expand...

Chicken Little, I beleive we've found you....
 
Everskyward said:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703576204576227111819017454.html?ru=yahoo&mod=yahoo_hs
Click to expand...

WSJ better make sure they have their facts straight -That quote completely conflicts with the information released by the NTSB.

According to the NTSB, AA 1012 declared a missed approach on the first attempt, went back to approach and was vectored back around while TRACON tried to call the tower. When the tower didn't answer TRACON, they cleared AA 1012 for the approach and at that point recommended that the flight treat it like an uncontrolled field.

I hardly think that was a quick decision by the pilots to go ahead and land anyway.
 
Ron Levy said:
93.339(a)(7) -- and I guess either you've never taken the DC ADIZ/SFRA course or you didn't learn it very well, or you would have known that.
Click to expand...

Because taking the DC ADIZ/SFRA course gives one insight into Ron Levy's mind?

Would the pilot have to comply with §91.129 if §93.339(a)(7) did not exist?
 
wsuffa said:
And now comes the criticism of the pilots, whom some "safety" folks claim never should have landed that night. We have to be protected from everything, including ourselves....

WSJ Link from today, subscription may be required



Chicken Little, I beleive we've found you....
Click to expand...

So, being "Pilot in Command" of an aircraft means nothing to this "former" FAA lawyer, the "former" NTSB board member, or the "former" safety board investigator? Maybe in their mind it would have been much safer to not even takeoff from the departure airport just in case the controller may be asleep at DCA. I think these control freaks need to STFU unless (not until) something comes up demonstrating that the pilots actually broke the FARs in a way that is not exempted by their actions as pilots in command of their aircarft.
 
nddons said:
So, being "Pilot in Command" of an aircraft means nothing to this "former" FAA lawyer, the "former" NTSB board member, or the "former" safety board investigator? Maybe in their mind it would have been much safer to not even takeoff from the departure airport just in case the controller may be asleep at DCA. I think these control freaks need to STFU unless (not until) something comes up demonstrating that the pilots actually broke the FARs in a way that is not exempted by their actions as pilots in command of their aircarft.
Click to expand...
Y'all know I'm pretty strict on regulatory compliance, but personally, I think Potomac TRACON (aka "ATC") authorized them to do what they did, and the folks criticizing what they did are out in left field. Personal opinion, YMMV, and future Chief Counsel interpretation notwithstanding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top