Question for jhempel or anyone else who might know...

[Teller1900]

Flying from KBOS to KRKD (Rockland, ME) night before last, ceilings were reported 300ovc, 6 miles vis. Portland approach asked us what kind of approach we were requesting, so naturally we asked for the ILS. We were more than a little surprised when Portland told us that approach wasn't authorized...they had just finished maintenence on the LOC and it was still out. Ok.

So we called our ops people there in RKD...they said they just talked to the airport maneger, and he said it's turned back on and OK to use. OK.

Call Portland, tell them that, but they still say no. Apparently "The AOCC finished their work and put it back into service, but the FAA has taken it back offline until it can be flight checked, which won't be until 5 Oct. at the soonest. We've called the airport manager a few times to get it done sooner, but it's probably not going to happen" Portland told us.

Long story short, we shot the NDB to a missed (300over...go figure). There are no NOTAMS out about the LOC being inop, and our ops people swear up and down that the airport people told them it was OK to use, but Portland approach won't allow it.

So...what's taking so long getting it back? Why does the AOCC say it's ok, but not the FAA, and why weren't there ANY NOTAMS? I don't like NDB approaches....especially not at night in IMC, so I'd kind of like to know if I should be prepared to do this twice a day until the 5th

EDIT: I forgot to mention...it was still "down" yesterday, too, without being NOTAMed. We tuned and IDed it, and the ID checked, but Portland still wouldn't authorize it.

 

[TMetzinger]

Seems weird - I didn't think the airport manager had anything to do with getting an ILS flight-checked, except maybe to request it.

 

[poadeleted20]

It may be turned on, and usable for practice approaches under VFR, but if a post-maintenance flight check is required, the approach will be NA until the flight check is completed. Of course, there should be a D-NOTAM showing the LLZ unusable, and possibly an FDC NOTAM suspending the ILS approach, but apparently there is not. A call to FSS should elicit more information immediately, and a call to the NE Region airway facilities office on Monday should get the full story.

 

[TMetzinger]

hee hee... Ron used the words Call, FSS, and Immediately in the SAME sentence!

 

[Teller1900]

It may be turned on, and usable for practice approaches under VFR, but if a post-maintenance flight check is required, the approach will be NA until the flight check is completed. Of course, there should be a D-NOTAM showing the LLZ unusable, and possibly an FDC NOTAM suspending the ILS approach, but apparently there is not. A call to FSS should elicit more information immediately, and a call to the NE Region airway facilities office on Monday should get the full story.

Interesting. Just seems odd to me that the airport insists that it's ok, but the feds don't, and yet no one will issue the NOTAM. Like Tim said, though...I'll just let our dispatchers deal with that rather than try calling the FSS myself.

 

[jhempel]

Ron has it right, in that it could be back on the air but not legal to use for approaches in IMC.

When a system has a breakdown or "major" maintenance it sometimes requires a flight check before it can be legally returned to service. It all depends on which parts are replaced or which adjustments are made.

For example: We just finished replacing the entire antenna array for the localizer at PDK (Northeast Atlanta) after it was destroyed in a crash. We had it back on the air on Wednesday, but couldn't return it to service until after the flight check on Thursday. We could arrange it quickly because there are flight check planes based in Atlanta. Yours may take longer depending on the flight check schedule in your area, where the nearest base is, and the priority level of your airport.

The odd thing in your story is the AOCC problem.

Why does the AOCC say it's ok, but not the FAA,

The AOCC is part of the F.A.A. The AOCC is located in a building across the parking lot from the Atlanta Center. It sounds like we have some in house communication problems. (Imagine that!) I know quite a few people over there. I will ask them about the NOTAM situation.

 

[jhempel]

I just read your story again and noticed something that may need explaining.

Apparently "The AOCC finished their work and put it back into service, but the FAA has taken it back offline until it can be flight checked, which won't be until 5 Oct. at the soonest.

The AOCC is just a monitoring, coordination, and reporting facility. They don't fix anything. They monitor systems and attempt resets via computer. They call out technicians if that doesn't do it. Most of the people who work at the AOCC are F.A.A. technicians from the field, so they know the systems thoroughly. They coordinate system outages, maintenance, and repairs. They coordinate between the technicians in the field, air traffic controllers, and other outside agencies.

Your system may be repaired, but they turned it off pending flight check due to liability.

We've called the airport manager a few times to get it done sooner, but it's probably not going to happen" Portland told us.

The airport manager, the AOCC, and the technicians in the field can all request a flight check. But utimately, the flight check people set the schedule based on their priorities. They are in demand and spread thin like the rest of the agency.

 

[Teller1900]

The AOCC is just a monitoring, coordination, and reporting facility. They don't fix anything. They monitor systems and attempt resets via computer. They call out technicians if that doesn't do it. Most of the people who work at the AOCC are F.A.A. technicians from the field, so they know the systems thoroughly. They coordinate system outages, maintenance, and repairs. They coordinate between the technicians in the field, air traffic controllers, and other outside agencies.

That's interesting to know. I don't know if I just misheard the controller or if, perhaps, he was just giving us a truncated answer to shut us up and make us pick another approach. The system was definitely "on," but I guess us saying "hey, it idents, let us shoot it" probably doesn't count as a flight check. So who can I blame at LM for not getting the NOTAM out?

 

[jhempel]

So who can I blame at LM for not getting the NOTAM out?

That is what I am going to find out. Also, the technician should turn off the ident if the system isn't certified. It sounds like a few links in the chain are missing.

 

[poadeleted20]

To follow up on the above, here's what it says in the AIM:

1-1-12. NAVAID Identifier Removal During Maintenance

During periods of routine or emergency maintenance, coded identification (or code and voice, where applicable) is removed from certain FAA NAVAIDs. Removal of identification serves as a warning to pilots that the facility is officially off the air for tune-up or repair and may be unreliable even though intermittent or constant signals are received.

NOTE-
During periods of maintenance VHF ranges may radiate a T-E-S-T code (-l l l l-). ​

NOTE-​

DO NOT attempt to fly a procedure that is NOTAMed out of service even if the identification is present. In certain cases, the identification may be transmitted for short periods as part of the testing.

There's no question that you should never use a NAVAID whose ID is off line, but while Section 1-1-12 implies that presence of the ID means it's OK to use, it does not specifically say that. However, absent a NOTAM, there is no excuse for a known unusable navaid to have the ID on, as a NORDO pilot may not have any other way to know of that outage, and that could get someone killed.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Interesting. Just seems odd to me that the airport insists that it's ok, but the feds don't, and yet no one will issue the NOTAM. Like Tim said, though...I'll just let our dispatchers deal with that rather than try calling the FSS myself.

Seems to me that this is as much an issue of who calls in the NOTAM as anything...I don't know about the case where an ILS needs to be flight checked, but for everything else around here the airport manager calls in the NOTAM. If the airport manager doesn't see or understand that the ILS is OTS until it's flight checked, he probably wouldn't issue the NOTAM, and you suddenly have a confusing situation.

Fly safe!

David

 

[jhempel]

Ron, I agree 100%. That is why I will be talking to the folks over at the AOCC to find out what is going on.

 

[jhempel]

Seems to me that this is as much an issue of who calls in the NOTAM as anything...I don't know about the case where an ILS needs to be flight checked, but for everything else around here the airport manager calls in the NOTAM. If the airport manager doesn't see or understand that the ILS is OTS until it's flight checked, he probably wouldn't issue the NOTAM, and you suddenly have a confusing situation.

Fly safe!

David

In this case, the AOCC is the one responsible for issuing the NOTAM. The question I have is did the AOCC fail to call Flight Service, or did Flight Service fail to issue it.

 

[poadeleted20]

Seems to me that this is as much an issue of who calls in the NOTAM as anything...I don't know about the case where an ILS needs to be flight checked, but for everything else around here the airport manager calls in the NOTAM. If the airport manager doesn't see or understand that the ILS is OTS until it's flight checked, he probably wouldn't issue the NOTAM, and you suddenly have a confusing situation.

Airport management is responsible for the airport itself (runways, events, etc). Navaids are handled by FAA personnel, who are the ones authorized/responsible for initiating NOTAMs on those navaids, not airport management. I don't even think an airport manager can NOTAM out a localizer if someone crashes into it -- I think that still must come from the manager notifying the AOCC or other cognizant FAA navaids office.

 

[Lance F]

Hi John, As long as you're checking on things , what's with the approaches to RWY 28 @ 9A1. Both the NDB and GPS approaches are NA and they have been removed from the Jeppesen database. We pilots cannot get an answer as to why they are gone and when they will be back from the airport manager.

I talked to a couple of TRACON controllers at the NBAA convention last Wednesday and was told they had not been advised of this. One said that he'd given someone the GPS RWY28 just a couple of days earlier. The FDC Notam making this approach NA has been out for weeks .

 

[Everskyward]

I talked to a couple of TRACON controllers at the NBAA convention last Wednesday and was told they had not been advised of this. One said that he'd given someone the GPS RWY28 just a couple of days earlier. The FDC Notam making this approach NA has been out for weeks .

This happens more than you might think. Sometimes I think ATC either doesn't have access to the current NOTAMS or interprets them wrong. The other day we were trying to do the visual to an airport which we weren't quite seeing yet because of clouds. ATC offered vectors to the ILS which was NOTAMed OTS, in fact the runway was closed and being used as a temporary taxiway.

 

[Teller1900]

Hi John, As long as you're checking on things , what's with the approaches to RWY 28 @ 9A1. Both the NDB and GPS approaches are NA and they have been removed from the Jeppesen database. We pilots cannot get an answer as to why they are gone and when they will be back from the airport manager.

I talked to a couple of TRACON controllers at the NBAA convention last Wednesday and was told they had not been advised of this. One said that he'd given someone the GPS RWY28 just a couple of days earlier. The FDC Notam making this approach NA has been out for weeks .

I think I just found a new job niche for you, John, when the contract workers take over...advising confused pilots like myself as to what the method to the maddness really is. Of course, the first one should be free...

 

[jhempel]

I just got off the phone with a friend of mine at the AOCC. It just so happens that he is the very one who worked this issue. He said that the technician got authorization from the engineering branch to return it to service without a flight check. He said that it was returned to service on the 28th around 1400Z. He cancelled the NOTAMS and returned it to service. He called ATC in Portland to let them know that a flight check was no longer needed and that the ILS was returned to service. It turns out that we have a communication issue on the ATC side of the house. He is going to call them again to clear up the confusion.

I feel better knowing that the technician didn't fail to remove the identifier when the ILS was out of service. As Ron mentioned, that could have been a fatal mistake under the wrong conditions.

 

[jhempel]

Hi John, As long as you're checking on things , what's with the approaches to RWY 28 @ 9A1. Both the NDB and GPS approaches are NA and they have been removed from the Jeppesen database. We pilots cannot get an answer as to why they are gone and when they will be back from the airport manager.

I talked to a couple of TRACON controllers at the NBAA convention last Wednesday and was told they had not been advised of this. One said that he'd given someone the GPS RWY28 just a couple of days earlier. The FDC Notam making this approach NA has been out for weeks .

I'll check with the TRACON supervisor to see what's going on with that one. This sounds like flight check may have decertified it and the word hasn't filtered through to the controllers yet, even though that should have been immediate. I have no idea why it was decertified, but I will do my best to find out.

 

[bbchien]

A real pro. In the know...

 

[Teller1900]

I just got off the phone with a friend of mine at the AOCC. It just so happens that he is the very one who worked this issue. He said that the technician got authorization from the engineering branch to return it to service without a flight check. He said that it was returned to service on the 28th around 1400Z. He cancelled the NOTAMS and returned it to service. He called ATC in Portland to let them know that a flight check was no longer needed and that the ILS was returned to service. It turns out that we have a communication issue on the ATC side of the house. He is going to call them again to clear up the confusion.

I feel better knowing that the technician didn't fail to remove the identifier when the ILS was out of service. As Ron mentioned, that could have been a fatal mistake under the wrong conditions.

Innnnnteresting. We were wondering how it could be that everyone but Portland thought it was open.

So how do they determine whether or not a flight check is required? I realize this question is probably a massive over-simplification of a fairly complex issue, but what about this repair, for instance, would have made them think they needed a flight check initially, but then result in engineering changing their mind?

 

[jhempel]

A real pro. In the know...

Thanks, Bruce! I try anyway.....

I take certified systems VERY seriously.

I didn't know that you are a poet too!

 

[jhempel]

Innnnnteresting. We were wondering how it could be that everyone but Portland thought it was open.

So how do they determine whether or not a flight check is required? I realize this question is probably a massive over-simplification of a fairly complex issue, but what about this repair, for instance, would have made them think they needed a flight check initially, but then result in engineering changing their mind?

There is no simple answer to this one. We have F.A.A. orders for each type of system. The orders and TI's (Technical Instructions) identify the "key parameters" that have to be met before certifying the systems. Any time a key parameter is adjusted, the system must be recertified before returning to service. Most adjustments can be made with the technician having authority to certify it. However, there are some major components that require a flight check to be returned to service. Usually the orders spell out which ones. However, sometimes it can be a complicated decision. I don't know the specifics of what repairs were made in this case. I'm sure it wasn't a decision taken likely.

Also, an ILS has "ground check points" where the technicians take a receiver to survey points marked in concrete next to and on the runway to check the signal. All of the tuning is done this way, whether it is going to be flight checked or not.

Flight check also performs "periodic" flight checks. These are done on a routine basis to check not only the system, but for interference from new tall buildings in the area, etc. This may be what happened to the approaches that Lance inquired about. I'll try to find out.

By the way, Lance, that is what happened to the clearance delivery frequency you asked about a while back. Some buildings went up between the antenna and the airport since the site was built years ago. We have the cable on order to raise it. You should see improved service in the near future.

 

[MauleSkinner]

In this case, the AOCC is the one responsible for issuing the NOTAM. The question I have is did the AOCC fail to call Flight Service, or did Flight Service fail to issue it.

Airport management is responsible for the airport itself (runways, events, etc). Navaids are handled by FAA personnel, who are the ones authorized/responsible for initiating NOTAMs on those navaids, not airport management. I don't even think an airport manager can NOTAM out a localizer if someone crashes into it -- I think that still must come from the manager notifying the AOCC or other cognizant FAA navaids office.

I are smarter now. Thanks!

Fly safe!

David

 

[Lance F]

By the way, Lance, that is what happened to the clearance delivery frequency you asked about a while back. Some buildings went up between the antenna and the airport since the site was built years ago. We have the cable on order to raise it. You should see improved service in the near future.

The pilots of 9A1 thank you.

 

[jhempel]

Hi John, As long as you're checking on things , what's with the approaches to RWY 28 @ 9A1. Both the NDB and GPS approaches are NA and they have been removed from the Jeppesen database. We pilots cannot get an answer as to why they are gone and when they will be back from the airport manager.

I talked to a couple of TRACON controllers at the NBAA convention last Wednesday and was told they had not been advised of this. One said that he'd given someone the GPS RWY28 just a couple of days earlier. The FDC Notam making this approach NA has been out for weeks .

Sorry for the slow reply. I just found out that the NDB was decommissioned, but the GPS approach is still valid.

 

[Lance F]

Sorry for the slow reply. I just found out that the NDB was decommissioned, but the GPS approach is still valid.

!FDC 7/8788 9A1 FI/T COVINGTON MUNI, COVINGTON, GA.
GPS RWY 28, ORIG-B...
PROCEDURE NA.

Sigh. I wish you were right, but I don't think so.

Also, I think the NDB is working just fine, but we can't use it for the approach.
!FDC 7/8790 9A1 FI/T COVINGTON MUNI, COVINGTON, GA.
NDB RWY 28, AMDT 1B...
PROCEDURE NA.

Don't feel bad, nobody in the Atlanta TRACON knows these are NA either

Let us know when the antenna for the clearance delivery frequency has been repositioned. thanks!

 

[jhempel]

!FDC 7/8788 9A1 FI/T COVINGTON MUNI, COVINGTON, GA.
GPS RWY 28, ORIG-B...
PROCEDURE NA.

Sigh. I wish you were right, but I don't think so.

Also, I think the NDB is working just fine, but we can't use it for the approach.
!FDC 7/8790 9A1 FI/T COVINGTON MUNI, COVINGTON, GA.
NDB RWY 28, AMDT 1B...
PROCEDURE NA.

Don't feel bad, nobody in the Atlanta TRACON knows these are NA either

Let us know when the antenna for the clearance delivery frequency has been repositioned. thanks!

Strange.... It would appear that the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing within my agency. It is a TRACON Supervisor that I called about this.