What is going on here (Live ATC New York weird exchange)

Country Flier

Country Flier

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Sep 20, 2019
Messages
1,058
Display Name
Display name:
CFL
Maybe there already was a thread on this but...

I came across this exchange, and it sounds like ATC is denying an approach due to the field reporting conditions below minimum...? The Youtube idiots all act like the pilot is reckless, but as I'm listening I'm thinking as a Part 91 pilot I might say the same thing this pilot did...I'm also thinking there is more to the story.

 
No nasty arguement, just a pilot wanting to exercise his rights, and a controller who is a moron. But no arguing.
 
Yeah, NBD. Without rewinding the tape I think they might have been on a different page — pilot thinking he can't shoot the approach because ATC says weather below minimums and ATC thinking they need to hold the pilot for traffic. YMMV.
 
I believe the issue is Part 91 vs 135/121. The later can’t start the approach below minimums and the controller was applying that reg.
 
There was no way that airplane was making it in, and when they go missed, they were going to be yet another airplane in N90's airspace with no where to go. N90's airspace is complex, crowded, and you need to understand that the controllers there have tons of constraints that may not be obvious. There was a really good explanation of what was going on posted on another message board, but I can't find it right now. You're not in Des Moines anymore, Toto.

I used to fly with a guy like that. Glad that chapter is behind me.
 
Whitney said:
No nasty arguement, just a pilot wanting to exercise his rights, and a controller who is a moron. But no arguing.
Click to expand...

There are morons in ATC and morons in cockpits but my sense is that it’s difficult for morons to end up in NY Approach Control. More difficult than say morons in cockpits flying into NY airspace though I’m not even remotely suggesting that’s the case here.

I’m thinking ‘facts not in evidence’ may apply here. Insisting on taking a look is almost always a part 91 option in the greater US airspace. Not always an option in very dense places were multiple scenarios may be playing out on different frequencies.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
While it might seem like ATC is denying the approach because weather was below minimums, the controller never actually said that. I hypothesize that it was more likely a traffic management decision and it was out of this particular controller's hands. NY airspace is complicated. When the pilot got argumentative, the controller got argumentative back and oversimplified the situation to try to get him to go away or shut up.
 
Groundpounder said:
There was no way that airplane was making it in, and when they go missed, they were going to be yet another airplane in N90's airspace with no where to go. N90's airspace is complex, crowded, and you need to understand that the controllers there have tons of constraints that may not be obvious. There was a really good explanation of what was going on posted on another message board, but I can't find it right now. You're not in Des Moines anymore, Toto.

I used to fly with a guy like that. Glad that chapter is behind me.
Click to expand...
How do you know there’s no way the airplane would get in to the airport?

Who or what is N90?
 
I don’t know, I don’t think this guy was simply being held for traffic. Based on the audio, it sure sounds like they were shutting down the airport arrivals due to weather being below mins. Even the King Air checked in and stated earlier the airport wasn’t accepting arrivals.

This has nothing to do with 91, 135, 121. The controller doesn’t apply different procedures for those ops. This is about the pilot reporting the weather below “his / her landing minima.” This pilot didn’t state that but yet the controller is treating (alternate airport) 5EX as if they’ve done that. The pilot stated they still wanted to shoot the approach regardless of what the weather is reporting. It’s his prerogative and the controller doesn’t have the authority to prevent that based solely on WX.
 
Last edited:
The problem I have with this is "how does the controller know what my mins are?"

Let's say TEB is reporting 1200 RVR. Are they going to deny me (Part 121) shooting the ILS to 06? Why? How does he know what I can and can't shoot the approach to as far as mins go?

upload_2022-5-30_2-33-11.png

Am I legal for this approach?
 
Sluggo63 said:
The problem I have with this is "how does the controller know what my mins are?"

Let's say TEB is reporting 1200 RVR. Are they going to deny me (Part 121) shooting the ILS to 06? Why? How does he know what I can and can't shoot the approach to as far as mins go?

View attachment 107276

Am I legal for this approach?
Click to expand...
It sounds like you are legal. You would know. As far as a Controller denying an Approach Clearance based on weather, they are simply not supposed to do it.
 
Sluggo63 said:
The problem I have with this is "how does the controller know what my mins are?"

Let's say TEB is reporting 1200 RVR. Are they going to deny me (Part 121) shooting the ILS to 06? Why? How does he know what I can and can't shoot the approach to as far as mins go?

View attachment 107276

Am I legal for this approach?
Click to expand...

They know the basic mins for an approach but unless it’s a controller that’s gone above and beyond, they don’t know if you can execute it based on being below mins.

For instance, forget the whole part 91 vs 121 stuff. You and I know that every military branch has different regs as to shooting an approach. A typical controller isn’t going to know that a single pilot USN/USMC aircraft can’t shoot an approach with less than published mins. Just like they won’t know that an Army aircrew can shoot an approach regardless of what the ceiling / vis is reporting. Even if they did take the time to investigate which operation uses specific mins for an approach, it’s not their job to enforce their (pilot) regs on them. The note I attached above states their responsibility. It’s up to the pilot / operator to say it’s below their mins, then ATC will work out another plan based on their request.
 
Last edited:
Sluggo63 said:
The problem I have with this is "how does the controller know what my mins are?"

Let's say TEB is reporting 1200 RVR. Are they going to deny me (Part 121) shooting the ILS to 06? Why? How does he know what I can and can't shoot the approach to as far as mins go?

View attachment 107276

Am I legal for this approach?
Click to expand...

Under 121 you would not be legal to start the approach with reported WX less than minimums.
 
The controller isn't up there in a plane and Shooting the approach, and knows its below minimums.
Besides the weather changes every second.

I had a beech 1900 in front of me go around because he hit his min and no runway in sight. Four minutes later I landed just fine in a 206. The 1900 tried again, went missed again, and headed for alternate. Moments later a 210 landed, behind him a 737 went missed, followed by a caravan that landed just fine.

This controller sounded to me like a doofus who was wanting to play God, while the pilot seemed to have his s h i t together, and just wanted to land. If it was me I would have cleared him to land, if he had to go missed who cares, it happens every day somewhere.
 
Clip4 said:
Under 121 you would not be legal to start the approach with reported WX less than minimums.
Click to expand...
See. That’s the thing. I could absolutely, legally shoot that approach with 1200 RVR at my 121 carrier. I don’t even need to be able to “see” anything at DA to continue to 100 above TDZE.

That’s the point, there’s a lot of rules and OpSpecs out there that allows carriers to do things that controllers (and probably most pilots) don’t know they can do.
 
Sluggo63 said:
The problem I have with this is "how does the controller know what my mins are?"

Let's say TEB is reporting 1200 RVR. Are they going to deny me (Part 121) shooting the ILS to 06? Why? How does he know what I can and can't shoot the approach to as far as mins go?

View attachment 107276

Am I legal for this approach?
Click to expand...


Looks good, go for it.
 
It may not be as black and white as it seems. I've seen many instances where we held arrivals to ATL & CLT when the aircraft were not CAT II or CAT III equipped. Neither A80 nor CLT TRACON have the airspace to hold a bunch of aircraft that go missed, so they have the ARTCC hold the aircraft based on the reported Wx and PIREPs.

Imagine now satellite approach airspace. Satellite gets whatever airspace is left over from the primary airport's operation. In some cases it's just two or three thousand feet in various locations. It looks similar to what a Benihana chef would serve up if given the task of airspace delegation. With hardly any airspace to work with, missed approaches at a satellite airport, along with Wx that is not favorable for a successful landing, can lead to the TRACON telling the ARTCC to hold arrivals to a particular satellite airport. Is it doing surgery with a chainsaw? Maybe, but the satellite controller doesn't have a lot of options when this happens.
 
Engage Maverick.
No it doesn't look good.
Damn you Maverick engage.
No it just doesn't look good.
What...it doesn't look any better than that.
 
luvflyin said:
But if you want dazzle folk with what you know, here's a list. Scroll down past ATCT/TRACON to TRACON
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...ato/service_units/air_traffic_services/tracon
Click to expand...

The thing I find interesting about this is that I've heard N90 (New York), C90 (Chicago), even A80 (Atlanta) used periodically on this board and others. It's "almost" routine.

But I've never heard anyone refer to "DFW TRACON" as D10 (and locally, we talk about it a lot since it's the closest Bravo). Phoenix Approach is pretty busy, but do you ever hear it called P50? How about S46 for Seattle? Nope.

It seems to be something that's pretty much limited to NY, Chicago and Atlanta. Why is that?
 
RussR said:
The thing I find interesting about this is that I've heard N90 (New York), C90 (Chicago), even A80 (Atlanta) used periodically on this board and others. It's "almost" routine.

But I've never heard anyone refer to "DFW TRACON" as D10 (and locally, we talk about it a lot since it's the closest Bravo). Phoenix Approach is pretty busy, but do you ever hear it called P50? How about S46 for Seattle? Nope.

It seems to be something that's pretty much limited to NY, Chicago and Atlanta. Why is that?
Click to expand...
I dunno. I just figure some folk here know those ID’s and like to use them. I don’t even the use the word TRACON. I just say Approach when talking about Approach Control. Seems more appropriate in a pilot forum
 
Explanation from a N90 controller posted on a different message board:

Yeah, when this was happening we had had several aircraft already go missed off both MMU and CDW and were spinning in approaches airspace, weather was 500’ and 1sm (ILS is ots and gps 5 is 700’ and 2). The “CDW was busy” excuse is because the approaches and missed approaches for MMU and CDW conflict with each other and since we don’t have radar to the ground we have to treat them as 1 airport and have landing assured before we let someone into the other, so if there’s 3 slow guys on final for CDW well the MMU guy will have to wait, and if that means you hold in centers airspace rather than mine so much the better. 5EX got in either during a gap in the wx or something but literally a minute after he landed it dropped to less than a mile vis. I was working the position right next to this one and was watching/listening. Also he was arguing with center, not approach.

And

He can have a look see so long as him going missed is an acceptable outcome to my current traffic level. If the 4 guys before him have already gone missed, I’m not taking a 5th just so he can have his chits and giggles whom I’m going to have to find a spot to hold him after in airspace not designed to hold people in. That’s why all the published holds are on the boundary of our airspace, because we don’t have the room for it in ours.
 
Having waited on the ground for an hour and half to depart MMU, I understand why they refused his request.
 
Groundpounder said:
Explanation from a N90 controller posted on a different message board:

Yeah, when this was happening we had had several aircraft already go missed off both MMU and CDW and were spinning in approaches airspace, weather was 500’ and 1sm (ILS is ots and gps 5 is 700’ and 2). The “CDW was busy” excuse is because the approaches and missed approaches for MMU and CDW conflict with each other and since we don’t have radar to the ground we have to treat them as 1 airport and have landing assured before we let someone into the other, so if there’s 3 slow guys on final for CDW well the MMU guy will have to wait, and if that means you hold in centers airspace rather than mine so much the better. 5EX got in either during a gap in the wx or something but literally a minute after he landed it dropped to less than a mile vis. I was working the position right next to this one and was watching/listening. Also he was arguing with center, not approach.

And

He can have a look see so long as him going missed is an acceptable outcome to my current traffic level. If the 4 guys before him have already gone missed, I’m not taking a 5th just so he can have his chits and giggles whom I’m going to have to find a spot to hold him after in airspace not designed to hold people in. That’s why all the published holds are on the boundary of our airspace, because we don’t have the room for it in ours.
Click to expand...

I suspected it was something way more complicated than the controller thinking the pilot isn't allowed to shoot an approach if the weather is below minimums. Thanks for the info.
 
There's no way the controller even knows what the minimums are for the approach. The only "minimum" that applies to Part 91 is FLIGHT visibility which he can't see. The MDA/DH isn't a weather minimum, it's a constraint on how low the airplane can go without seeing the runway environment. You can land with ceilings technically lower and you can have to miss if the ceilings are higher.
 
While not a simple case of not knowing the aircraft can do an approach below mins, the airport was still shutdown because of it. Also, just because an aircraft goes missed, doesn’t mean they’re going to hold in your airspace and wait for it to clear. Either vector them back around for another approach or go to an alternate. No need to shut the airport down.

I had 5 F-15s divert to my facility once because they couldn’t get into SAV. Yes, it was an absolute mess because our wx was also at / below mins as well. But I didn’t shutdown the field because I didn’t want to deal with the traffic. They eventually got in. Had 4-5 F-5s show up with wx at mins as well. They clearly requested one approach followed by their divert field. Every one of them diverted. Find out beforehand their intentions if they can’t get in, plan for it, then clear them for the approach. To deny an approach would be against the .65. Also denying the approach might just kick the can down the road to another controller who might very well be saturated with traffic as well.
 
If a controller can't deny landing, how can they deny take off or anything else? If they aren't in control of the airspace, what's the point?

This doesn't address the question of was it correct or not to deny request to land on the controller's part.
 
ATC routinely shuts off their airspace due to saturation. I even got spun in the flight levels before because the next ARTCC wouldn't accept us.
 
WDD said:
If a controller can't deny landing, how can they deny take off or anything else? If they aren't in control of the airspace, what's the point?
Click to expand...
Imo, that's a common misperception. Controllers are in control of traffic separation. Under radar, add terrain avoidance, but don't bet your life on that one.
 
To me control of traffic separation requires control of airspace. And you get to call an 800 number if you don’t do what they ask.
 
There’s delaying an aircraft due to traffic saturation and there’s shutting down an airport because wx is below mins. Two different things and should have been communicated clearly to 5EX. I’ve held aircraft due to traffic saturation and told the transferring controller to “spin” an aircraft. I’ve never told an aircraft that I couldn’t clear them for an approach because wx was below mins. That’s not an “unsafe airport condition” and the divert authority (Command Center) is way above the individual controller.

The aircraft is already holding at Stillwater. You keep them there and do what the book states for that situation.

4242CD3F-8252-4D2E-B5E8-4A9CCC6283B8.jpeg
 
Last edited:
WDD said:
To me control of traffic separation requires control of airspace.
Click to expand...
VFR aircraft are not under ATC's "control" within controlled airspace (class E). They are controlled by visibility and cloud clearance, so a different kind of "control".
 
How have we not brought up secondary minimums?
 
If the controller had simply explained why the guy had to hold, there wouldn't have been any friction. In my experience and is what I tell all my trainees, "don't keep secrets." Pilots will help you out if they're informed of what is going on. However, in some situations, there simply isn't time to explain.

"I don't care what the weather is, I just want to shoot the approach." The controller's response should have been, "The weather has been reported at below minimums. If you go missed, I have no place to put you." Controllers are often put into a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. Regardless of what you say, it is going to make someone happy yet rub someone else the wrong way.

I wasn't there. Just my opinion and it costs exactly what you paid for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top