I like my privatized airport :)

[Byron Miller]

I have been learning to fly and hanging out at KLNS (Lancaster PA) for
years, and it has been a privatized airport tower ever since i've known
about it.

Nicest controllers, safe airport and friendly skies. They're not any more
incompetant than a "guvenment" controller and most certainly they enjoy
aviation and the lifestyle just as much as anyone else could!

Heck they even volunteer to the ground schools and give tours when the FAA
allows!

Just thought i'd throw that in :)

--
-byron

// Totalsimulation.com // Flight Sim Resources!

[Mike Granby]

"Byron Miller" > wrote:

> I have been learning to fly and hanging out at KLNS (Lancaster
> PA) for years, and it has been a privatized airport tower ever
> since i've known about it.

I'm based at THV (York) so I get in and out of LNS quite a bit. The
controllers there are indeed very helpful, but I never realized it was a
contract tower. You live and learn, I guess. How would one go about
confirming whether another airport was a contract tower or not, I wonder?

--
Mike Granby, PP-ASEL,IA
Warrior N44578
http://www.mikeg.net/plane

[K. Ari Krupnikov]

"Mike Granby" > writes:

> "Byron Miller" > wrote:
>
> > I have been learning to fly and hanging out at KLNS (Lancaster
> > PA) for years, and it has been a privatized airport tower ever
> > since i've known about it.
>
> I'm based at THV (York) so I get in and out of LNS quite a bit. The
> controllers there are indeed very helpful, but I never realized it was a
> contract tower. You live and learn, I guess. How would one go about
> confirming whether another airport was a contract tower or not, I wonder?

Call then on the landline and ask?

Trenton-Mercer, NJ (KTTN) is a contract tower, AFAIR. When I was
working on my instruments at PNE, TTN was one of the places to go for
low approaches. I would have had no way of knowing that tower was any
different from others if my instructor didn't tell me.

Ari.

[Tom S.]

"Byron Miller" > wrote in message
...
> I have been learning to fly and hanging out at KLNS (Lancaster PA) for
> years, and it has been a privatized airport tower ever since i've known
> about it.
>
> Nicest controllers, safe airport and friendly skies. They're not any more
> incompetant than a "guvenment" controller and most certainly they enjoy
> aviation and the lifestyle just as much as anyone else could!
>
> Heck they even volunteer to the ground schools and give tours when the FAA
> allows!
>
> Just thought i'd throw that in :)

For much the same basis, I prefer UPS and FedEx to the Post Office...

[Tom S.]

"Mike Granby" > wrote in message
...
> "Byron Miller" > wrote:
>
> > I have been learning to fly and hanging out at KLNS (Lancaster
> > PA) for years, and it has been a privatized airport tower ever
> > since i've known about it.
>
> I'm based at THV (York) so I get in and out of LNS quite a bit. The
> controllers there are indeed very helpful, but I never realized it was a
> contract tower. You live and learn, I guess. How would one go about
> confirming whether another airport was a contract tower or not, I wonder?

On the sectional or other chart it says "NFCT" for Non-Federal Control
Tower.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Granby" > wrote in message
...
>
> How would one go about
> confirming whether another airport was a contract tower or not, I wonder?
>

They're designated FCT right after the tower frequency in the A/FD, FAA
Contract Tower.

[Mike Granby]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> They're designated FCT right after the tower
> frequency in the A/FD, FAA Contract Tower.

So they're not contract, then?

I wonder what lead the OP to think they were?

--
Mike Granby, PP-ASEL,IA
Warrior N44578
http://www.mikeg.net/plane

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Maule Driver" > wrote in message
m...
>
> I'm thinking that a NFCT is either an FAA tower that has been 'outsourced'
>

The "NF" in NFCT means non-federal, the "F" in FAA means federal. Nuff
said.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Granby" > wrote in message
...
>
> So they're not contract, then?
>

An FAA Contract Tower is a contract tower.

[Richard Kaplan]

"Byron Miller" > wrote in message
...

> Nicest controllers, safe airport and friendly skies. They're not any more
> incompetant than a "guvenment" controller and most certainly they enjoy
> aviation and the lifestyle just as much as anyone else could!

Well this may be just coincidence and in any event when n=2 not all that
much can be concluded, but for what it is worth I have had two experiences
when controllers gave me instructions while low altitude in IMC which could
have resulted in a controlled flight into terrain accident, and both
situations occurred at a non-towered field -- once at Morgantown WV KMGW and
once at Johnstown PA KJST.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> On the sectional or other chart it says "NFCT" for Non-Federal Control
> Tower.
>

Do you know of an example? Not that I'm disputing it, it's just that I
don't know of any current NFCTs that I can check against a sectional. The
only two I was readily familiar with were UES and GYY, but they're both now
FAA Contract Towers. "NFCT" was removed from the sectional chart legend
about ten years ago, but both of those airports continued to be designated
NFCTs in their airport data blocks for several years after that. I don't
know when they joined the FAA contract tower program.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> Well this may be just coincidence and in any event when n=2 not all that
> much can be concluded, but for what it is worth I have had two experiences
> when controllers gave me instructions while low altitude in IMC which
could
> have resulted in a controlled flight into terrain accident, and both
> situations occurred at a non-towered field -- once at Morgantown WV KMGW
and
> once at Johnstown PA KJST.
>

What were the instructions?

[Newps]

Maule Driver wrote:

> Hmmm. It seems that the word 'privatized' is being thrown around in
> connection with ATC, the airspace system, and the FAA in general. What does
> it mean? I think I hear "privatized' being associated with 'pay as you go'
> and 'user fees' but I'm not sure.
>
> I'm thinking that a NFCT is either an FAA tower that has been 'outsourced'
> or a non-FAA tower that has been privately contracted to provide ATC
> services and is somehow approved for operations by the FAA. Is either of
> these what might be considered 'privatized'?

Some FAA towers have been turned over to contractors over the last 15
years. All those controllers got a paid move to another facility, most
got to go to anyplace they wanted. Some airports wanted their airport
to have a tower but they don't qualify for an FAA tower. In this case
sometimes the FAA agrees to add it to its contract program and sometimes
the FAA says no, which means the airport has to pay for it all by
itself. Bozeman, MT went this route. They wanted a tower. The FAA
told them if they built the tower the FAA would add it to the contract
program. Now Bozeman wants radar. The FAA said install the radar and
the FAA will run the radar with FAA controllers from a nearby FAA
facility. Nearby being relative, we would be the ones to run it from
here in Billings, 140 miles away. Ka-ching...instant pay raise.

[Richard Kaplan]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...

> What were the instructions?

1. At MGW on an IMC day on takeoff from Runway 18 with terrain obscured I
was given the instruction "Cleared for Takeoff -- Turn Left on Course" which
is clearly contrary to the published departure procedure and would take me
into terrain.

2. At JST on an ILS approach with weather intermittently below approach
minimums when I was inside the final approach fix I was given the
instruction "Alternate Missed Approach Instructions -- Proceed Direct
MGW" -- I was unable to confirm terrain clearance at such a busy time of
flight and the controller would not verify terrain clearance either (note I
was not on a vector and was below the MEA so he had no responsibility for
terrain clearance at that point if I accepted the instructions). After some
on-air discussion, the controller finally gave me a "Center assigned
heading" which reflected that Center verified terrain clearance.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[K. Ari Krupnikov]

"Richard Kaplan" > writes:

> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
> > What were the instructions?
>
> 1. At MGW on an IMC day on takeoff from Runway 18 with terrain obscured I
> was given the instruction "Cleared for Takeoff -- Turn Left on Course" which
> is clearly contrary to the published departure procedure and would take me
> into terrain.

Isn't there some sort of "standard DP" that says you need to climb at
a certain gradient (250fpnm or so?) absent specific published DP for
the airport? Are you saying that gradient would have taken you into
terrain?

Ari.

[Richard Kaplan]

"K. Ari Krupnikov" > wrote in message
...

> Isn't there some sort of "standard DP" that says you need to climb at
> a certain gradient (250fpnm or so?) absent specific published DP for
> the airport? Are you saying that gradient would have taken you into
> terrain?

If there is no published DP then a 200 feet per nautical mile gradient
should clear the terrain.

In this case, there was a published DP with an initial climb to the right.
However, ATC gave me alternate takeoff instructions with a turn to the left,
and looking at the approach chart to MGW you can see that a left turn off of
runway 18 does indeed come uncomfortably close to terrain. MGW Tower
seemed unaware of the departure procedure, and in fact when I specifically
requested it I was told "Unable due to traffic -- Cleared for takeoff, Climb
on runway heading"; that procedure ALSO comes uncomfortably close to
terrain. The published procedure with a turn to the right is indeed the
only rational procedure for departing this airport, even if that means (as
in my case) volunteering to delay an IMC departure until the conflicting
traffic is clear.

Incidentally, this is a really helpful concept to teach on an instrument
proficiency check. I have a routine clearance from "Kaplan Approach" which
I give to pilots during an instrument proficiency check which takes a pilot
straight into a mountain below the MEA when there is no radar vectoring and
thus terrain clearance is entirely the pilot's responsibility; very, very
rarely do pilots pick up on this, and instead almost everyone sets up course
to fly right into the mountain until at an appropriate time I say "Take off
the hood and tell me what is wrong with this picture." This is a terrific
attention-getter for a post-flight talk about CFIT avoidance.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Tom S.]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Tom S." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > On the sectional or other chart it says "NFCT" for Non-Federal Control
> > Tower.
> >
>
> Do you know of an example? Not that I'm disputing it, it's just that I
> don't know of any current NFCTs that I can check against a sectional. The
> only two I was readily familiar with were UES and GYY, but they're both
now
> FAA Contract Towers. "NFCT" was removed from the sectional chart legend
> about ten years ago, but both of those airports continued to be designated
> NFCTs in their airport data blocks for several years after that. I don't
> know when they joined the FAA contract tower program.
>
MRB, New Century (Olathe), Kansas (IXD)...do a Google search for
"non-federal control tower", there's a bunch.

[ISLIP]

>Now Bozeman wants radar. The FAA said install the radar

The tower at Groton Ct (KGON) is a contract tower . In talking to the
controllers they said the tower has no radar and the FAA will NOT
supply/install it for them, and their best source of weather is from a TV in
the cab. They rely on position reports & binoculars for traffic awareness


JD

[Ray Andraka]

Nashua, NH (KASH) is a NFCT.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> "Tom S." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > On the sectional or other chart it says "NFCT" for Non-Federal Control
> > Tower.
> >
>
> Do you know of an example? Not that I'm disputing it, it's just that I
> don't know of any current NFCTs that I can check against a sectional. The
> only two I was readily familiar with were UES and GYY, but they're both now
> FAA Contract Towers. "NFCT" was removed from the sectional chart legend
> about ten years ago, but both of those airports continued to be designated
> NFCTs in their airport data blocks for several years after that. I don't
> know when they joined the FAA contract tower program.

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[Snowbird]

(K. Ari Krupnikov) wrote in message >...
> "Richard Kaplan" > writes:
> > 1. At MGW on an IMC day on takeoff from Runway 18 with terrain obscured I
> > was given the instruction "Cleared for Takeoff -- Turn Left on Course" which
> > is clearly contrary to the published departure procedure and would take me
> > into terrain.

> Isn't there some sort of "standard DP" that says you need to climb at
> a certain gradient (250fpnm or so?) absent specific published DP for
> the airport?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question, Ari. Yes, there's a standard
climb gradient which applies to airports w/o a published DP. If the
airports don't meet it, there's a published DP.

Richard is saying that MGW has a published DP (presumably because it
does not meet that standard climb gradient), and the controller gave
him instructions which contravened the published DP. If there's a
published DP, there's usually a reason and one better follow it.

At least that's my understanding of what he wrote, FWIW.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Snowbird]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message >...
> "Byron Miller" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Nicest controllers, safe airport and friendly skies. They're not any more
> > incompetant than a "guvenment" controller and most certainly they enjoy
> > aviation and the lifestyle just as much as anyone else could!

> Well this may be just coincidence and in any event when n=2 not all that
> much can be concluded, but for what it is worth I have had two experiences
> when controllers gave me instructions while low altitude in IMC which could
> have resulted in a controlled flight into terrain accident, and both
> situations occurred at a non-towered field -- once at Morgantown WV KMGW and
> once at Johnstown PA KJST.

Richard,

Perhaps I'm not following the juxtaposition. Are you saying that
contract tower controllers gave you these instructions, or that
FAA controllers gave you these instructions whilst you were operating
at a non-towered airport for which they provide approach/departure
services?

I have to admit the "proceed direct MGW" part might have caught
us. Thanks very much for the heads-up, we'll be on alert for that
kind of thing.

Cheers,
Sydney

[One's Too Many]

"Byron Miller" > wrote in message >...
> I have been learning to fly and hanging out at KLNS (Lancaster PA) for
> years, and it has been a privatized airport tower ever since i've known
> about it.
>
> Nicest controllers, safe airport and friendly skies. They're not any more
> incompetant than a "guvenment" controller and most certainly they enjoy
> aviation and the lifestyle just as much as anyone else could!
>
> Heck they even volunteer to the ground schools and give tours when the FAA
> allows!
>
> Just thought i'd throw that in :)

The big ATC privatization issue is not so much about the tower guys at
your little class D airports. The big worry is more about enroute
stuff, centers, approach, departure, clearance delivery and all of a
sudden everyone getting repeatedly billed large sums of money just for
flying thru some airspace handled by some private corporation that
will staff these positions with personnel the quality of a typical
computer tech support script-parrot.

[Snowbird]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message >...
> In this case, there was a published DP with an initial climb to the right.
> However, ATC gave me alternate takeoff instructions with a turn to the left,
> and looking at the approach chart to MGW you can see that a left turn off of
> runway 18 does indeed come uncomfortably close to terrain. MGW Tower
> seemed unaware of the departure procedure, and in fact when I specifically
> requested it I was told "Unable due to traffic -- Cleared for takeoff, Climb
> on runway heading"

This is pretty scary. Did you follow this up somehow?

Also, Richard, excuse me for being obtuse but didn't you say these
incidents occured at *non* towered airports in your previous posts?

Did you mean to say "at airports with NF control towers"?

Cheers,
Sydney

[Newps]

Richard Kaplan wrote:


> 2. At JST on an ILS approach with weather intermittently below approach
> minimums when I was inside the final approach fix I was given the
> instruction "Alternate Missed Approach Instructions -- Proceed Direct
> MGW" -- I was unable to confirm terrain clearance at such a busy time of
> flight and the controller would not verify terrain clearance either (note I
> was not on a vector and was below the MEA so he had no responsibility for
> terrain clearance at that point if I accepted the instructions). After some
> on-air discussion, the controller finally gave me a "Center assigned
> heading" which reflected that Center verified terrain clearance.

Where do you learn this stuff? If ATC says to proceed direct to some
fix they damn sure do assume terrain separation responsibility.

[Newps]

BZN doesn't want radar for weather, they want a radar approach control.
The FAA will not buy and install it. If BZN buys and installs it the
FAA has already said that they will handle the radar. It would be
remoted to my facility in Billings. The same thing already happens now
in Missoula. Those radar controllers are in Spokane.

ISLIP wrote:

>>Now Bozeman wants radar. The FAA said install the radar
>
>
> The tower at Groton Ct (KGON) is a contract tower . In talking to the
> controllers they said the tower has no radar and the FAA will NOT
> supply/install it for them, and their best source of weather is from a TV in
> the cab. They rely on position reports & binoculars for traffic awareness
>
>
> JD

[Newps]

Snowbird wrote:


>
> Richard is saying that MGW has a published DP (presumably because it
> does not meet that standard climb gradient), and the controller gave
> him instructions which contravened the published DP. If there's a
> published DP, there's usually a reason and one better follow it.

Is MGW a radar facility?

[Greg Goodknight]

"One's Too Many" > wrote in message
om...
> "Byron Miller" > wrote in message
>...
> > I have been learning to fly and hanging out at KLNS (Lancaster PA) for
> > years, and it has been a privatized airport tower ever since i've known
> > about it.
> >
> > Nicest controllers, safe airport and friendly skies. They're not any
more
> > incompetant than a "guvenment" controller and most certainly they enjoy
> > aviation and the lifestyle just as much as anyone else could!
> >
> > Heck they even volunteer to the ground schools and give tours when the
FAA
> > allows!
> >
> > Just thought i'd throw that in :)
>
> The big ATC privatization issue is not so much about the tower guys at
> your little class D airports. The big worry is more about enroute
> stuff, centers, approach, departure, clearance delivery and all of a
> sudden everyone getting repeatedly billed large sums of money just for
> flying thru some airspace handled by some private corporation that
> will staff these positions with personnel the quality of a typical
> computer tech support script-parrot.


Given the FAA retains Certification and enforcement powers, which everyone
agrees is an inherently governmental function, the qualification scare
tactic is obviously a red herring.

Fees are a big issue but privatization doesn't have to mean the money earned
by private contractors comes from any source other than where it comes now.
It is very equitable to burden fuel with the fees; that way 777's pay more
than Cessna 150's, and no one would ever have to choose not to call a FSS,
ask for Flight Folowing or file IFR because they'd rather not incur the
cost. Just pay them out of those funds based on some formula. That isn't
rocket science.

I'm sure wages, job security and retirement pay is better for Federal
workers than the contractors but this has nothing to do with the tone of the
debate ;)

-Greg

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> MRB, New Century (Olathe), Kansas (IXD)...do a Google search for
> "non-federal control tower", there's a bunch.
>

Neither of those is designated as an NFCT on the current sectional. My
A/FDs are from 2001, but IXD is designated as an FAA Contract Tower, MRB as
an FAA tower.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ray Andraka" > wrote in message
...
>
> Nashua, NH (KASH) is a NFCT.
>

It's not designated as an NFCT on the current sectional, my 2001 A/FD
indicates it's an FAA Contract Tower.

[Doug Vetter]

Byron Miller wrote:
> I have been learning to fly and hanging out at KLNS (Lancaster PA) for
> years, and it has been a privatized airport tower ever since i've known
> about it.
>
> Nicest controllers, safe airport and friendly skies. They're not any more
> incompetant than a "guvenment" controller and most certainly they enjoy
> aviation and the lifestyle just as much as anyone else could!
>
> Heck they even volunteer to the ground schools and give tours when the FAA
> allows!
>
> Just thought i'd throw that in :)

Byron,

Have to admit years ago I went there on a couple student cross countries
and they couldn't have been friendlier. Very helpful. They honestly
seemed to enjoy their job and helping us "little guys". That perception
stuck with me for years...that's how good I thought they were.

The last two times I went there at night this past spring surprised me,
however. Both times I had to deal with a TOTALLY CLUELESS guy who,
IMHO, should NOT be in that cab. I won't go into details why, but it
came down to the fact he caused two separation issues, one of which
involved me, and just didn't seem to have sufficient grasp of what was
going on around him. He seemed to be (for lack of a better word) senile.

Of course, I responded to this message not to bash on one LNS
controller, but to point out that based on my experience, I agree with
you...there is no apparent difference in quality of service between FAA
vs. Contract towers. If anything, I think the contract guys are
friendlier overall.

That was certainly the case at KASH (Nashua NH) where I did a lot of
flying several years ago. Great guys (and gals). ASH handles more
traffic than MHT (Manchester, the air carrier airport to the north), and
they did it professionally, day in and out.

They were also great because they never used to mind me hanging out in
the cab with them on crummy weather days, while they played board games,
we watched brave souls ride the ILS, only to go missed in WOXOF
conditions, and I asked dumb pilot questions about ATC operations. Wish
I had those controllers at my home field.

-Doug

--
--------------------
Doug Vetter, CFIMEIA

http://www.dvcfi.com
--------------------

[Ray Andraka]

Interesting. It used to have an NFCT next to it on the Boston Terminal
Area chart. I hadn't checked it since, and looking at the current chart
it isn't marked as so any more. It was one of the questions my DE asked
me when I went for my PPL years ago. It never occurred to me that a
contract tower would revert to a federal tower.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> "Ray Andraka" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Nashua, NH (KASH) is a NFCT.
> >
>
> It's not designated as an NFCT on the current sectional, my 2001 A/FD
> indicates it's an FAA Contract Tower.

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[Richard Kaplan]

"Snowbird" > wrote in message
m...

> This is pretty scary. Did you follow this up somehow?

I sent in a NASA report and I have also used this example at several FAA
Wings talks which I have given for my local FSDO.

> Did you mean to say "at airports with NF control towers"?

Sorry about that... yes, I meant at an airport with a non-federal control
tower... after all, that is how this whole thread more or less started.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:4Z66b.274039$Oz4.72692@rwcrnsc54...

> Is MGW a radar facility?

No. It is a non-radar tower. Radar services are available through
Clarksburg Approach, essentially treating MGW as a satellite of Clarksburg
airport CKB.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"Newps" > wrote in message
.net...

> Where do you learn this stuff? If ATC says to proceed direct to some
> fix they damn sure do assume terrain separation responsibility.


ATC assumes terrain separation if they provide navigational guidance in the
form of radar vectors but not if they instruct a pilot to Proceed Direct.
See AIM 5-2-6:

"ATC may assume responsibility for obstacle clearance by vectoring the
aircraft prior to minimum vectoring altitude by using a diverse vector area
(DVA). The DVA has been assessed for departures which do not follow a
specific ground track. ATC may also vector an aircraft off a previously
assigned DP. In all cases, the 200 FPNM climb gradient is assumed and
obstacle clearance is not provided by ATC until the controller begins to
provide navigational guidance in the form of radar vectors."

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"Snowbird" > wrote in message
om...

> Perhaps I'm not following the juxtaposition. Are you saying that
> contract tower controllers gave you these instructions, or that
> FAA controllers gave you these instructions whilst you were operating
> at a non-towered airport for which they provide approach/departure
> services?

The instructions were from a controller at a non-federal control tower. So
it was a controller who was not an FAA employee. When I mentioned
"non-towered" that was my error; I meant "non-Federal towered".


> I have to admit the "proceed direct MGW" part might have caught
> us. Thanks very much for the heads-up, we'll be on alert for that
> kind of thing.

Yes, very subtle and very scary.. and I am convinced the controller used the
terminology precisely because when he finally assumed terrain responsibility
he said "Fly Heading XXX, Center Assigned Heading". I interpret that to
mean "I check with Center and I am stating for the tape that Center is
responsible for terrain if you hit something on that heading."


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[John Galban]

"Tom S." > wrote in message >...
> "Mike Granby" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I'm based at THV (York) so I get in and out of LNS quite a bit. The
> > controllers there are indeed very helpful, but I never realized it was a
> > contract tower. You live and learn, I guess. How would one go about
> > confirming whether another airport was a contract tower or not, I wonder?
>
> On the sectional or other chart it says "NFCT" for Non-Federal Control
> Tower.

There is a differece. NFCT does mean Non-Federal control tower, but
very few contract towers are NFCT. NFCT signifies that the tower is
contracted by the airport owners/managers. In other words, the FAA
has no involvment in procuring services for the tower. A "contract
tower" is where the FAA has contracted with a private company to
provide ATC services. An NFCT usually exists where a municipality
wishes to have a tower, but there are not enough annual operations on
the field to justify the FAA paying for it. The municipality is free
to pay for their own tower and contract.

So, all NFCTs are contract towers, but very few contract towers are
NFCTs. I recall that either Glendale (GEU) or Goodyear (GYR) in the
PHX area used to have the NFCT designation on the sectional, but it's
not there anymore. Looks like both have enough operations for the FAA
to foot the bill for the tower contract now.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[John Galban]

Newps > wrote in message news:<uQS5b.358784$uu5.69969@sccrnsc04>...

>
<snip>
> Some airports wanted their airport
> to have a tower but they don't qualify for an FAA tower. In this case
> sometimes the FAA agrees to add it to its contract program and sometimes
> the FAA says no, which means the airport has to pay for it all by
> itself.

If the airport pays all by itself (including the contract to staff
the tower), that's an NFCT.

>Bozeman, MT went this route. They wanted a tower. The FAA
> told them if they built the tower the FAA would add it to the contract
> program.

That's what is referred to as a Federal Contract Tower. My local
airport, Chandler,AZ (KCHD), went this route in the mid-90s. The
number of ops was not high enough for the FAA to fund the tower, but
they told the city if they built the facility, the FAA would contract
the staffing. Ops are way up since then. Enough so that the FAA
recently added DBRITE radar displays in the tower without even batting
an eye.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Byron Miller]

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>

> > Heck they even volunteer to the ground schools and give tours when the
FAA
> > allows!
> >
> > Just thought i'd throw that in :)
>
> For much the same basis, I prefer UPS and FedEx to the Post Office...
>

Just thought with all the bawk about FAA contracting out ATC i thought i
would atleast point out there are NICE airports that have been contracted :)

[Byron Miller]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> "Byron Miller" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Nicest controllers, safe airport and friendly skies. They're not any
more
> > incompetant than a "guvenment" controller and most certainly they enjoy
> > aviation and the lifestyle just as much as anyone else could!
>
> Well this may be just coincidence and in any event when n=2 not all that
> much can be concluded, but for what it is worth I have had two experiences
> when controllers gave me instructions while low altitude in IMC which
could
> have resulted in a controlled flight into terrain accident, and both
> situations occurred at a non-towered field -- once at Morgantown WV KMGW
and
> once at Johnstown PA KJST.

Lancaster (KLNS) is a haven for ILS approach practices. We have a large
corporate jet fleet and many people who practice in and out. US Airways
also has an express flight out of here. I havn't heard of ANYTHING but
praise for our friendly staff :)

Johnstown PA, well... i've just driven through there. Didn't even know they
still had an airport hehe.

[Byron Miller]

"One's Too Many" > wrote in message
om...
> >
> > Just thought i'd throw that in :)
>
> The big ATC privatization issue is not so much about the tower guys at
> your little class D airports. The big worry is more about enroute
> stuff, centers, approach, departure, clearance delivery and all of a
> sudden everyone getting repeatedly billed large sums of money just for
> flying thru some airspace handled by some private corporation that
> will staff these positions with personnel the quality of a typical
> computer tech support script-parrot.

I understand that. But coming from actually knowing people "on the inside"
alot of what the FAA uses is from private companies/organizations. I'm sure
my lil Class D airport isn't reall the issue, but on the flipside, most
class B isn't for us "GA" pilots in many ways. I find landing at the class
B airports to be expensive as is, so any more fees wouldn't really bother
me. If i have to fly through them then i look for the VFR routes through
them or i go under and around them. No sense in my lil tin can to get in the
way of heavies.

The only Difference between contracted and government workers to me is the
people pushing the contract. IF this is a union labor vs non union labor
then leave me out of it. If this is privatized - IE "contracted" airports
then my point is to say there are alot of fully functional "privatized" ATC
airports that work like a charm.

Joe controller is still Joe controller be it he works for the government or
not.

Believe me, i'm all against privatizing in the sense that the FAA drops
federal subsidation for aviation as that would murder the industry, but
privitization via contracting out jobs to bidders isn't anything that
concerns me.

If our military can do it, if the business sector can do it, why can't the
government sector continue to do it?

[Newps]

John Galban wrote:
> "Tom S." > wrote in message >...
>
>>"Mike Granby" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>I'm based at THV (York) so I get in and out of LNS quite a bit. The
>>>controllers there are indeed very helpful, but I never realized it was a
>>>contract tower. You live and learn, I guess. How would one go about
>>>confirming whether another airport was a contract tower or not, I wonder?
>>
>>On the sectional or other chart it says "NFCT" for Non-Federal Control
>>Tower.
>
>
> There is a differece. NFCT does mean Non-Federal control tower, but
> very few contract towers are NFCT. NFCT signifies that the tower is
> contracted by the airport owners/managers. In other words, the FAA
> has no involvment in procuring services for the tower. A "contract
> tower" is where the FAA has contracted with a private company to
> provide ATC services. An NFCT usually exists where a municipality
> wishes to have a tower, but there are not enough annual operations on
> the field to justify the FAA paying for it. The municipality is free
> to pay for their own tower and contract.

In the end it is irrelavant as all towers must train their controllers
to the same specs as FAA controllers. All non FAA towers get periodic
inspections from the FAA tower with jurisdiction for that area. As an
example my tower oversees Bozeman, MT. Out tower chief occasionally
goes over there to inspect paperwork, etc.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Galban" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Quite true. The type of tower (FAA,FCT or NFCT) makes zero
> difference to pilots. I always wondered why they put "NFCT" in front
> of the tower freq. on the sectional chart. It adds clutter and gives
> no useful information.
>

Do they still do that?

[John Galban]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message >...
> "John Galban" > wrote in message
> m...
> >
> > Quite true. The type of tower (FAA,FCT or NFCT) makes zero
> > difference to pilots. I always wondered why they put "NFCT" in front
> > of the tower freq. on the sectional chart. It adds clutter and gives
> > no useful information.
> >
>
> Do they still do that?

Now that you mention it, I think they did quit cluttering the chart
with that designation, though I still see it in the AFD occasionally.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Galban" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Now that you mention it, I think they did quit cluttering the chart
> with that designation, though I still see it in the AFD occasionally.
>

"NFCT" was removed from the sectional chart legend about ten years ago, but
airports with NFCTs continued to have NFCT in their airport data blocks for
several years after that. I believe Airborne Airpark in Wilmington, OH,
currently has an NFCT, but it has no NFCT in it's data block.

[Angus Davis]

Byron Miller wrote:

>I have been learning to fly and hanging out at KLNS (Lancaster PA) for
>years, and it has been a privatized airport tower ever since i've known
>about it.
>
>Nicest controllers, safe airport and friendly skies. They're not any more
>incompetant than a "guvenment" controller and most certainly they enjoy
>aviation and the lifestyle just as much as anyone else could!
>
>

I would like to second this opinion based on my positive experiences
flying out of San Carlos, CA (KSQL), a contract tower. They sure are
easier to deal with than the folks at nearby Hayward (HWD), a unionized
tower.

There are two separate issues at play in the debate. First, we pilots
represented by organizations like AOPA don't want to have to pay
anything for air traffic services. Second, federal air traffic
controller employees represented by a labor union want to get paid well
and preserve their jobs. The union would like you to believe that
allowing the government to hire contractors means pilots will have to
pay for ATC, however the two issues are not related in this way.

The choice by the government to employ contractors to run a tower
instead of unionized federal employees is actually a good thing for us
pilots who don't want to pay for air traffic services, because the
contract towers are significantly cheaper for the government to operate,
while actually providing a statistically higher level of safety to
pilots according to a recent government audit from the Inspector
General's office conducted at the request of the ATC labor unions. You
can download the report here and judge the data for yourself:

http://www.oig.dot.gov/item_details.php?item=1161

While there are many opinions on this issue, the data presented in the
report seems clear.
-angus

[Richard Kaplan]

"Angus Davis" > wrote in message
...

> While there are many opinions on this issue, the data presented in the
> report seems clear.

I am not sure if I have enough information to reach a conclusion on this.
The report does, indeed, indicate that FAA VFR towers have 5 times more
deviations than contracted VFR towers. The report also says that these are
self-reported deviations and that no system is in place to routinely report
or attempt to report all deviations.

So either I have to conclude that contracted towers are 5 times safer than
FAA towers or I have to conclude that there is a data collection issue here
and the data is therefore insufficient to draw a conclusion. I personally
conclude the latter -- even if contrated towers are "safer," it is hard for
me to believe that they make only 20% of the errors as FAA towers if other
factors were held equal.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> 1. At MGW on an IMC day on takeoff from Runway 18 with terrain
> obscured I was given the instruction "Cleared for Takeoff -- Turn Left
> on Course" which is clearly contrary to the published departure procedure
> and would take me into terrain.
>

They probably just said that because whatever you filed would mean a left
turn from a south departure to proceed on course. Turn left on course
doesn't mean you have to start a left turn as soon as your wheels are off
the runway. They can't deny you the DP, if a published IFR departure
procedure is not included in an ATC clearance, compliance with such a
procedure is the pilot's prerogative.


>
> 2. At JST on an ILS approach with weather intermittently below approach
> minimums when I was inside the final approach fix I was given the
> instruction "Alternate Missed Approach Instructions -- Proceed Direct
> MGW" -- I was unable to confirm terrain clearance at such a busy time of
> flight and the controller would not verify terrain clearance either (note
> I was not on a vector and was below the MEA so he had no responsibility
for
> terrain clearance at that point if I accepted the instructions). After
> some on-air discussion, the controller finally gave me a "Center assigned
> heading" which reflected that Center verified terrain clearance.
>

Did they arbitrarily send you to MGW, or did you tell them at some point
that you'd like to proceed to MGW in the event of a miss? Again, "proceed
direct MGW" doesn't mean you must start a left turn to MGW at the MAP.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"K. Ari Krupnikov" > wrote in message
...
>
> Isn't there some sort of "standard DP" that says you need to climb at
> a certain gradient (250fpnm or so?) absent specific published DP for
> the airport? Are you saying that gradient would have taken you into
> terrain?
>

Yes, but it applies only at airports with SIAPs. If no specific DP is
published, then the "standard DP" will ensure obstacle clearance to the
minimum IFR altitude; cross the
departure end of the runway a minimum of 35 feet AGL, climb at least 200
feet per
nautical mile, and climb to 400 feet above field elevation before turning.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> In this case, there was a published DP with an initial climb to the right.
> However, ATC gave me alternate takeoff instructions with a turn to the
> left, and looking at the approach chart to MGW you can see that a left
> turn off of runway 18 does indeed come uncomfortably close to terrain.
> MGW Tower seemed unaware of the departure procedure, and in fact
> when I specifically requested it I was told "Unable due to traffic --
Cleared
> for takeoff, Climb on runway heading"; that procedure ALSO comes
> uncomfortably close to terrain. The published procedure with a turn to
> the right is indeed the only rational procedure for departing this
airport,
> even if that means (as in my case) volunteering to delay an IMC departure
> until the conflicting traffic is clear.
>

Due to traffic? What traffic? You said it was IMC, so the tower can't have
any VFR traffic approaching on a right downwind. If you're departing RWY 18
the winds must favor that runway, so any IFR inbound traffic would likely be
on the ILS RWY 18. SVFR operations are to be authorized only when they do
not delay IFR operations. I just don't see how traffic could preclude you
from flying the DP.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> The instructions were from a controller at a non-federal control tower.
> So it was a controller who was not an FAA employee. When I mentioned
> "non-towered" that was my error; I meant "non-Federal towered".
>

My A/FD is almost two years old, but it indicates MGW is an FAA Contract
Tower and JST is still an FAA tower.

[Richard Kaplan]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...

> Due to traffic? What traffic? You said it was IMC, so the tower can't
have
> any VFR traffic approaching on a right downwind. If you're departing RWY
18

IFR traffic either being vectored for the approach or passing enroute.

This can particularly be an issue since MGW is a non-towered field so it is
harder for them to separate two IFR targets than it would be for a
radar-equipped tower.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...

> the runway. They can't deny you the DP, if a published IFR departure

They did deny me the DP until I volunteered that I would delay my departure,
and they still seemed puzzled as to why I wanted to wait.


> Did they arbitrarily send you to MGW, or did you tell them at some point
> that you'd like to proceed to MGW in the event of a miss? Again, "proceed
> direct MGW" doesn't mean you must start a left turn to MGW at the MAP.


MGW was not an arbitrary destination; I had requested to fly the published
missed at JST and then proceed to MGW. "Proceed direct MGW" was indeed
the proposed alternate missed approach procedure; the missed approach
procedure needs to be executed at the missed approach point. Indeed, I
again requested the published missed and was denied it.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...

> My A/FD is almost two years old, but it indicates MGW is an FAA Contract
> Tower and JST is still an FAA tower.

JST is a shared military-civilian field and I thought this affects
procedures/staffing. For example, JST tower always reminds pilots "check
gear down" which is not something done at a "standard" FAA tower. But you
might be correct that this is different from being an FAA Contract tower.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> IFR traffic either being vectored for the approach or passing enroute.
>

Should be separated by altitude, your direction of turn after takeoff would
not be an issue.


>
> This can particularly be an issue since MGW is a non-towered field so it
is
> harder for them to separate two IFR targets than it would be for a
> radar-equipped tower.
>

MGW is a towered field.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> MGW was not an arbitrary destination; I had requested to fly the published
> missed at JST and then proceed to MGW. "Proceed direct MGW" was indeed
> the proposed alternate missed approach procedure; the missed approach
> procedure needs to be executed at the missed approach point. Indeed, I
> again requested the published missed and was denied it.
>

You're making this more complicated than it is. Fly the missed approach
procedure, just go to MGW instead of JST.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> JST is a shared military-civilian field and I thought this affects
> procedures/staffing. For example, JST tower always reminds pilots "check
> gear down" which is not something done at a "standard" FAA tower. But you
> might be correct that this is different from being an FAA Contract tower.
>

Yes, there is a difference between an FAA tower and an FAA contract tower,
but the difference is transparent to the flying public.

[Ken Hornstein]

In article >,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>My A/FD is almost two years old, but it indicates MGW is an FAA Contract
>Tower and JST is still an FAA tower.

Forgive me for being dense, but the original poster said that Lancaster
(LNS) is a contract tower. I'm looking at my new A/FD, and I can't seem
to find out where it says that LNS is a contract tower. Where is this
listed?

--Ken

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ken Hornstein" > wrote in message
...
>
> Forgive me for being dense, but the original poster said that Lancaster
> (LNS) is a contract tower. I'm looking at my new A/FD, and I can't seem
> to find out where it says that LNS is a contract tower. Where is this
> listed?
>

In the communications section of the airport's listing of the A/FD,
immediately following the tower frequency. You'll find FCT for an FAA
Contract Tower, NFCT for a non-federal control tower, and nothing at all for
an FAA tower. My NE A/FD is a bit out of date, but it shows LNS to be an
FAA tower.

[Ken Hornstein]

In article t>,
Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>In the communications section of the airport's listing of the A/FD,
>immediately following the tower frequency. You'll find FCT for an FAA
>Contract Tower, NFCT for a non-federal control tower, and nothing at all for
>an FAA tower. My NE A/FD is a bit out of date, but it shows LNS to be an
>FAA tower.

Ah, okay, I had to look around a bit, but I found some examples of this.
ASH is a FAA Contract Tower, and it looks like MTN is a contract tower
part of the time, and a non-federal control tower some of the other time.
At least, that's my interpretation of listing for MTN ... I wonder why
that is?

Man, it seems like every time I look at the A/FD, I find something new.

--Ken

[Richard Kaplan]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...

> MGW is a towered field.

OK, I should not do this late at night.

I meant MGW is a NON-RADAR towered field.

Separation is certainly harder to maintain in a non-radar environment than
in a radar environment. As far as separating traffic by altitude, there may
be limitations in terms of what airspace MGW tower "owns" vs. situations
where they need to coordinate separation with other ATC facilities.

I can only tell you what happened on departure this date... clearly the
controller was not ideally skilled or else he would not have debated the
departure procedure with me, so it would not be surprising if he were also
not optimally skilled at non-radar aircraft separation procedures. You are
correct at stating what he COULD have done to separate me from other
traffic; I am just reporting what he DID do.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...

> You're making this more complicated than it is. Fly the missed approach
> procedure, just go to MGW instead of JST.

I specifically asked to fly the published missed and then go to MGW and this
was denied due to conflicting traffic. I was told to go DIRECT MGW as my
alternate missed approach instructions. I stated I was unable to assure my
terrain clearance if assigned DIRECT MGW on the missed so I wanted to fly
the published missed approach first and I was told again "Unable Published
Missed due to conflicting traffic." So I told them I would accept any
missed approach instructions for which terrain clearance were assured.
Remember, I was in IMC to near-minimums or below-minimums weather and inside
the FAF on an ILS approach -- there was no way I was going to take out a
chart and start calculating terrain clearance for a random route.

If there is another, simpler way I could have resolved this I would be
interested in hearing about another option.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ken Hornstein" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ah, okay, I had to look around a bit, but I found some examples of this.
> ASH is a FAA Contract Tower, and it looks like MTN is a contract tower
> part of the time, and a non-federal control tower some of the other time.
> At least, that's my interpretation of listing for MTN ... I wonder why
> that is?
>

It has to be an error. Note that the hours of operation as an FCT coincide
with the Class D hours. I suspect this was an NFCT that became an FCT, and
the "NFCT" mysteriously remained in the A/FD.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> OK, I should not do this late at night.
>
> I meant MGW is a NON-RADAR towered field.
>
> Separation is certainly harder to maintain in a non-radar environment than
> in a radar environment.
>

This is not a non-radar environment. Radar services are provided by
Clarksburg Approach, they're just 24 miles southwest of MGW. Examine the
ILS RWY 18 approach, note that DIXIN can be determined by radar or the
marker beacon. That tells us radar coverage is good in this area.


>
> As far as separating traffic by altitude, there may
> be limitations in terms of what airspace MGW tower "owns" vs. situations
> where they need to coordinate separation with other ATC facilities.
>

MGW is a VFR tower, they don't "own" any airspace. Airway MEAs that cross
MGW VORTAC run 4000 to 5000 MSL, so any enroute IFR traffic would likely be
well above the 3700 MSL top of the MGW Class D airspace.


>
> I can only tell you what happened on departure this date... clearly the
> controller was not ideally skilled or else he would not have debated the
> departure procedure with me, so it would not be surprising if he were also
> not optimally skilled at non-radar aircraft separation procedures. You
> are correct at stating what he COULD have done to separate me from other
> traffic; I am just reporting what he DID do.
>

The tower controller probably isn't applying any separation at all, he's
probably just relaying the clearance he received from Clarksburg approach.
I'm not saying ATC didn't make an error here, I'm just saying he didn't
necessarily make the error you think he did. There may have been a
procedural error, or there may have been a phraseology error, or you may
have misinterpreted the clearance, or it may have been a combination. To
know for sure we'd need a transcript of the communications between approach,
tower, and you.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> I specifically asked to fly the published missed and then go to MGW and
> this was denied due to conflicting traffic. I was told to go DIRECT MGW
> as my alternate missed approach instructions. I stated I was unable to
assure
> my terrain clearance if assigned DIRECT MGW on the missed so I wanted
> to fly the published missed approach first and I was told again "Unable
> Published Missed due to conflicting traffic."
>

So, they said nothing at all about an alternate missed approach until you
told them that in the event of a miss you'd like to go to MGW, and the
discussion took place inside the FAF? Is that right? There's a definite
ATC error here then. Clearance for the approach is clearance for the missed
approach procedure, so if there's conflicting traffic on the published miss
there's a separation error.

[Richard Kaplan]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...


> This is not a non-radar environment. Radar services are provided by
> Clarksburg Approach, they're just 24 miles southwest of MGW. Examine the
> ILS RWY 18 approach, note that DIXIN can be determined by radar or the
> marker beacon. That tells us radar coverage is good in this area.


It is indeed a non-radar environment when the pilot is talking to MGW tower.
Clarksburg can indeed identify DIXIN by special request of the pilot, but
the much more routine procedure is for Clarksburg to hand the pilot off to
Morgantown Tower outside of DIXIN and then Morgantown Tower asks the pilot
to report DIXIN inbound, at which time a landing clearance is issued.
Morgantown Tower has no radar capability.


> MGW is a VFR tower, they don't "own" any airspace. Airway MEAs that cross
> MGW VORTAC run 4000 to 5000 MSL, so any enroute IFR traffic would likely
be
> well above the 3700 MSL top of the MGW Class D airspace.

The MEA is 3000 feet; planes could well be enroute at that altitude due to
icing or planning to land at other local airports or for other reasons.


> The tower controller probably isn't applying any separation at all, he's
> probably just relaying the clearance he received from Clarksburg approach.
> I'm not saying ATC didn't make an error here, I'm just saying he didn't
> necessarily make the error you think he did. There may have been a

You are correct that the error could well have been by MGW tower or by
Clarksburg. Whatever the cause, it is clear that a left turn after takeoff
should never be considered an option departing MGW Runway 18 in IMC. So
this is an excellent example of CFIT avoidance and the importance of pilots
not delegating terrain avoidance solely to ATC on departure.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...

> So, they said nothing at all about an alternate missed approach until you
> told them that in the event of a miss you'd like to go to MGW, and the
> discussion took place inside the FAF? Is that right? There's a definite
> ATC error here then. Clearance for the approach is clearance for the
missed
> approach procedure, so if there's conflicting traffic on the published
miss
> there's a separation error.

Outside the FAF, I told them I intended to go missed no matter what the
weather was. I asked for and received a clearance for DIRECT MGW after
executing the published missed.

Then inside the FAF they told me DIRECT MGW was my alternate missed
instruction, and I declined that clearance for the reasons already
discussed.

So yes, it seems as if there was a separation error because there was
conflicting traffic on the published missed yet I was cleared for the
approach.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> It is indeed a non-radar environment when the pilot is talking to MGW
> tower.
>

Negative. It is a non-radar environment only when the radar is out of
service. It doesn't matter who the pilot is talking to.


>
> The MEA is 3000 feet; planes could well be enroute at that altitude due to
> icing or planning to land at other local airports or for other reasons.
>

Negative. There is no MEA below 4000 feet at MGW.


>
> You are correct that the error could well have been by MGW tower or by
> Clarksburg.
>

Or by you. Without knowing exactly what was said we cannot know what error
was made.

[Richard Kaplan]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...

> Negative. It is a non-radar environment only when the radar is out of
> service. It doesn't matter who the pilot is talking to.

You are correct that pilots are not told "Radar Service Terminated" on the
ILS 18 to MGW. As a practical matter, though, only under special
circumstances could/would they coordinate with Clarksburg to vector
airplanes talking to MGW tower. As a practical matter, Morgantown Tower
relies upon pilot position reporting for separation.

> Negative. There is no MEA below 4000 feet at MGW.

Then how is it that I routinely execute instrument approaches at MGW and
then proceed IFR at 3000 feet to my very nearby home base of KWAY to see if
I can land visually at KWAY?

> Or by you. Without knowing exactly what was said we cannot know what
error
> was made.

Can you please tell me what IFR clearance taking off from MGW Runway 18
could appropriately contain the words "On Departure turn Left"?


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> You are correct that pilots are not told "Radar Service Terminated" on the
> ILS 18 to MGW.
>

Earlier you said Morgantown Tower has no radar capability. What did you
base that on? If arriving aircraft are not being told "Radar Service
Terminated" it's probably because the tower has a BRITE scope, as would be
expected of a VFR tower that close to an ASR.


>
> As a practical matter, though, only under special
> circumstances could/would they coordinate with Clarksburg to vector
> airplanes talking to MGW tower. As a practical matter, Morgantown Tower
> relies upon pilot position reporting for separation.
>

Morgantown tower is a VFR tower. They provide runway separation.
Clarksburg approach provides IFR separation.


>
> Then how is it that I routinely execute instrument approaches at MGW and
> then proceed IFR at 3000 feet to my very nearby home base of KWAY to see
> if I can land visually at KWAY?
>

An MEA is the lowest published altitude between radio fixes which assures
acceptable navigational signal coverage and meets obstacle clearance
requirements between those fixes. Morgantown Municipal Airport and Greene
County Airport are not radio fixes, and there is no published altitude
between them. Off-airways operations would be subject to the MVA when
Clarksburg approach is open and the MIA when Cleveland ARTCC takes the
airspace.

How is it one can become a CFII without knowing what an MEA is?

If the minimum altitude for IFR operations in the WAY area is 3000 MSL,
what's the point of executing an instrument approach at MGW to get into WAY?
An instrument approach is needed to descend beneath the minimum altitude for
enroute operations, not to descend down to it.


>
> Can you please tell me what IFR clearance taking off from MGW Runway 18
> could appropriately contain the words "On Departure turn Left"?
>

You're illustrating why we need a verbatim transcript of the communications.
Previously you said the instruction was "Cleared for Takeoff -- Turn Left on
Course", now you say it was "On Departure turn Left". To determine if an
error was made we need to know what was said and without a transcript we
don't know what was said.

[Richard Kaplan]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...

> Earlier you said Morgantown Tower has no radar capability. What did you
> base that on? If arriving aircraft are not being told "Radar Service

MGW Tower routinely seems to not know where I am located when I call in on
the approach. They will sometimes, for example, ask me to "Report DIXIN
Inbound" when I am already inside DIXIN; if they saw me on radar they would
not ask for such a report.

> If the minimum altitude for IFR operations in the WAY area is 3000 MSL,
> what's the point of executing an instrument approach at MGW to get into
WAY?
> An instrument approach is needed to descend beneath the minimum altitude
for
> enroute operations, not to descend down to it.

The MVA is indeed 3000 MSL in the WAY area. So as mentioned in an earlier
posting IFR traffic could be at 3000 MSL in the MGW area and thus
conflicting with the departure procedure from MGW runway 18.

One reason why I might execute an approach at MGW to get into WAY would be
in the winter if I anticipate possible icing in the descent and I want the
option to land at MGW if I accumulate ice vs. continue to WAY if I am
ice-free. Full flaps are not permitted on my airplane after I have
encountered icing conditions, and I would much prefer to execute such a
landing straight-in out of an ILS to the 5000 foot runway at MGW rather than
to fly a traffic pattern around WAY and land on its 3500 foot, slightly
sloping runway.

Another reason why I might execute an approach at MGW to get into WAY is to
get a sense of whether I am likely to be able to complete a visual approach
to WAY. Circling WAY at 3000 feet I might be able to see straight down to
the airport yet forward visibility might be reduced when I start a visual
approach to WAY; the only way to get below 3000 feet at WAY is to cancel
IFR, so I could find myself IMC on a VFR flight plan below radar and radio
reception altitudes. I have found that a better plan is to execute the ILS
into MGW and then decide if the weather will allow me to proceed IFR to WAY
or if I should instead land at MGW.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> MGW Tower routinely seems to not know where I am located when I call in on
> the approach. They will sometimes, for example, ask me to "Report DIXIN
> Inbound" when I am already inside DIXIN; if they saw me on radar they
would
> not ask for such a report.
>

You said pilots are not told "Radar Service Terminated" on the ILS 18 to
MGW. If Morgantown does not have radar then pilots should be told that
radar service is terminated.


>
> The MVA is indeed 3000 MSL in the WAY area.
>

How do you know?


>
> So as mentioned in an earlier
> posting IFR traffic could be at 3000 MSL in the MGW area and thus
> conflicting with the departure procedure from MGW runway 18.
>

Enroute traffic is typically kept higher for that very reason.


>
> One reason why I might execute an approach at MGW to get into WAY would be
> in the winter if I anticipate possible icing in the descent and I want the
> option to land at MGW if I accumulate ice vs. continue to WAY if I am
> ice-free. Full flaps are not permitted on my airplane after I have
> encountered icing conditions, and I would much prefer to execute such a
> landing straight-in out of an ILS to the 5000 foot runway at MGW rather
than
> to fly a traffic pattern around WAY and land on its 3500 foot, slightly
> sloping runway.
>
> Another reason why I might execute an approach at MGW to get into WAY is
to
> get a sense of whether I am likely to be able to complete a visual
approach
> to WAY. Circling WAY at 3000 feet I might be able to see straight down to
> the airport yet forward visibility might be reduced when I start a visual
> approach to WAY; the only way to get below 3000 feet at WAY is to cancel
> IFR, so I could find myself IMC on a VFR flight plan below radar and radio
> reception altitudes. I have found that a better plan is to execute the
ILS
> into MGW and then decide if the weather will allow me to proceed IFR to
WAY
> or if I should instead land at MGW.
>

So executing an instrument approach at MGW has nothing to do with proceeding
IFR to WAY then? It's just to get a check on the weather? You fly the
approach, miss, and then climb to the MVA and proceed to WAY?

[Richard Kaplan]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...

> You said pilots are not told "Radar Service Terminated" on the ILS 18 to
> MGW. If Morgantown does not have radar then pilots should be told that
> radar service is terminated.

That is a valid point and something which I agree would be helpful for me to
clarify.... I will ask Morgantown tower directly next time I get a chance.

Either way, it does not get away from the initial topic of discussion which
is that an IFR clearance on takeoff from MGW runway 18 should never contain
the words "On Takeoff Turn Left ...."


> > The MVA is indeed 3000 MSL in the WAY area.
> How do you know?


I have asked ATC (Clarksburgh Approach) this question many times on IFR
flight plans approaching WAY.


> Enroute traffic is typically kept higher for that very reason.

Yes, but for all I know enroute traffic was landing at a nearby airport and
thus kept lower or maybe wanted lower to avoid winds or icing or wanted
lower by request to stay IMC or had an emergency or any number of reasons.


> So executing an instrument approach at MGW has nothing to do with
proceeding
> IFR to WAY then? It's just to get a check on the weather? You fly the
> approach, miss, and then climb to the MVA and proceed to WAY?

If the weather is marginal VFR for WAY, say minimum ceiling for a visual
approach into WAY with 3 miles visibility, I might well go missed on the ILS
to MGW and then continue IFR from MGW to WAY by my preference to help with
separation from other aircraft.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> That is a valid point and something which I agree would be helpful for me
> to clarify.... I will ask Morgantown tower directly next time I get a
chance.
>

I phoned Morgantown tower, they have no BRITE.


>
> Either way, it does not get away from the initial topic of discussion
> which is that an IFR clearance on takeoff from MGW runway 18
> should never contain the words "On Takeoff Turn Left ...."
>

There are many things an IFR clearance should not contain, but without a
transcript we do not know what it did contain.


>
> I have asked ATC (Clarksburgh Approach) this question many times on IFR
> flight plans approaching WAY.
>

Okay, but remember this is the same facility that apparently cleared you for
an approach when another IFR aircraft would be conflicting with the missed
approach segment.


>
> Yes, but for all I know enroute traffic was landing at a nearby airport
> and thus kept lower or maybe wanted lower to avoid winds or icing or
wanted
> lower by request to stay IMC or had an emergency or any number of reasons.
>

Separation is the first priority. You don't grant a request that
compromises separation.


>
> If the weather is marginal VFR for WAY, say minimum ceiling for a visual
> approach into WAY with 3 miles visibility, I might well go missed on the
> ILS to MGW and then continue IFR from MGW to WAY by my preference
> to help with separation from other aircraft.
>

How do you know what the weather is at WAY? What does an approach at MGW
have to do with proceeding IFR to WAY?

[Richard Kaplan]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...

> How do you know what the weather is at WAY? What does an approach at MGW
> have to do with proceeding IFR to WAY?

WAY is close enough to MGW for me to be able to make a reasonable estimate
of whether I can get into WAY based on weather in MGW... it is not perfect
but it is a pretty effective plan considering I have done this for years and
thus know the local weather patterns very well. Since I am IFR, if I cannot
get into WAY then no harm is done --> I could just ask for a clearance back
to MGW and land.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> WAY is close enough to MGW for me to be able to make a reasonable estimate
> of whether I can get into WAY based on weather in MGW... it is not perfect
> but it is a pretty effective plan considering I have done this for years
> and thus know the local weather patterns very well. Since I am IFR, if I
> cannot get into WAY then no harm is done --> I could just ask for a
clearance
> back to MGW and land.
>

I don't follow. If you're assuming the weather at WAY is similar to the
weather at MGW, then just the need to do an approach at MGW should tell you
that an approach is needed at WAY. Since WAY has no approach you won't be
able to get in.

[John Godwin]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
ink.net:

> I don't follow. If you're assuming the weather at WAY is similar to
> the weather at MGW, then just the need to do an approach at MGW should
> tell you that an approach is needed at WAY. Since WAY has no approach
> you won't be able to get in.

He didn't say that the weather is similar. He said "WAY is close enough to
MGW for me to be able to make a reasonable estimate of whether I can get
into WAY based on weather in MGW..."

--
John Godwin
Silicon Rallye Inc.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Godwin" > wrote in message
...
>
> He didn't say that the weather is similar. He said "WAY is close enough
to
> MGW for me to be able to make a reasonable estimate of whether I can get
> into WAY based on weather in MGW..."
>

What's the difference?

[John Godwin]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in news:fD0ab.6502
:

> What's the difference?

In our area, for example, if LVK reports overcast, there's a very good
chance that all the airports skirting the SF bay are too. On the
otherhand, LVK can report clear and the bay airports may STILL be socked
in.

There are several microclimates here and locals can gauge one area based on
an other but understand that the prevailing weather may not necessarily be
similar.

--
John Godwin
Silicon Rallye Inc.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Godwin" > wrote in message
...
>
> In our area, for example, if LVK reports overcast, there's a very good
> chance that all the airports skirting the SF bay are too. On the
> otherhand, LVK can report clear and the bay airports may STILL be socked
> in.
>
> There are several microclimates here and locals can gauge one area based
on
> an other but understand that the prevailing weather may not necessarily be
> similar.
>

That's all very interesting, but what's the difference between assuming the
weather at WAY is similar to the weather at MGW, and saying "WAY is close
enough to MGW for me to be able to make a reasonable estimate of whether I
can get into WAY based on weather in MGW..."?

[Richard Kaplan]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...

> I don't follow. If you're assuming the weather at WAY is similar to the
> weather at MGW, then just the need to do an approach at MGW should tell
you
> that an approach is needed at WAY. Since WAY has no approach you won't be
> able to get in.

There are 2 possible situations where it makes sense to do the approach to
MGW and then go IFR to WAY:


(1) If I need to descend through an icing layer or potential icing layer to
get down to VFR conditions, I would rather do that descent to the longer,
ILS-equipped runway at MGW than to WAY. If I get any icing on the descent,
I will land at MGW. If I get no icing on descent, I will proceed to WAY,
but if visibility is margainal (say 3 miles) I would prefer to proceed IFR
to WAY.

(2) If reported weather is such that I do not think I will get into WAY (say
1500-2) but I break out at MGW and realize the weather is better than
expected (say 2500-3 in light rain), I would give it a try at WAY but I
would still want to proceed IFR from MGW to WAY if visibility is legal but
marginal for VFR.



--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[MARK CASILLAS]

F.A.A. has ducked its responsibilities and authority by approving these
"CONTRACT TOWERS" programs, actually since the P.A.T.C.O. Strike of
1981.
There is NO-ONE else in the U.S.A. that has been charged with the
Promotion and Regulation of AVIATION activities in this Country, other
than the F.A.A.
Strange as it seems, a double edged sword. You have the FEDS on one hand
declining to provide Air Traffic Control Services if they have to BUILD
and SUPPORT the appropriate ATC facilities, so they tell those airports
that NEED these services to BUILD the facilities and they will provide
the services OR they simply do not provide ANY ATC services at all !!!
I wonder how things will be when we have to "PAY AS YOU GO" for ATC
SERVICES and the F.A.A. is sitting in their Kingdom waving the Sword ?
REGARDS,
Mark A. Casillas
"ONE in EIGHTY ONE"
N5126Z
MEMPHIS,TN

*** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.