FAA Control tower Abandoned

[Blowinginthewind]

Looks like this is becoming a common occurrence lately.

Oh I forgot, the FAA treats their controller and technical
workforce like ****. Maybe that's it.

FAA Control tower Abandoned

Southwest Planes Turn Around Minutes From Green
Southwest Says Planes Could Not Land Without Air Traffic Control

UPDATED: 8:34 pm EDT May 16, 2006
WARWICK, R.I. -- Two Southwest Airlines flights left
Baltimore Monday night bound for Rhode Island, but it was
just the beginning of a back-and-forth odyssey for dozens of
passengers.

NBC 10's Audrey Laganas reported that the planes turned
around in flight just before midnight. The passengers said
the pilots told them they were turning back because there
was no one in the control tower at T.F. Green Airport.

The stranded passengers were so mad, they called NBC 10.

NBC 10 was waiting when they landed Tuesday morning.

"It was so sad, and we were treated like cattle," said
Michelle Harvey, who was flying home from Baltimore with her
mother.

"And then when we were flying, the pilot got on. He sounded
greatly distressed. He said, 'There's no one at the tower in
Providence. We have to go back.' We were about 10 minutes
out. Ten or 15 minutes out," Harvey said.

The passengers had to camp out overnight at the airport in
Baltimore.

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Blowinginthewind > wrote:

>FAA Control tower Abandoned
>
>Southwest Planes Turn Around Minutes From Green
>Southwest Says Planes Could Not Land Without Air Traffic Control

Ignoring the the sarcastic comments, and somewhat puzzled by why the
tower would be abandoned, I'm curious what prevented the flight from
landing. Is there something in SW's op-specs which requires an
operating control tower to land?

It also seems odd that they would turn around and go back to
Baltimore. It would seem to make more sense to land someplace close
(like BDL) and put the pax on a bus to their final destination.

[Jim Macklin]

Op-spec probably. FAA tower close often, many are
part-time. If there was a scheduled flight in-bound the
crew should have stayed a little overtime. But if the tower
is closed, no clearance is available for landing, but as
long as the last weather observation is current [less than
an hour] an IFR approach can be made under Part 91. But FAR
121 and the airline manual control.
As to airline diversions, they will always try to go to a
terminal where they have a service agreement.



"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
| In article >,
| Blowinginthewind > wrote:
|
| >FAA Control tower Abandoned
| >
| >Southwest Planes Turn Around Minutes From Green
| >Southwest Says Planes Could Not Land Without Air Traffic
Control
|
| Ignoring the the sarcastic comments, and somewhat puzzled
by why the
| tower would be abandoned, I'm curious what prevented the
flight from
| landing. Is there something in SW's op-specs which
requires an
| operating control tower to land?
|
| It also seems odd that they would turn around and go back
to
| Baltimore. It would seem to make more sense to land
someplace close
| (like BDL) and put the pax on a bus to their final
destination.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ignoring the the sarcastic comments, and somewhat puzzled by why the
> tower would be abandoned, I'm curious what prevented the flight from
> landing.
>

It wasn't abandoned. It's a part-time tower that closes at midnight.
Southwest was running late.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:deLag.21814$ZW3.6700@dukeread04...
>
> Op-spec probably. FAA tower close often, many are
> part-time. If there was a scheduled flight in-bound the
> crew should have stayed a little overtime.
>

Why? Who's going to pay the overtime? Southwest?


>
> But if the tower
> is closed, no clearance is available for landing,
>

Nor is one required for landing.


>
> but as
> long as the last weather observation is current [less than
> an hour] an IFR approach can be made under Part 91.
>

PVD has an ASOS, weather observations are available 24/7.

[Roy Smith]

In article et>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Ignoring the the sarcastic comments, and somewhat puzzled by why the
> > tower would be abandoned, I'm curious what prevented the flight from
> > landing.
> >
>
> It wasn't abandoned. It's a part-time tower that closes at midnight.
> Southwest was running late.

Duh. That's what I figured at first and looked it up in Airnav. I saw
"Attendance:*CONTINUOUS" and my took that to mean the tower never closes,
which of course is wrong. Never mind.

[[email protected]]

You didn't quote the whole article. It can be found at:
http://www.turnto10.com/news/9227658/detail.html and towards the bottom
it says:

>>>
A Federal Aviation Administration spokesman said based on control tower
recordings, Southwest's version of events is "not true."

"Southwest made a decision to return to Baltimore after the pilot
attempted to make a landing ... [and] missed his approach," spokesman
Jim Peters said. "Based on conversations, it was not necessary for the
tower to be open when that plane landed."

Peters said it is possible for flights to land without someone being
present in the control tower.
<<<

So was a dispatcher confused, or did the pilot outright lie, or did the
passengers and/or reporter misunderstand what was going on? Or is the
FAA covering its butt?


Blowinginthewind wrote:
> Looks like this is becoming a common occurrence lately.
>
> Oh I forgot, the FAA treats their controller and technical
> workforce like ****. Maybe that's it.
>
> FAA Control tower Abandoned
>
> Southwest Planes Turn Around Minutes From Green
> Southwest Says Planes Could Not Land Without Air Traffic Control
>
> UPDATED: 8:34 pm EDT May 16, 2006
> WARWICK, R.I. -- Two Southwest Airlines flights left
> Baltimore Monday night bound for Rhode Island, but it was
> just the beginning of a back-and-forth odyssey for dozens of
> passengers.
>
> NBC 10's Audrey Laganas reported that the planes turned
> around in flight just before midnight. The passengers said
> the pilots told them they were turning back because there
> was no one in the control tower at T.F. Green Airport.
>
> The stranded passengers were so mad, they called NBC 10.
>
> NBC 10 was waiting when they landed Tuesday morning.
>
> "It was so sad, and we were treated like cattle," said
> Michelle Harvey, who was flying home from Baltimore with her
> mother.
>
> "And then when we were flying, the pilot got on. He sounded
> greatly distressed. He said, 'There's no one at the tower in
> Providence. We have to go back.' We were about 10 minutes
> out. Ten or 15 minutes out," Harvey said.
>
> The passengers had to camp out overnight at the airport in
> Baltimore.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> You didn't quote the whole article. It can be found at:
> http://www.turnto10.com/news/9227658/detail.html and towards the bottom
> it says:
>
>>>>
> A Federal Aviation Administration spokesman said based on control tower
> recordings, Southwest's version of events is "not true."
>
> "Southwest made a decision to return to Baltimore after the pilot
> attempted to make a landing ... [and] missed his approach," spokesman
> Jim Peters said. "Based on conversations, it was not necessary for the
> tower to be open when that plane landed."
>
> Peters said it is possible for flights to land without someone being
> present in the control tower.
> <<<
>
> So was a dispatcher confused, or did the pilot outright lie, or did the
> passengers and/or reporter misunderstand what was going on? Or is the
> FAA covering its butt?
>

There does not appear to be any reason for the FAA to cover it's butt in
this case.

Northwest has two flights that normally arrive at Green Bay about 11PM.
Sometimes they run a bit late and don't arrive until after the tower and
TRACON close at 11:30. On those occasions Minneapolis ARTCC clears them for
the approach of their choice and they land on the then uncontrolled field.
Apparently Southwest would rather return to the departure point when they
arrive after the tower has closed. They're free to do that, but it's wrong
to blame their choice on the FAA.

[Jim Macklin]

I just recall that out here in the "fly over country" FAA
towers with a scheduled air carrier flight due to arrive
stay open a few extra minutes. In the case of Raytheon
[Beech] their tower is private and they pay the bill. Most
towers are federal and the taxpayers pay the bill.
It is too bad that union rules, FAA rules and company
procedures could not work together to have the passengers in
comfort at their desired destination.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
in message
.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:deLag.21814$ZW3.6700@dukeread04...
| >
| > Op-spec probably. FAA tower close often, many are
| > part-time. If there was a scheduled flight in-bound the
| > crew should have stayed a little overtime.
| >
|
| Why? Who's going to pay the overtime? Southwest?
|
|
| >
| > But if the tower
| > is closed, no clearance is available for landing,
| >
|
| Nor is one required for landing.
|
|
| >
| > but as
| > long as the last weather observation is current [less
than
| > an hour] an IFR approach can be made under Part 91.
| >
|
| PVD has an ASOS, weather observations are available 24/7.
|
|

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:4qPag.21830$ZW3.19509@dukeread04...
>
> I just recall that out here in the "fly over country" FAA
> towers with a scheduled air carrier flight due to arrive
> stay open a few extra minutes.
>

Which?


>
> It is too bad that union rules, FAA rules and company
> procedures could not work together to have the passengers in
> comfort at their desired destination.
>

It appears to be solely company procedures that kept the passengers from
their destination. No FAA rule prevents them from landing when the tower is
closed.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> I looked at the weather history on Weather Underground and PVD reported
> visibilities in the 0.1 and 0.2 range around midnight that night, below
> the standard ILS minimums for PVD. The Cat II and Cat III approaches
> (both to ry 5) are not authorized when the tower is not in operation
> according to the U.S. Terminal Procedures for PVD.

Now that's interesting. 0.1 to 0.2 statute miles is some 500 to 1000
feet visibility, within the range of the CAT III apporach.

> The AOPA airport directory includes this note: "Check NOTAMS, ry 5 to
> 23 closed for tkf and lndgs & used for full length taxiway & parking of
> overnight acft 8 pm to 8 am;"

Huh? Apparently there used to be a runway 5L 23R that no longer exists,
there are some references to its removal in various NOTAMS. Maybe
that's what this refers to, otherwise it doesn't make much sense to
park airplanes on their biggest, best lit runway.

> It would be hard for me to criticize the SWA pilots for not landing if
> those were the conditions .

Sure, but now it seems the tower's refusal to stay open late may have
had something to do with SWA having to turn around.

Peter

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I looked at the weather history on Weather Underground and PVD reported
> visibilities in the 0.1 and 0.2 range around midnight that night, below
> the standard ILS minimums for PVD. The Cat II and Cat III approaches
> (both to ry 5) are not authorized when the tower is not in operation
> according to the U.S. Terminal Procedures for PVD.
>

The FAA spokesman said at least one of the Southwest flights missed an
approach. Did they begin an approach when the observed weather was below
minimums?

[Bob Moore]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote

> The FAA spokesman said at least one of the Southwest flights missed an
> approach. Did they begin an approach when the observed weather was >
> below minimums?

> It appears to be solely company procedures that kept the passengers
> from their destination. No FAA rule prevents them from landing when
> the tower is closed.

Ah...Steven....playing with words again? One certainly can't land if
he is prohibited from conducting the required Instrument Approach can
he?

From kstan92's earlier post.....

I looked at the weather history on Weather Underground and PVD reported
visibilities in the 0.1 and 0.2 range around midnight that night, below
the standard ILS minimums for PVD. The Cat II and Cat III approaches
(both to ry 5) are not authorized when the tower is not in operation
according to the U.S. Terminal Procedures for PVD.

Tower not in operation...can't approach...can't approach...can't land.

As far as starting the approach with weather below minimums....sure he
can.....just can't proceed past the final approach fix...

From FAR 121

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no pilot may
continue an approach past the final approach fix, or where a final
approach fix is not used, begin the final approach segment of an
instrument approach procedure—

(2) At airports within the United States and its territories or at U.S.
military airports, unless the latest weather report for that airport
issued by the U.S. National Weather Service, a source approved by that
Service, or a source approved by the Administrator, reports the
visibility to be equal to or more than the visibility minimums
prescribed for that procedure.

So....he started the approach and discontinued it at the FAF.

So...as he said, the FAA (rules) would not permit him to land under the
existing wx conditions with the tower closed, so he missed the approach
at the FAF.

You and your stupid word games.

Bob Moore

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> The FAA spokesman said at least one of the Southwest flights missed an
> approach. Did they begin an approach when the observed weather was below
> minimums?

Probably not, I doubt they'd pull anything that blatant so short a time
after the Midway incident. Maybe the fog was just rolling in; there
must be more to that story.

I can only find one of the flights on FlightAware, SWA946 departed BWI
at 11:57pm EDT and landed back at BWI at 12:38am. It seems to have
turned around a bit past halfway between Trenton and Manhattan.

SWA1729 arrived at PVD (and I suppose landed) at 11:51pm and COA163
arrived at 1:36am that night.

[Newps]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> I just recall that out here in the "fly over country" FAA
> towers with a scheduled air carrier flight due to arrive
> stay open a few extra minutes. In the case of Raytheon
> [Beech] their tower is private and they pay the bill. Most
> towers are federal and the taxpayers pay the bill.
> It is too bad that union rules, FAA rules and company
> procedures could not work together to have the passengers in
> comfort at their desired destination.

It's got nothing to do with the union. Here at BIL we never close so it
wouldn't be a factor but my last place, GFK, we were a 6am-midnight
operation. When we got there at 6 am there was usually a Fedex three
holer and a Northwest DC9 taxiing for takeoff. We were the third
releiver for MSP when the weather went to hell with snowstorms. I was
working the 4-12 one time when there was a blizzard in MSP. First
Rochester, then Fargo filled up with diverting jets. Then they came to
GFK. I kept the tower open an extra hour or so because of how many jets
landed, all with the intention of leaving after getting gas. That's
where the tower controller can help out. But one guy farting around in
bad weather? The tower controller wouldn't have affected anything one
way or the other.

[[email protected]]

Newps wrote:
> But one guy farting around in
> bad weather? The tower controller wouldn't have affected anything one
> way or the other.

Except when, as someone else pointed out, the CAT II and III ILS
requires the tower to be open.

Now why is it required when the CAT I ILS doesn't? Is it navaid
monitoring, or something else?

[beavis]

In article . com>,
> wrote:

> I looked at the weather history on Weather Underground and PVD reported
> visibilities in the 0.1 and 0.2 range around midnight that night, below
> the standard ILS minimums for PVD. The Cat II and Cat III approaches
> (both to ry 5) are not authorized when the tower is not in operation
> according to the U.S. Terminal Procedures for PVD.

There's your answer. If the tower is closed, there's no-one to issue
RVR reports; the ASOS won't do it. Further, the charts specifically
say that Cat II (and III) minimums are NA when the tower is closed.

With no operating tower, they require Cat I minimums, which are 1/2
mile for both 05 and 23.

So what they said was true: They couldn't land because there was no-one
in the tower. Who knows how thorough the pilot's explanation was? I
fly regularly and see people who can't figure out how a seatbelt works,
so I don't think he's going to give a dissertation on visibility versus
RVR.

[Brien K. Meehan]

The article conveniently neglects to mention that they departed 31
minutes late.

Also, I've listened to recordings of the ATC dialogue. There were
ample broadcasts by the tower and Center about the tower closing at
23:59 and regressing to Class E airspace. They mentioned a couple
times that they'd stay open for the Southwest flight's approach, but
they'd have to close if he went missed.

The confusing thing is that the Southwest flight is calling itself
2020, which is scheduled between MCO and PVD. SWA946 is the flight
between BWI and PVD. I don't know what the story is there. But the
dialogue between the tower and the flight goes like this:

00:02:07 SWA2020: Tower, Southwest, uh, 2020 is missed approach.
00:02:16 PVD TWR: Southwest 2020 is on the go, climb and maintain 2000.
00:02:20 SWA2020: 2000, Southwest 2020.

00:02:35 PVD TWR: Southwest 2020, say alternate.
00:02:37 SWA2020: Ah, we're gonna have to go to Baltimore.
00:02:39 PVD TWR: Understand, Baltimore.
00:02:40 SWA2020: That's affirmative.

00:02:53 SWA2020: Do you want us to switch to Center, sir?

00:03:03 PVD TWR: Southwest 2020, turn left heading 240, radar vectors
for Baltimore, climb and maintain two thousand five hundred.
00:03:12 SWA2020: Two thousand five hundred on the altitude, two four
zero heading, Southwest 2020.
00:03:16 PVD TWR: Southwest 2020, contact Boston Center on 124.85.
00:03:24 SWA2020: 124.85, thank you sir.

00:04:41 SWA2020: Tower, Southwest 2020.
00:04:43 PVD TWR: Southwest 2020, Providence Tower.
00:04:45 SWA2020: Yeah, you guys gonna close it up and go home?
00:04:47 PVD TWR: Affirmative, Southwest 2020.
00:04:48 SWA2020: Okay. Yeah, our misseds are set up to where we need
you guys to shoot 'em so, all right, thank you, good night.
00:04:53 PVD TWR: Roger.

00:05:25 PVD TWR: Attention all aircraft, Providence Tower is now
closed, class Charlie services are no longer available. Class Echo
airspace will be in effect until May 16, 2006 at 05:44 local. Good
night.

So yeah, the tower stayed open late, and the pilot believed he needed
the tower open to shoot the approach again, and diverted to his planned
alternate.

[[email protected]]

Brien K. Meehan wrote:
> The confusing thing is that the Southwest flight is calling itself
> 2020, which is scheduled between MCO and PVD.

Thanks for finding it. There are two flights mentioned in the article.
SWA 2020 is the other one, they did the missed approach at 12:02am
according to FlightAware. So the tower didn't stay open too late.

> SWA946 is the flight
> between BWI and PVD.

That's the one I mentioned a few posts back. They left not long before
midnight and turned around before even getting to New York. Probably
got word from 2020 that the conditions were bad so they turned around.

[Roy Smith]

Newps > wrote:
> I kept the tower open an extra hour or so

Does that mean the Class D Airspace was in existence an extra hour too?
What happens if I dutifully read my AFD and discover that the tower (and
the associated CDAS) closes at midnight, so I figure when I arrive at 12:30
I don't need to talk to anybody.

I fly in, enter the pattern, land, and taxi to the ramp without bothering
to self-announce. Have I broken any regulations?

[Robert Chambers]

You'd still try and get the ATIS before you got there wouldn't you? I
know at my home airport once the tower closes down the ATIS tells you
it's class E until 0630 local and gives the CTAF and for further
information contact New York App and gives their freq. Then the ASOS
says it's piece and the whole thing repeats. If I return late and hear
that I know the field is closed, if I get a standard ATIS broadcast I'd
for sure call the tower and see what they had to say.

I bet BOS was open, they have all sorts of approaches there and since
PVD tends to be a reliever for BOS (esp for those living south of
Boston) people wouldn't have minded too much. Of course SWA would have
had the logistics problem of finding a place to park and people to
handle them. Better to be 60 miles away from where you wanted to be
than 200.

Robert

Roy Smith wrote:
> Newps > wrote:
>
>>I kept the tower open an extra hour or so
>
>
> Does that mean the Class D Airspace was in existence an extra hour too?
> What happens if I dutifully read my AFD and discover that the tower (and
> the associated CDAS) closes at midnight, so I figure when I arrive at 12:30
> I don't need to talk to anybody.
>
> I fly in, enter the pattern, land, and taxi to the ramp without bothering
> to self-announce. Have I broken any regulations?

[Roy Smith]

> > Does that mean the Class D Airspace was in existence an extra hour too?
> > What happens if I dutifully read my AFD and discover that the tower (and
> > the associated CDAS) closes at midnight, so I figure when I arrive at 12:30
> > I don't need to talk to anybody.
> >
> > I fly in, enter the pattern, land, and taxi to the ramp without bothering
> > to self-announce. Have I broken any regulations?

In article >,
Robert Chambers > wrote:

> You'd still try and get the ATIS before you got there wouldn't you?

Maybe. If I didn't expect the tower to be open, I wouldn't expect there to
be anything interesting to hear on the ATIS so maybe I wouldn't have
bothered.

I probably would have self-announced on the CTAF (in which case the tower
would hear me and let me know they're still home), but that wasn't the
question. I'm asking a nit-picking silly "let's dissect the FARs on
usenet" kind of hypothetical question. If I just flew in and landed
without talking to anybody, would I have broken any rules?

[Peter Clark]

or Manchester. They already fly into Manchester so have arrangements
there.

Still have issues with rounding up ground personnel, but after flying
to PVD and back I would suspect they had the same issues at the origin
airport...


On Thu, 18 May 2006 11:32:58 GMT, Robert Chambers
> wrote:

>You'd still try and get the ATIS before you got there wouldn't you? I
>know at my home airport once the tower closes down the ATIS tells you
>it's class E until 0630 local and gives the CTAF and for further
>information contact New York App and gives their freq. Then the ASOS
>says it's piece and the whole thing repeats. If I return late and hear
>that I know the field is closed, if I get a standard ATIS broadcast I'd
>for sure call the tower and see what they had to say.
>
>I bet BOS was open, they have all sorts of approaches there and since
>PVD tends to be a reliever for BOS (esp for those living south of
>Boston) people wouldn't have minded too much. Of course SWA would have
>had the logistics problem of finding a place to park and people to
>handle them. Better to be 60 miles away from where you wanted to be
>than 200.
>
>Robert
>
>Roy Smith wrote:
>> Newps > wrote:
>>
>>>I kept the tower open an extra hour or so
>>
>>
>> Does that mean the Class D Airspace was in existence an extra hour too?
>> What happens if I dutifully read my AFD and discover that the tower (and
>> the associated CDAS) closes at midnight, so I figure when I arrive at 12:30
>> I don't need to talk to anybody.
>>
>> I fly in, enter the pattern, land, and taxi to the ramp without bothering
>> to self-announce. Have I broken any regulations?

[Robert Chambers]

Roy Smith wrote:
I'm asking a nit-picking silly "let's dissect the FARs on
> usenet" kind of hypothetical question. If I just flew in and landed
> without talking to anybody, would I have broken any rules?

Haha, sorry what was I thinking? :)

As long as the CTAF is the same as the tower frequency you probably
would get some feedback from the tower staff if they were open later
than normal.

At BDR they have an agreement with Sikorsky Heliport (JSD) that whenever
JSD is active it is on the BDR ATIS. Does this relieve the pilot of
calling JSD before transiting their airspace? "well the Bridgeport ATIS
didn't say JSD was active your honor". Personally regardless of what
the ATIS says I call out to JSD just in case. They are very
accommodating but the last thing I want to see is a blackhawk popping up
in front of me doing max climb testing.

Robert

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> Does that mean the Class D Airspace was in existence an extra hour too?
>

Nope.


>
> What happens if I dutifully read my AFD and discover that the tower (and
> the associated CDAS) closes at midnight, so I figure when I arrive at
> 12:30 I don't need to talk to anybody.
>
> I fly in, enter the pattern, land, and taxi to the ramp without bothering
> to self-announce. Have I broken any regulations?
>

Yup. You've violated FAR 91.127(c):

§ 91.127 Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class E
airspace.

(c) Communications with control towers. Unless otherwise authorized or
required by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft to, from, through, or on
an airport having an operational control tower unless two-way radio
communications are maintained between that aircraft and the control tower.
Communications must be established prior to 4 nautical miles from the
airport, up to and including 2,500 feet AGL. However, if the aircraft radio
fails in flight, the pilot in command may operate that aircraft and land if
weather conditions are at or above basic VFR weather minimums, visual
contact with the tower is maintained, and a clearance to land is received.
If the aircraft radio fails while in flight under IFR, the pilot must comply
with §91.185.


Green Bay ATCT and TRACON normally close at 11:30PM and Minneapolis ARTCC
takes the airspace. But when the Packers are hosting Monday Night Football
there are usually a few dozen aircraft that want to depart after closing.
On those occasions we stay open until 2AM and an appropriate NOTAM is
issued. But it's only the operating hours of the tower and TRACON that are
extended, the Class C airspace still vanishes at 11:30 so we become a
towered field in a Class E surface area.

[Roy Smith]

Robert Chambers > wrote:
>
>
>Roy Smith wrote:
> I'm asking a nit-picking silly "let's dissect the FARs on
>> usenet" kind of hypothetical question. If I just flew in and landed
>> without talking to anybody, would I have broken any rules?
>
>Haha, sorry what was I thinking? :)

I don't know, but you still haven't answered my question.

>At BDR they have an agreement with Sikorsky Heliport (JSD) that whenever
>JSD is active it is on the BDR ATIS.

I suspect JSD is the most commonly busted CDAS in the world. Most
pilots don't even know it's there. A standard BFR question I give is
to have the student point out all the airspace on a sectional they
would transit on a trip from HPN to GON at 2000. Pretty much the only
ones who mention JSD are pilots who used to be based at BDR.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 121...
>
> Ah...Steven....playing with words again?
>

Never.


>
> One certainly can't land if
> he is prohibited from conducting the required Instrument Approach can
> he?
>

Certainly not.


>
> From kstan92's earlier post.....
>
> I looked at the weather history on Weather Underground and PVD reported
> visibilities in the 0.1 and 0.2 range around midnight that night, below
> the standard ILS minimums for PVD. The Cat II and Cat III approaches
> (both to ry 5) are not authorized when the tower is not in operation
> according to the U.S. Terminal Procedures for PVD.
>
> Tower not in operation...can't approach...can't approach...can't land.
>
> As far as starting the approach with weather below minimums....sure he
> can.....just can't proceed past the final approach fix...
>
> From FAR 121
>
> (b) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no pilot may
> continue an approach past the final approach fix, or where a final
> approach fix is not used, begin the final approach segment of an
> instrument approach procedure-
>
> (2) At airports within the United States and its territories or at U.S.
> military airports, unless the latest weather report for that airport
> issued by the U.S. National Weather Service, a source approved by that
> Service, or a source approved by the Administrator, reports the
> visibility to be equal to or more than the visibility minimums
> prescribed for that procedure.
>
> So....he started the approach and discontinued it at the FAF.
>
> So...as he said, the FAA (rules) would not permit him to land under the
> existing wx conditions with the tower closed, so he missed the approach
> at the FAF.
>
> You and your stupid word games.
>

What stupid word games? I don't have a former air carrier pilot's viewpoint
on these things, but you do. Please explain to me the purpose in beginning
an approach that cannot be continued beyond the FAF.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>> The FAA spokesman said at least one of the Southwest flights missed an
>> approach. Did they begin an approach when the observed weather was below
>> minimums?
>
> Probably not, I doubt they'd pull anything that blatant so short a time
> after the Midway incident. Maybe the fog was just rolling in; there
> must be more to that story.
>
> I can only find one of the flights on FlightAware, SWA946 departed BWI
> at 11:57pm EDT and landed back at BWI at 12:38am. It seems to have
> turned around a bit past halfway between Trenton and Manhattan.
>
> SWA1729 arrived at PVD (and I suppose landed) at 11:51pm and COA163
> arrived at 1:36am that night.
>

I thought there were only two SWA flights. If a SWA flight landed at PVD at
11:57 and another SWA flight returned to BWI before it was past Manhattan
then what SWA flight missed an approach at PVD?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Brien K. Meehan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> The article conveniently neglects to mention that they departed 31
> minutes late.
>
> Also, I've listened to recordings of the ATC dialogue. There were
> ample broadcasts by the tower and Center about the tower closing at
> 23:59 and regressing to Class E airspace. They mentioned a couple
> times that they'd stay open for the Southwest flight's approach, but
> they'd have to close if he went missed.
>
> The confusing thing is that the Southwest flight is calling itself
> 2020, which is scheduled between MCO and PVD. SWA946 is the flight
> between BWI and PVD. I don't know what the story is there. But the
> dialogue between the tower and the flight goes like this:
>
> 00:02:07 SWA2020: Tower, Southwest, uh, 2020 is missed approach.
> 00:02:16 PVD TWR: Southwest 2020 is on the go, climb and maintain 2000.
> 00:02:20 SWA2020: 2000, Southwest 2020.
>
> 00:02:35 PVD TWR: Southwest 2020, say alternate.
> 00:02:37 SWA2020: Ah, we're gonna have to go to Baltimore.
> 00:02:39 PVD TWR: Understand, Baltimore.
> 00:02:40 SWA2020: That's affirmative.
>
> 00:02:53 SWA2020: Do you want us to switch to Center, sir?
>
> 00:03:03 PVD TWR: Southwest 2020, turn left heading 240, radar vectors
> for Baltimore, climb and maintain two thousand five hundred.
> 00:03:12 SWA2020: Two thousand five hundred on the altitude, two four
> zero heading, Southwest 2020.
> 00:03:16 PVD TWR: Southwest 2020, contact Boston Center on 124.85.
> 00:03:24 SWA2020: 124.85, thank you sir.
>
> 00:04:41 SWA2020: Tower, Southwest 2020.
> 00:04:43 PVD TWR: Southwest 2020, Providence Tower.
> 00:04:45 SWA2020: Yeah, you guys gonna close it up and go home?
> 00:04:47 PVD TWR: Affirmative, Southwest 2020.
> 00:04:48 SWA2020: Okay. Yeah, our misseds are set up to where we need
> you guys to shoot 'em so, all right, thank you, good night.
> 00:04:53 PVD TWR: Roger.
>
> 00:05:25 PVD TWR: Attention all aircraft, Providence Tower is now
> closed, class Charlie services are no longer available. Class Echo
> airspace will be in effect until May 16, 2006 at 05:44 local. Good
> night.
>
> So yeah, the tower stayed open late, and the pilot believed he needed
> the tower open to shoot the approach again, and diverted to his planned
> alternate.
>

Very interesting. They had to return to BWI because PVD was below minimums,
not because the tower was abandoned or refused to stay open for them. Do
you know what approach they had missed?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> The AOPA airport directory includes this note: "Check NOTAMS, ry 5 to
> 23 closed for tkf and lndgs & used for full length taxiway & parking of
> overnight acft 8 pm to 8 am;"
>
> It would be hard for me to criticize the SWA pilots for not landing if
> those were the conditions .
>

Old directory? I believe that refers to the former runway 5L/23R which is
now taxiway V.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"beavis" > wrote in message
...
>
> There's your answer. If the tower is closed, there's no-one to issue
> RVR reports; the ASOS won't do it. Further, the charts specifically
> say that Cat II (and III) minimums are NA when the tower is closed.
>
> With no operating tower, they require Cat I minimums, which are 1/2
> mile for both 05 and 23.
>
> So what they said was true: They couldn't land because there was no-one
> in the tower.
>

No, what they said was false: They couldn't land because the weather was
below minimums for all available approaches.

[Newps]

Roy Smith wrote:
> Newps > wrote:
>
>>I kept the tower open an extra hour or so
>
>
> Does that mean the Class D Airspace was in existence an extra hour too?

That was before they invented the lettered airspace. We were a control
zone back then.


> What happens if I dutifully read my AFD and discover that the tower (and
> the associated CDAS) closes at midnight, so I figure when I arrive at 12:30
> I don't need to talk to anybody.
>
> I fly in, enter the pattern, land, and taxi to the ramp without bothering
> to self-announce. Have I broken any regulations?

The weather was IFR so yeah, you broke some regs. In reality we would
work around you should that ever happen in VFR weather. No rules would
have been busted.

[Newps]

When we closed the tower we put the lights on pilot control, the
standard 3,5 and 7 clicks thing. If I see you landing without talking
to me I might toggle the lights off and on to get your attention.




Roy Smith wrote:

>>>Does that mean the Class D Airspace was in existence an extra hour too?
>>>What happens if I dutifully read my AFD and discover that the tower (and
>>>the associated CDAS) closes at midnight, so I figure when I arrive at 12:30
>>>I don't need to talk to anybody.
>>>
>>>I fly in, enter the pattern, land, and taxi to the ramp without bothering
>>>to self-announce. Have I broken any regulations?
>
>
> In article >,
> Robert Chambers > wrote:
>
>
>>You'd still try and get the ATIS before you got there wouldn't you?
>
>
> Maybe. If I didn't expect the tower to be open, I wouldn't expect there to
> be anything interesting to hear on the ATIS so maybe I wouldn't have
> bothered.
>
> I probably would have self-announced on the CTAF (in which case the tower
> would hear me and let me know they're still home), but that wasn't the
> question. I'm asking a nit-picking silly "let's dissect the FARs on
> usenet" kind of hypothetical question. If I just flew in and landed
> without talking to anybody, would I have broken any rules?

[Robert Chambers]

Roy Smith wrote:

>
> I don't know, but you still haven't answered my question.

You fly to an airport, the tower is open, you don't think the tower is
open and you land anyway?

You've entered class D without establishing communications 91.129(c)1
then you've just landed without a clearance 91.129(i)

So yes you've been naughty and will most likely be asked to call the tower.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Robert Chambers" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> You fly to an airport, the tower is open, you don't think the tower is
> open and you land anyway?
>
> You've entered class D without establishing communications 91.129(c)1 then
> you've just landed without a clearance 91.129(i)
>
> So yes you've been naughty and will most likely be asked to call the
> tower.
>

You can't enter Class D airspace if it's outside the hours the Class D
airspace is in effect.

[Robert Chambers]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Robert Chambers" > wrote in message
> . com...
>
>>You fly to an airport, the tower is open, you don't think the tower is
>>open and you land anyway?
>>
>>You've entered class D without establishing communications 91.129(c)1 then
>>you've just landed without a clearance 91.129(i)
>>
>>So yes you've been naughty and will most likely be asked to call the
>>tower.
>>
>
>
> You can't enter Class D airspace if it's outside the hours the Class D
> airspace is in effect.
>
>

So by that logic, for example if PVD's tower controllers said "ok SWA
1234 we will stick around for another 30 minutes" - SWA 1234 still
wouldn't be allowed to shoot the CAT II approach because the tower was
not in operation because it was outside the normal operating hours?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Robert Chambers" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> So by that logic, for example if PVD's tower controllers said "ok SWA 1234
> we will stick around for another 30 minutes" - SWA 1234 still wouldn't be
> allowed to shoot the CAT II approach because the tower was not in
> operation because it was outside the normal operating hours?
>

No. Airspace is regulatory, facility operating hours are not. For the 5
1/2 minutes PVD tower was in operation after the published operating hours
of the tower/TRACON and the Class C airspace there was a towered field in a
Class E surface area.

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> I thought there were only two SWA flights. If a SWA flight landed at PVD at
> 11:57 and another SWA flight returned to BWI before it was past Manhattan
> then what SWA flight missed an approach at PVD?

These are the two flights that didn't land at PVD:
SWA2020 was flying from MCO to PVD, scheduled to land at 11:44pm
SWA946 was flying from BWI to PVD, scheduled to land around 10:20pm
The first missed the approach about two minutes after midnight, and the
second turned around about halfway there, around 17 to 19 minutes after
midnight. The other flight I mentioned, SWA 1729 from LAS, I believe
actually landed at PVD at 11:51pm.

All this is from FlightAware (you may have to register to view the
links, I'm not sure):
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/SWA946/history/20060516/0357Z/KBWI/KBWI
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/SWA2020/history/20060516/0157Z/KMCO/KPVD
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/SWA1729/history/20060515/2303Z/KLAS/KPVD

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> I thought there were only two SWA flights.

Here's the list of SWA flights into PVD according to their printed
schedule (starting at 9pm):
9:00pm from TPA
9:55pm from BWI
10:30pm from PHX
10:45pm from BWI
11:05pm from MCO
11:25pm from MDW
11:35pm from LAS
It seems that at least three of these were running late that night.

[Roger]

On Wed, 17 May 2006 19:39:21 +0000 (UTC), (Roy Smith)
wrote:

>In article >,
>Blowinginthewind > wrote:
>
>>FAA Control tower Abandoned

I think this is a poor choice of words.
Plane landing after hours finds tower closed might be more like it.
>>
>>Southwest Planes Turn Around Minutes From Green
>>Southwest Says Planes Could Not Land Without Air Traffic Control
>

Here the tower closes at 11:00PM local.

>Ignoring the the sarcastic comments, and somewhat puzzled by why the
>tower would be abandoned, I'm curious what prevented the flight from
>landing. Is there something in SW's op-specs which requires an
>operating control tower to land?

Must be SW's policy

>
>It also seems odd that they would turn around and go back to
>Baltimore. It would seem to make more sense to land someplace close
>(like BDL) and put the pax on a bus to their final destination.

Probably another SW policy or pilot had a date that night.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Judah]

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

>
> "beavis" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> There's your answer. If the tower is closed, there's no-one to issue
>> RVR reports; the ASOS won't do it. Further, the charts specifically
>> say that Cat II (and III) minimums are NA when the tower is closed.
>>
>> With no operating tower, they require Cat I minimums, which are 1/2
>> mile for both 05 and 23.
>>
>> So what they said was true: They couldn't land because there was no-one
>> in the tower.
>>
>
> No, what they said was false: They couldn't land because the weather was
> below minimums for all available approaches.

What the pilots are reported to have said to their passengers is
irrelevant.

Based on the available information it would seem that the pilots made a
sensible decision, How the cranky passengers interpreted and relayed the
on-air announcement to NBC reporters doesn't change that fact. And how the
sensationalist reporter spins it is even moreso irrelevant.

If you read the story carefully, it is even possible to interpret that the
pilot announced to the passengers that the combination of the tower being
closed and the weather being below minimums left them with no safe, legal
options to land at PVD, but that the reporter left out that important
detail. After all, there is no direct quote of what the Pilot said, only a
statement that, "NBC 10's Audrey Laganas reported that the planes turned
around in flight just before midnight. The passengers said the pilots told
them they were turning back because there was no one in the control tower
at T.F. Green Airport."

But the angry mother of an infant who refused to buy formula or Daipers in
Baltimore at 1am didn't seem to complain about the diversion, just about
how she and others were left in a challenging situation as a result. And
the woman travelling with her mother didn't complain about being diverted,
only about being treated like "cattle".


A more accurate news headline would have been, "Diverted Passengers
Complain". But how much more engaging is "Southwest Planes Turn Around
Minutes From Green"...

[Jessica]

Robert Chambers wrote:
>
>
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>> "Robert Chambers" > wrote in message
>> . com...
>>
>>> You fly to an airport, the tower is open, you don't think the tower
>>> is open and you land anyway?
>>>
>>> You've entered class D without establishing communications 91.129(c)1
>>> then you've just landed without a clearance 91.129(i)
>>>
>>> So yes you've been naughty and will most likely be asked to call the
>>> tower.
>>>
>>
>>
>> You can't enter Class D airspace if it's outside the hours the Class D
>> airspace is in effect.
>>
>
> So by that logic, for example if PVD's tower controllers said "ok SWA
> 1234 we will stick around for another 30 minutes" - SWA 1234 still
> wouldn't be allowed to shoot the CAT II approach because the tower was
> not in operation because it was outside the normal operating hours?

No, you're confusing different topics. The Class II, III approach
requires the tower to be open, it doesn't require a certain type of
airspace to be in effect.

For example, our local tower would sometimes stay open late (past 11pm
in this case) to facilitate certain users. During this time the tower
was open and talking, but they were providing advisory services only.
The airspace above this airport reverted to Class G up to 700' after
11pm, and that still occurred even if the tower stayed OPEN late. (No
idea why it didn't become Class E to the surface since it had a
certified ASOS, but probably because nobody felt like changing the rules
for that airport.)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

Judah wrote:
>
> What the pilots are reported to have said to their passengers is
> irrelevant.
>
> Based on the available information it would seem that the pilots made a
> sensible decision, How the cranky passengers interpreted and relayed the
> on-air announcement to NBC reporters doesn't change that fact. And how the
> sensationalist reporter spins it is even moreso irrelevant.
>

Perhaps, but what Southwest is reported to have said through their
spokeswoman is quite relevant:

"We made the request for both flights for the tower to stay open, and
the
local tower refused. Once they refused, we had no choice but to return
back
to Baltimore because we need the guidance of air traffic controllers to
land
in the weather conditions that were present," spokeswoman Whitney
Eichinger
said.


>
> If you read the story carefully, it is even possible to interpret that the
> pilot announced to the passengers that the combination of the tower being
> closed and the weather being below minimums left them with no safe, legal
> options to land at PVD, but that the reporter left out that important
> detail. After all, there is no direct quote of what the Pilot said, only a
> statement that, "NBC 10's Audrey Laganas reported that the planes turned
> around in flight just before midnight. The passengers said the pilots told
> them they were turning back because there was no one in the control tower
> at T.F. Green Airport."
>

If that's what the pilot said it's still wrong. With the weather below
minimums they couldn't land at PVD whether the tower was open or
closed. Since the tower did stay late to accommodate the approach that
was missed it appears it was strictly the weather that prevented a
landing.

[Judah]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in oups.com:

>
> Judah wrote:
>>
>> What the pilots are reported to have said to their passengers is
>> irrelevant.
>>
>> Based on the available information it would seem that the pilots made a
>> sensible decision, How the cranky passengers interpreted and relayed the
>> on-air announcement to NBC reporters doesn't change that fact. And how the
>> sensationalist reporter spins it is even moreso irrelevant.
>>
>
> Perhaps, but what Southwest is reported to have said through their
> spokeswoman is quite relevant:
>
> "We made the request for both flights for the tower to stay open, and
> the
> local tower refused. Once they refused, we had no choice but to return
> back
> to Baltimore because we need the guidance of air traffic controllers to
> land
> in the weather conditions that were present," spokeswoman Whitney
> Eichinger
> said.

I completely agree. It is consistent with the rest of the evidence...

>> If you read the story carefully, it is even possible to interpret that the
>> pilot announced to the passengers that the combination of the tower being
>> closed and the weather being below minimums left them with no safe, legal
>> options to land at PVD, but that the reporter left out that important
>> detail. After all, there is no direct quote of what the Pilot said, only a
>> statement that, "NBC 10's Audrey Laganas reported that the planes turned
>> around in flight just before midnight. The passengers said the pilots told
>> them they were turning back because there was no one in the control tower
>> at T.F. Green Airport."
>>
>
> If that's what the pilot said it's still wrong. With the weather below
> minimums they couldn't land at PVD whether the tower was open or
> closed. Since the tower did stay late to accommodate the approach that
> was missed it appears it was strictly the weather that prevented a
> landing.

I thought the weather was below minimums BECAUSE the tower had closed? To my understanding, if the tower was open, there would have been approach options available with lower minimums.

In any event, I think we're in agreement.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> I thought the weather was below minimums BECAUSE the tower had closed? To
> my understanding, if the tower was open, there would have been approach
> options available with lower minimums.
>

The tower stayed open beyond the published closing time to accommodate an
approach which was missed. The tower must be open for Cat II and Cat III
approaches, but it is not known that the crew was capable of those anyway.