ATC question

[Matt Whiting]

A question for Stephen, Newps or other folks knowledgeable in the finer
points of ATC. A friend of mine flew into Reading, PA last week with
another pilot. Since Reading is a class D airport with no TRSA, but
with radar approach control, they elected to simply call tower directly
6 or so miles out. My friend said that the controller was quite nasty
and told them they had to contact approach first if they wanted to land.
By then they were even closer in, but they called approach who
"informed" them gruffly that they were now 4 miles from the airport and
needed to contact tower "immediately." They then called tower and landed.

My friend is a new private pilot (last December) and both he and the
person flying (a pretty experienced pilot, I believe) were rather taken
aback by this. What authority does a class D tower have to refuse entry
to an airplane that hasn't called approach control? Even a TRSA is
voluntary, so I can't imagine that a non-TRSA, non-class B, non-class C
airport can mandate use of approach control.

Is there some new regulation that I've missed?

Matt

[Bob Gardner]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> A question for Stephen, Newps or other folks knowledgeable in the finer
> points of ATC. A friend of mine flew into Reading, PA last week with
> another pilot. Since Reading is a class D airport with no TRSA, but with
> radar approach control, they elected to simply call tower directly 6 or so
> miles out. My friend said that the controller was quite nasty and told
> them they had to contact approach first if they wanted to land. By then
> they were even closer in, but they called approach who "informed" them
> gruffly that they were now 4 miles from the airport and needed to contact
> tower "immediately." They then called tower and landed.
>
> My friend is a new private pilot (last December) and both he and the
> person flying (a pretty experienced pilot, I believe) were rather taken
> aback by this. What authority does a class D tower have to refuse entry
> to an airplane that hasn't called approach control? Even a TRSA is
> voluntary, so I can't imagine that a non-TRSA, non-class B, non-class C
> airport can mandate use of approach control.
>
> Is there some new regulation that I've missed?
>
> Matt

Although I have never been to Reading, I have read enough posts in
newsgroups to realize that it is a special case...poor relations between
pilots and ATC. I would write up the experience on an ASRS report.

Bob Gardner

[ZikZak]

On Apr 16, 3:53 pm, "Bob Gardner" > wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > A question for Stephen, Newps or other folks knowledgeable in the finer
> > points of ATC. A friend of mine flew into Reading, PA last week with
> > another pilot. Since Reading is a class D airport with no TRSA, but with
> > radar approach control, they elected to simply call tower directly 6 or so
> > miles out. My friend said that the controller was quite nasty and told
> > them they had to contact approach first if they wanted to land. By then
> > they were even closer in, but they called approach who "informed" them
> > gruffly that they were now 4 miles from the airport and needed to contact
> > tower "immediately." They then called tower and landed.
>
> > My friend is a new private pilot (last December) and both he and the
> > person flying (a pretty experienced pilot, I believe) were rather taken
> > aback by this. What authority does a class D tower have to refuse entry
> > to an airplane that hasn't called approach control? Even a TRSA is
> > voluntary, so I can't imagine that a non-TRSA, non-class B, non-class C
> > airport can mandate use of approach control.
>
> > Is there some new regulation that I've missed?
>
> > Matt
>
> Although I have never been to Reading, I have read enough posts in
> newsgroups to realize that it is a special case...poor relations between
> pilots and ATC. I would write up the experience on an ASRS report.
>
> Bob Gardner

Do that, but it would be more effective to complain to ATC quality
control. The controllers at Reading are indeed nasty, and there's no
reason that the tower shouldn't have been able to handle you.

[Newps]

Matt Whiting wrote:

>
> A question for Stephen, Newps or other folks knowledgeable in the finer
> points of ATC. A friend of mine flew into Reading, PA last week with
> another pilot. Since Reading is a class D airport with no TRSA, but
> with radar approach control, they elected to simply call tower directly
> 6 or so miles out. My friend said that the controller was quite nasty
> and told them they had to contact approach first if they wanted to land.

Not necessary by FAR, a lot of times necessary by practicality.



> By then they were even closer in, but they called approach who
> "informed" them gruffly that they were now 4 miles from the airport and
> needed to contact tower "immediately." They then called tower and landed.

Yep, pretty dumb.


>
> My friend is a new private pilot (last December) and both he and the
> person flying (a pretty experienced pilot, I believe) were rather taken
> aback by this. What authority does a class D tower have to refuse entry
> to an airplane that hasn't called approach control?

None.




Even a TRSA is
> voluntary, so I can't imagine that a non-TRSA, non-class B, non-class C
> airport can mandate use of approach control.
>
> Is there some new regulation that I've missed?


No.

[Newps]

ZikZak wrote:


>
> Do that, but it would be more effective to complain to ATC quality
> control.



No such thing. You can call the tower directly and complain but doesn't
sound like it will get you anywhere.

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> No such thing. You can call the tower directly and complain but doesn't
> sound like it will get you anywhere.

Can a pilot record his conversations with ATC?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Judah]

Matt Whiting > wrote in news:1iSUh.3967$Oc.197261
@news1.epix.net:

> A question for Stephen, Newps or other folks knowledgeable in the finer
> points of ATC. A friend of mine flew into Reading, PA last week with
> another pilot. Since Reading is a class D airport with no TRSA, but
> with radar approach control, they elected to simply call tower directly
> 6 or so miles out. My friend said that the controller was quite nasty
> and told them they had to contact approach first if they wanted to land.
> By then they were even closer in, but they called approach who
> "informed" them gruffly that they were now 4 miles from the airport and
> needed to contact tower "immediately." They then called tower and

They do the same thing at my home airport, HPN. They are a class D, but
they have quite a bit of airline and bizjet traffic, and are right at the
edge of the NYC Class B, so they try to act like a class C. Most people who
have flown into the area or are based here are pretty well used to calling
approach to get squawked and sequenced in, so it's a non issue. But every
once in a while you hear someone being told to "Remain clear the Delta and
contact approach on 126.4 for sequencing."

If that was the language used ("remain clear"), and/or he didn't call the
tail number in the first place, then your friend busted 91.129. Not because
he didn't talk to approach first, but because he was told by tower to
remain clear of the airspace until he did. If the tower controller called
his numbers, and didn't specifically tell him to remain clear, it's more
questionable as to whether he busted any regs, even if he did annoy the
tower controllers, which is generally not something you really want to do
at a busy airport anyway... ("Piper extend your downwind you are #9 behind
4 falcons on final, and 5 departures in between...")

[john smith[_2_]]

In article >,
Newps > wrote:

> ZikZak wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Do that, but it would be more effective to complain to ATC quality
> > control.
>
>
>
> No such thing. You can call the tower directly and complain but doesn't
> sound like it will get you anywhere.

Contact your local FSDO.
They can provide you with a telephone number, address to contact and
describe the situation. If Reading is a contract tower, the FAA has a
quality control program in operation for just these type of incidents.
If they receive complaints, and the complaints are not addressed by the
contractor, that contractor may lose the bid the next time around.

[Matt Whiting]

Judah wrote:
> Matt Whiting > wrote in news:1iSUh.3967$Oc.197261
> @news1.epix.net:
>
>> A question for Stephen, Newps or other folks knowledgeable in the finer
>> points of ATC. A friend of mine flew into Reading, PA last week with
>> another pilot. Since Reading is a class D airport with no TRSA, but
>> with radar approach control, they elected to simply call tower directly
>> 6 or so miles out. My friend said that the controller was quite nasty
>> and told them they had to contact approach first if they wanted to land.
>> By then they were even closer in, but they called approach who
>> "informed" them gruffly that they were now 4 miles from the airport and
>> needed to contact tower "immediately." They then called tower and
>
> They do the same thing at my home airport, HPN. They are a class D, but
> they have quite a bit of airline and bizjet traffic, and are right at the
> edge of the NYC Class B, so they try to act like a class C. Most people who
> have flown into the area or are based here are pretty well used to calling
> approach to get squawked and sequenced in, so it's a non issue. But every
> once in a while you hear someone being told to "Remain clear the Delta and
> contact approach on 126.4 for sequencing."
>
> If that was the language used ("remain clear"), and/or he didn't call the
> tail number in the first place, then your friend busted 91.129. Not because
> he didn't talk to approach first, but because he was told by tower to
> remain clear of the airspace until he did. If the tower controller called
> his numbers, and didn't specifically tell him to remain clear, it's more
> questionable as to whether he busted any regs, even if he did annoy the
> tower controllers, which is generally not something you really want to do
> at a busy airport anyway... ("Piper extend your downwind you are #9 behind
> 4 falcons on final, and 5 departures in between...")

He said the tower controller replied with their N number so I don't
think there is any concern about busting a regulation. Just wondering
what the deal was as we fly out of ELM with is a TRSA and tower never
gives us any crap if we bypass approach. I usually call approach just
to keep them awake, but if I'm just hopping from 7N1 to ELM, I'll
sometimes just call tower as I may barely get high enough for radar
identification before I'm near the class D.

Matt

[John Clear]

In article >,
Judah > wrote:
>
>
>They do the same thing at my home airport, HPN. They are a class D, but
>they have quite a bit of airline and bizjet traffic, and are right at the
>edge of the NYC Class B, so they try to act like a class C. Most people who
>have flown into the area or are based here are pretty well used to calling
>approach to get squawked and sequenced in, so it's a non issue. But every
>once in a while you hear someone being told to "Remain clear the Delta and
>contact approach on 126.4 for sequencing."

Westchester has been a virtual Class C for years. The last time
I flew out of HPN was ~1990, and it was a virtual Class C back then.
I don't know why they don't make it an actual Class C. The only
operational difference would be that transient pilots would know
they need to contact approach first.

Westchester has more traffic (according to the traffic figures on
AirNav) then Sacramento International (SMF), and Sac Intl has a
Class C. Westchester has slightly less traffic then San Jose.
San Jose is about the same distance from the primary Class B (SFO)
as Westchester is from LGA, and has the same Class C overlapped
with Class B that a Class C Westchester would have.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

[Newps]

john smith wrote:

> In article >,
> Newps > wrote:
>
>
>>ZikZak wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Do that, but it would be more effective to complain to ATC quality
>>>control.
>>
>>
>>
>>No such thing. You can call the tower directly and complain but doesn't
>>sound like it will get you anywhere.
>
>
> Contact your local FSDO.
> They can provide you with a telephone number, address to contact and
> describe the situation.

\And that number will be the tower. You haven't gotten anywhere as
other people have already said this has been a problem for years.


If Reading is a contract tower, the FAA has a
> quality control program in operation for just these type of incidents.

They have no such thing.

[Dave S]

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> A question for Stephen, Newps or other folks knowledgeable in the finer
> points of ATC. A friend of mine flew into Reading, PA last week with
> another pilot. Since Reading is a class D airport with no TRSA, but
> with radar approach control, they elected to simply call tower directly
> 6 or so miles out. My friend said that the controller was quite nasty
> and told them they had to contact approach first if they wanted to land.
> By then they were even closer in, but they called approach who
> "informed" them gruffly that they were now 4 miles from the airport and
> needed to contact tower "immediately." They then called tower and landed.
>
> My friend is a new private pilot (last December) and both he and the
> person flying (a pretty experienced pilot, I believe) were rather taken
> aback by this. What authority does a class D tower have to refuse entry
> to an airplane that hasn't called approach control? Even a TRSA is
> voluntary, so I can't imagine that a non-TRSA, non-class B, non-class C
> airport can mandate use of approach control.
>
> Is there some new regulation that I've missed?
>
> Matt

Did you listen to the ATIS prior to contacting the tower? Local arrival
procedures are usually spelled out during this broadcast. Most of the
local Class D's around me don't work in the manner you've described, but
if thats how they work, thats what you do.

As for what authority do they have... pretty much if you want to land at
a Class D, you have to be in communication with them to be in their
airspace. You can be denied entry. The Controller does not have to
justify it, and their decision is final as far that that moment is
concerned.

If you are in communication with them, you have to accept and follow any
directions ATC gives you (91.123 - b), unless you deem it unsafe and
invoke 91.03/declare an emergency. If you choose not to follow their
instructions you can be told to remain clear or exit the class D (or
applicable airspace) and you would be bound to comply.

Its not a new rule.

Dave

[john smith[_2_]]

In article >,
Newps > wrote:

> If Reading is a contract tower, the FAA has a
> > quality control program in operation for just these type of incidents.
>
> They have no such thing.

They do for KOSU.

[Judah]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> He said the tower controller replied with their N number so I don't
> think there is any concern about busting a regulation. Just wondering
> what the deal was as we fly out of ELM with is a TRSA and tower never
> gives us any crap if we bypass approach. I usually call approach just
> to keep them awake, but if I'm just hopping from 7N1 to ELM, I'll
> sometimes just call tower as I may barely get high enough for radar
> identification before I'm near the class D.

If he didn't bust the reg, there's not much to worry about (even an ASRS is
probably not necessary.)

As far as tower controllers being grumpy on bad days... well... It happens to
everyone...

[Newps]

Dave S wrote:


>
> Did you listen to the ATIS prior to contacting the tower? Local arrival
> procedures are usually spelled out during this broadcast. Most of the
> local Class D's around me don't work in the manner you've described, but
> if thats how they work, thats what you do.


Every single tower has a radar facility to provide approach services,
some more effective than others. Every single tower can, at their
discretion, accept a VFR arrival without first contacting a radar facility.

[Newps]

john smith wrote:

> In article >,
> Newps > wrote:
>
>
>> If Reading is a contract tower, the FAA has a
>>
>>>quality control program in operation for just these type of incidents.
>>
>>They have no such thing.
>
>
> They do for KOSU.

That's a local facility, not the FAA.

[Matt Whiting]

Judah wrote:
> Matt Whiting > wrote in
> :
>
>> He said the tower controller replied with their N number so I don't
>> think there is any concern about busting a regulation. Just wondering
>> what the deal was as we fly out of ELM with is a TRSA and tower never
>> gives us any crap if we bypass approach. I usually call approach just
>> to keep them awake, but if I'm just hopping from 7N1 to ELM, I'll
>> sometimes just call tower as I may barely get high enough for radar
>> identification before I'm near the class D.
>
> If he didn't bust the reg, there's not much to worry about (even an ASRS is
> probably not necessary.)
>
> As far as tower controllers being grumpy on bad days... well... It happens to
> everyone...

Nobody is worried about it, mostly wondering if there was some new rule
or regulation that we had missed. I'd never heard of such a situation
before. I'd like to fly in there with my crusty old primary instructor.
He didn't care much for controllers and loved to mix it up with the
ones that got testy. :-)

I'm surprised he never got busted, but then he was a DE, FAA safety
counselor and new most of the state and federal aviation folks pretty
well so I'm guessing any complaints that came in got file 13 treatment.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Dave S wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>> A question for Stephen, Newps or other folks knowledgeable in the
>> finer points of ATC. A friend of mine flew into Reading, PA last week
>> with another pilot. Since Reading is a class D airport with no TRSA,
>> but with radar approach control, they elected to simply call tower
>> directly 6 or so miles out. My friend said that the controller was
>> quite nasty and told them they had to contact approach first if they
>> wanted to land. By then they were even closer in, but they called
>> approach who "informed" them gruffly that they were now 4 miles from
>> the airport and needed to contact tower "immediately." They then
>> called tower and landed.
>>
>> My friend is a new private pilot (last December) and both he and the
>> person flying (a pretty experienced pilot, I believe) were rather
>> taken aback by this. What authority does a class D tower have to
>> refuse entry to an airplane that hasn't called approach control? Even
>> a TRSA is voluntary, so I can't imagine that a non-TRSA, non-class B,
>> non-class C airport can mandate use of approach control.
>>
>> Is there some new regulation that I've missed?
>>
>> Matt
>
> Did you listen to the ATIS prior to contacting the tower? Local arrival
> procedures are usually spelled out during this broadcast. Most of the
> local Class D's around me don't work in the manner you've described, but
> if thats how they work, thats what you do.

I wasn't flying so I don't know if they did or not.


> As for what authority do they have... pretty much if you want to land at
> a Class D, you have to be in communication with them to be in their
> airspace. You can be denied entry. The Controller does not have to
> justify it, and their decision is final as far that that moment is
> concerned.
>
> If you are in communication with them, you have to accept and follow any
> directions ATC gives you (91.123 - b), unless you deem it unsafe and
> invoke 91.03/declare an emergency. If you choose not to follow their
> instructions you can be told to remain clear or exit the class D (or
> applicable airspace) and you would be bound to comply.
>
> Its not a new rule.

I find it pretty hard to believe that a controller can decide locally
who to provide service to or not. The first time this happens to me,
I'll be talking with my representative and senators. Folks need to
remember who is the customer and who is paying the salaries.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Dave S wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Did you listen to the ATIS prior to contacting the tower? Local
>> arrival procedures are usually spelled out during this broadcast. Most
>> of the local Class D's around me don't work in the manner you've
>> described, but if thats how they work, thats what you do.
>
>
> Every single tower has a radar facility to provide approach services,
> some more effective than others. Every single tower can, at their
> discretion, accept a VFR arrival without first contacting a radar facility.
>

Can they, at their discretion, decide to refuse service to whomever they
choose? What if they don't like blue and white airplanes, can they just
decide not to let any blue and white airplanes land?

Matt

[Dave S]

> I find it pretty hard to believe that a controller can decide locally
> who to provide service to or not. The first time this happens to me,
> I'll be talking with my representative and senators. Folks need to
> remember who is the customer and who is paying the salaries.
>
> Matt

It has not been proven that the controller made a unilateral decision
here. If they have an operating practice that says "contact approach
first" they can fall back on that practice and choose not to make an
"exception". Newps is right. Any local controller COULD accept a pop up.
But are they required to? Again.. if the arrival procedures are
described on the ATIS, your friend has nobody to be miffed at but
himself, for not being able to "make himself aware of all pertinent
information regarding his flight".

I've known of two separate instances in my short stint in flying where
someone didn't want to talk to approach, and was directed to contact
approach for sequencing. One was into Savannah, the other Beaumont.
Neither was the exact type of airport described by the original poster,
but that was how they operated.

I remember explicitly Savannah approach telling someone who was VFR
inbound, who didn't want to take sequencing vectors VFR and was going to
go "around" to tower "Sir, if you are landing at Savannah, you will be
going through me" Given the exchange, that actually was pretty direct
and effective.

Dave
Not an ATC guy, but I did sleep in a holiday inn express once..

[john smith[_2_]]

In article >,
Newps > wrote:

> >> If Reading is a contract tower, the FAA has a
> >> quality control program in operation for just these type of incidents.

> >>They have no such thing.

> > They do for KOSU.

> That's a local facility, not the FAA.

KOSU is a contract tower.
The FAA has had a formal program in place for the past three years that
accepts complaints about the ATC services at KOSU.

[Newps]

Matt Whiting wrote:

>>
>>
>> Every single tower has a radar facility to provide approach services,
>> some more effective than others. Every single tower can, at their
>> discretion, accept a VFR arrival without first contacting a radar
>> facility.
>>
>
> Can they, at their discretion, decide to refuse service to whomever they
> choose?



Yes, but there has to be a reason. Traffic is usually the reason.


What if they don't like blue and white airplanes, can they just
> decide not to let any blue and white airplanes land?

No.

[Newps]

Dave S wrote:


>
> I remember explicitly Savannah approach telling someone who was VFR
> inbound, who didn't want to take sequencing vectors VFR and was going to
> go "around" to tower "Sir, if you are landing at Savannah, you will be
> going through me" Given the exchange, that actually was pretty direct
> and effective.
>


And if the airport is busy with traffic that is usually the most
efficient for everyone involved.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:42:40 -0600, Newps > wrote
in >:

>You can call the tower directly and complain but doesn't
>sound like it will get you anywhere.

You mean there's no FAA form for a pilot to violate a controller? :-)


Controllers have an FAA form for reporting suspected PDs (Form 8020-17
Preliminary Pilot Deviation Report); airmen must write a letter* to
the Administrator to report ATC operational errors.



Sec. 13.5 Formal complaints.

(a) Any person may file a complaint with the Administrator with
respect to anything done or omitted to be done by any person in
contravention of any provision of any Act or of any regulation or
order issued under it, as to matters within the jurisdiction of the
Administrator. This section does not apply to complaints against the
Administrator or employees of the FAA acting within the scope of their
employment.
(b) Complaints filed under this section must--
(1) Be submitted in writing and identified as a complaint filed
for the purpose of seeking an appropriate order or other enforcement
action;
(2) Be submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Attention: Enforcement Docket (AGC-10), 800
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20591;
(3) Set forth the name and address, if known, of each person who
is the subject of the complaint and, with respect to each person, the
specific provisions of the Act or regulation or order that the
complainant believes were violated;
(4) Contain a concise but complete statement of the facts relied
upon to substantiate each allegation;
(5) State the name, address and telephone number of the person
filing the complaint; and
(6) Be signed by the person filing the complaint or a duly
authorized representative.
(c) Complaints which do not meet the requirements of paragraph
(b)of this section will be considered reports under Sec. 13.1.
(d) Complaints which meet the requirements of paragraph (b) of
this section will be docketed and a copy mailed to each person named
in the complaint.
(e) Any complaint filed against a member of the Armed Forces of
the United States acting in the performance of official duties shall
be referred to the Secretary of the Department concerned for action in
accordance with the procedures set forth in Sec. 13.21 of this part.
(f) The person named in the complaint shall file an answer
within 20 days after service of a copy of the complaint.
(g) After the complaint has been answered or after the allotted
time in which to file an answer has expired, the Administrator shall
determine if there are reasonable grounds for investigating the
complaint.
(h) If the Administrator determines that a complaint does not
state facts which warrant an investigation or action, the complaint
may be dismissed without a hearing and the reason for the dismissal
shall be given, in writing, to the person who filed the complaint and
the person named in the complaint.
(i) If the Administrator determines that reasonable grounds
exist, an informal investigation may be initiated or an order of
investigation may be issued in accordance with Subpart F of this part,
or both. Each person named in the complaint shall be advised which
official has been delegated the responsibility under Sec. 13.3(b) or
(c) for conducting the investigation.
(j) If the investigation substantiates the allegations set forth
in the complaint, a notice of proposed order may be issued or other
enforcement action taken in accordance with this part.
(k) The complaint and other pleadings and official FAA records
relating to the disposition of the complaint are maintained in current
docket form in the Enforcement Docket (AGC-209), Office of the Chief
Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue,
S.W., Washington, D. C. 20591. Any interested person may examine any
docketed material at that office, at any time after the docket is
established, except material that is ordered withheld from the public
under applicable law or regulations, and may obtain a photostatic or
duplicate copy upon paying the cost of the copy.


The full text can be found here:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=003fb677c0a4...

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:23:49 -0600, Newps > wrote
in >:

>Every single tower can, at their
>discretion, accept a VFR arrival without first contacting a radar facility.

Can you provide the FAAO 7110.65 section number that mentions Local
Controller discretion in this case?

[Matt Whiting]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Dave S wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I remember explicitly Savannah approach telling someone who was VFR
>> inbound, who didn't want to take sequencing vectors VFR and was going
>> to go "around" to tower "Sir, if you are landing at Savannah, you will
>> be going through me" Given the exchange, that actually was pretty
>> direct and effective.
>>
>
>
> And if the airport is busy with traffic that is usually the most
> efficient for everyone involved.

I agree, but this is Reading, PA after all which has fewer operations
per day than a real airport has in half an hour.

Matt

[Judah]

Matt Whiting > wrote in news:6D1Vh.3975$Oc.197617
@news1.epix.net:

> I agree, but this is Reading, PA after all which has fewer operations
> per day than a real airport has in half an hour.

According to AirNav, RDG averages 204 operations per day, and JFK averages
950 operations per day...

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

On Apr 16, 4:56 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
> A question for Stephen, Newps or other folks knowledgeable in the finer
> points of ATC. A friend of mine flew into Reading, PA last week with
> another pilot. Since Reading is a class D airport with no TRSA, but
> with radar approach control, they elected to simply call tower directly
> 6 or so miles out. My friend said that the controller was quite nasty
> and told them they had to contact approach first if they wanted to land.
> By then they were even closer in, but they called approach who
> "informed" them gruffly that they were now 4 miles from the airport and
> needed to contact tower "immediately." They then called tower and landed.
>
> My friend is a new private pilot (last December) and both he and the
> person flying (a pretty experienced pilot, I believe) were rather taken
> aback by this. What authority does a class D tower have to refuse entry
> to an airplane that hasn't called approach control?
>

None. There are certainly reasons for a tower controller in Class D
airspace to deny entry, but that is not one of them.


>
> Even a TRSA is
> voluntary, so I can't imagine that a non-TRSA, non-class B, non-class C
> airport can mandate use of approach control.
>

Reading approach provides Basic radar service for VFR aircraft. Basic
radar service consists of safety alerts, traffic advisories, limited
radar vectoring when requested by the pilot, and sequencing at
locations where procedures
have been established for that purpose. I examined the RDG SOP, there
are no procedures for sequencing VFR arrivals.


>
> Is there some new regulation that I've missed?
>

No.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

On Apr 16, 7:14 pm, john smith > wrote:
>
> If Reading is a contract tower, the FAA has a
> quality control program in operation for just these type of incidents.
>

RDG is an FAA facility, it has an approach control. To date, there
are no contract approach control facilities.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

On Apr 16, 8:13 pm, Dave S > wrote:
>
> Did you listen to the ATIS prior to contacting the tower? Local arrival
> procedures are usually spelled out during this broadcast. Most of the
> local Class D's around me don't work in the manner you've described, but
> if thats how they work, thats what you do.
>

The RDG SOP calls for the ATIS broadcast to state that Basic Radar
Services are available, nothing beyond that.


>
> As for what authority do they have... pretty much if you want to land at
> a Class D, you have to be in communication with them to be in their
> airspace. You can be denied entry. The Controller does not have to
> justify it, and their decision is final as far that that moment is
> concerned.
>

Upon what do you base your assertion that the tower controller needs
no justification to deny entry to Class D airspace?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

On Apr 16, 9:23 pm, Newps > wrote:
>
> Every single tower has a radar facility to provide approach services,
>

How do you know that?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

On Apr 16, 9:33 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
> Nobody is worried about it, mostly wondering if there was some new rule
> or regulation that we had missed. I'd never heard of such a situation
> before. I'd like to fly in there with my crusty old primary instructor.
> He didn't care much for controllers and loved to mix it up with the
> ones that got testy. :-)
>
> I'm surprised he never got busted, but then he was a DE, FAA safety
> counselor and new most of the state and federal aviation folks pretty
> well so I'm guessing any complaints that came in got file 13 treatment.
>

What did your crusty old primary instructor do that might warrant
being busted?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

On Apr 16, 9:36 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
> Can they, at their discretion, decide to refuse service to whomever they
> choose?
>

No, they must have justification.

[Denny]

Come on guys, get real... The controller may refuse entry to a calling
aircraft only for valid operational reasons.. He is accountable for
his every word and decision (controllers exist in a fishbowl)... If
he refuses entry without a valid reason there will be questions and
the tapes will be reviewed - especially if there is a formal
complaint...

If a controller simply refuses entry to his airspace without any hint
as to when he can accomodate you, ask why and for how long... His
transmissions are recorded (as are yours so think before flying off at
the mouth)... He may have a runway blocked or a lost aircraft,
military activity in his airspace, Airforce One might be in the
pattern, lots of things could be going on... This can be on other
frequencies, so silence doesn't mean that he isn't really busy...
There may be things going on he can't say over the air...
If you feel the answers are unsatisfactory ask the telephone number
for the facility supervisor... Just remember the squeaky wheel will
get attention also...

denny

[Jim Logajan]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> On Apr 16, 8:13 pm, Dave S > wrote:
>> As for what authority do they have... pretty much if you want to land at
>> a Class D, you have to be in communication with them to be in their
>> airspace. You can be denied entry. The Controller does not have to
>> justify it, and their decision is final as far that that moment is
>> concerned.
>>
>
> Upon what do you base your assertion that the tower controller needs
> no justification to deny entry to Class D airspace?

I'm curious: By what point in time is the controller compelled to provide
justification for a denied entry?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> I'm curious: By what point in time is the controller compelled to provide
> justification for a denied entry?
>

FAAO 7110.65 does not require the controller to state the justification at
all.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dave S" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> It has not been proven that the controller made a unilateral decision
> here. If they have an operating practice that says "contact approach
> first" they can fall back on that practice and choose not to make an
> "exception".
>

I thoroughly examined the Reading SOP, they have no operating practice that
says "contact approach first".


>
> Newps is right. Any local controller COULD accept a pop up.
> But are they required to?
>

Pop up?


>
> Again.. if the arrival procedures are described
> on the ATIS, your friend has nobody to be miffed at but himself, for not
> being able to "make himself aware of all pertinent information regarding
> his flight".
>

The SOP calls for the ATIS to state that Basic Radar Services are available,
nothing beyond that.


>
> I've known of two separate instances in my short stint in flying where
> someone didn't want to talk to approach, and was directed to contact
> approach for sequencing. One was into Savannah, the other Beaumont.
> Neither was the exact type of airport described by the original poster,
> but that was how they operated.
>
> I remember explicitly Savannah approach telling someone who was VFR
> inbound, who didn't want to take sequencing vectors VFR and was going to
> go "around" to tower "Sir, if you are landing at Savannah, you will be
> going through me" Given the exchange, that actually was pretty direct and
> effective.
>

Savannah has Class C airspace, sequencing of VFR arrivals is a Class C
service. Reading provides Basic Radar Service which does not include
sequencing of VFR arrivals.

[ZikZak]

On Apr 17, 1:07 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:

> Savannah has Class C airspace, sequencing of VFR arrivals is a Class C
> service. Reading provides Basic Radar Service which does not include
> sequencing of VFR arrivals.

And yet, the OP is correct that in actual practice, Reading Tower will
regularly deny class D services to inbound aircraft who have not been
sequenced by approach.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ZikZak" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> And yet, the OP is correct that in actual practice, Reading Tower will
> regularly deny class D services to inbound aircraft who have not been
> sequenced by approach.
>

And yet, they are incorrect when they do that.

[ZikZak]

On Apr 17, 1:48 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> "ZikZak" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
> > And yet, the OP is correct that in actual practice, Reading Tower will
> > regularly deny class D services to inbound aircraft who have not been
> > sequenced by approach.
>
> And yet, they are incorrect when they do that.

Absolutely they are. I think that is the point of the thread.

The question really is: who to complain to in order to actually
resolve the situation?

[Larry Dighera]

On 17 Apr 2007 13:51:18 -0700, ZikZak >
wrote in om>:

>The question really is: who to complain to in order to actually
>resolve the situation?


Controllers have an FAA form for reporting suspected PDs (Form 8020-17
Preliminary Pilot Deviation Report); airmen must write a letter* to
the Administrator to report ATC operational errors.



Sec. 13.5 Formal complaints.

(a) Any person may file a complaint with the Administrator with
respect to anything done or omitted to be done by any person in
contravention of any provision of any Act or of any regulation or
order issued under it, as to matters within the jurisdiction of the
Administrator. This section does not apply to complaints against the
Administrator or employees of the FAA acting within the scope of their
employment.
(b) Complaints filed under this section must--
(1) Be submitted in writing and identified as a complaint filed
for the purpose of seeking an appropriate order or other enforcement
action;
(2) Be submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Attention: Enforcement Docket (AGC-10), 800
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20591;
(3) Set forth the name and address, if known, of each person who
is the subject of the complaint and, with respect to each person, the
specific provisions of the Act or regulation or order that the
complainant believes were violated;
(4) Contain a concise but complete statement of the facts relied
upon to substantiate each allegation;
(5) State the name, address and telephone number of the person
filing the complaint; and
(6) Be signed by the person filing the complaint or a duly
authorized representative.
(c) Complaints which do not meet the requirements of paragraph
(b)of this section will be considered reports under Sec. 13.1.
(d) Complaints which meet the requirements of paragraph (b) of
this section will be docketed and a copy mailed to each person named
in the complaint.
(e) Any complaint filed against a member of the Armed Forces of
the United States acting in the performance of official duties shall
be referred to the Secretary of the Department concerned for action in
accordance with the procedures set forth in Sec. 13.21 of this part.
(f) The person named in the complaint shall file an answer
within 20 days after service of a copy of the complaint.
(g) After the complaint has been answered or after the allotted
time in which to file an answer has expired, the Administrator shall
determine if there are reasonable grounds for investigating the
complaint.
(h) If the Administrator determines that a complaint does not
state facts which warrant an investigation or action, the complaint
may be dismissed without a hearing and the reason for the dismissal
shall be given, in writing, to the person who filed the complaint and
the person named in the complaint.
(i) If the Administrator determines that reasonable grounds
exist, an informal investigation may be initiated or an order of
investigation may be issued in accordance with Subpart F of this part,
or both. Each person named in the complaint shall be advised which
official has been delegated the responsibility under Sec. 13.3(b) or
(c) for conducting the investigation.
(j) If the investigation substantiates the allegations set forth
in the complaint, a notice of proposed order may be issued or other
enforcement action taken in accordance with this part.
(k) The complaint and other pleadings and official FAA records
relating to the disposition of the complaint are maintained in current
docket form in the Enforcement Docket (AGC-209), Office of the Chief
Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue,
S.W., Washington, D. C. 20591. Any interested person may examine any
docketed material at that office, at any time after the docket is
established, except material that is ordered withheld from the public
under applicable law or regulations, and may obtain a photostatic or
duplicate copy upon paying the cost of the copy.


The full text can be found here:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=003fb677c0a4...

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> On Apr 16, 9:33 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> Nobody is worried about it, mostly wondering if there was some new rule
>> or regulation that we had missed. I'd never heard of such a situation
>> before. I'd like to fly in there with my crusty old primary instructor.
>> He didn't care much for controllers and loved to mix it up with the
>> ones that got testy. :-)
>>
>> I'm surprised he never got busted, but then he was a DE, FAA safety
>> counselor and new most of the state and federal aviation folks pretty
>> well so I'm guessing any complaints that came in got file 13 treatment.
>>
>
> What did your crusty old primary instructor do that might warrant
> being busted?
>

He followed the official regulations, not the locally defined ones.
He'd have likely told the Reading tower controller that he had no
intention of contacting approach as he didn't need their services and
what he needed was a landing clearance. And he never backed down when a
controller pushed back on something like this.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Judah wrote:
> Matt Whiting > wrote in news:6D1Vh.3975$Oc.197617
> @news1.epix.net:
>
>> I agree, but this is Reading, PA after all which has fewer operations
>> per day than a real airport has in half an hour.
>
> According to AirNav, RDG averages 204 operations per day, and JFK averages
> 950 operations per day...

JFK isn't even in the top 30 of busiest airports on an operations basis.
I was exaggerating slightly, but look at Hartsfield which averages
2,686 per day. If Reading is busy enough that approach control is
required, then it should be in class C airspace.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> On Apr 16, 4:56 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> A question for Stephen, Newps or other folks knowledgeable in the finer
>> points of ATC. A friend of mine flew into Reading, PA last week with
>> another pilot. Since Reading is a class D airport with no TRSA, but
>> with radar approach control, they elected to simply call tower directly
>> 6 or so miles out. My friend said that the controller was quite nasty
>> and told them they had to contact approach first if they wanted to land.
>> By then they were even closer in, but they called approach who
>> "informed" them gruffly that they were now 4 miles from the airport and
>> needed to contact tower "immediately." They then called tower and landed.
>>
>> My friend is a new private pilot (last December) and both he and the
>> person flying (a pretty experienced pilot, I believe) were rather taken
>> aback by this. What authority does a class D tower have to refuse entry
>> to an airplane that hasn't called approach control?
>>
>
> None. There are certainly reasons for a tower controller in Class D
> airspace to deny entry, but that is not one of them.
>
>
>> Even a TRSA is
>> voluntary, so I can't imagine that a non-TRSA, non-class B, non-class C
>> airport can mandate use of approach control.
>>
>
> Reading approach provides Basic radar service for VFR aircraft. Basic
> radar service consists of safety alerts, traffic advisories, limited
> radar vectoring when requested by the pilot, and sequencing at
> locations where procedures
> have been established for that purpose. I examined the RDG SOP, there
> are no procedures for sequencing VFR arrivals.
>
>
>> Is there some new regulation that I've missed?
>>
>
> No.
>
>

Thanks, that was my suspicion.

Matt

[Mxsmanic]

Matt Whiting writes:

> JFK isn't even in the top 30 of busiest airports on an operations basis.

Interesting. Where does all the air traffic for NYC go, then?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Newps writes:
>
>> No such thing. You can call the tower directly and complain but
>> doesn't sound like it will get you anywhere.
>
> Can a pilot record his conversations with ATC?
>

You're an idiot.

bertie

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Whiting writes:
>
>> JFK isn't even in the top 30 of busiest airports on an operations basis.
>
> Interesting. Where does all the air traffic for NYC go, then?
>

The fly to Atlanta and take the bus to NYC.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Newps writes:
>
>> No such thing. You can call the tower directly and complain but doesn't
>> sound like it will get you anywhere.
>
> Can a pilot record his conversations with ATC?
>
> --


Of coarse not, controller are angelic, you will just hear music on the tape.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> He followed the official regulations, not the locally defined ones. He'd
> have likely told the Reading tower controller that he had no intention of
> contacting approach as he didn't need their services and what he needed
> was a landing clearance. And he never backed down when a controller
> pushed back on something like this.
>

There's nothing there for which he could be busted.

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> He followed the official regulations, not the locally defined ones. He'd
>> have likely told the Reading tower controller that he had no intention of
>> contacting approach as he didn't need their services and what he needed
>> was a landing clearance. And he never backed down when a controller
>> pushed back on something like this.
>>
>
> There's nothing there for which he could be busted.
>
>

I agree, but he'd be likely to just keep on coming in at a place like
Reading and I'm not sure what might happen next! On all of my training
flights the controller always blinked, so I never got to find out what
would have happened had that not occurred. :-)

Matt

[DR]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> Newps writes:
>>
>>> No such thing. You can call the tower directly and complain but
>>> doesn't sound like it will get you anywhere.
>> Can a pilot record his conversations with ATC?
>>
>
> You're an idiot.
>

I think he means "MAY a pilot record..." ;-)

Cheers (as he ducks from the incoming...)

[DR]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>>
>>
>> Dave S wrote:
>>

>
> Can they, at their discretion, decide to refuse service to whomever they
> choose? What if they don't like blue and white airplanes, can they just
> decide not to let any blue and white airplanes land?
>

Do controllers not like camouflaged airplanes? :-)

Cheers
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ----------------------
For a quality mail server, try SurgeMail, easy to install,
fast, efficient and reliable. Run a million users on a standard
PC running NT or Unix without running out of power, use the best!
---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgemail.htm ----

[Jose]

>>Can a pilot record his conversations with ATC?
> Of coarse not, controller are angelic, you will just hear music on the tape.

More to the point, if a pilot =does= record the conversation, and the
"official" tape has expired and been recycled by the time that the
official complaint makes it through channels, will the pilot's tape be
permitted as evidence?

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-04-16 14:56:13 -0700, Matt Whiting > said:

>
> A question for Stephen, Newps or other folks knowledgeable in the finer
> points of ATC. A friend of mine flew into Reading, PA last week with
> another pilot. Since Reading is a class D airport with no TRSA, but
> with radar approach control, they elected to simply call tower directly
> 6 or so miles out. My friend said that the controller was quite nasty
> and told them they had to contact approach first if they wanted to
> land. By then they were even closer in, but they called approach who
> "informed" them gruffly that they were now 4 miles from the airport and
> needed to contact tower "immediately." They then called tower and
> landed.
>
> My friend is a new private pilot (last December) and both he and the
> person flying (a pretty experienced pilot, I believe) were rather taken
> aback by this. What authority does a class D tower have to refuse
> entry to an airplane that hasn't called approach control? Even a TRSA
> is voluntary, so I can't imagine that a non-TRSA, non-class B,
> non-class C airport can mandate use of approach control.
>
> Is there some new regulation that I've missed?
>
> Matt

I remember a time that a pilot contacted Tacoma Narrows tower to inform
them that he was going to overfly the airspace. Tower rather gruffly
told him to contact Seattle approach, because although he was in TIW's
class D space, they had an operating agreement with Seattle that anyone
above a certain altitude (but below the overlying B) that Seattle would
handle that traffic. The pilot replied, "Oh, sorry. I didn't have a
copy of the operating agreement here in the AF/D." The tower controller
was testy the rest of the afternoon. This was the same tower controller
that was paying so little attention to what was going on that he had
two airplanes touch down on the runway simultaneously -- and didn't
know it, despite having cleared both to land. Fortunately, they didn't
hit each other. He is no longer there. (The reason the planes did not
hit each other was one was flown by a student pilot -- missed the
center line and landed on the right side of the runway and somewhat
short. The other was flown by an airline pilot -- he also could not hit
the center line with a small plane and landed left and long. They
didn't see each other until after they touched down.)

Everyone has a bad day, I guess, but it seems, from the number of
complaints here, that Reading has more bad days than good ones. Tough.
I don't have to go bowling with them. But for them to play games like
that increases the chance of lost communication and endangers everyone.
File the NASA report. Maybe if NASA gets enough of them they will do
something about it. That's what they say the reports are for.

I would be tempted to suggest that every pilot who flies in there and
gets that kind of treatment to call the tower and ask for a detailed
explanation on what they thought the proper procedures were. Either
they would get tired of constantly having to explain themselves and
lighten up, or they would get even nastier, so it is a risk.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-04-17 18:30:05 -0700, Matt Whiting > said:

> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> He followed the official regulations, not the locally defined ones.
>>> He'd have likely told the Reading tower controller that he had no
>>> intention of contacting approach as he didn't need their services and
>>> what he needed was a landing clearance. And he never backed down when
>>> a controller pushed back on something like this.
>>>
>>
>> There's nothing there for which he could be busted.
>>
>
> I agree, but he'd be likely to just keep on coming in at a place like
> Reading and I'm not sure what might happen next! On all of my training
> flights the controller always blinked, so I never got to find out what
> would have happened had that not occurred. :-)
>
> Matt

And the controller had no choice but to blink. He was wrong, and he knew it.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-04-16 19:23:49 -0700, Newps > said:

>
>
> Dave S wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Did you listen to the ATIS prior to contacting the tower? Local arrival
>> procedures are usually spelled out during this broadcast. Most of the
>> local Class D's around me don't work in the manner you've described,
>> but if thats how they work, thats what you do.
>
>
> Every single tower has a radar facility to provide approach services,
> some more effective than others. Every single tower can, at their
> discretion, accept a VFR arrival without first contacting a radar
> facility.

One of the real problems with Class D towers that have these radar
repeaters is that some controllers get to staring at the TV instead of
looking out the window. Not all planes show up on the radar very well.
I have heard from some of the more opinionated old-timers that the
Class D towers would be better off and do a better job without the
approach radar. I would not go that far, but they seem to have a point.

It is like some pilots I have encountered who think that because they
have TCAS they don't have to look outside. One guy that I was
instructing nearly scared me to death (familiarization flight with a
new 182). We got a position advisory from Seattle Approach and instead
of looking outside the plane he looked at the fishfinder until he
decided that one of the returns on there was the aircraft Approach was
talking about. That airplane was 8 miles away! I had to make him look
up so that he could see the rag and tube experimental less than a mile
in front of us and low, down in the ground clutter. I think my client
learned something that day. :-)
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Matt Whiting]

C J Campbell wrote:

> I remember a time that a pilot contacted Tacoma Narrows tower to inform
> them that he was going to overfly the airspace. Tower rather gruffly
> told him to contact Seattle approach, because although he was in TIW's
> class D space, they had an operating agreement with Seattle that anyone
> above a certain altitude (but below the overlying B) that Seattle would
> handle that traffic. The pilot replied, "Oh, sorry. I didn't have a copy
> of the operating agreement here in the AF/D." The tower controller was
> testy the rest of the afternoon. This was the same tower controller that
> was paying so little attention to what was going on that he had two
> airplanes touch down on the runway simultaneously -- and didn't know it,
> despite having cleared both to land. Fortunately, they didn't hit each
> other. He is no longer there. (The reason the planes did not hit each
> other was one was flown by a student pilot -- missed the center line and
> landed on the right side of the runway and somewhat short. The other was
> flown by an airline pilot -- he also could not hit the center line with
> a small plane and landed left and long. They didn't see each other until
> after they touched down.)

I'm always amazed when I hear things like this. I listen to all radio
traffic when flying, not just calls to me. If I hear another airplane
cleared to land on the same runway as me at the same time, I don't have
to wait until we're rolling out side-by-side to know it. I'd have
busted both pilots along with the controller on this one.

Matt

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

On Apr 18, 2:11 am, C J Campbell >
wrote:
>
> One of the real problems with Class D towers that have these radar
> repeaters is that some controllers get to staring at the TV instead of
> looking out the window. Not all planes show up on the radar very well.
> I have heard from some of the more opinionated old-timers that the
> Class D towers would be better off and do a better job without the
> approach radar. I would not go that far, but they seem to have a point.
>

Radar repeaters? Reading tower does not have a radar feed from a
nearby site that was established to serve another airport. The
Reading ASR is on the east side of Reading Municipal Airport.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

On Apr 17, 5:37 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
> JFK isn't even in the top 30 of busiest airports on an operations basis.
> I was exaggerating slightly, but look at Hartsfield which averages
> 2,686 per day. If Reading is busy enough that approach control is
> required, then it should be in class C airspace.
>

For a site to be considered as a candidate for Class C airspace, it
must have an annual instrument operations count
of 75,000 at the primary airport, or an annual instrument operations
count of 100,000 at the primary and secondary airports
in the terminal area hub, or an annual count of 250,000 enplaned
passengers at the primary airport. Reading doesn't even come close.
For the twelve month period ending April 30 2006, they recorded less
than 75,000 total operations. The GA local count was over 50,000 and
the itinerant GA count was nearly 16,000, and the majority of GA
traffic operates VFR. In calendar year 2005 RDG had only 2,445
passenger enplanements, down from 9,288 in calendar year 2004.
Reading serves no satellite airports with IAPs.

[Steve Foley]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message

> For a site to be considered as a candidate for Class C airspace, it
> must have an annual instrument operations count
> of 75,000 at the primary airport, or an annual instrument operations
> count of 100,000 at the primary and secondary airports
> in the terminal area hub, or an annual count of 250,000 enplaned
> passengers at the primary airport.

You don't happen to know the requirements to be considered as a candidate
for Class D airspace, do you?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
...
>
> You don't happen to know the requirements to be considered as a candidate
> for Class D airspace, do you?
>

Yes, but there is no fixed traffic count threshold for Class D like there is
for Class C, if that's what you're looking for.

[Steve Foley]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> You don't happen to know the requirements to be considered as a candidate
>> for Class D airspace, do you?
>>
>
> Yes, but there is no fixed traffic count threshold for Class D like there
> is for Class C, if that's what you're looking for.

Yup. That's what I was looking for. Thanks for the reply.

[andrew m. boardman]

C J Campbell > wrote:
>Everyone has a bad day, I guess, but it seems, from the number of
>complaints here, that Reading has more bad days than good ones. Tough.

I learned to fly near there and did my long solo cross-country into
Reading in 1994 or so. Damned unpleasant experience, but everyone
afterwards said "oh, yeah, Reading is like that". (Actually, that was
about the nicest thing I heard; most of it was unprintable.) They've
been getting complaints for years, but "cranky and unhelpful" seems to be
within the realm of acceptable behavior.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-04-18 04:51:32 -0700, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> said:

> On Apr 18, 2:11 am, C J Campbell >
> wrote:
>>
>> One of the real problems with Class D towers that have these radar
>> repeaters is that some controllers get to staring at the TV instead of
>> looking out the window. Not all planes show up on the radar very well.
>> I have heard from some of the more opinionated old-timers that the
>> Class D towers would be better off and do a better job without the
>> approach radar. I would not go that far, but they seem to have a point.
>>
>
> Radar repeaters? Reading tower does not have a radar feed from a
> nearby site that was established to serve another airport. The
> Reading ASR is on the east side of Reading Municipal Airport.

Ah. I was confused by what one of the other posters said.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-04-18 03:45:54 -0700, Matt Whiting > said:

> C J Campbell wrote:
>
>> I remember a time that a pilot contacted Tacoma Narrows tower to inform
>> them that he was going to overfly the airspace. Tower rather gruffly
>> told him to contact Seattle approach, because although he was in TIW's
>> class D space, they had an operating agreement with Seattle that anyone
>> above a certain altitude (but below the overlying B) that Seattle would
>> handle that traffic. The pilot replied, "Oh, sorry. I didn't have a
>> copy of the operating agreement here in the AF/D." The tower controller
>> was testy the rest of the afternoon. This was the same tower controller
>> that was paying so little attention to what was going on that he had
>> two airplanes touch down on the runway simultaneously -- and didn't
>> know it, despite having cleared both to land. Fortunately, they didn't
>> hit each other. He is no longer there. (The reason the planes did not
>> hit each other was one was flown by a student pilot -- missed the
>> center line and landed on the right side of the runway and somewhat
>> short. The other was flown by an airline pilot -- he also could not hit
>> the center line with a small plane and landed left and long. They
>> didn't see each other until after they touched down.)
>
> I'm always amazed when I hear things like this. I listen to all radio
> traffic when flying, not just calls to me. If I hear another airplane
> cleared to land on the same runway as me at the same time, I don't have
> to wait until we're rolling out side-by-side to know it. I'd have
> busted both pilots along with the controller on this one.
>
> Matt

Me, too. But they got away with it. This time.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-04-18 03:45:54 -0700, Matt Whiting > said:

> C J Campbell wrote:
>
>> I remember a time that a pilot contacted Tacoma Narrows tower to inform
>> them that he was going to overfly the airspace. Tower rather gruffly
>> told him to contact Seattle approach, because although he was in TIW's
>> class D space, they had an operating agreement with Seattle that anyone
>> above a certain altitude (but below the overlying B) that Seattle would
>> handle that traffic. The pilot replied, "Oh, sorry. I didn't have a
>> copy of the operating agreement here in the AF/D." The tower controller
>> was testy the rest of the afternoon. This was the same tower controller
>> that was paying so little attention to what was going on that he had
>> two airplanes touch down on the runway simultaneously -- and didn't
>> know it, despite having cleared both to land. Fortunately, they didn't
>> hit each other. He is no longer there. (The reason the planes did not
>> hit each other was one was flown by a student pilot -- missed the
>> center line and landed on the right side of the runway and somewhat
>> short. The other was flown by an airline pilot -- he also could not hit
>> the center line with a small plane and landed left and long. They
>> didn't see each other until after they touched down.)
>
> I'm always amazed when I hear things like this. I listen to all radio
> traffic when flying, not just calls to me. If I hear another airplane
> cleared to land on the same runway as me at the same time, I don't have
> to wait until we're rolling out side-by-side to know it. I'd have
> busted both pilots along with the controller on this one.
>
> Matt

I should expand on that, because it gets worse (for the pilots). The
airline pilot not only never saw the other plane, even after they both
landed and did a touch and go, but he had his radio tuned to the wrong
frequency and never even heard or acknowledged his clearance to land!
And he did not find out about that until later when he checked his
frequency when he returned to the airport. Oops.

Well, if we busted people for every violation or stupid act there
wouldn't be many of us left. He learned his lesson, and some of us
learned from his experience. (For one thing, if he is ever in the area
again, go someplace else. :-) ) Seriously, it is a common problem at
TIW for some reason. People are always trying to talk to the tower on
the wrong frequency, usually the CTAF at Shelton. Or they are trying to
talk to Shelton traffic on TIW's frequency. I have started making it a
habit to monitor both frequencies because of it. One of the tower
controllers was doing that for awhile, too. Pilots would call Tacoma
Tower using Shelton's CTAF and he would reply "You are on Shelton's
frequency." That was a smart controller. I liked him.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-04-18 14:06:25 -0700, (andrew m. boardman) said:

> C J Campbell > wrote:
>> Everyone has a bad day, I guess, but it seems, from the number of
>> complaints here, that Reading has more bad days than good ones. Tough.
>
> I learned to fly near there and did my long solo cross-country into
> Reading in 1994 or so. Damned unpleasant experience, but everyone
> afterwards said "oh, yeah, Reading is like that". (Actually, that was
> about the nicest thing I heard; most of it was unprintable.) They've
> been getting complaints for years, but "cranky and unhelpful" seems to be
> within the realm of acceptable behavior.

Perhaps the local pilots could throw a blanket party for the tower controllers.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Matt Whiting]

C J Campbell wrote:
> On 2007-04-18 03:45:54 -0700, Matt Whiting > said:
>
>> C J Campbell wrote:
>>
>>> I remember a time that a pilot contacted Tacoma Narrows tower to
>>> inform them that he was going to overfly the airspace. Tower rather
>>> gruffly told him to contact Seattle approach, because although he was
>>> in TIW's class D space, they had an operating agreement with Seattle
>>> that anyone above a certain altitude (but below the overlying B) that
>>> Seattle would handle that traffic. The pilot replied, "Oh, sorry. I
>>> didn't have a copy of the operating agreement here in the AF/D." The
>>> tower controller was testy the rest of the afternoon. This was the
>>> same tower controller that was paying so little attention to what was
>>> going on that he had two airplanes touch down on the runway
>>> simultaneously -- and didn't know it, despite having cleared both to
>>> land. Fortunately, they didn't hit each other. He is no longer there.
>>> (The reason the planes did not hit each other was one was flown by a
>>> student pilot -- missed the center line and landed on the right side
>>> of the runway and somewhat short. The other was flown by an airline
>>> pilot -- he also could not hit the center line with a small plane and
>>> landed left and long. They didn't see each other until after they
>>> touched down.)
>>
>> I'm always amazed when I hear things like this. I listen to all radio
>> traffic when flying, not just calls to me. If I hear another airplane
>> cleared to land on the same runway as me at the same time, I don't
>> have to wait until we're rolling out side-by-side to know it. I'd
>> have busted both pilots along with the controller on this one.
>>
>> Matt
>
> I should expand on that, because it gets worse (for the pilots). The
> airline pilot not only never saw the other plane, even after they both
> landed and did a touch and go, but he had his radio tuned to the wrong
> frequency and never even heard or acknowledged his clearance to land!
> And he did not find out about that until later when he checked his
> frequency when he returned to the airport. Oops.

Let me guess ... he flies for Northwest! :-)

Matt

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-04-18 14:42:40 -0700, Matt Whiting > said:

> C J Campbell wrote:
>> On 2007-04-18 03:45:54 -0700, Matt Whiting > said:
>>
>>> C J Campbell wrote:
>>>
>>>> I remember a time that a pilot contacted Tacoma Narrows tower to inform
>>>> them that he was going to overfly the airspace. Tower rather gruffly
>>>> told him to contact Seattle approach, because although he was in TIW's
>>>> class D space, they had an operating agreement with Seattle that anyone
>>>> above a certain altitude (but below the overlying B) that Seattle would
>>>> handle that traffic. The pilot replied, "Oh, sorry. I didn't have a
>>>> copy of the operating agreement here in the AF/D." The tower controller
>>>> was testy the rest of the afternoon. This was the same tower controller
>>>> that was paying so little attention to what was going on that he had
>>>> two airplanes touch down on the runway simultaneously -- and didn't
>>>> know it, despite having cleared both to land. Fortunately, they didn't
>>>> hit each other. He is no longer there. (The reason the planes did not
>>>> hit each other was one was flown by a student pilot -- missed the
>>>> center line and landed on the right side of the runway and somewhat
>>>> short. The other was flown by an airline pilot -- he also could not hit
>>>> the center line with a small plane and landed left and long. They
>>>> didn't see each other until after they touched down.)
>>>
>>> I'm always amazed when I hear things like this. I listen to all radio
>>> traffic when flying, not just calls to me. If I hear another airplane
>>> cleared to land on the same runway as me at the same time, I don't have
>>> to wait until we're rolling out side-by-side to know it. I'd have
>>> busted both pilots along with the controller on this one.
>>>
>>> Matt
>>
>> I should expand on that, because it gets worse (for the pilots). The
>> airline pilot not only never saw the other plane, even after they both
>> landed and did a touch and go, but he had his radio tuned to the wrong
>> frequency and never even heard or acknowledged his clearance to land!
>> And he did not find out about that until later when he checked his
>> frequency when he returned to the airport. Oops.
>
> Let me guess ... he flies for Northwest! :-)
>
> Matt

That was my understanding, actually.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[[email protected]]

On 16-Apr-2007, Newps > wrote:

> Every single tower has a radar facility to provide approach services,
> some more effective than others. Every single tower can, at their
> discretion, accept a VFR arrival without first contacting a radar
> facility.

Oshkosh's tower doesn't have a BRITE scope or any other type of radar.
Scott Wilson

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
. net...
>
> Oshkosh's tower doesn't have a BRITE scope or any other type of radar.
>

Approach control services at OSH are provided by Chicago ARTCC, the Horicon
ARSR provides good radar coverage.