I like my privatized airport :)

"Tom S." wrote in message
...

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


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

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
s.com...

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


What were the instructions?

Maule Driver wrote:

Hmmm. It seems that the word 'privatized' is being thrown around in
connection with ATC, the airspace system, and the FAA in general. What does
it mean? I think I hear "privatized' being associated with 'pay as you go'
and 'user fees' but I'm not sure.

I'm thinking that a NFCT is either an FAA tower that has been 'outsourced'
or a non-FAA tower that has been privately contracted to provide ATC
services and is somehow approved for operations by the FAA. Is either of
these what might be considered 'privatized'?

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

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

What were the instructions?

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

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

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" writes:

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

What were the instructions?

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

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

Ari.

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

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

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

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

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

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

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

"Tom S." wrote in message
...

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


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

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

Now Bozeman wants radar. The FAA said install the radar

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


JD

Nashua, NH (KASH) is a NFCT.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Tom S." wrote in message
...

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers,
Sydney