Contract Towers Restricting Services

mcdewey

mcdewey

Line Up and Wait
PoA Supporter
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
660
Location
Annapolis
Display Name
Mike
Home Airfield
W29
From the DC Pilots Facebook group:

"Contract towers have been told to Cease and Desist from providing any "additional" services. I don't have the exact wording, but you aren't going to be getting any approvals for "practice approaches" into any contract facilities for the foreseeable future. In many (if not most) cases, adjacent or overlying FAA-run facilities have not been briefed on their responsibilities resulting from contract facilities' spiking the ball to them. As a work-around, I set up for an approach on the runway in use, call into the tower at or before the IAF (after any PTs) get clearance for a normal VFR landing. No different than what you'd do at a non-tower airport. Of course, without coordinating your "practice instrument approach" with the tower, you could get waived off or be required to do something that would preclude your approach from terminating how you'd like it, e.g., minimums, going missed, etc."

The post responses provide some actual conversations with KESN tower.

Anyone here anything else about this in other areas?

And yes, we know there's a Letter to Airman: "Potomac Approach Control (PCT) will provide IFR separation to VFR aircraft conducting practice instrument approaches at the following airports: Baltimore-Washington International Airport (BWI), Martin State Airport (MTN), Newnam Field Airport - Easton (ESN), Eastern West Virginia Regional Airport -Martinsburg (MRB). Manassas Regional Airport (HEF), Hagerstown Airport (HGR), Frederick Municipal Airport (FDK), Richmond International Airport (RIC), and Charlottesville-Albemarle County Airport (CHO)."

But typically, we'd just call Easton direct because Potomac is so busy. Maybe someone noticed and wants us back following the Letter.
 
Last edited:
Haven’t heard anything about this, but I’ll be at an ATC/Pilot forum Wednesday evening and will see if it’s something our contract tower is aware of.
 
I requested a VOR approach at our local contract Class D a few days ago, and the controller said something like "I'm sorry, a new company policy prohibits us from offering practice approaches at this time. If you'd like to overfly the VOR and report a 5-mile final, we can accommodate you."

Nice workaround, but I'm sure it gets tiring to say that 50 times per day.
 
Last year I took a student to a nearby airport with a non-federal control tower (KCWA - Central Wisconsin Airport). We had requested touch and go landings. After the first one, the tower asked our intentions. I replied that we would like two more touch and goes. The controller said, "Well, you may have time for one more, but I have another airplane coming in, so you will have to depart after your next one."

What? Two airplanes in the pattern are too much?

Other instructors had the same experience. Being told to remain clear of the Class D or to exit the area. Calls to the tower chief did no good. Our airport manager called the KCWA manager, and the response was, we have some new guys without a lot of experience.
 
Gilbert Buettner said:
Last year I took a student to a nearby airport with a non-federal control tower (KCWA - Central Wisconsin Airport). We had requested touch and go landings. After the first one, the tower asked our intentions. I replied that we would like two more touch and goes. The controller said, "Well, you may have time for one more, but I have another airplane coming in, so you will have to depart after your next one."

What? Two airplanes in the pattern are too much?

Other instructors had the same experience. Being told to remain clear of the Class D or to exit the area. Calls to the tower chief did no good. Our airport manager called the KCWA manager, and the response was, we have some new guys without a lot of experience.
Click to expand...
While I don't think this is related, Salisbury Tower (KSBY) wouldn't allow two practice approaches at the same time. We (C172) were doing the practice ILS32 there and the controller wouldn't let a Cirrus come in after us. When the Cirrus asked if they could loiter then head at to SWL, the controller said, "No". As abrupt as that. Were were coming up on COLBE when a C172 on a IFR flight plan was about 20 miles away, when were told that approach was sending in a plane and that our approache was terminated and what our intentions were. We turned off then asked if we could restart the approach back at SWL after the C172 had passed. Again, the controller said, "No", just like that. As we turned back to KGED instead about 10 minutes later, we passed over the C172 on the approach.

I have no idea why the controller couldn't handle more than one aircraft in an approach at a time. He had like two aircraft in the pattern. It was way different that they've ever behaved before. Maybe we're supposed to provide a credit card number or something.
 
Multiple times I've heard JVL controllers say "no practice approaches at Janesville"
 
Gilbert Buettner said:
What? Two airplanes in the pattern are too much?
Click to expand...
Was flying at SUA a few months ago. We were #6 for take-off, all GA traffic. #1 told to hold short because there was an incoming 172 on a 4-mile final. In my head, I was thinking we could've all departed before that 172 would've been a factor.
Same thing at HPN (one of my "favorite" airports), who can't grant a class D transit over the field because they have a Citation about to depart.
 
mcdewey said:
And yes, we know there's a Letter to Airman: "Potomac Approach Control (PCT) will provide IFR separation to VFR aircraft conducting practice instrument approaches at the following airports: Baltimore-Washington International Airport (BWI), Martin State Airport (MTN), Newnam Field Airport - Easton (ESN), Eastern West Virginia Regional Airport -Martinsburg (MRB). Manassas Regional Airport (HEF), Hagerstown Airport (HGR), Frederick Municipal Airport (FDK), Richmond
Click to expand...
As far as I know KMRB has always required us to contact Potomac for a practice approach. I've been out of there for a couple years but that's the way it was for the 5 prior.
 
AV8R_87 said:
Was flying at SUA a few months ago. We were #6 for take-off, all GA traffic. #1 told to hold short because there was an incoming 172 on a 4-mile final. In my head, I was thinking we could've all departed before that 172 would've been a factor.
Same thing at HPN (one of my "favorite" airports), who can't grant a class D transit over the field because they have a Citation about to depart.
Click to expand...
It’s pretty common around here. Stuart, Ft. Pierce and Vero Beach all seem to be pretty bad about getting planes out quickly. I suspect it’s because of the pathetic flight schools who take forever to get moving after being cleared for takeoff. The controllers might be so used to them because they comprise such a large share of the traffic that they don’t try to get others out quickly. The flight schools do have assigned callsigns, which should make it easier to differentiate them from pilots who are prepared and ready to move.
 
Pugs said:
As far as I know KMRB has always required us to contact Potomac for a practice approach. I've been out of there for a couple years but that's the way it was for the 5 prior.
Click to expand...
Last time I tried for a practice approach there, sometime last year, they sent me to Potomac approach, who ignored my calls.

At FDK, the tower would coordinate practice approaches.
 
Pinecone said:
At FDK, the tower would coordinate practice approaches.
Click to expand...
I was at RDG a couple years ago, checking out a new GPS installation on a friend's plane. We asked tower for a practice approach, they told us to contact Reading Approach to coordinate it. Didn't even know there was a Reading Approach. I hear they got rid of it, now everyone has to go through Harrisburg.
 
Is this possibly some sort of "quiet quitting" protest action? I presume PHX is an FAA tower, but they basically shut us out when the field went 7SM HZ last week, and said "IFR only -- also flow control is in effect" which kicked us out to SDL -- along with a gaggle of bizjets. We were like #7 to land and did as many orbits waiting to get in. I still dunno what that was about -- the controllers kept asking if we needed help with the haze -- which was just fine and a pretty decent day in lots of places.
 
Pinecone said:
Last time I tried for a practice approach there, sometime last year, they sent me to Potomac approach, who ignored my calls.

At FDK, the tower would coordinate practice approaches.
Click to expand...
Yep - did my PPL and IR at FDK and I knew most of those guys and gals by voice. Martinsburg and Harrisburg I had to contract approach.
 
Hopefully the gov will put a stop payment on their checks and let them know they are about to lose their contract if they take tax dollars and don’t provide the service

When you take money out of the people coffers and play these games, you need to be fired and also have a investigation for fraud and any other thing they can thing of.

So sick of this stuff, don’t want to do your job, quit, lots of people who would love that job
 
mcdewey said:
I have no idea why the controller couldn't handle more than one aircraft in an approach at a time. He had like two aircraft in the pattern. It was way different that they've ever behaved before. Maybe we're supposed to provide a credit card number or something.
Click to expand...
shutterstock-2328873613-2.jpg
 
If a pilot wants to make a practice approach, wouldn't be less of a workload if the controller knows where the aircraft is, and what the expected route and altitude are going to be?

Not sure I'm following how this enhances safety.
 
Roller said:
Hopefully the gov will put a stop payment on their checks and let them know they are about to lose their contract if they take tax dollars and don’t provide the service

When you take money out of the people coffers and play these games, you need to be fired and also have a investigation for fraud and any other thing they can thing of.

So sick of this stuff, don’t want to do your job, quit, lots of people who would love that job
Click to expand...
My point was that I think they were told by their superiors via a memo not to allow practice approache . I was hoping someone would know about the memo. I believe the controllers are not the issue.
 
mcdewey said:
My point was that I think they were told by their superiors via a memo not to allow practice approache . I was hoping someone would know about the memo. I believe the controllers are not the issue.
Click to expand...

Their highest supervisor is the tax payer and they know what their job is, or at least should by now

If a lower mid level manager told me to not do my job, contradicting what I know the big bosses want

images


There is one big contract tower company, they have like a 100% markup, it would, especially in this administration, behoove them to straighten up and do their job
 
Roller said:
don’t want to do your job, quit, lots of people who would love that job
Click to expand...
Maybe, but there's been a shortage of controllers for years (decades?) because the training pipeline is only producing graduates at a rate slightly ahead of attrition. You're not going to quickly solve any problems by firing controllers.
 
Last edited:
I have been asked by more than one CFII to favor one particular local airport for practice IFR approaches, because the tower likes getting that work. It was never clear to me if that was because the numbers help justify keeping the tower / tower staffing levels, or if the controllers just appreciate the practice, or what. I just confirmed it's a contract tower.
 
ateamer said:
It’s pretty common around here. Stuart, Ft. Pierce and Vero Beach all seem to be pretty bad about getting planes out quickly. I suspect it’s because of the pathetic flight schools who take forever to get moving after being cleared for takeoff. The controllers might be so used to them because they comprise such a large share of the traffic that they don’t try to get others out quickly. The flight schools do have assigned callsigns, which should make it easier to differentiate them from pilots who are prepared and ready to move.
Click to expand...

Downtown airport in Kansas City can have this same issue at times. Jet on a 10 mile final? Hold short. It can be maddening.
 
Try kfmy it has gotten downright unsafe. Last week about 10 of us were told to remain clear I’ll call you back in ten minutes. Fmy is under the 1200 ft ring of rsw, so ten of us were stacked up in a 200 foot block of airspace.
 
I wonder if this has anything to do with Serco losing some areas to Robinson and Robinson not having the people to staff the towers. In some of those areas, Serco controllers would not accept the lower rate offered by Robinson...
 
Not sure, but the tower that recently began denying my practice approach requests is staffed by Midwest ATC.

I was told that it was a new policy primarily affecting non-radar facilities. Take that with a grain of salt; it was an FBO line service guy who told me that.
 
Racerx said:
Multiple times I've heard JVL controllers say "no practice approaches at Janesville"
Click to expand...
There is one controller at JVL that is the worst I've ever dealt with. I've filed two NASA reports in my life, and both of them were because of this same guy.

ColinD said:
Not sure, but the tower that recently began denying my practice approach requests is staffed by Midwest ATC.

I was told that it was a new policy primarily affecting non-radar facilities. Take that with a grain of salt; it was an FBO line service guy who told me that.
Click to expand...
Midwest ATC, about once per year, will put some surveys in the FBO. Be sure you fill one out!
 
I'll look for it. We have a really good relationship with our Midwest ATC contract tower - the tower manager has addressed our EAA chapter a couple of times in recent memory, and the controllers are always patient with training traffic. The recent practice approach thing seems like a mandate handed down from their superiors.
 
If you fly in central Florida, this is already a normal occurance due to the saturation from flight schools. Riddle, "Buckey" and several others basically launch the fleet first thing in the morning and a large portion of their pilots have English as a second language so it's a mess.

I sat #3 in line behind a 737 for departure at KLAL the other day. We sat for 15 minutes as flight school planes from all over went round and round. Finally the controller started telling folks to stay outside the class D and some others that they needed to go someplace else due to traffic.

Some of the wizz kid CFI's wanted to argue like it was a request.
 
Is there a place one can go to see if their local towers are contracted or FAA? I'm almost certain my local Class D (HYA) is contracted and so is the local military field (FMH). I've never had nor heard of any problems at HYA regarding practice approaches. It helps that it's Cape Air's base and they run training flights all the time. FMH, I imagine is probably always looking for something to do. Ever since the Air Force left the field, it's only Coast Guard flights in and out of there and the occasional ANG/Army choppers. We only have about a dozen aircraft total and they're not always flying. That's a lot of hours sitting in the tower waiting for a call.
 
ColinD said:
. . . . Take that with a grain of salt; it was an FBO line service guy who told me that.
Click to expand...
Was he also the janitor? Then I'd definitely believe it. In every organization the person lowest on the totem pole seems to have the best grasp of what's going on.
 
KE5BM said:
Is there a place one can go to see if their local towers are contracted or FAA? I'm almost certain my local Class D (HYA) is contracted and so is the local military field (FMH). I've never had nor heard of any problems at HYA regarding practice approaches. It helps that it's Cape Air's base and they run training flights all the time. FMH, I imagine is probably always looking for something to do. Ever since the Air Force left the field, it's only Coast Guard flights in and out of there and the occasional ANG/Army choppers. We only have about a dozen aircraft total and they're not always flying. That's a lot of hours sitting in the tower waiting for a call.
Click to expand...
You can access the current list of contract towers here (towards the bottom of the page)
 
Looking at both list places like CHS, PSM and FMH are not on either list. So since they aren't FAA or Contract that would make them military. What I don't understand is why ADW is on the list as FAA since Andrews AFB is not a joint use field.
 
We just had our quarterly meeting with the FAA controllers at my home airport (LFT) and they want and encourage training flights and practice approaches as it boosts their numbers for the airport classification and helps in getting their new staff trained up. I also frequent CWF (Chennault Lake Charles LA) and AEX (Alexandria LA) which are contract towers and they also encourage the use of their approaches for practice.
 
Chris, I didn't realize Chennault and Alex were contract towers. Their controllers have been great. KARA, on the other hand.... :rolleyes: .
 
I wasn’t really familiar with the various contract tower companies, but it looks like Midwest has towers with flight schools. I doubt they are going to be denying additional services.
 
jayhawk74 said:
Looking at both list places like CHS, PSM and FMH are not on either list. So since they aren't FAA or Contract that would make them military. What I don't understand is why ADW is on the list as FAA since Andrews AFB is not a joint use field.
Click to expand...
For some reason, the FAA operates the control tower at ADW.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top