DCA tower issues

Jaybird180 said:
DCA is class B. Why was there no technical violation???
- I'm really curious of your answer
Click to expand...

DCA is in a Class B surface area, the flight would have entered Class B airspace when they descended through 10,000 MSL, probably more than twenty miles from the airport. Most of the time spent in Class B airspace the flight would be on an approach control frequency.
 
roncachamp said:
On what? The flight was operating IFR, there's nothing that suggests they deviated from their clearance, they met the requirements to enter Class B airspace.
Click to expand...
Just a guess, but they were probably already in Class B before being told to call the Tower, so entry would no longer have been an issue, and once you're in, you're OK to stay in unless instructed to leave.

That's kind of like the situation where you cancel IFR while in B-space. You don't require a new clearance to remain there VFR, and you can't be busted for being in the B-space without a clearance, since you were previously cleared to enter, even if that was part of an IFR, not VFR, clearance.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Just a guess, but they were probably already in Class B before being told to call the Tower, so entry would no longer have been an issue, and once you're in, you're OK to stay in unless instructed to leave.
Click to expand...

I'd say that's a certainty.
 
roncachamp said:
What are the details of that event?
Click to expand...

Now that I think about it, they were probably not following a course/altitude assignment from Potomac but were VFR using FF. I've done the same, and transitioned the same space.

It was brought up to me because it was thought I was the errant student that day, wasn't me. I was cleared by the tower at the D to transition thru their space.

Basically, nevermind.

But I do find it interesting that Potomac could grant landing authority when the B tower is unmanned--though there's just something not right about this.
 
Jaybird180 said:
But I do find it interesting that Potomac could grant landing authority when the B tower is unmanned--though there's just something not right about this.
Click to expand...
Actually, I don't think they did that -- they merely told the flights to use nontowered airport procedures, and that's what they did, landing on their own PIC authority. Air carriers do fly into a lot of nontowered airports all the time, so they should know how to do that. In any event, I know of no FAA regulation which says you can't land at DCA when the tower is unmanned, so there would be no need to "grant landing authority" -- 91.3(b) would suffice.
 
rpadula said:
Cut 'em some slack, Anthony. Their business is going down the drain faster than a #7 on the Bristol chart. :ihih:
Click to expand...

47831.gif
 
Does anyone have the audio they could post here? I went to the liveatc link but I couldn't find where to play the audio.
 
NTSB said:
The controller in the tower at the time of the incident, along with other FAA officials at DCA, were interviewed by the NTSB today. The controller, who had 20 years' experience, 17 of those at DCA, indicated that he had fallen asleep for a period of time while on duty. He had been working his fourth consecutive overnight shift (10 pm - 6 am). Human fatigue issues are one of the areas being investigated.
Click to expand...

What? You mean he wasn't checking his schedule on his laptop???
 
Jaybird180 said:
Now that I think about it, they were probably not following a course/altitude assignment from Potomac but were VFR using FF. I've done the same, and transitioned the same space.
Click to expand...

Well, if they were within Class B airspace, they were getting more than flight following. When a radar controller is providing advisory service he's required to coordinate with the tower for transition of Class D airspace. The pilot is not expected to call the tower himself. See JO 7110.65T Air Traffic Control, para 2-1-16.b.

But I do find it interesting that Potomac could grant landing authority when the B tower is unmanned--though there's just something not right about this.
Click to expand...
"Landing authority" would be a landing clearance. Potomac didn't clear them to land, they treated it the same as an IFR arrival to an untowered field.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Sounds like an interesting nuance (IFR clearance with a visual approach).
Click to expand...
Actually, I suspect that the vast majority of flights on an IFR clearance to a towered field terminate with a visual approach. As strange as it might sound, a visual approach is an IFR procedure. Don't confuse IFR with IMC, those are two very different items (even though they get used interchangeably (and thus incorrectly) quite often.
 
Which makes me wonder if they remembered to cancel IFR after they landed.
 
What happens sometimes here inside the SFRA is that VFR traffic are flying inside the SFRA so they're talking to Potomac but they're told to stay out of Class B. They're talking to Potomac so they just fly right through the Martin State airspace (Class D) without talking to the tower thinking that Potomac has them covered. Not so.

I flew out of Annapolis up to Lancaster last week and went right over top of MTN at 1500'. Just south of MTN's airspace, Potomac asked me to switch to the tower for the transition. But I'd done it before when I had to ask for it too.
 
Ron Levy said:
Actually, I don't think they did that -- they merely told the flights to use nontowered airport procedures, and that's what they did, landing on their own PIC authority. Air carriers do fly into a lot of nontowered airports all the time, so they should know how to do that. In any event, I know of no FAA regulation which says you can't land at DCA when the tower is unmanned, so there would be no need to "grant landing authority" -- 91.3(b) would suffice.
Click to expand...
You don't consider that quite a stretch? BWI and IAD are 'right up the road'.
Again, I think they made the best choice, but there were other options available in spite of how the passengers may have felt.
 
PittsDriver said:
What happens sometimes here inside the SFRA is that VFR traffic are flying inside the SFRA so they're talking to Potomac but they're told to stay out of Class B. They're talking to Potomac so they just fly right through the Martin State airspace (Class D) without talking to the tower thinking that Potomac has them covered. Not so.
Click to expand...

Why not? Does Potomac approach have special dispensation from the requirement to coordinate with the tower?
 
Jaybird180 said:
You don't consider that quite a stretch? BWI and IAD are 'right up the road'.
Again, I think they made the best choice, but there were other options available in spite of how the passengers may have felt.
Click to expand...

Why would it be a stretch? You've got a skilled and qualified crew making a decision to land at a not very busy airport in good weather conditions. Why in the world would they divert just because the controller is snoozing, locked in the john or whatever?
 
Fearless Tower said:
See post #52...or does it not become official until CNN reports it?
Click to expand...

Nice conversational style you have there. I scanned the thread and didn't see it posted...don't get your knickers in a twist.
 
Trapper John said:
Why would it be a stretch? You've got a skilled and qualified crew making a decision to land at a not very busy airport in good weather conditions. Why in the world would they divert just because the controller is snoozing, locked in the john or whatever?
Click to expand...

Class B is because the airport is busy (at least in theory). I'm sure they thought about their actions as they were executing the approach.

Not sure which rwy they used, but there is one where there is a narrow approach to avoid overflying the White House. Would 91.3 (b) covered them if they did?
 
Jaybird180 said:
Class B is because the airport is busy (at least in theory). I'm sure they thought about their actions as they were executing the approach.
Click to expand...

Looks like from the NTSB press release that there were 2 arrivals and zero departures in the short time where the tower controller didn't answer. I don't think anyone would consider that busy. And since the controller was "offline", he wouldn't have been able to clear anyone to take off anyway. The American flight made position reports, landed, then the United flight landed several minutes later. I just don't see it as a big deal.
 
Trapper John said:
Looks like from the NTSB press release that there were 2 arrivals and zero departures in the short time where the tower controller didn't answer. I don't think anyone would consider that busy. And since the controller was "offline", he wouldn't have been able to clear anyone to take off anyway. The American flight made position reports, landed, then the United flight landed several minutes later. I just don't see it as a big deal.
Click to expand...

Last night, DCA had

Arrivals from:
Memphis 1209a
Dallas 1253a
Miami 0158a
Miami 0307a
Memphis 0558a (Fedex)

Departures to:
Rochester 1023p
nothing for 7hrs
Atlanta 0537a

Why staff the tower at all from midnight to 4am ?
 
weilke said:
Why staff the tower at all from midnight to 4am ?
Click to expand...

The WaPo article mentioned something about a lot of ground ops late at night. I don't know how much of a difference if any that would make in the official staffing criteria.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Sounds like an interesting nuance (IFR clearance with a visual approach).
Click to expand...

That's how about 90% of my IFR flights end - I get cleared for a visual approach. If it's easy VFR and I'm going into a non-towered field, I cancel IFR then so I don't have to do it on the ground. This includes in the SFRA. Same goes for most other aircraft, even going into the bravo airports (actually especially - if they have to do instrument approaches with required IFR separations, then you get massive delays).

Departure procedures vary. If I'm at an uncontrolled field, I'll just take off and pick up my clearance in the air if the weather allows it most of the time. OpSpecs of the 121 carriers will prescribe whether or not that is acceptable.

There is nothing unusual about this. There are lots of non-towered fields or fields with the towers closed for the night where commercial aircraft take off and land just fine. While most of the ones with big iron going in and out in America have towers most of the time, it is by no means a requirement. In Canada at La Grande Riviere (I forget the airport code) I saw an old 737-200 (torpedo engines and all) picking up passengers and cargo heading even further north. Inuit Airlines. There ain't no tower. For that matter, it's uncontrolled airspace below FL180 - there ain't no nothing there!
 
weilke said:
Last night, DCA had

Arrivals from:
Memphis 1209a
Dallas 1253a
Miami 0158a
Miami 0307a
Memphis 0558a (Fedex)

Departures to:
Rochester 1023p
nothing for 7hrs
Atlanta 0537a

Why staff the tower at all from midnight to 4am ?
Click to expand...

And the late arrivals from Miami were only due to the ClusterFox caused by the Miami fuel farm fire, normally those flights are in before midnight.
 
Trapper John said:
The WaPo article mentioned something about a lot of ground ops late at night. I don't know how much of a difference if any that would make in the official staffing criteria.
Click to expand...

A lot of ground ops late at night doesn't necessarily mean a lot of ground ops on runways and taxiways.
 
Swampfox201 said:
Which makes me wonder if they remembered to cancel IFR after they landed.
Click to expand...

I hope they filed a flight plan.

I find it odd that they don't have two people at a Class B regardless.

On the other hand, if these planes are on schedules, wouldn't this guy have known that "there are 5 flights coming in tonight, one at 1253, one at 132, one at 335, etc etc"?

I mean, if you know the schedule and you are gonna nap - set an alarm clock or something.

It's not like airlines just randomly throw planes in the sky. They have schedules.
 
Trapper John said:
The WaPo article mentioned something about a lot of ground ops late at night. I don't know how much of a difference if any that would make in the official staffing criteria.
Click to expand...

Guess what, there are occasional ground-ops on non-towered air-carrier airports. The guy in the snowplow has a radio tuned to CTAF and if a plane announces 10 miles out, he gets off the runway.

Most of the ground-ops at DCA at night is re-shuffling planes to and from the parking areas. All of that is on one side of the airport and should never get out onto the main runway. All the luggage carts on the ramp during the day are not under control of the tower either. They keep their eyes open and stop if a plane has to cross.
 
woodstock said:
I mean, if you know the schedule and you are gonna nap - set an alarm clock or something.
Click to expand...

I don't think he was intentionally napping - If you read the NTSB press release, it mentions that it was his 4th night shift in a row. Who knows what his sleep schedule was like before that, but I am sure that it will be thoroughly probed.

It isn't that unusual for someone in that situation to fall asleep, especially if he was tired when he started the shift - I've sadly seen it all the time in the Navy (but then in the surface Navy, there are no max duty times and no one in a position of authority cares about fatigue. We have multiple people on watch to wake up whoever does fall asleep). Putting this guy in the tower alone on a shift like that was probably setting him up for failure.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
There is nothing unusual about this. There are lots of non-towered fields or fields with the towers closed for the night where commercial aircraft take off and land just fine. While most of the ones with big iron going in and out in America have towers most of the time, it is by no means a requirement.
Click to expand...
"Big iron" operates out of Yampa Valley Airport (KHDN) all the time without a tower.

FlightProgram1_12-18_t620.jpg


http://www.steamboattoday.com/news/2009/dec/18/ski-season-lands-yampa-valley-regional-airport/

By this weekend, the roster of flights will have increased to include a 160-passenger 737-800 from Atlanta, a second 188-passenger 757 from Dallas, and a 124-passenger Airbus from Minneapolis/St. Paul. A regional jet from Salt Lake City will join the parade, as will a 757 from New York’s LaGuardia Airport.
And as it has done for years, United Airlines added an Airbus scheduled to arrive at 9:31 p.m. It will remain at the airport overnight so it can be the first flight out every morning.
Click to expand...
 
Fearless Tower said:
I don't think he was intentionally napping - If you read the NTSB press release, it mentions that it was his 4th night shift in a row. Who knows what his sleep schedule was like before that, but I am sure that it will be thoroughly probed.

It isn't that unusual for someone in that situation to fall asleep, especially if he was tired when he started the shift - I've sadly seen it all the time in the Navy (but then in the surface Navy, there are no max duty times and no one in a position of authority cares about fatigue. We have multiple people on watch to wake up whoever does fall asleep). Putting this guy in the tower alone on a shift like that was probably setting him up for failure.
Click to expand...

Agree. I know they put the shifts all over the place which is bull****.
 
PittsDriver said:
What happens sometimes here inside the SFRA is that VFR traffic are flying inside the SFRA so they're talking to Potomac but they're told to stay out of Class B. They're talking to Potomac so they just fly right through the Martin State airspace (Class D) without talking to the tower thinking that Potomac has them covered. Not so.

I flew out of Annapolis up to Lancaster last week and went right over top of MTN at 1500'. Just south of MTN's airspace, Potomac asked me to switch to the tower for the transition. But I'd done it before when I had to ask for it too.
Click to expand...
The DC SFRA has the unusual situation of having VFR traffic being "observed" by the SFRA controller but not receiving radar service. If you're on one of the SFRA freq's published on the SFRA charts, you're not talking to the controllers who provide "radar service." In that case, the controller is only observing transponders for SFRA purposes, and is not obligated to coordinate passage through D-spaces (or provide traffic callouts, either).

Yes, it's possible to get "flight following" (aka "radar service") from Potomac outside the B-space, but not on the SFRA freq's. In that case, you're switched to the "regular" Potomac freq where all the IFR and B-space traffic is handled, and then you will get D-space coordination. However, for workload reasons, Potomac doesn't like to do that, and often if not generally declines to provide that service within the SFRA but outside the B-space.
 
roncachamp said:
Why not? Does Potomac approach have special dispensation from the requirement to coordinate with the tower?
Click to expand...
Depends which Potomac positions you're talking about. The regular positions providing regular radar service do have to coordinate. The SFRA-only tranponder observing positions are not providing "radar service," and do not have to coordinate.
 
Trapper John said:
Looks like from the NTSB press release that there were 2 arrivals and zero departures in the short time where the tower controller didn't answer. I don't think anyone would consider that busy. And since the controller was "offline", he wouldn't have been able to clear anyone to take off anyway. The American flight made position reports, landed, then the United flight landed several minutes later. I just don't see it as a big deal.
Click to expand...

Don't let the facts of the situation confuse you (LOL). My question was about policy, rules and regs. I apologize if I didn't make that clear.
 
woodstock said:
I hope they filed a flight plan.

I find it odd that they don't have two people at a Class B regardless.

On the other hand, if these planes are on schedules, wouldn't this guy have known that "there are 5 flights coming in tonight, one at 1253, one at 132, one at 335, etc etc"?

I mean, if you know the schedule and you are gonna nap - set an alarm clock or something.
Click to expand...

The airplane calling on the radio didn't wake him, approach calling on the phone didn't wake him, no reason to believe an alarm clock would have.
 
Ron Levy said:
Depends which Potomac positions you're talking about. The regular positions providing regular radar service do have to coordinate. The SFRA-only tranponder observing positions are not providing "radar service," and do not have to coordinate.
Click to expand...

Reference?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top