Media Ignorance: Snoozing Controller Didn't Endanger Plane
We had an incident at Ronald Reagan Washington International this week. A controller fell asleep leaving the field “Uncontrolled.”
The Media had a field day. My blood pressure even went up over some Talk Radio hosts displaying what they do not know.
Before I go any further let me ask this simple question: There is a power outage when you are driving downtown. What do you do as you approach an intersection with dead stoplights? Do you: 1) Panic 2) Drive right on through because the light isn’t red or 3) Treat the intersection as a four-way stop?
For most, those up on the law, it’s easy. You treat the intersection as a four-way stop. It's a little bit of an inconvenience, but no real increase in the dangers of driving.
Well, guess what? The FAA has rules just like that for airfields that are ‘Uncontrolled.’ When listening to the chatter between pilots, the word uncontrolled is a Statement of Status, not a Hue and Cry of disaster.
The little image I’ve added to this rant is called an approach plate. I have no Idea which runway was in use that night, so I’m going with runway 01 because it’s the longest runway and a Cat II which indicates it’s the most used.
Responsibility for the safety of an aircraft rests in the hands of one person, the pilot. He has the right to decline any instructions from a controller at any time. The fact that he’s been handed off to the airport and its tower does not chisel in stone that he must land at the airport. If for any reason he feels it is unsafe to land his aircraft at an airport, he can go around at his discretion.
Should he decide to do so, he simply climbs to 500 feet, makes a climbing left turn to 2000 feet on Radial 325 for 5.9 miles, and holds and contacts D.C. Area Approach for another approach into Reagan International or an alternate destination at his discretion.
I know this because it’s on the top of the approach plate that a pilot is supposed to familiarize himself with BEFORE he begins his approach!
From reading the plate, I also know there is a Prohibited Area directly North of the airport, 1.5 miles north from the ground to 18,000 feet; I think that’s the White House and Halls of Congress or some thing.
Anyway, just like the traffic light become a four-way-stop procedure for drivers, there are specific procedures for pilots using Uncontrolled Fields. They do not create close calls like Katie Couric suggested, and pilots are well aware of the rules involved when a field is Uncontrolled. (At least they should be.) It is not the danger factor that is increased, it is the convenience factor that is decreased by the Uncontrolled status.
The Approach Controller will change minimums for the Uncontrolled Status, meaning he will put in place longer separations between landing aircraft to give pilots more time to clear the runway. Pilots will depend more on looking out the window than on instrumentation. Good pilots do this stuff all the time anyway to stay current.
No one was “Flying Blind,” and there was NO imminent danger due to the controller falling asleep. Any imminent danger was the sole responsibility of pilots should they not be up on their Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) and procedures for Uncontrolled Fields.
- Comment (27)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Jun '10
Re: Media Ignorance: Snoozing Controller Didn't Endanger Plane
I feel much better about future flights. And, typically, disgusted by the mob ignorance of the people nominally charged with keeping us informed.
Mar '11
Re: Media Ignorance: Snoozing Controller Didn't Endanger Plane
Jaydee;
Do not get me going about the media treatment of flying. One would think they should do a little due diligence about both the controlled and "uncontrolled" environments while flying. Yet time and again there is almost a rush for the most sensational presentation of the events in an aviation incident. Seeing this uneven "reporting" has increased my unbelief of any reporting of technology, aviation, or any other topic that was not part of the liberal art side of the education house that produces "journalists".
I prefer to do the majority of my flying VFR (ie uncontrolled, which does not mean there are no rules or procedures) since it allows me enjoy the freedom to look at the scenery. My non flying friends find that inconceivable, yet when I ask them who do they call to ask for permission and directions to go to the store for groceries, they look nonplussed. It is the same deal, that is unless we are becoming sufficiently cowed that we are ready for a similar government arrangement concerning our terrestrial movements in our daily lives.
May '10
Re: Media Ignorance: Snoozing Controller Didn't Endanger Plane
I believe Reagan is a national airport. The way it's positioned, it makes for a challenging landing. My husband works in an office building in Rosslyn that is near the airport. It's so near that from his office he can see the pilot in the cockpit as he approaches the runaway. On occasion, a siren goes off when an airplane is coming in too close to his building and surrounding ones. I don't doubt the competency of the pilot in this case, but there's no room for error when landing at Reagan.
Edited on March 27, 2011 at 11:26pmMar '11
Re: Media Ignorance: Snoozing Controller Didn't Endanger Plane
Karen
Being a "national" airport is irrelevant to the requirement to follow the procedures for an instrument approach to any towered or un-towered airport (yes you can land in instrument conditions at an un-towered airport). Air traffic control is basically there to separate traffic, given enough volume of traffic and the desire to efficiently use of your airport, you get a man in a tower to insure nobody is on the runway when you are landing or taking off.
Yes Reagan is challenging from the north, I have been into it (as a passenger) many times, mostly from the south over the W.Wilson bridge than the Potomac river approach. I reviewed the approach plates and noted that it has fairly high minimum decent altitudes which essential requires that the plane is out of the clouds prior to the hogs leg turn in Rosslyn. The plate noted that Special Aircraft & Crews are required probably meaning a demonstrated proficiency (training and left seat time on this specific approach) specifically to Reagan. No landings during Foggy Bottom's from the north. :)
As for the alarms in the buildings? @ ~160 mph how much time do you really have to duck?
Jul '10
Re: Media Ignorance: Snoozing Controller Didn't Endanger Plane
Karen,
I stand corrected. While I noted there was a U.S. Customs on field, I was not aware it was for Private Jets only. The difference between a National and International airport being availability of Customs for Commercial Transport. This distinction makes no difference in Approach Slopes however.
When approaching an airport pilots have many methods to keep a correct approach slope;
Visual Approach Slope Indicator or VASI. A set of red and white lights that the pilot can see to tell him if he is High or Low. (Red over White, you're alright - Red over Red and you're dead.)
Instrument Landing Sequence or ILS. A radio beacon that tells instruments in the cocpit if you are high or low / left or right. Keep the crosshiars centered and you're right on track.
There are also GPS, VOR, PAR (very old) etc. The guide a pilot into the runway at the proper height and angle.
These methods of approach all have one thing in common. They are independant of, and not reliant on anyone in the control tower.
Aircraft Approaching too low will do so weather or not anyone is in the tower.
Mar '11
Re: Media Ignorance: Snoozing Controller Didn't Endanger Plane
"Aircraft Approaching too low will do so weather or not anyone is in the tower."
Whether indeed
Re: Media Ignorance: Snoozing Controller Didn't Endanger Plane
This is a great post, Jaydee--I'm glad you explained this.
Feb '11
Re: Media Ignorance: Snoozing Controller Didn't Endanger Plane
Good post. I don't think it's generally understood that the primary role of the controller is *traffic separation*, as the name Air Traffic Control suggests...pilots do not need controller assistance to physically land the airplane, even with very poor ceilings & visibility. The media often uses the term "landing instructions", but this is misleading.
The radar facility known as Potomac Approach, which is physically located out in Virginia, "owns" the airspace within roughly a 30-mile around Washington National..flights are not handed off to the tower controller until they are just a few miles from the airport. There are quite a few people on duty at the Approach facility at all times.
Re: Media Ignorance: Snoozing Controller Didn't Endanger Plane
Great post. Landing at an uncontrolled airport, as Jaydee describes, is simply no big deal. Most airports in the US are uncontrolled--no control tower--and many others become uncontrolled at certain hours--the tower isn't staffed late at night. I am an instrument-rated private pilot and such landings are non-events even for us amateurs.
This is an administrative issue: approach controllers expected someone in the tower and that someone was dozing on the job. There was no significant safety concern.
Edited on March 28, 2011 at 5:31pmFeb '11
Re: Media Ignorance: Snoozing Controller Didn't Endanger Plane
Part of the confusion may be due to an old procedure called Ground Controlled Approach, developed during WWII and heavily used during the Berlin Airlift...in a GCA approach, a controller really does give precise landing directions to a pilot based on the radar picture that he is seeing. The advantage of GCA was that it required no electronics in the plane (other than the communications radio), however GCA approaches are very labor-intensive and have not been used commercially in the US for a long time, if ever. GCA was more prevalent in the military but I believe even there is being phased out.
There are probably enough old-movie scenes of a pilot being "talked in" by a controller for this to have lodged in the collective subconscious...
Re: Media Ignorance: Snoozing Controller Didn't Endanger Plane
I too feel educated by this post.
As a terribly nervous flyer (I avoid it as much as possible) I also feel a bit better about flying.
Nice job, Jaydee.
Feb '11
Re: Media Ignorance: Snoozing Controller Didn't Endanger Plane
Tommy De Seno:
As a terribly nervous flyer (I avoid it as much as possible) I also feel a bit better about flying.
Agreed. As another terribly nervous flyer, I often find any discussion about the particulars of flying planes and landing to be anxiety inducing (I don't need to know everything!). But, this post was an exception -- I am happy to learn that a pilot CAN land a plane by himself. Keep it up, pilots!
May '10
Re: Media Ignorance: Snoozing Controller Didn't Endanger Plane
I have to wonder if there's not also a subtle, big-government slant to the MSM reports - "if we don't have federal employees directing our planes at every second, then we are SURELY DOOMED!!" As Jaydee points out, there are fail-safes built into the system on several levels, but that wouldn't make for a sensational news story.
Re: Media Ignorance: Snoozing Controller Didn't Endanger Plane
Thanks, Jaydee_007!
You can always learn something interesting on Ricochet.
Mar '11
Re: Media Ignorance: Snoozing Controller Didn't Endanger Plane
I am sorry, but this post is incorrect. There WAS enhanced danger, and deciding to land may not have been the right call.
The logic is as follows: Airplanes no longer crash because something goes wrong. They crash because *multiple* things go wrong. It takes error upon error for someone to die. This is entirely by design; our systems and procedures and aircraft all have high redundancy factors and repetitions in order to ensure that
And even with all those safety systems in place, people still die. Why? Human error. People make mistakes. Pilots cancel out squawks that warn them they are flying into the ground. They pull circuit breakers of annoying systems. They forget changes in checklists.
Mar '11
Re: Media Ignorance: Snoozing Controller Didn't Endanger Plane
The specific danger at Reagan is as follows: ground vehicles cross runways, and service and repair airports *at night*. The pilot had no way to talk to the ground controller. And while ground vehicles are required to ask permission before crossing a runway, these guys are the lowest paid, and poorest decision makers in the loop. If anyone will decide to cross a runway when the controller is silent, it would be the guy driving the repair truck.
It is much easier to rely on pilots to have good sense, than the minimum wage guy who is supposed to drive out and look for any light bulbs that need replacing.
So was there imminent danger? No.
But there clearly *was* diminished safety, and a much higher chance of ground vehicles being on the runway when the aircraft landed. That would have been a catastrophic outcome.
Jul '10
Re: Media Ignorance: Snoozing Controller Didn't Endanger Plane
iWc: And even with all those safety systems in place, people still die. Why? Human error. People make mistakes. Pilots cancel out squawks that warn them they are flying into the ground. They pull circuit breakers of annoying systems. They forget changes in checklists.
· Mar 28 at 12:23pm
All of which are the responsibility of the pilot and none of which have anything to do with whether or not a controller is in the tower.
Jul '10
Re: Media Ignorance: Snoozing Controller Didn't Endanger Plane
iWc: The specific danger at Reagan is as follows: ground vehicles cross runways, and service and repair airports *at night*. The pilot had no way to talk to the ground controller. And while ground vehicles are required to ask permission before crossing a runway, these guys are the lowest paid, and poorest decision makers in the loop. If anyone will decide to cross a runway when the controller is silent, it would be the guy driving the repair truck.
It is much easier to rely on pilots to have good sense, than the minimum wage guy who is supposed to drive out and look for any light bulbs that need replacing.
So was there imminent danger? No.
Any and all ground personal at an airport are well aware that without clearence from a controller they are NOT to drive in any areas reserved for Aircraft. PERIOD. If the controller is asleep then no such clearance will be given, therefore they will NOT be in the way of landing aircraft.
Again, nothing REQUIRED the pilot to land. He had the option to 'Go Around' during his ENTIRE approach to the runway.
Iminant danger? NO!
Mar '11
Re: Media Ignorance: Snoozing Controller Didn't Endanger Plane
Jaydee_007
Any and all ground personal at an airport are well aware that without clearence from a controller they are NOT to drive in any areas reserved for Aircraft. PERIOD. If the controller is asleep then no such clearance will be given, therefore they will NOT be in the way of landing aircraft
Sorry, but this is not possible. Do you suggest that ALL AIRSIDE GROUND VEHICLES stopped driving for the entire period that the controller was asleep? That a ground vehicle trying to cross the runway just shut down on the access road for the duration, and was prepared to stay there all night if the controller remained silent?
Or is it more likely that a ground vehicle driver could well have assumed that all the flights were in for the night, and that if there was nobody in the tower, then normal "airport off" ground ops could resume?
This is not about the pilot. I agree entirely that pilots can land at uncontrolled airports. This is about ensuring the necessary safety procedures between aircraft and ground vehicles to ensure that nobody lands an airplane while some guy drives through the runway looking for wayward FOD (Foreign Object Debris).
Mar '11
Re: Media Ignorance: Snoozing Controller Didn't Endanger Plane
Jaydee_007
Again, nothing REQUIRED the pilot to land. He had the option to 'Go Around' during his ENTIRE approach to the runway.
Iminant danger? NO! · Mar 28 at 12:38pm
The pilot had this option. But ground vehicles often drive perpindicularly to the runway, and he had no way to be sure that someone would not drive on his path during approach or after touchdown. The pilot had no way to know that the ground vehicles would not assume that the airport was closed for the night.
I have nothing but contempt for crisis-hungry journalists. But this was NOT a non-event. Safety was clearly compromised, and people were *more likely* to die as a result. The fact that "more likely" is still highly *unlikely* does not make it all go away.