Tower, this is Southwest 153 Heavy... tower? Tower?

[Gatordev]

SWA's Operating Specifications (issued by the FAA) would state the requirements for landing. There has to be a deviation to the Ops Specs to allow SWA to land at a field without an operating tower. Then there would be other criteria such as approved weather reporting, air-to-ground communications for a runway condition report, etc.

For the non-airline types, Op Specs are issue to each air carrier. They spell out the details of how the carrier flies. The pilots must follow the Op Specs.

A4s' post furthers my confusion here, since he's saying he's done it before. HAL, I've flow into airports that aren't controled and they have major air carriers coming in. Are cases like this examples of the "other criteria" you mention?

 

[A4sForever]

A4s' post furthers my confusion here, since he's saying he's done it before. ....

What the confusion??? We DO it ... we've DONE it .... so do many other airlines. The world does NOT revolve around "controlled" airspace.

quod erat demonstrandum ... Q.E.D.

 

[Gatordev]

What the confusion??? We DO it ... we've DONE it .... so do many other airlines. The world does NOT revolve around "controlled" airspace.

quod erat demonstrandum ... Q.E.D.

Um, yeah, that's my point. I'm agreeing with you. So the confusion is that HAL's post says it requires the involvement of a bunch of lawyers and rules, but in reality, I know it happens all the time.

 

[A4sForever]

Um, yeah, that's my point. I'm agreeing with you. So the confusion is that HAL's post says it requires the involvement of a bunch of lawyers and rules, but in reality, I know it happens all the time.

HAL was basically correct in what he said .... OPS-SPECs and all .... but HAL's ONLY problem-O is that he needs to get back to the Territory ASAP ... things like this take on a much diminished position in your life when watching tropical sunsets ....

 

[raptor10]

You do not have all the information to blindly say "Sounds like they were outright lying".

View attachment 2743

We-he-ell, uh, I'd like to hold off judgement on a thing like that, sir, until all the facts are in.

I understand what your saying... didnt mean to offend

 

[BOMBSonHAWKEYES]

ATC is a misnomer ... they don't "control" anything. Pilots "control" the aircraft and ultimately make ALL the decisions ... ATC is there to advise and consent. Who signs for the aircraft ?? Who is ultimately responsible ??? Who has to get it "right" or else ... ???

It ain't ATC ... in spite of their PR ... Believe it :icon_rast

Too bad you aren't the CNO's representative that gets to answer all of my ATC fan mail.

 

[A4sForever]

^^ Naaaaa .... wouldn't want the job.

I guess it all depends on your perspective .... as I lost my "fear" of the Feds a long, long time ago --- in a place far, far away. @ 1978-79, to be more specific.

While training and giving check-rides to prospective and current FAA ACDO examiners --- I watched their eyes glaze over and the drool run down their chin ---- while "they" basked in the warm red glow of the essential power failure light. It was a GREAT teacher (for me) and a great equalizer .... .... and it totally debunked "their" [SIZE=-1]ü[/SIZE]ber-super-flying-man personna that many of them cultivate ....... sooooooooo ....... carefully .....

I then realized that those boys --- who had always "terrified" us --- put their pants on one leg at a time --- and most didn't do it as well as "we" did !!!

It was kind of a watershed; a crossroads of knowledge(s) for me.

Never been afraid of "The Man" since .... nor should any of you. "They" try to intimidate .... your response???: YOU fly the sh!t out of the airplane. It makes "them" get real, real ...... quiet.

The only thing to fear is timidity, uncertainty, and stupidity ... the Feds feed on it. Don't let 'em ......

 

[raptor10]

you tried to turn intimate into intimidate, and things went horribly wrong...

 

[A4sForever]

you tried to turn intimate into intimidate, and things went horribly wrong...

DON'T YOU TRY TO ..... intimate ..... ME !!!

That's happened a couple of times lately ... slow, spastic server ??? Or a slow ... spastic mouse hand ... ... or a slow, spastic mouse ???

 

[raptor10]

I'm gonna make you Mrs. Buck Turgidson! Someday...

 

[Brett327]

It makes me laugh when A4s says knowledges.

Brett

 

[FrankTheTank]

Non-Tower Ops

Not uncommon... Especially among the Cargo Carriers! I know for us we need some certain things like REIL lights or better, ILS up or PAPI/VASI working, ability to contact Emergency services (IE..Firetruck)... And a few other things.. Really no big deal; cept at CPR and a few other mountainous airfields. But then again it can be flat and some will find a way to screw it up (TLH comes to mind)

 

[HAL Pilot]

A4s' post furthers my confusion here, since he's saying he's done it before. HAL, I've flow into airports that aren't controled and they have major air carriers coming in. Are cases like this examples of the "other criteria" you mention?

I was not saying it could not be done, I was saying that their Op Specs have to authorize it.

The "generic" Op Spec says you have to have an operating control tower. The deviation than provides the exceptions. For example, at my last 121 carrier, to land at an airfield without an operating tower we had to have:

- radio communication with a company employee qualified to give a runway condition report

- an approved weather report capability (area forcasts, METARs, TAFs and ASOS)

- a fire department capable of providing a 5 minute response from time of notification

- the ability to contact ATC to get IFR releases and close IFR flight plans (cell phone to Flight Service Station)

- adaquate runway and approach lighting systems

- had to be on a list of airports approved for use without an operating control tower

HAL's ONLY problem-O is that he needs to get back to the Territory ASAP ... things like this take on a much diminished position in your life when watching tropical sunsets ....

Some day.....only 22 down and 72 more recalls to go. I'm hoping 2007 is my year......

 

[Gatordev]

I was not saying it could not be done, I was saying that their Op Specs have to authorize it.

The "generic" Op Spec says you have to have an operating control tower. The deviation than provides the exceptions. For example, at my last 121 carrier, to land at an airfield without an operating tower we had to have:

- radio communication with a company employee qualified to give a runway condition report

- an approved weather report capability (area forcasts, METARs, TAFs and ASOS)

- a fire department capable of providing a 5 minute response from time of notification

- the ability to contact ATC to get IFR releases and close IFR flight plans (cell phone to Flight Service Station)

- adaquate runway and approach lighting systems

- had to be on a list of airports approved for use without an operating control tower

Makes sense. I figured there was some wickets to meet before you could do it, but of course, they're already going to have something set up, otherwise a carrier would have no reason to go there in the first place (under normal conditions, of course).

 

[HAL Pilot]

Here's the story I just got from a SWA FO I know:

The weather was 100 ft overcast with 1/4 mile visibility and a Cat III approach was being conducted by the plane that went missed. The plane went missed because he did not know the tower was closed until the Approach Control asked them if they needed the phone number to call to close their IFR flight plan if they lost radio contact with Approach before they were on the ground. An open tower is required to shoot a Cat III approach. The second plane then turned around because "the tower was closed".

The flight was landing after the normal tower closing time but the tower stays open "upon request". The crew was told by SWA dispatch the request had been made and the tower would be open. SWA dispatch swears the request was made early in the evening as soon as they knew the schedule was being hosed by the weather. They were told it was acknowledged and the tower would stay open. The tower controllers who closed the tower swear they were never informed of the request. Neither the earlier SWA dispatch shift that made the request or the earlier control shift that was on duty when the request was supposedly made can agree on what really happened.