FAA Control tower Abandoned

Looks like this is becoming a common occurrence lately.

Oh I forgot, the FAA treats their controller and technical
workforce like ****. Maybe that's it.

FAA Control tower Abandoned

Southwest Planes Turn Around Minutes From Green
Southwest Says Planes Could Not Land Without Air Traffic Control

UPDATED: 8:34 pm EDT May 16, 2006
WARWICK, R.I. -- Two Southwest Airlines flights left
Baltimore Monday night bound for Rhode Island, but it was
just the beginning of a back-and-forth odyssey for dozens of
passengers.

NBC 10's Audrey Laganas reported that the planes turned
around in flight just before midnight. The passengers said
the pilots told them they were turning back because there
was no one in the control tower at T.F. Green Airport.

The stranded passengers were so mad, they called NBC 10.

NBC 10 was waiting when they landed Tuesday morning.

"It was so sad, and we were treated like cattle," said
Michelle Harvey, who was flying home from Baltimore with her
mother.

"And then when we were flying, the pilot got on. He sounded
greatly distressed. He said, 'There's no one at the tower in
Providence. We have to go back.' We were about 10 minutes
out. Ten or 15 minutes out," Harvey said.

The passengers had to camp out overnight at the airport in
Baltimore.

In article ,
Blowinginthewind wrote:

FAA Control tower Abandoned

Southwest Planes Turn Around Minutes From Green
Southwest Says Planes Could Not Land Without Air Traffic Control

Ignoring the the sarcastic comments, and somewhat puzzled by why the
tower would be abandoned, I'm curious what prevented the flight from
landing. Is there something in SW's op-specs which requires an
operating control tower to land?

It also seems odd that they would turn around and go back to
Baltimore. It would seem to make more sense to land someplace close
(like BDL) and put the pax on a bus to their final destination.

Op-spec probably. FAA tower close often, many are
part-time. If there was a scheduled flight in-bound the
crew should have stayed a little overtime. But if the tower
is closed, no clearance is available for landing, but as
long as the last weather observation is current [less than
an hour] an IFR approach can be made under Part 91. But FAR
121 and the airline manual control.
As to airline diversions, they will always try to go to a
terminal where they have a service agreement.



"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
| In article ,
| Blowinginthewind wrote:
|
| FAA Control tower Abandoned
|
| Southwest Planes Turn Around Minutes From Green
| Southwest Says Planes Could Not Land Without Air Traffic
Control
|
| Ignoring the the sarcastic comments, and somewhat puzzled
by why the
| tower would be abandoned, I'm curious what prevented the
flight from
| landing. Is there something in SW's op-specs which
requires an
| operating control tower to land?
|
| It also seems odd that they would turn around and go back
to
| Baltimore. It would seem to make more sense to land
someplace close
| (like BDL) and put the pax on a bus to their final
destination.

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

Ignoring the the sarcastic comments, and somewhat puzzled by why the
tower would be abandoned, I'm curious what prevented the flight from
landing.


It wasn't abandoned. It's a part-time tower that closes at midnight.
Southwest was running late.

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:deLag.21814$ZW3.6700@dukeread04...

Op-spec probably. FAA tower close often, many are
part-time. If there was a scheduled flight in-bound the
crew should have stayed a little overtime.


Why? Who's going to pay the overtime? Southwest?



But if the tower
is closed, no clearance is available for landing,


Nor is one required for landing.



but as
long as the last weather observation is current [less than
an hour] an IFR approach can be made under Part 91.


PVD has an ASOS, weather observations are available 24/7.

In article . net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

Ignoring the the sarcastic comments, and somewhat puzzled by why the
tower would be abandoned, I'm curious what prevented the flight from
landing.


It wasn't abandoned. It's a part-time tower that closes at midnight.
Southwest was running late.

Duh. That's what I figured at first and looked it up in Airnav. I saw
"Attendance:*CONTINUOUS" and my took that to mean the tower never closes,
which of course is wrong. Never mind.

You didn't quote the whole article. It can be found at:
http://www.turnto10.com/news/9227658/detail.html and towards the bottom
it says:


A Federal Aviation Administration spokesman said based on control tower
recordings, Southwest's version of events is "not true."

"Southwest made a decision to return to Baltimore after the pilot
attempted to make a landing ... [and] missed his approach," spokesman
Jim Peters said. "Based on conversations, it was not necessary for the
tower to be open when that plane landed."

Peters said it is possible for flights to land without someone being
present in the control tower.


So was a dispatcher confused, or did the pilot outright lie, or did the
passengers and/or reporter misunderstand what was going on? Or is the
FAA covering its butt?


Blowinginthewind wrote:
Looks like this is becoming a common occurrence lately.

Oh I forgot, the FAA treats their controller and technical
workforce like ****. Maybe that's it.

FAA Control tower Abandoned

Southwest Planes Turn Around Minutes From Green
Southwest Says Planes Could Not Land Without Air Traffic Control

UPDATED: 8:34 pm EDT May 16, 2006
WARWICK, R.I. -- Two Southwest Airlines flights left
Baltimore Monday night bound for Rhode Island, but it was
just the beginning of a back-and-forth odyssey for dozens of
passengers.

NBC 10's Audrey Laganas reported that the planes turned
around in flight just before midnight. The passengers said
the pilots told them they were turning back because there
was no one in the control tower at T.F. Green Airport.

The stranded passengers were so mad, they called NBC 10.

NBC 10 was waiting when they landed Tuesday morning.

"It was so sad, and we were treated like cattle," said
Michelle Harvey, who was flying home from Baltimore with her
mother.

"And then when we were flying, the pilot got on. He sounded
greatly distressed. He said, 'There's no one at the tower in
Providence. We have to go back.' We were about 10 minutes
out. Ten or 15 minutes out," Harvey said.

The passengers had to camp out overnight at the airport in
Baltimore.

wrote in message
oups.com...

You didn't quote the whole article. It can be found at:
http://www.turnto10.com/news/9227658/detail.html and towards the bottom
it says:


A Federal Aviation Administration spokesman said based on control tower
recordings, Southwest's version of events is "not true."

"Southwest made a decision to return to Baltimore after the pilot
attempted to make a landing ... [and] missed his approach," spokesman
Jim Peters said. "Based on conversations, it was not necessary for the
tower to be open when that plane landed."

Peters said it is possible for flights to land without someone being
present in the control tower.


So was a dispatcher confused, or did the pilot outright lie, or did the
passengers and/or reporter misunderstand what was going on? Or is the
FAA covering its butt?


There does not appear to be any reason for the FAA to cover it's butt in
this case.

Northwest has two flights that normally arrive at Green Bay about 11PM.
Sometimes they run a bit late and don't arrive until after the tower and
TRACON close at 11:30. On those occasions Minneapolis ARTCC clears them for
the approach of their choice and they land on the then uncontrolled field.
Apparently Southwest would rather return to the departure point when they
arrive after the tower has closed. They're free to do that, but it's wrong
to blame their choice on the FAA.

I just recall that out here in the "fly over country" FAA
towers with a scheduled air carrier flight due to arrive
stay open a few extra minutes. In the case of Raytheon
[Beech] their tower is private and they pay the bill. Most
towers are federal and the taxpayers pay the bill.
It is too bad that union rules, FAA rules and company
procedures could not work together to have the passengers in
comfort at their desired destination.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote
in message
.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:deLag.21814$ZW3.6700@dukeread04...
|
| Op-spec probably. FAA tower close often, many are
| part-time. If there was a scheduled flight in-bound the
| crew should have stayed a little overtime.
|
|
| Why? Who's going to pay the overtime? Southwest?
|
|
|
| But if the tower
| is closed, no clearance is available for landing,
|
|
| Nor is one required for landing.
|
|
|
| but as
| long as the last weather observation is current [less
than
| an hour] an IFR approach can be made under Part 91.
|
|
| PVD has an ASOS, weather observations are available 24/7.
|
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:4qPag.21830$ZW3.19509@dukeread04...

I just recall that out here in the "fly over country" FAA
towers with a scheduled air carrier flight due to arrive
stay open a few extra minutes.


Which?



It is too bad that union rules, FAA rules and company
procedures could not work together to have the passengers in
comfort at their desired destination.


It appears to be solely company procedures that kept the passengers from
their destination. No FAA rule prevents them from landing when the tower is
closed.