ATC question

In article ,
Newps wrote:

If Reading is a contract tower, the FAA has a
quality control program in operation for just these type of incidents.

They have no such thing.

They do for KOSU.

That's a local facility, not the FAA.

KOSU is a contract tower.
The FAA has had a formal program in place for the past three years that
accepts complaints about the ATC services at KOSU.

Matt Whiting wrote:



Every single tower has a radar facility to provide approach services,
some more effective than others. Every single tower can, at their
discretion, accept a VFR arrival without first contacting a radar
facility.


Can they, at their discretion, decide to refuse service to whomever they
choose?



Yes, but there has to be a reason. Traffic is usually the reason.


What if they don't like blue and white airplanes, can they just
decide not to let any blue and white airplanes land?

No.

Dave S wrote:



I remember explicitly Savannah approach telling someone who was VFR
inbound, who didn't want to take sequencing vectors VFR and was going to
go "around" to tower "Sir, if you are landing at Savannah, you will be
going through me" Given the exchange, that actually was pretty direct
and effective.



And if the airport is busy with traffic that is usually the most
efficient for everyone involved.

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:42:40 -0600, Newps wrote
in :

You can call the tower directly and complain but doesn't
sound like it will get you anywhere.

You mean there's no FAA form for a pilot to violate a controller? :-)


Controllers have an FAA form for reporting suspected PDs (Form 8020-17
Preliminary Pilot Deviation Report); airmen must write a letter* to
the Administrator to report ATC operational errors.



Sec. 13.5 Formal complaints.

(a) Any person may file a complaint with the Administrator with
respect to anything done or omitted to be done by any person in
contravention of any provision of any Act or of any regulation or
order issued under it, as to matters within the jurisdiction of the
Administrator. This section does not apply to complaints against the
Administrator or employees of the FAA acting within the scope of their
employment.
(b) Complaints filed under this section must--
(1) Be submitted in writing and identified as a complaint filed
for the purpose of seeking an appropriate order or other enforcement
action;
(2) Be submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Attention: Enforcement Docket (AGC-10), 800
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20591;
(3) Set forth the name and address, if known, of each person who
is the subject of the complaint and, with respect to each person, the
specific provisions of the Act or regulation or order that the
complainant believes were violated;
(4) Contain a concise but complete statement of the facts relied
upon to substantiate each allegation;
(5) State the name, address and telephone number of the person
filing the complaint; and
(6) Be signed by the person filing the complaint or a duly
authorized representative.
(c) Complaints which do not meet the requirements of paragraph
(b)of this section will be considered reports under Sec. 13.1.
(d) Complaints which meet the requirements of paragraph (b) of
this section will be docketed and a copy mailed to each person named
in the complaint.
(e) Any complaint filed against a member of the Armed Forces of
the United States acting in the performance of official duties shall
be referred to the Secretary of the Department concerned for action in
accordance with the procedures set forth in Sec. 13.21 of this part.
(f) The person named in the complaint shall file an answer
within 20 days after service of a copy of the complaint.
(g) After the complaint has been answered or after the allotted
time in which to file an answer has expired, the Administrator shall
determine if there are reasonable grounds for investigating the
complaint.
(h) If the Administrator determines that a complaint does not
state facts which warrant an investigation or action, the complaint
may be dismissed without a hearing and the reason for the dismissal
shall be given, in writing, to the person who filed the complaint and
the person named in the complaint.
(i) If the Administrator determines that reasonable grounds
exist, an informal investigation may be initiated or an order of
investigation may be issued in accordance with Subpart F of this part,
or both. Each person named in the complaint shall be advised which
official has been delegated the responsibility under Sec. 13.3(b) or
(c) for conducting the investigation.
(j) If the investigation substantiates the allegations set forth
in the complaint, a notice of proposed order may be issued or other
enforcement action taken in accordance with this part.
(k) The complaint and other pleadings and official FAA records
relating to the disposition of the complaint are maintained in current
docket form in the Enforcement Docket (AGC-209), Office of the Chief
Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue,
S.W., Washington, D. C. 20591. Any interested person may examine any
docketed material at that office, at any time after the docket is
established, except material that is ordered withheld from the public
under applicable law or regulations, and may obtain a photostatic or
duplicate copy upon paying the cost of the copy.


The full text can be found he
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...d=003fb677c0a4...

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:23:49 -0600, Newps wrote
in :

Every single tower can, at their
discretion, accept a VFR arrival without first contacting a radar facility.

Can you provide the FAAO 7110.65 section number that mentions Local
Controller discretion in this case?

Newps wrote:


Dave S wrote:



I remember explicitly Savannah approach telling someone who was VFR
inbound, who didn't want to take sequencing vectors VFR and was going
to go "around" to tower "Sir, if you are landing at Savannah, you will
be going through me" Given the exchange, that actually was pretty
direct and effective.



And if the airport is busy with traffic that is usually the most
efficient for everyone involved.

I agree, but this is Reading, PA after all which has fewer operations
per day than a real airport has in half an hour.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote in news:6D1Vh.3975$Oc.197617
@news1.epix.net:

I agree, but this is Reading, PA after all which has fewer operations
per day than a real airport has in half an hour.

According to AirNav, RDG averages 204 operations per day, and JFK averages
950 operations per day...

On Apr 16, 4:56 pm, Matt Whiting wrote:

A question for Stephen, Newps or other folks knowledgeable in the finer
points of ATC. A friend of mine flew into Reading, PA last week with
another pilot. Since Reading is a class D airport with no TRSA, but
with radar approach control, they elected to simply call tower directly
6 or so miles out. My friend said that the controller was quite nasty
and told them they had to contact approach first if they wanted to land.
By then they were even closer in, but they called approach who
"informed" them gruffly that they were now 4 miles from the airport and
needed to contact tower "immediately." They then called tower and landed.

My friend is a new private pilot (last December) and both he and the
person flying (a pretty experienced pilot, I believe) were rather taken
aback by this. What authority does a class D tower have to refuse entry
to an airplane that hasn't called approach control?


None. There are certainly reasons for a tower controller in Class D
airspace to deny entry, but that is not one of them.



Even a TRSA is
voluntary, so I can't imagine that a non-TRSA, non-class B, non-class C
airport can mandate use of approach control.


Reading approach provides Basic radar service for VFR aircraft. Basic
radar service consists of safety alerts, traffic advisories, limited
radar vectoring when requested by the pilot, and sequencing at
locations where procedures
have been established for that purpose. I examined the RDG SOP, there
are no procedures for sequencing VFR arrivals.



Is there some new regulation that I've missed?


No.

On Apr 16, 7:14 pm, john smith wrote:

If Reading is a contract tower, the FAA has a
quality control program in operation for just these type of incidents.


RDG is an FAA facility, it has an approach control. To date, there
are no contract approach control facilities.

On Apr 16, 8:13 pm, Dave S wrote:

Did you listen to the ATIS prior to contacting the tower? Local arrival
procedures are usually spelled out during this broadcast. Most of the
local Class D's around me don't work in the manner you've described, but
if thats how they work, thats what you do.


The RDG SOP calls for the ATIS broadcast to state that Basic Radar
Services are available, nothing beyond that.



As for what authority do they have... pretty much if you want to land at
a Class D, you have to be in communication with them to be in their
airspace. You can be denied entry. The Controller does not have to
justify it, and their decision is final as far that that moment is
concerned.


Upon what do you base your assertion that the tower controller needs
no justification to deny entry to Class D airspace?