FAA Control tower Abandoned

wrote:
I looked at the weather history on Weather Underground and PVD reported
visibilities in the 0.1 and 0.2 range around midnight that night, below
the standard ILS minimums for PVD. The Cat II and Cat III approaches
(both to ry 5) are not authorized when the tower is not in operation
according to the U.S. Terminal Procedures for PVD.

Now that's interesting. 0.1 to 0.2 statute miles is some 500 to 1000
feet visibility, within the range of the CAT III apporach.

The AOPA airport directory includes this note: "Check NOTAMS, ry 5 to
23 closed for tkf and lndgs & used for full length taxiway & parking of
overnight acft 8 pm to 8 am;"

Huh? Apparently there used to be a runway 5L 23R that no longer exists,
there are some references to its removal in various NOTAMS. Maybe
that's what this refers to, otherwise it doesn't make much sense to
park airplanes on their biggest, best lit runway.

It would be hard for me to criticize the SWA pilots for not landing if
those were the conditions .

Sure, but now it seems the tower's refusal to stay open late may have
had something to do with SWA having to turn around.

Peter

wrote in message
oups.com...

I looked at the weather history on Weather Underground and PVD reported
visibilities in the 0.1 and 0.2 range around midnight that night, below
the standard ILS minimums for PVD. The Cat II and Cat III approaches
(both to ry 5) are not authorized when the tower is not in operation
according to the U.S. Terminal Procedures for PVD.


The FAA spokesman said at least one of the Southwest flights missed an
approach. Did they begin an approach when the observed weather was below
minimums?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote

The FAA spokesman said at least one of the Southwest flights missed an
approach. Did they begin an approach when the observed weather was
below minimums?

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.

Ah...Steven....playing with words again? One certainly can't land if
he is prohibited from conducting the required Instrument Approach can
he?

From kstan92's earlier post.....

I looked at the weather history on Weather Underground and PVD reported
visibilities in the 0.1 and 0.2 range around midnight that night, below
the standard ILS minimums for PVD. The Cat II and Cat III approaches
(both to ry 5) are not authorized when the tower is not in operation
according to the U.S. Terminal Procedures for PVD.

Tower not in operation...can't approach...can't approach...can't land.

As far as starting the approach with weather below minimums....sure he
can.....just can't proceed past the final approach fix...

From FAR 121

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no pilot may
continue an approach past the final approach fix, or where a final
approach fix is not used, begin the final approach segment of an
instrument approach procedure—

(2) At airports within the United States and its territories or at U.S.
military airports, unless the latest weather report for that airport
issued by the U.S. National Weather Service, a source approved by that
Service, or a source approved by the Administrator, reports the
visibility to be equal to or more than the visibility minimums
prescribed for that procedure.

So....he started the approach and discontinued it at the FAF.

So...as he said, the FAA (rules) would not permit him to land under the
existing wx conditions with the tower closed, so he missed the approach
at the FAF.

You and your stupid word games.

Bob Moore

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

The FAA spokesman said at least one of the Southwest flights missed an
approach. Did they begin an approach when the observed weather was below
minimums?

Probably not, I doubt they'd pull anything that blatant so short a time
after the Midway incident. Maybe the fog was just rolling in; there
must be more to that story.

I can only find one of the flights on FlightAware, SWA946 departed BWI
at 11:57pm EDT and landed back at BWI at 12:38am. It seems to have
turned around a bit past halfway between Trenton and Manhattan.

SWA1729 arrived at PVD (and I suppose landed) at 11:51pm and COA163
arrived at 1:36am that night.

Jim Macklin wrote:
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.

It's got nothing to do with the union. Here at BIL we never close so it
wouldn't be a factor but my last place, GFK, we were a 6am-midnight
operation. When we got there at 6 am there was usually a Fedex three
holer and a Northwest DC9 taxiing for takeoff. We were the third
releiver for MSP when the weather went to hell with snowstorms. I was
working the 4-12 one time when there was a blizzard in MSP. First
Rochester, then Fargo filled up with diverting jets. Then they came to
GFK. I kept the tower open an extra hour or so because of how many jets
landed, all with the intention of leaving after getting gas. That's
where the tower controller can help out. But one guy farting around in
bad weather? The tower controller wouldn't have affected anything one
way or the other.

Newps wrote:
But one guy farting around in
bad weather? The tower controller wouldn't have affected anything one
way or the other.

Except when, as someone else pointed out, the CAT II and III ILS
requires the tower to be open.

Now why is it required when the CAT I ILS doesn't? Is it navaid
monitoring, or something else?

In article .com,
wrote:

I looked at the weather history on Weather Underground and PVD reported
visibilities in the 0.1 and 0.2 range around midnight that night, below
the standard ILS minimums for PVD. The Cat II and Cat III approaches
(both to ry 5) are not authorized when the tower is not in operation
according to the U.S. Terminal Procedures for PVD.

There's your answer. If the tower is closed, there's no-one to issue
RVR reports; the ASOS won't do it. Further, the charts specifically
say that Cat II (and III) minimums are NA when the tower is closed.

With no operating tower, they require Cat I minimums, which are 1/2
mile for both 05 and 23.

So what they said was true: They couldn't land because there was no-one
in the tower. Who knows how thorough the pilot's explanation was? I
fly regularly and see people who can't figure out how a seatbelt works,
so I don't think he's going to give a dissertation on visibility versus
RVR.

The article conveniently neglects to mention that they departed 31
minutes late.

Also, I've listened to recordings of the ATC dialogue. There were
ample broadcasts by the tower and Center about the tower closing at
23:59 and regressing to Class E airspace. They mentioned a couple
times that they'd stay open for the Southwest flight's approach, but
they'd have to close if he went missed.

The confusing thing is that the Southwest flight is calling itself
2020, which is scheduled between MCO and PVD. SWA946 is the flight
between BWI and PVD. I don't know what the story is there. But the
dialogue between the tower and the flight goes like this:

00:02:07 SWA2020: Tower, Southwest, uh, 2020 is missed approach.
00:02:16 PVD TWR: Southwest 2020 is on the go, climb and maintain 2000.
00:02:20 SWA2020: 2000, Southwest 2020.

00:02:35 PVD TWR: Southwest 2020, say alternate.
00:02:37 SWA2020: Ah, we're gonna have to go to Baltimore.
00:02:39 PVD TWR: Understand, Baltimore.
00:02:40 SWA2020: That's affirmative.

00:02:53 SWA2020: Do you want us to switch to Center, sir?

00:03:03 PVD TWR: Southwest 2020, turn left heading 240, radar vectors
for Baltimore, climb and maintain two thousand five hundred.
00:03:12 SWA2020: Two thousand five hundred on the altitude, two four
zero heading, Southwest 2020.
00:03:16 PVD TWR: Southwest 2020, contact Boston Center on 124.85.
00:03:24 SWA2020: 124.85, thank you sir.

00:04:41 SWA2020: Tower, Southwest 2020.
00:04:43 PVD TWR: Southwest 2020, Providence Tower.
00:04:45 SWA2020: Yeah, you guys gonna close it up and go home?
00:04:47 PVD TWR: Affirmative, Southwest 2020.
00:04:48 SWA2020: Okay. Yeah, our misseds are set up to where we need
you guys to shoot 'em so, all right, thank you, good night.
00:04:53 PVD TWR: Roger.

00:05:25 PVD TWR: Attention all aircraft, Providence Tower is now
closed, class Charlie services are no longer available. Class Echo
airspace will be in effect until May 16, 2006 at 05:44 local. Good
night.

So yeah, the tower stayed open late, and the pilot believed he needed
the tower open to shoot the approach again, and diverted to his planned
alternate.

Brien K. Meehan wrote:
The confusing thing is that the Southwest flight is calling itself
2020, which is scheduled between MCO and PVD.

Thanks for finding it. There are two flights mentioned in the article.
SWA 2020 is the other one, they did the missed approach at 12:02am
according to FlightAware. So the tower didn't stay open too late.

SWA946 is the flight
between BWI and PVD.

That's the one I mentioned a few posts back. They left not long before
midnight and turned around before even getting to New York. Probably
got word from 2020 that the conditions were bad so they turned around.

Newps wrote:
I kept the tower open an extra hour or so

Does that mean the Class D Airspace was in existence an extra hour too?
What happens if I dutifully read my AFD and discover that the tower (and
the associated CDAS) closes at midnight, so I figure when I arrive at 12:30
I don't need to talk to anybody.

I fly in, enter the pattern, land, and taxi to the ramp without bothering
to self-announce. Have I broken any regulations?