• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

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

squorch2

squorch2

he will die without safety brief
pilot
Oops... http://www.turnto10.com/news/9227658/detail.html

SteinBen-Ferris01B.jpg

Fry... fry... fry...
 
my main question here is why were the aircraft scheduled to get there after the tower closed? or were they just that late?
 
Was the WX below published mins to shoot the approach when the tower was closed? Is it company SOP not to land at an uncontrolled field? Only two reasons I could think of NOT to land there . . . unless the airfield itself was closed, which would imply some extremely poor planning on someone's part.

Problem is, the story has been dumbed down so much you can't tell the exact reason for the divert.
 
nittany03 said:
Was the WX below published mins to shoot the approach when the tower was closed? Is it company SOP not to land at an uncontrolled field? Only two reasons I could think of NOT to land there . . . unless the airfield itself was closed, which would imply some extremely poor planning on someone's part.

Problem is, the story has been dumbed down so much you can't tell the exact reason for the divert.
Click to expand...
True, but I'm guessing that a field where they land commercial traffic is not going to be open unless the tower is manned. I wonder if there aren't FAA prohibitions against such things for air carriers - just speculating. My bet is on poor planning.

Brett
 
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.
 
Sounds Like they were outright lying...

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.
Click to expand...
 
raptor10 said:
Sounds Like they were outright lying...
Click to expand...
And you know this how? Because some newspaper articles says so?

There could be many reasons for the difference in stories.

SWA can not start the approach with the visibility below minimums. Even if their Op Specs allowed them to land with the tower closed, they have this problem. Maybe the ATIS was reporting below mins but the SWA people on the ground said it was higher. The SWA people are not an approved weather reporting facility. Since the tower was closed, the pilots have to go with the ATIS. So because the tower was closed, they had to turn back.

Maybe the first SWA plane did not go missed because of the weather. Maybe it was because he got a late switch from approach to tower and then found out the tower was closed. If his Op Specs require the tower to be open, then he would have to go missed.

There is probably fault on both the FAAs & SWA's part. You do not have all the information to blindly say "Sounds like they were outright lying". Most airlines will not do that because the PR from that is a lot worst than the PR from telling the truth.

It's bad enough that news reporters never get aviation stories right.
 
Its all Dispatch and their coordination. Every commercial aircraft has to be in contact with their Dispatch department and they do a damn fine job. Pilots are in constant contact and are continuously updated with wx. Tower control is not needed for a commercial aircraft to land. Sounds like the pilots used the current ATIS, went down to have a "Look see" and found the wx not as reported hence the divert. Of course that is a guess. Don't trust the story of a passenger because they have a limited view of the world. For god sakes, never believe or trust the FAA! That's just professional advice!
 
My roomate in flys through T.F. Green every weekend... From what he tells me, delays like this one are quite typical.
 
My favorite line in the article: "The part that frightened me the most was last night when we were flying a plane load full of people ... going blindly into the night to an airport where there was nobody in the control tower," Jackie Heon said." (bold mine)

Some people have no idea....
 
nugget81 said:
My favorite line in the article: "The part that frightened me ... going blindly into the night to an airport where there was nobody in the control tower," Jackie Heon said." (bold mine)

Some people have no idea....
Click to expand...
Jackie Heon has no knowledges .....

WE ... used to do it all the time going into Tampa/St. Pete (for example) ... we would cancel with FSS and do a "visual" of sorts .... talk to our people on the ground. No problem-O .... and that's why I like to fly international --- a.k.a. the Pacific.

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top