When did they shut down opposite direction approaches?

[MikeD]

It was too broad of a statement and yes we all make mistakes. I have very little knowledge of the inner workings of tracons and control towers other than what I've been exposed to while flying. I guess I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the reasoning behind doing away with opposite direction approaches. If a pilot makes a mistake after he gets a clearance and then shoots the wrong approach it's somewhat irrelevant if it's an opposite direction approach as he's a danger to everyone in the area.

What seems more important is that when an aircraft receives an ifr clearance for takeoff that he can be somewhat confident that the controller actually looked at the departure course to make sure that someone isn't coming at him in the opposite direction. You're right though, when the controller is busy he can make mistakes.

It could be any number of things. You could have traffic landing one direction and one on an opposite direction approach, and the landing traffic goes around for some reason. Potential for conflict there, IF there's other traffic being worked and not immediate time for turning away one of the two potential conflict aircraft.

I see these opposite direction approach requests as a workload-permitting issue for ATC, apart from any Letter of Agreement requirements.

 

[Hooha]

The only way 2 aircraft in an ifr environment can be on a collision course is the controllers fault? Please, if pilots were perfect then there wouldn't be a need for controllers. Pilots make mistakes just like controllers. It's j more often than not we let things go because we don't want to deal with it more of a no harm no foul thing. Whos fault is it when a controller clears an a/c for an approach and they go on the wrong approach?

As for switching runways, normally there is coordination between the supe/cic (controller in charge). Controllers don't just start arbitrarily launching airplanes without telling the approach control.

Neither aircraft were ever on a collision course.

Since this thread is about the cancellation of opposite direction approaches, when I say ifr environment I'm talking about the approach phase. In my opinion talking about shooting a different approach than cleared for doesn't have any bearing in this conversation. I couldn't read the article since I'm not a WSJ subscriber so I'm just going on the other posts in this thread.

Why did the FAA cancel these approaches if the "incident" happened at 22,000 feet? You might be in the arrival phase at that altitude but you're not shooting an approach yet. I'm starting to think I've missed something.

 

[Hooha]

It could be any number of things. You could have traffic landing one direction and one on an opposite direction approach, and the landing traffic goes around for some reason. Potential for conflict there, IF there's other traffic being worked and not immediate time for turning away one of the two potential conflict aircraft.

I see these opposite direction approach requests as a workload-permitting issue for ATC, apart from any Letter of Agreement requirements.

Using your example.......So it sounds like the controller didn't space the aircraft properly or he didn't give appropriate missed instructions to the landing aircraft to keep him out of the way of the incoming aircraft? I'm not trying to be a smart A, just trying to understand.

Whenever I requested an opposite direction approach it was always a 50/50 chance of getting it. On VFR days the tower may be too busy to fit us in or approach was too busy on IFR days. It made checkrides and ipc's faster and more economical when we could do it. Getting vectored or doing own nav for 3 or 4 approaches took forever if you couldn't an opposite direction approach.

 

[Prino]

In the aftermath of a loss of separation among three regional jets–two departures and one arrival–at Reagan National Airport (DCA) on July 31 the FAA issued the following guidance to ATC facilities on August 7. “Effective immediately, unless a facility has an established written procedure that has been validated by the Office of ATO Safety and Technical Training, all opposite-direction arrival operations involving any instrument flight rule (IFR) aircraft are temporarily suspended at Part 139 airports until further advised.”

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...-updates-opposite-direction-approach-policies

 

[Prino]

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/dca_audio_collision_usairways_flight_207154-1.html

Perhaps you should educate yourself on the incident before you just start throwing out accusations.

 

[Hooha]

It wasn't my intent to throw out accusations. To me it sounds like someone took off while someone else was inbound in the opposite direction. We don't know who's fault it was and it doesn't matter. I'm just questioning the action of the FAA in suspending these approaches. I don't know how much more educating I can do on the subject. Both links you posted are barely a paragraph long and they don't give too many details about how an airplane took off in the opposite direction of arrivals and why that justifies eliminating these approaches unless an agreement is made. What's an agreement going to do?

All the right factors were there at this time for an "incident" to happen. Make all the agreements you want and prohibit all the approaches you want, miscommunications are still going to happen in certain situations.

 

[MikeD]

Using your example.......So it sounds like the controller didn't space the aircraft properly or he didn't give appropriate missed instructions to the landing aircraft to keep him out of the way of the incoming aircraft? I'm not trying to be a smart A, just trying to understand..

What missed instructions to a landing aircraft? It's landing. Potentially out of a visual approach. It's intent is to land, not go around. So there wouldn't normally be missed or climbout instructions of any kind. The aircraft executing the go around has to do it, advise of such, and receive instructions/vectors. In that time, there could be the potential for conflict........cost of doing business.

Man you seem to want to hate ATC.......

 

[Hooha]

I don't hate atc at all. Maybe atc does things a little different at my home airport. The approach controller has always given the pilot missed approach instructions when he is cleared for the approach and usually they'll be given out while vectoring. Sometimes they'll say execute the missed as published or they'll give a heading and altitude when they give us the clearance. Sometimes they have changed the missed instructions during the approach because of traffic or other conditions. At large airports i could see them just clearing the aircraft for the approach and implying non-verbally that the published missed is to be executed if needed. If the published missed procedure is not safe for the aircraft to perform because of traffic then is it not the controllers responsibility to issue different missed instructions?

How can a pilot be cleared for and begin executing an approach and not have any missed instructions of any kind? Until his wheels touch down on the ground if he decides to go around or go missed then he should already know what to do and the pilot and controller should already be in agreement about that missed procedure. The controller can of course change headings and altitudes when you announce missed if they need to and they frequently do.

Did this incident not happen under ifr flight rules? I have never, ever, ever, ever shot an approach under ifr flight rules and not known what the missed approach procedure was whether it be on the plate or given to me by atc.

When executing approaches at large busy airports is it common to not know what the missed instructions are? Do they usually give them to you as soon as you go missed? If you request to proceed visually during the approach are you still not bound by the procedures on the plate as far missed instructions are concerned?

 

[Boris Badenov]

My understanding is that if you're cleared for the approach, your missed approach instructions are on the little piece of paper clipped to the yoke, barring other instruction from ATC. Am I missing something?

 

[SteveC]

Gotta love the FAA.

From: NBAA Pilots Air Mail [mailto:PILOTS@AIRMAIL.NBAA.ORG] On Behalf Of Bob Lamond
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 11:33 AM
To: PILOTS@AIRMAIL.NBAA.ORG
Subject: [NBAA-pilots] InFO 12014, "Climb Via" Phraseology for the Assignment of Route Transitions and/or Standard Instrument Departure (SID) and Area Navigation (RNAV) SID Procedures

All: In what can only be described as “clear as mud…” FAA published the subject InFO this morning. I’m sure that was on “auto-pilot” within the FAA publications department and ATO failed to tell them to hold off on releasing the InFO given yesterday FAA postponed implementation of Climb Via procedures. But of course it has legitimately generated confusion in the operator community. Hopefully this will be the last “clarification” necessary…

So in recap, Climb Via did NOT go into effect today and Descend Via procedures are “status quo,” in effect as they have been for some time now.

Regards,

Robert (Bob) Lamond Jr.
Director, Air Traffic Services and Infrastructure

National Business Aviation Association
1200 18th Street NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036

 

[Prino]

At large airports i could see them just clearing the aircraft for the approach and implying non-verbally that the published missed is to be executed if needed. If the published missed procedure is not safe for the aircraft to perform because of traffic then is it not the controllers responsibility to issue different missed instructions?

At large airports they aren't running the same volume of traffic when wx is solid ifr vs vfr (hence flow control programs). You are correct that if we do not issue alternate missed approach instructions then it is expected that you fly the published missed.

how can a pilot be cleared for and begin executing an approach and not have any missed instructions of any kind? Until his wheels touch down on the ground if he decides to go around or go missed then he should already know what to do and the pilot and controller should already be in agreement about that missed procedure.

if the pilot is on a visual approach then you have no missed approach instructions.

Did this incident not happen under ifr flight rules?

If you are referring to the dca incident then no. What happened was a thunderstorm was coming through and caused a wind shift (which caused a need to switch runways). The field was not ifr they were running visuals.

When executing approaches at large busy airports is it common to not know what the missed instructions are? Do they usually give them to you as soon as you go missed? If you request to proceed visually during the approach are you still not bound by the procedures on the plate as far missed instructions are concerned?

no, you have to learn all the missed approaches before you even plug in and talk to an aircraft. I'm not sure how it's done at bigger places but if an aircraft goes around my guess would be a lot of places assign runway heading then it's coordinated with the tracon that xyz aircraft is going around, or there is a letter of agreement between facilities so tracon knows what to expect. If you are on an instrument approach (rnav, vor, ndb, ils ect) then request to proceed visually the several things could happen. You could then get cleared for a visual and then you're on a visual so you can do whatever you want to the runway BUT you're then on a visual and have NO missed approach procedures. Or, the controller doesn't care because you're following somebody and they need you on the approach then you're bound by the procedures on the plate.

 

[MikeD]

I don't hate atc at all. Maybe atc does things a little different at my home airport. The approach controller has always given the pilot missed approach instructions when he is cleared for the approach and usually they'll be given out while vectoring. Sometimes they'll say execute the missed as published or they'll give a heading and altitude when they give us the clearance. Sometimes they have changed the missed instructions during the approach because of traffic or other conditions. At large airports i could see them just clearing the aircraft for the approach and implying non-verbally that the published missed is to be executed if needed. If the published missed procedure is not safe for the aircraft to perform because of traffic then is it not the controllers responsibility to issue different missed instructions?

How can a pilot be cleared for and begin executing an approach and not have any missed instructions of any kind? Until his wheels touch down on the ground if he decides to go around or go missed then he should already know what to do and the pilot and controller should already be in agreement about that missed procedure. The controller can of course change headings and altitudes when you announce missed if they need to and they frequently do.

Did this incident not happen under ifr flight rules? I have never, ever, ever, ever shot an approach under ifr flight rules and not known what the missed approach procedure was whether it be on the plate or given to me by atc.

When executing approaches at large busy airports is it common to not know what the missed instructions are? Do they usually give them to you as soon as you go missed? If you request to proceed visually during the approach are you still not bound by the procedures on the plate as far missed instructions are concerned?

Climbout instructions would be issued to the aircraft on the opposite direction practice approach. But speaking about the plane that's on a visual approach on the correct runway, he wouldn't have climbout or missed instructions if he has to go around. He has to do his go around, then get instructions of where to go. My assumption of what you wrote is the above......normal traffis, VMC, visual approach, does go around. Opposite direction traffic on practice approach in VFR/VMC.
.

 

[Hooha]

A couple of thoughts and then we'll let this finally die if we want to.

Thanks for the post soonerkid as that cleared some things up for me. And MikeD I was actually thinking the situation was just the opposite of what you replied. When you say "visual approach" I was thinking of an aircraft that is inbound to an airport on an IFR flight plan who then is cleared for the "visual" on runway so and so. The pilot is still on an IFR flight plan and is conducting an approach under IFR rules, so if a missed approach procedure is not needed as you say, then what happens if he loses coms and has to go around for some reason? Where is he going? He's still on an ifr flight plan with no missed instructions.

At DCA, is anyone coming in that is not on an IFR flight plan? This is where I was coming from when I said that the controllers must have not sequenced traffic correctly or accidentally released an ifr departure when someone was coming in the opposite direction on an approach. I assumed that everyone operating in and out of DCA would be required to operate under IFR rules and procedures and thus be under atc control at all times. I was thinking that under ifr flight rules in a terminal environment that if 2 airplanes were following commands and procedures correctly that they couldn't get close to each other unless a controller made a mistake.

I honestly haven't had an IFR student in quite a few years so I will admit I'm very rusty on the regs and procedures. When soonerkid says that "the airport was running visuals" I don't understand how that effects the inbound and outbound procedures for IFR aircraft? Does the fact that the airport is vfr change the controllers responsibility regarding arriving and departing ifr traffic? I thought it didn't but it sounds like I'm wrong.

If it sounds like I've got something against atc or anyone else then it's certainly not intended that way. I enjoy talking about this stuff and enjoy jc.

 

[genot]

A couple of thoughts and then we'll let this finally die if we want to.

Thanks for the post soonerkid as that cleared some things up for me. And MikeD I was actually thinking the situation was just the opposite of what you replied. When you say "visual approach" I was thinking of an aircraft that is inbound to an airport on an IFR flight plan who then is cleared for the "visual" on runway so and so. The pilot is still on an IFR flight plan and is conducting an approach under IFR rules, so if a missed approach procedure is not needed as you say, then what happens if he loses coms and has to go around for some reason? Where is he going? He's still on an ifr flight plan with no missed instructions.

At DCA, is anyone coming in that is not on an IFR flight plan? This is where I was coming from when I said that the controllers must have not sequenced traffic correctly or accidentally released an ifr departure when someone was coming in the opposite direction on an approach. I assumed that everyone operating in and out of DCA would be required to operate under IFR rules and procedures and thus be under atc control at all times. I was thinking that under ifr flight rules in a terminal environment that if 2 airplanes were following commands and procedures correctly that they couldn't get close to each other unless a controller made a mistake.

I honestly haven't had an IFR student in quite a few years so I will admit I'm very rusty on the regs and procedures. When soonerkid says that "the airport was running visuals" I don't understand how that effects the inbound and outbound procedures for IFR aircraft? Does the fact that the airport is vfr change the controllers responsibility regarding arriving and departing ifr traffic? I thought it didn't but it sounds like I'm wrong.

If it sounds like I've got something against atc or anyone else then it's certainly not intended that way. I enjoy talking about this stuff and enjoy jc.

I think the reaction you received as being anti controller stemmed from the comment about any time two IFR aircraft get too close its got the be the fault of the controller. That really isn't the case. In fact, more often that not, its the other way around. You said you have little knowledge about ATC other than what you've seen flying. I'd strongly encourage you to take a facility tour and not just the 45 minute dime tour. I'm talking the pack a lunch, can I plug in with them and ask them stories about their most memorable pilot induced moments. As an instrument rated pilot it took me about two days observing as a neophyte controller monitoring in the IFR room to realize that I didn't have the best grasp on things myself.

Presumably on a visual with no coms there will be a light gun so there's the backup. In practice controllers are very reluctant to issue a visual when nobody else has been getting it without assurance. I'm not a tower guy, but if I were I'd figure you'd be on a heading between the published missed and runway heading. If I'm wrong (which I'd doubt) the Local Controller has visual on you and the conflict. Simply put, we do not anticipate missed on a visual unless told otherwise. Nor is it common practice to issue missed approach instructions with every approach. If that were the case, even mid grade towers like the one I run RADAR to would have a "missed approach controller". As it stands local just coordinates with the affected positions

I've seen way tighter with some complicated tower visual/divergence involving a bored skilled tower controller and probably 4 departures and 4 arrivals in a mixed opposite direction bag. In the final understanding you're correct however. Failed coordination. Technically in your understanding, with three large category jets, wake isn't an issue and tower visual can be applied, hence the operation was Kosher. But was this at all planned? I'm siding with you.

 

[Hooha]

Thanks genot. Yes I've always wanted to visit a tracon and see exactly what goes on. Every time I fly in the DFW area I'm amazed those guys can keep their cool and do their jobs. Even in the East Texas area I've heard them get very busy. It's not a job that I would want.

 

[MikeD]

Thanks for the post soonerkid as that cleared some things up for me. And MikeD I was actually thinking the situation was just the opposite of what you replied. When you say "visual approach" I was thinking of an aircraft that is inbound to an airport on an IFR flight plan who then is cleared for the "visual" on runway so and so. The pilot is still on an IFR flight plan and is conducting an approach under IFR rules, so if a missed approach procedure is not needed as you say, then what happens if he loses coms and has to go around for some reason? Where is he going? He's still on an ifr flight plan with no missed instructions.

It's a visual approach. If he goes around, tower will let him know what to do after he announces that he's going around, such as turn downwind, or continue upwind and contact departure for the radar pattern. If he loses comms on a visual approach (which is in VMC), and he goes around, he looks for this thing you may have heard about called a light gun signal......and he flies a pattern and lands.

At DCA, is anyone coming in that is not on an IFR flight plan?

Yes. Often.

I honestly haven't had an IFR student in quite a few years so I will admit I'm very rusty on the regs and procedures.

You say this, yet want to argue all the operational details here AND blame ATC for everything? Really?

 

[Prino]

When you're running visuals Tower can apply visual separation (not because youre running visuals but because its vfr and you can look out the window) between aircraft so long as you see both aircraft and talk to one (can't do it for wake turbulence though). This allows tower to have less than standard 1000 ft/3miles ifr sep. this can be applied between arr/arr arr/dep ect...I'm not sure how other facilities work, but our sop says tower will provide visual between aircraft landing. So, if you're ifr then tower can't provide visual.

 

[Prino]

I'd strongly encourage you to take a facility tour and not just the 45 minute dime tour. I'm talking the pack a lunch, can I plug in with them and ask them stories about their most memorable pilot induced moments.

I second this, however I would suggest buying lunch for the facility, or at least a token of appreciation

 

[Hooha]

When you're running visuals Tower can apply visual separation (not because youre running visuals but because its vfr and you can look out the window) between aircraft so long as you see both aircraft and talk to one (can't do it for wake turbulence though). This allows tower to have less than standard 1000 ft/3miles ifr sep. this can be applied between arr/arr arr/dep ect...I'm not sure how other facilities work, but our sop says tower will provide visual between aircraft landing. So, if you're ifr then tower can't provide visual.

Thanks. I did not know this about visual approaches from the atc perspective. I'll say it again, i respect what you guys do in the towers and tracons and I'm thankful for it.

MikeD, I appreciate your input but my initial observation still stands. My first post came across harsh and rude and that was not my intention. The "incident" that we are talking about happened between two airplanes flown by experienced pilots, in an area that is tightly controlled by atc. Because of the incident the FAA halted "opposite direction approaches" which would imply that a traffic conflict may have happened between an arriving and departing aircraft.

Are commercial airliners not always on an ifr flight plan? Who gives the takeoff clearance to an aircraft on an ifr flight plan? Who gives an incoming aircraft permission to do the visual approach? When "opposite direction approaches" are being performed who makes sure that giving out these clearances won't put two airplanes too close together? It's not the pilots. Its atc, and it doesn't matter if the weather is vfr or ifr. Me saying this is not "trying to blame atc for everything".

I can't imagine a pilot deviating too far from a clearance and not getting jumped on in a hurry in the DCA area. It's just a few miles form the White House for goodness sakes. So the idea of an airplane being in the wrong place without the direction or notice of atc seems unlikely. Have I ever flown an airplane in and out of DCA, no I haven't. But i would assume the same ifr procedures and rules apply there as they do at any other towered airport.

 

[MikeD]

MikeD, I appreciate your input but my initial observation still stands. My first post came across harsh and rude and that was not my intention. The "incident" that we are talking about happened between two airplanes flown by experienced pilots, in an area that is tightly controlled by atc. Because of the incident the FAA halted "opposite direction approaches" which would imply that a traffic conflict may have happened between an arriving and departing aircraft.

Are commercial airliners not always on an ifr flight plan? Who gives the takeoff clearance to an aircraft on an ifr flight plan? Who gives an incoming aircraft permission to do the visual approach? When "opposite direction approaches" are being performed who makes sure that giving out these clearances won't put two airplanes too close together? It's not the pilots. Its atc, and it doesn't matter if the weather is vfr or ifr. Me saying this is not "trying to blame atc for everything".

I can't imagine a pilot deviating too far from a clearance and not getting jumped on in a hurry in the DCA area. It's just a few miles form the White House for goodness sakes. So the idea of an airplane being in the wrong place without the direction or notice of atc seems unlikely. Have I ever flown an airplane in and out of DCA, no I haven't. But i would assume the same ifr procedures and rules apply there as they do at any other towered airport.

This is rich. You admit that you don't know what the heck you are even talking about and don't even know the regs, but want to stand by your guns?

Try and read what Im saying, I'll break it down to where you can understand. ATC can't control everything airplanes do. Despite the best of plans, things don't always go to plan. If a landing aircraft on a visual approach to land.....that is, looking at the runway, not shooting an instrument approach, therefore not having missed approach instructions to follow.......and that aircraft has to go around for some reason, and there's an opposite direction aircraft, say to even a parallel runway, who is inbound on a practice instrument approach; despite the BEST of intentions, there is the potential for conflict between the VISUAL aircraft going around and awaiting instructions to either enter the VFR pattern or go back to radar and around the radar pattern, and the aircraft on the opposite direction approach. Why? Because the aircraft on the visual approach was cleared to LAND, but had to go around for whatever reason.

These things happen. There may or may not be a conflict because of it, BUT the potential is there....depending on traffic load, time of day, and any number of other factors. In some places, opposite direction practice or actual approaches are easily doable, at other places they're not....again, depending.

THAT is what you aren't getting and don't seem to understand. So no, your observations do not stand, as they are woefully incorrect and stated out of a pure lack of understanding for what is really going on regarding ATC and how they do their job.