Sole controller on duty catches up on sleep at Reagan Intl

[Sulako]

http://chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2011 ... anned.html

Chicago plane finds snoozing tower at Reagan National


Federal air-safety officials are looking into why the lone air-traffic controller on duty at Washington’s Reagan National Airport early Wednesday repeatedly failed to respond to pilots of two approaching aircraft, forcing both jetliners to land without clearance.

Pilots of an American Airlines jet on final approach tried in vain to contact the tower. A few minutes later, a United Airlines jet, en route from Chicago, experienced the same problem, according to federal air-safety officials.

The veteran controller later acknowledged he may have been dozing, according to people familiar with the matter, just before and after midnight when the incoming jetliners were preparing to land.

Both jets landed safely without establishing communications with the tower. But the unusual incident is bound to revive debate over controller and supervisory staffing levels at some of the nation’s airports, and whether some controllers working particularly late or early shifts may be prone to fatigue.

The incident, which involved a supervisor who isn’t a member of the controllers’ union, prompted an immediate and sharp response from Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

LaHood, whose agency oversees the Federal Aviation Administration, issued a statement late Wednesday saying he had “directed the FAA to place two air traffic controllers at Ronald Reagan Washington National airport’s control tower on the midnight shift.”

A spokesman for the National Transportation Safety Board said the agency was collecting information about the incidents and determining how to proceed.

The FAA, which runs the nation’s traffic-control system, said both planes “landed after failing to establish communications with the air traffic control tower.” The pilots remained in contact with controllers at another facility, according to the FAA’s statement, and the agency “is looking into staffing issues and whether existing procedures were followed appropriately.” FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown declined to go beyond the agency’s statement.

Air-safety experts have raised concerns about potentially significant dangers posed by sleepy or inattentive controllers, particularly during early-morning shifts with relatively few landings or takeoffs, when the tendency to doze may be greatest.
Read more about the topics in this post: Air traffic control, FAA, NTSB, Ronald Reagan Washington National, Roy LaHood, Transportation Department
Related

[bizjets101]

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAL1 ... /KMIA/KDCA

This has to be the worst airport in the USA for this to happen at. With all the Homeland Security BS, what if someone had hijacked the tower - you'd think with all their billions spent on paranoia and misleading the public - they'd have a plan for the tower being down?

Bet this is all the buzz in Washington this morning. Interesting.

Washington Post

[jet a1]

after reading the story, i wasn't as interested in the controller having a nap, as the two crews that landed without clearance... granted all the facts aren't detailed in the report and by no means am i comparing the crews to myself but i am sitting here asking my self...hmmmm if i were in that situation would i land? picture it, it's late, dark and you can't talk to anyone at the airport....thoughts?

[Doc]

ONE controller? Herein may lie part of the problem? The term "controller" can be a bit of a misnomer. Witness the crash a few years ago, when all a "controller" had to do was look up to help prevent a departure from the WRONG runway?
There are some jobs that should require TWO persons. If only to keep each other alert on a dark boring night?

[DeuceEng]

after reading the story, i wasn't as interested in the controller having a nap, as the two crews that landed without clearance... granted all the facts aren't detailed in the report and by no means am i comparing the crews to myself but i am sitting here asking my self...hmmmm if i were in that situation would i land? picture it, it's late, dark and you can't talk to anyone at the airport....thoughts?

I was thinking the exact same thing. You shouldn't assume you are clear to land once you are switched from arrival to tower...who knows what the situation was on the ground. As you mentioned - we don't have all the facts, however I still feel that without a landing clearance from someone who is aware of what is happening on the field it is an unsafe move.

[KK7]

after reading the story, i wasn't as interested in the controller having a nap, as the two crews that landed without clearance... granted all the facts aren't detailed in the report and by no means am i comparing the crews to myself but i am sitting here asking my self...hmmmm if i were in that situation would i land? picture it, it's late, dark and you can't talk to anyone at the airport....thoughts?

I was thinking the exact same thing. You shouldn't assume you are clear to land once you are switched from arrival to tower...who knows what the situation was on the ground. As you mentioned - we don't have all the facts, however I still feel that without a landing clearance from someone who is aware of what is happening on the field it is an unsafe move.

I thought the same thing, but I think we are missing a lot of information regarding the situation. If I was the lone aircraft on the tower frequency, and couldn't raise tower, I'd be wondering if I have the right frequency or thinking that perhaps we have a comm failure, both situations could be remedied by returning to the approach frequency and checking the radio and the frequency with the approach controller. Assuming both were correct, approach could make a telephone call to the tower to confirm there is someone there.

But perhaps they did this, maybe not. We just don't have the information to judge!

[200hr Wonder]

ONE controller? Herein may lie part of the problem? The term "controller" can be a bit of a misnomer. Witness the crash a few years ago, when all a "controller" had to do was look up to help prevent a departure from the WRONG runway?
There are some jobs that should require TWO persons. If only to keep each other alert on a dark boring night?

Wow I agree with Doc for once. We require TWO crew in most planes when really the work load is such that one can handle it. Same should be happening with the tower. If just to make sure the other one is awake.

Or a dog...

[Ref Plus 10]

I'm by no means an "expert" on ATC practices in the US, or Canada for that matter, but wouldn't the approach controller have called the tower before handing off the aircraft?

[SAR_YQQ]

The aircrew did the right thing. They treated the airfield like an uncontrolled aerodrome - broadcast your intentions on the MF (in this case tower frequency). Nothing spectacular here, people do this all the time at airports without towers. Most likely the hand-off to tower was inside 10 miles and number one to land.

[BEFAN5]

I would have landed.

I of course would have switched back to the app freq and tried to contact them. The FAA is going to be so busy dealing with the fact a controller was working alone, and fell asleep that no one will probably every question the fact the pilots landed with "clearance".

[MrWings]

If you try to contact the tower and there is no response, isn't that a communication failure?

Wouldn't you continue the approach and landing as expected?

[crooked timber]

uh put me down for "wouldn't have landed" (given the info we have). some airports (TUS, EWR, RDU off the top of my head) have areas on the ground where comms can be masked/attenuated...probably not a good idea to start treating it like an uncontrolled aerodrome just because you don't get a reply from twr/gnd. in this case, by landing without having talked to anyone on the field you're taking a risk by making assumptions about what's going on on the ground that don't seem to be worth the trouble to me (tantamount to flying into an uncontrolled aerodrome with the radios off and making all your assessments about the field on final [at night to boot]).

the article i read said that the flights switched back to the approach controller who told them that there was no reply on the landline and that they (appr control) figured the tower controller got locked out. given that and taking it as a confirmation that there's no comm fail on my end, i still wouldn't have landed (esp at an airport like DCA) until someone figured out what was going on on the ground.

[iflyforpie]

I would have landed, absolutely. Anybody in the air or on the ground is supposed to be on the twr frequency and it is not like there was a ton of traffic.

Planes have TCAS and pilots have eyes.

[Go Juice]

I would have landed, absolutely. Anybody in the air or on the ground is supposed to be on the twr frequency and it is not like there was a ton of traffic.

Planes have TCAS and pilots have eyes.

What if the vis was low, an airplane lined up on the runway for takeoff who forgot to turn on his lights and transponder?

[iflyforpie]

What if?

What if the tower cleared you to land and a plane pulled out in front of you anyways in low vis with no lights or transponder?

[Go Juice]

Fair enough. BUT that never happens

[iflyforpie]

Obviously it isn't as simple as land or don't land, but if you are talking to other pilots, there shouldn't be a problem. If you were doing a CATII or III it probably wouldn't be a good idea.

[crooked timber]

Anybody in the air or on the ground is supposed to be on the twr frequency and it is not like there was a ton of traffic.

Planes have TCAS and pilots have eyes.

the problem is that there are a couple of other "supposed to's" that aren't being met in this equation. we're talking about a debate that's taking place as you're crossing the faf and there's just too much to hash out in this situation for me to have a warm and fuzzy about landing. unless we're on fire or someone is dying in the back, it's a go around for me. we can assess the field on the flyover, make sure we have all the info we can get about the situation and go from there. there's a lot of metal (ie not just airplanes with pilots in them) that moves around an airport like DCA at that time of night and i'd feel better if someone had the big picture. every sector i fly makes me less and less inclined to make assumptions, especially about other what assumptions other people are making about an abnormal situation (viz. getting sidestepped on short final into an airport in alabama due to a pickup truck that drove through the airport fence and was being chased around).

[winds_in_flight_wtf]

Poor Controller..... I think I am siding with him on this one. Truth be told - he is tired, and I would not want some half assed controlled telling me where to go etc. So , bottom line ... he made the right decision.

[robshelle]

In Canada, I am sure TC would be all over the pilots for "Landing without an ATC Clearance". They may get some leniancy, but still landed w/o the magic clearance. The controller would also get in crap, maybe even a trip to the doctor to confirm that there was not some form of impairment. But rest assured that there are no Control Towers in canada that are single controller over midnights. The Union fought this years ago and won, 2 controllers at all times. However, most smaller control towers will go to one controller only when winding down for the evening(or opening up until traffic is busy) if they are not staffed for midnight shits.

On midnights, once traffic warrents, 1 controller will be on a break, and 1 working. (break = nap). If for some case the duty controller falls asleep, a phone call will get the other controller upstairs quickly, and after a couple of incidents in the past, I am sure that all TCU's have the lunch room/break room phone numbers for the towercab handy. As for does terminal have to call the tower prior to arrivals? It depends on the unit. Here at CYEG Tower, we used to have that requirement, but traffic over midnights have increased so much that those calls are no longer required, steady almost all night long.

Robbie Benusic, CYEG Tower

[SII]

once traffic warrents, 1 controller will be on a break, and 1 working. (break = nap). If for some case the duty controller falls asleep, a phone call will get the other controller upstairs quickly, and after a couple of incidents in the past, I am sure that all TCU's have the lunch room/break room phone numbers for the towercab handy. As for does terminal have to call the tower prior to arrivals? It depends on the unit. Here at CYEG Tower, we used to have that requirement, but traffic over midnights have increased so much that those calls are no longer required, steady almost all night long.

Robbie Benusic, CYEG Tower

thanks Rob

[Beefitarian]

This for sure.

uh put me down for "wouldn't have landed" (given the info we have).

Quite especially at Reagan International. I know that I would have just spoken to probably 5 or more other frequencies in the last 15 to 20 minutes in a piper warrior and switched back to the last one to ask what's up. Maybe these guy aproached differently but Dulles and several other highly controlled airports are all much closer than typical.

I think they must have discussed the issue with other ATC near by or working that airspace and concluded they could/should safely land without "final clearance" from the guy asleep in the tower.

Some of the posts here sound like guys would be saying, "Hello? ...Reagan tower? ...Anyone there? Well he's not talking to us screw it, I'm going to land."

[mrsbitchy]

Maybe he was using the facilities ; shot an approach once, and the runway lights were not turned on, did a low and over of the FSS building to wake him up – he came back on the radio huffing and puffing the same time the lights went on – he had been alone too, but when you have to go – you have to go!

[turbo-prop]

They were in contact with someone.

The pilots remained in contact with controllers at another facility, according to the FAA’s statement

I sure would have landed.

[Doc]

Would have transmitted my intentions, and then landed.
The aircraft would have been sequenced by the previous controller, and to go around would have (especially in the event of a com failure) thrown an even bigger spanner into the works.