Final 29 and final 11

[cotejy]

I'm just wondering if that was a crasy controler or just normal situation.

First solo night flying, controled airspace, no wind. I only have 2-3 hours into controled airspace so entering a circuit on base, usage of R29 and 11 at the same time are things I'm not familiar with. Anyway this is what happend.

I was going for solo night touch and go on a controled airport with not a lot of trafic. I turned final R-29 when I saw a A-320 final R-11. We were both at the same altitude. Asked the controler if he wanted me to change my course and he replyed "don't worry, I'll be off the runway by the time you'll get there".

He landed and went off. I had to touch at 1/3 of runway in order to have time to obtain the tower authorisation. Everything went fine.

My concers were "what if that big bird have to overshoot". Conditions were good and not a lot of chances for overshooting but what if something on runway forcing an overshoot,... Anyone with experience here can tell me what he thinks of that.

[Mike]

Hmmm....
Where was that at?!

I have to say it's not that uncommon. I fly bank-runs in the winter time at night which gets us into Burbank quite often and we sometimes get very close to those Southwest 737s. Then, last spring, they all of a sudden gave us huge separations. Maybe they had an incident or something......
They night-shift controllers usually seem more relaxed than the day-shift.

IF the big boy was going to overshoot, would you have had time to make a go-around??
How close where you?

[cotejy]

This was in CYMX (Mirabel Québec Canada). I'm not sure about runway direction, could have been 28-10 (but the point remain the same). This was a verry low trafic airport and they close it to passengers a few months after that.

If it had overshoot, I would probably had time to get out of it's way but without prior communication. Also, given the runway lenght (12000 feets), he would have been way over me when reaching my position. I guess I was just a little impress in a 172 seeing this huge bird with all lights on directly in my face.

In terms of how close, when I was at the beginning of runway about 200 feets AGL, he was getting out. If I would have done a normal approch, I would have touch ground before he went out of the runway.

[chuckar101]

I'm flying at Williams Gateway(KIWA) and they do simultaneous approaches using all the runways(we have 3).  What I have been told is there must be at least three thousand feet of seperation and they have to be off the runway when you touch down.  At gateway they have a lot of people take off in front of you when you are on short final.  The only difference is they usually only do it with similar type aircraft due to wake turbulence, speed difference, etc.

[undatc]

I cant speak for AIR NAV (canada's ATC) but i can speak on behalf of how the US ATC does it.

Ok, this gets complicated, and by the wording in the 7110.65 the FAA makes it sound like they really dont want us as controllers doing this, but we can.  So, you must have VFR conditions, which I assume you did.

You then cross into the realm of "anticipated spacing", this also comes into play when you have two depatures off one runway, one if turned to say 360 and the next to 330, you have 30 degrees of divergence so you dont need 3 miles/1000feet seperation.  So as you are VFR and the arrival A320 was an IFR full stop, they can provide you anticipated spacing, ie if the A320 declares missed, he would first break you off final, most likly keeping you on a base, and give the A320 a runway heading climb out.  So what it sounds like he did, was to give you 'anticipated spacing' in the the A320 would be clear by the time you crossed the threshold.  This also elimantes the need to worry about wake turbulence as you would not be landing behind him in the dark.

Anticipated spacing also comes into play when you're, "cleared to land, runway 2 8 right, caution wake turbulence heavy boeing 7 4 7 departing runway 2 8 right."  Even though the 747 hasnt left the runway and you're within five miles of the runway, it is "anticipated" that he will be clear of the runway, by the time you clear the threshold.

Also, technically US ATC cant have landings in opposite directions on the same runway unless the wind has shifted, and they are actually switching runways.  However, there is a provision in section 3 of the 7110.65 that allows for parallel runway opposite directions arrivals/departures.

Hopefully that answers your question.

[Baradium]

We do opposite direction landings in Fairbanks all the time.   Usually the winds are calm around here.  If they are using the 1s and you're coming from the north and they have enough of a break before the next traffic from the south comes in, they'll let you land on 19 and visa versa. 

This is more common in the evening hours as traffic starts to trail off.   Late at night you'll probobly be the only one they're tallking to anyway.


Of course, up here we also have FSS's acting as ATC as well. 

[undatc]

Yea, well you know FSS is no longer being run by the FAA right?  Lockheed Martin took it over about 6 months ago i wanna say.

[Baradium]

Yea, well you know FSS is no longer being run by the FAA right?  Lockheed Martin took it over about 6 months ago i wanna say.

Only partly right... the FSS in Alaska are still federal.   :p

Lockheed is a bit hesitant to take over the FSS up here because they do ATC. 

[undatc]

mmm, well they still run some atc functions at class d's, like here at GFK, when the tower closes, FSS provides atc service here.  Though I think they only provide advisory service and not actual IFR spacing.  I belive that is handed off to the rapcon over at RDR.

[Baradium]

mmm, well they still run some atc functions at class d's, like here at GFK, when the tower closes, FSS provides atc service here.  Though I think they only provide advisory service and not actual IFR spacing.  I belive that is handed off to the rapcon over at RDR.

These are at class E surface area airports such as Nome, Kotzebue, Barrow, and Deadhorse.  They handle the inbound and outbound IFR traffic as well as issue special VFR clearances to VFR traffic when there isn't IFR inbound and the weather is below VFR minimums (when weather is above minimums you still talk to them).  In either case, you are handed off to them from center.  It's not really required (unless you're trying to get a special as VFR traffic), but it's treated as such up here.

Granted, that in your case those airports just happen to be Class D airports, it's not becuase they are class Ds that they do it.  It's a service that FSS's that are located on an airport used to all do, but Lockheed is trying to get that responsibility relieved.  The thing is that up here it's a pretty important service because of VFR traffic getting specials.  Down there you don't get many people flying VFR when IFR traffic is shooting approaches to minimums.   Up here you do.   In fact, at some airports there is still more VFR traffic when the weather is bad than there is IFR traffic.

BTW, they did an audit of the stations up here, being federal they still performed better than Lockheed is as far as call wait times and operations per hour.

Lockheed has given the operators pay cuts as well as laid off people, two things which I don't understand how they will improve performance...

[fireflyr]

BTW, they did an audit of the stations up here, being federal they still performed better than Lockheed is as far as call wait times and operations per hour.

Lockheed has given the operators pay cuts as well as laid off people, two things which I don't understand how they will improve performance...

Kinda like what happened when the Washington Wise Ones deregulated airline service............................

[undatc]

mmm, well they still run some atc functions at class d's, like here at GFK, when the tower closes, FSS provides atc service here.  Though I think they only provide advisory service and not actual IFR spacing.  I belive that is handed off to the rapcon over at RDR.

These are at class E surface area airports such as Nome, Kotzebue, Barrow, and Deadhorse.  They handle the inbound and outbound IFR traffic as well as issue special VFR clearances to VFR traffic when there isn't IFR inbound and the weather is below VFR minimums (when weather is above minimums you still talk to them).  In either case, you are handed off to them from center.  It's not really required (unless you're trying to get a special as VFR traffic), but it's treated as such up here.

Granted, that in your case those airports just happen to be Class D airports, it's not becuase they are class Ds that they do it.  It's a service that FSS's that are located on an airport used to all do, but Lockheed is trying to get that responsibility relieved.  The thing is that up here it's a pretty important service because of VFR traffic getting specials.  Down there you don't get many people flying VFR when IFR traffic is shooting approaches to minimums.   Up here you do.   In fact, at some airports there is still more VFR traffic when the weather is bad than there is IFR traffic.

BTW, they did an audit of the stations up here, being federal they still performed better than Lockheed is as far as call wait times and operations per hour.

Lockheed has given the operators pay cuts as well as laid off people, two things which I don't understand how they will improve performance...

Ya what you said, thats what i was getting at, but just didnt take it as far.  And it's a shame that they did convert over to lockheed, we as controllers  are worried they will try to privitize us soon...

Imagine what will happen then...

[Gulfstream Driver]

"Please deposit 25 cents to continue your conversation with Minneapolis Center."

[fireflyr]

"Please deposit 25 cents to continue your conversation with Minneapolis Center."

"This is LA Center, For IFR clearances in English press one.................................."

"Oakland Clearance Delivery takes Visa, Mastercard, and Travelers Express---Si habla Espanol "......................

[undatc]

no hable espanol aqui!

considering spanish is an ICAO language i guess they could force us technically to speak it.