iframe header
  • Join FlightAware (Why Join?)
  • Login
  • US Flag 
09:09AM EDT

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Sea-Tac airport controllers don't answer pilots
PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 5:27 pm 
Offline
FlightAware Member

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 7:00 pm
Posts: 144
SEA-TAC AIRPORT - For 25 minutes in the wee hours of April 11, the control tower at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport did not respond to airplane traffic.

"There were two planes affected - one trying to take off and one trying to come in," airport spokesman Bob Parker said Monday.

The unexplained silence, which started at 3:15 a.m. that day, ended at 3:40 a.m. when a Port of Seattle staff member drove to the guard shack at the base of the control tower.

"They went over to the guard shack at the tower and he (the guard) was able to raise someone," Parker said.

Airport officials said that a Boeing 747-400 flown by Taiwanese carrier EVA was on its final approach to Sea-Tac at around 3:15 a.m. when it radioed the control tower for permission to land.

There was no response. Eventually, the airliner reached a dispatcher at the airport's departure control facility, who is not in the control tower, and made a plan to remain airborne until a controller could be reached.

Meanwhile, a Delta Airlines jet attempting to back away from the airport's south satellite got no response when it sought clearance to leave.

The airfield - the runways and taxiways - was cleared of maintenance workers until the tower resumed communications, Parker said. "They followed procedure and left the immediate area," he said.

The EVA plane landed safely once contact was reestablished. The matter is being investigated by the FAA, which oversees air traffic control, Parker said. The FAA would not comment on the incident.

From: http://www.katu.com/stories/85156.html

Can we find the hold pattern for that EVA-air flight?

--spud--:)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:02 pm 
Offline
Charter Member

Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 1:00 am
Posts: 102
This happened over in the UK recently too. Funny.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:14 pm 
Offline
FlightAware Member

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:00 am
Posts: 1080
Location: KEWR or KABE
EVA31 EWR-SEA is the Eva flight, and DAL9912 SEA-SLC is the Delta flight.

Orlaam wrote:
Funny


Not if it had let to an accident and possible loss of life. Tower controllers not paying attention to the frequencies is very serious.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 10:38 pm 
Offline
Charter Member

Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 1:00 am
Posts: 102
Newark777 wrote:
EVA31 EWR-SEA is the Eva flight, and DAL9912 SEA-SLC is the Delta flight.

Orlaam wrote:
Funny


Not if it had let to an accident and possible loss of life. Tower controllers not paying attention to the frequencies is very serious.


Haven't you ever heard people use the term "funny" to imply strange or weird?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 12:05 am 
Offline
FlightAware Member

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:00 am
Posts: 1080
Location: KEWR or KABE
Orlaam wrote:
Haven't you ever heard people use the term "funny" to imply strange or weird?


Yes, but I thought you meant it in the comical sense. Sorry for the misunderstanding.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 12:23 am 
Offline
Charter Member

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:00 am
Posts: 976
Location: KADS
At the scales of the KEWR/KSEA and KSLC/KSEA flights, there's no detail to be seen about maneuvers needed at Sea-Tac. Those are 'poster child' cases for the ability to zoom maps.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 9:50 am 
Offline
FlightAware Member

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:00 am
Posts: 1080
Location: KEWR or KABE
tobyz1 wrote:
At the scales of the KEWR/KSEA and KSLC/KSEA flights, there's no detail to be seen about maneuvers needed at Sea-Tac. Those are 'poster child' cases for the ability to zoom maps.


For the Eva flight, you can look at the track log and see that at the end of the recorded flight the plane descended down to 700 feet, and then ascended again back up to 5000, probably when it realized there was no one responding.

As for the Delta flight, I would no expect to see anything different other than a late departure time, since during the whole incident it was just sitting on the ramp.

How an arrival message was filed for the Eva flight when everyone was asleep in the control tower, I have no idea. :?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 10:37 am 
Offline
FlightAware Member

Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 2:00 pm
Posts: 420
How would this work procedurely? Approach hands the flight off to Tower- shouldn't you expect to be in contact with them before the OM? is the clearance from approach valid up to MAP?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 10:46 am 
Offline
FlightAware Member

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:00 am
Posts: 1080
Location: KEWR or KABE
jreeves wrote:
How would this work procedurely? Approach hands the flight off to Tower- shouldn't you expect to be in contact with them before the OM? is the clearance from approach valid up to MAP?


The approach controller probably cleared them for the approach, and then handed them off to the tower. They probably then tried a few times make contact with the tower, all the while descending towards the airport, and when they finally realized no one was responding, they aborted the approach and went back up to 5000.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 11:07 am 
Offline
FlightAware Member

Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 2:00 pm
Posts: 420
If the position report is accurate, they were 300 FT AGL (700-433 APT EL). I am just curious if the approach clearance is vailid to that point.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 11:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:00 pm
Posts: 2
Location: clt
As an airfield maintenance employee I find it very disturbing that an airfield could go unmonitored so long. Even with lights out and closure lights burning at the end of each runway, I still would want a controller available to keep some metal from landing on me or my crew....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 12:09 pm 
Offline
FlightAware Staff
dbaker - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 12:00 am
Posts: 1877
Location: FlightAware WHQ
jreeves wrote:
If the position report is accurate, they were 300 FT AGL (700-433 APT EL). I am just curious if the approach clearance is vailid to that point.


Sure, an ILS usually goes down to 200ft and you can continue if you see the runway (environment). All you need tower for is the clearance to put your gear on the runway.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 2:44 am 
Offline
Charter Member

Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 1:00 am
Posts: 102
Newark777 wrote:
Orlaam wrote:
Haven't you ever heard people use the term "funny" to imply strange or weird?


Yes, but I thought you meant it in the comical sense. Sorry for the misunderstanding.


No problem. 8)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 3:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 4:00 pm
Posts: 16
Location: KSGF
This happened to me on a smaller scale, I was flying into a Class D controlled airport (KIXD), I attempted to contact tower for to allow me into the D airspace. Nobody answered for a good 10 minutes, all while I was circling 5 miles south of the airport to remain clear of the D airspace.. finally somone spoke up, and I entered the airspace.. come to find out, the control tower is usually just a single man operation at this airport.. He had to use the bathroom (6 stories down at the bottom of the tower).. I guess if you gotta go, you gotta go.. but it still urked me that I couldn't get into the airspace for 10 minutes


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 4:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 11:00 am
Posts: 46
Location: KLOT
I actually have an airport by me (KGYY) which is class D and when the controllers are by themselves and have to use the washroom they bring a handheld radio into the washroom with them to talk to traffic. I know because my good buddy works their and tells me stories.

Rich


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 7:27 am 
Offline
FlightAware Member

Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 10:00 am
Posts: 124
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
I started my ATC career at YNG Youngstown and can remember working the mid night shift alone, the tracon was combined to the tower cab and you worked everything. It was slow, if you worked 20 aircraft during the entire night that was average. When you needed to use the restroom, you tell an aircraft on frequency you would be back in a few minutes, please advise anyone who checks in on the frequency. Did not have any other options.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 12:18 am 
Offline
FlightAware Member

Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 3:00 pm
Posts: 383
Newark777 wrote:
tobyz1 wrote:
At the scales of the KEWR/KSEA and KSLC/KSEA flights, there's no detail to be seen about maneuvers needed at Sea-Tac. Those are 'poster child' cases for the ability to zoom maps.


For the Eva flight, you can look at the track log and see that at the end of the recorded flight the plane descended down to 700 feet, and then ascended again back up to 5000, probably when it realized there was no one responding.

As for the Delta flight, I would no expect to see anything different other than a late departure time, since during the whole incident it was just sitting on the ramp.

How an arrival message was filed for the Eva flight when everyone was asleep in the control tower, I have no idea. :?
union controlled nap time and the shop steward forgot to set his watch :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 3:10 pm 
Offline
FlightAware Member

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 7:00 am
Posts: 506
Good call by the Capt on the EVA fight to not just land, especially if the airport had a bunch of PAEW type NOTAMS, that could be ugly.

I hope the FAA reimburses both aircraft for wasted fuel and flight time. 25 minutes in a 747 at low altitude... OUCH! Wishful thinking, I guess that would prove they made a mistake.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Nearest alternate?
PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 1:30 am 
Offline
FlightAware Member
dadalope - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 2:00 am
Posts: 509
Location: KEMT KPOC
What's the nearest alternate for SEA for a 747? Vancouver maybe, fuel only?
I'm just wondering how much margin (in hours) they'd normally need, what they planned to do if they had to bail, and thus how much time they probably had left before doing it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nearest alternate?
PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 12:36 pm 
Offline
FlightAware Member
NeedleNose - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 12:00 pm
Posts: 3279
Location: KOKV
dadalope wrote:
What's the nearest alternate for SEA for a 747? Vancouver maybe, fuel only?
I'm just wondering how much margin (in hours) they'd normally need, what they planned to do if they had to bail, and thus how much time they probably had left before doing it.

Nearest I can think of would be the Boeing factory, Paine Field (KPAE) 50 miles to the north. No airline support there, but at least they could hold the pax as hostages there until crew rest issues are no longer a factor. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nearest alternate?
PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 2:20 pm 
Offline
FlightAware Member

Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 3:00 pm
Posts: 383
NeedleNose wrote:
dadalope wrote:
What's the nearest alternate for SEA for a 747? Vancouver maybe, fuel only?
I'm just wondering how much margin (in hours) they'd normally need, what they planned to do if they had to bail, and thus how much time they probably had left before doing it.

Nearest I can think of would be the Boeing factory, Paine Field (KPAE) 50 miles to the north. No airline support there, but at least they could hold the pax as hostages there until crew rest issues are no longer a factor. :lol:
would aircrew have to go into holding pattern, if they cant get a hold of atc?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 2:23 pm 
Offline
FlightAware Member

Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 3:00 pm
Posts: 383
msh168 wrote:
Good call by the Capt on the EVA fight to not just land, especially if the airport had a bunch of PAEW type NOTAMS, that could be ugly.

I hope the FAA reimburses both aircraft for wasted fuel and flight time. 25 minutes in a 747 at low altitude... OUCH! Wishful thinking, I guess that would prove they made a mistake.
or find a way to have some toilet facilities in the tower, oh that would make sense wouldnt it??? :shock: :D winch up a porta potty put in on the balcony, bolt it down so it wont fly away in bad winds. somethingf so the controller does not have to climb 6 stories of stairs. not a funny thing for aircrew, but i am not aircrew or atc.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nearest alternate?
PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 10:04 am 
Offline
FlightAware Member
sykocus - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 6:00 am
Posts: 121
Location: PGUM
globemaster wrote:
NeedleNose wrote:
dadalope wrote:
What's the nearest alternate for SEA for a 747? Vancouver maybe, fuel only?
I'm just wondering how much margin (in hours) they'd normally need, what they planned to do if they had to bail, and thus how much time they probably had left before doing it.

Nearest I can think of would be the Boeing factory, Paine Field (KPAE) 50 miles to the north. No airline support there, but at least they could hold the pax as hostages there until crew rest issues are no longer a factor. :lol:
would aircrew have to go into holding pattern, if they cant get a hold of atc?


It sounds like it was just the tower that they couldn't get a hold of. They probably went back to the approach control freq while things got sorted out. It wouldn't be like they were flying around on their own for 25 mins.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nearest alternate?
PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 10:10 am 
Offline
FlightAware Member
flyboy97222 - FlightAware user avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2007 8:00 pm
Posts: 2656
Location: Sunny South Florida
dadalope wrote:
What's the nearest alternate for SEA for a 747? Vancouver maybe, fuel only?
I'm just wondering how much margin (in hours) they'd normally need, what they planned to do if they had to bail, and thus how much time they probably had left before doing it.


Portland Oregon, Paine field, there is an Air Force base in Tacoma.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nearest alternate?
PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 5:08 pm 
Offline
FlightAware Member

Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 3:00 pm
Posts: 383
flyboy97222 wrote:
dadalope wrote:
What's the nearest alternate for SEA for a 747? Vancouver maybe, fuel only?
I'm just wondering how much margin (in hours) they'd normally need, what they planned to do if they had to bail, and thus how much time they probably had left before doing it.


Portland Oregon, Paine field, there is an Air Force base in Tacoma.
mcchord afb is probably 2 minutes at speed from sea-tac. never thought of that one. Are military bases going to take in a llarge commercial transport if the problem that day were to continue to be a problem?? I also thought of whidbey island nas. which is not far from paine field.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
iframe sidebar


 

Airport Tracker/Info


-or-