|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||1801 To 2400|
|Locale Reference||airport : dca|
|Altitude||agl bound lower : 0|
agl bound upper : 1000
|Controlling Facilities||tracon : dca|
tower : dca
|Operator||common carrier : air carrier|
|Make Model Name||Large Transport, Low Wing, 3 Turbojet Eng|
|Flight Phase||descent : approach|
|Route In Use||arrival other|
arrival star : star
|Affiliation||company : air carrier|
|Function||flight crew : second officer|
|Qualification||pilot : commercial|
pilot : instrument
|Affiliation||company : air carrier|
|Function||flight crew : captain|
oversight : pic
|Qualification||pilot : atp|
|Anomaly||non adherence : far|
other anomaly other
|Independent Detector||other flight crewa|
|Resolutory Action||none taken : anomaly accepted|
|Primary Problem||ATC Human Performance|
|Air Traffic Incident||other|
Due to thunderstorms in dca area, flts were delayed. Our trip to dca would not depart lga until after AA00 local time. We realized that our departure time, and anticipated runway delays at lga, would preclude our flying to dca, and that arrangements would have to be made for handling at iad (dulles). This was due to our expected arrival in the washington area after the curfew at dca. (Our large transport was not stage III). En route portion of flight was uneventful, until we contacted dca approach on 124.2 over bwi. He told us to expect a mt vernon visual to runway 36. The captain (PNF) advised that we were 'negative stage III.' controller said 'roger, expect mt vernon visual to 36.' the first officer and I both expressed reservation about landing at dca, despite the controllers actions. However, the captain decided to land, and we executed a mt vernon visual, and a normal landing. As we taxied to the gate we noticed other aircraft landing, however, I do not recall what types of aircraft these were. We received approach clearance at approximately BB00 local and landed approximately BB05. We advised approach of our negative stage III, and were acknowledged. Then cleared for approach and landing. It is uncertain whether any action is being pursued or not. I do feel, however, that everyone should be aware of curfews. If the controller cleared you after you advise him of your status, it would seem he has taken responsibility for relaxing curfew rules. Had I been the captain, I would have refused the clearance and proceeded to dulles (which we had not been filed for or cleared to), however, I feel that the captain satisfied his obligation to advise ATC if a clearance received would be contrary to rule. I feel that ATC should not have cleared us to dca once they knew of our status, if curfew rules were in effect and being enforced.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A NON STAGE III ACR LGT ACFT LANDED WITH CLRNC AFTER THE LCL CURFEW. THE AIRCREW TRIED TO REMIND THE CTLR THAT THEY WERE NOT LEGAL TO LAND, BUT CLRNC WAS GIVEN ANYWAY.
Narrative: DUE TO TSTMS IN DCA AREA, FLTS WERE DELAYED. OUR TRIP TO DCA WOULD NOT DEPART LGA UNTIL AFTER AA00 LCL TIME. WE REALIZED THAT OUR DEP TIME, AND ANTICIPATED RWY DELAYS AT LGA, WOULD PRECLUDE OUR FLYING TO DCA, AND THAT ARRANGEMENTS WOULD HAVE TO BE MADE FOR HANDLING AT IAD (DULLES). THIS WAS DUE TO OUR EXPECTED ARR IN THE WASHINGTON AREA AFTER THE CURFEW AT DCA. (OUR LGT WAS NOT STAGE III). ENRTE PORTION OF FLT WAS UNEVENTFUL, UNTIL WE CONTACTED DCA APCH ON 124.2 OVER BWI. HE TOLD US TO EXPECT A MT VERNON VISUAL TO RWY 36. THE CAPT (PNF) ADVISED THAT WE WERE 'NEGATIVE STAGE III.' CTLR SAID 'ROGER, EXPECT MT VERNON VISUAL TO 36.' THE FO AND I BOTH EXPRESSED RESERVATION ABOUT LNDG AT DCA, DESPITE THE CTLRS ACTIONS. HOWEVER, THE CAPT DECIDED TO LAND, AND WE EXECUTED A MT VERNON VISUAL, AND A NORMAL LNDG. AS WE TAXIED TO THE GATE WE NOTICED OTHER ACFT LNDG, HOWEVER, I DO NOT RECALL WHAT TYPES OF ACFT THESE WERE. WE RECEIVED APCH CLRNC AT APPROX BB00 LCL AND LANDED APPROX BB05. WE ADVISED APCH OF OUR NEGATIVE STAGE III, AND WERE ACKNOWLEDGED. THEN CLRED FOR APCH AND LNDG. IT IS UNCERTAIN WHETHER ANY ACTION IS BEING PURSUED OR NOT. I DO FEEL, HOWEVER, THAT EVERYONE SHOULD BE AWARE OF CURFEWS. IF THE CTLR CLRED YOU AFTER YOU ADVISE HIM OF YOUR STATUS, IT WOULD SEEM HE HAS TAKEN RESPONSIBILITY FOR RELAXING CURFEW RULES. HAD I BEEN THE CAPT, I WOULD HAVE REFUSED THE CLRNC AND PROCEEDED TO DULLES (WHICH WE HAD NOT BEEN FILED FOR OR CLRED TO), HOWEVER, I FEEL THAT THE CAPT SATISFIED HIS OBLIGATION TO ADVISE ATC IF A CLRNC RECEIVED WOULD BE CONTRARY TO RULE. I FEEL THAT ATC SHOULD NOT HAVE CLRED US TO DCA ONCE THEY KNEW OF OUR STATUS, IF CURFEW RULES WERE IN EFFECT AND BEING ENFORCED.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.