|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||0001 To 0600|
|Locale Reference||airport : gsp|
|Altitude||msl bound lower : 972|
msl bound upper : 5000
|Controlling Facilities||artcc : ztl|
|Operator||common carrier : air carrier|
|Make Model Name||Medium Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng|
|Flight Phase||climbout : intermediate altitude|
descent : approach
|Make Model Name||Small Aircraft, Low Wing, 1 Eng, Retractable Gear|
|Flight Phase||descent : approach|
|Affiliation||government : faa|
|Function||controller : radar|
|Qualification||controller : radar|
|Experience||controller non radar : 2|
controller radar : 5
|Function||flight crew : captain|
oversight : pic
|Qualification||pilot : atp|
|Anomaly||inflight encounter : weather|
other anomaly other
|Independent Detector||other controllera|
other flight crewa
|Resolutory Action||controller : issued new clearance|
|Air Traffic Incident||other|
|ATC Facility||other physical facility|
I was the controller working area 2 low on the midnight shift. The low sector includes sectors 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31. At XA00 local we assume the airspace of ashville approach (avl) and at XB00 local we assume the airspace of greer approach (gsp). In addition, gsp and avl tower also close. Between XC00 and XD00 the following aircraft were inbound to the greenville-spartanburg area: medium large transport X, small aircraft Y and small transport Z. Small aircraft Y was first for approach and was told to expect ILS 36 gmu. Because the ILS 36 at gmu and ILS 03 at gsp cross, medium large transport X was cleared to hold at gsp LOM. Small transport Z was cleared to hold at spa VORTAC and advised holding would be approximately 30 mins. Small transport Z then requested clearance to avl (ashville, nc) and was so cleared. Small aircraft Y missed approach at gmu and requested clearance to gsp. Small aircraft Y was advised he would be #2 for the gsp airport. After separating small aircraft Y and medium large transport X I cleared medium large transport X for the ILS 03 at gsp. As medium large transport X was shooting the approach new WX information at gsp indicated the wind was not 240 degrees at 14 KTS. Medium large transport X advised that he could not accept ILS 03 and requested ILS 21 at gsp. I advised medium large transport X that ILS 21 gsp was unavailable because gsp tower controls the switching of the ILS and they were closed. Medium large transport X returned to atl. Small aircraft Y shot the ILS 03 at gsp west/O incident. Small transport Z landed avl and returned to gsp ILS 03 and landed west/O incident. In summation, I believe this situation is dangerous because ATC is in effect forcing aircraft to shoot a dangerous approach. Medium large transport X used good judgement and refused the approach because of the tailwind. Did small aircraft Y have that option considering he had already missed one approach at gmu? Small transport Z had an option, but used the approach anyway. Poor judgement, scheduling pressures? I don't know, but does it really matter? Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter claims to be very concerned with aviation safety and finds the elements of his report to be typical of an uncaring FAA which allows situations like this to be too commonplace. He mainly feels that both ashville and gsp approach controls should be kept open 24 hours/day and not closed at 2300 and 0000 respectively. Reporter has filed many ucrs on various subjects and feels that nobody in FAA management will listen to him. Analyst suggested to reporter that nothing in his narrative seemed to indicate that something unsafe took place. The air carrier medium large transport returned to atl because he would not land downwind when the airport was below circling minimums. The other, smaller aircraft, did land downwind, but with a 7600' runway. Analyst feels that this is perfectly safe with these types of aircraft. Analyst suggested to reporter that he do some research and then submit a formal suggestion about a way to remote control of the ILS switching system to someplace that is open 24 hours/day so controllers have the option of both ILS systems.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: POOR WX AND CTLR'S INABILITY TO CHANGE ILS SYSTEMS AT ARPT CAUSED 2 DOWNWIND LNDGS AND 1 DIVERSION.
Narrative: I WAS THE CTLR WORKING AREA 2 LOW ON THE MIDNIGHT SHIFT. THE LOW SECTOR INCLUDES SECTORS 27, 28, 29, 30 AND 31. AT XA00 LCL WE ASSUME THE AIRSPACE OF ASHVILLE APCH (AVL) AND AT XB00 LCL WE ASSUME THE AIRSPACE OF GREER APCH (GSP). IN ADDITION, GSP AND AVL TWR ALSO CLOSE. BTWN XC00 AND XD00 THE FOLLOWING ACFT WERE INBND TO THE GREENVILLE-SPARTANBURG AREA: MLG X, SMA Y AND SMT Z. SMA Y WAS FIRST FOR APCH AND WAS TOLD TO EXPECT ILS 36 GMU. BECAUSE THE ILS 36 AT GMU AND ILS 03 AT GSP CROSS, MLG X WAS CLRED TO HOLD AT GSP LOM. SMT Z WAS CLRED TO HOLD AT SPA VORTAC AND ADVISED HOLDING WOULD BE APPROX 30 MINS. SMT Z THEN REQUESTED CLRNC TO AVL (ASHVILLE, NC) AND WAS SO CLRED. SMA Y MISSED APCH AT GMU AND REQUESTED CLRNC TO GSP. SMA Y WAS ADVISED HE WOULD BE #2 FOR THE GSP ARPT. AFTER SEPARATING SMA Y AND MLG X I CLRED MLG X FOR THE ILS 03 AT GSP. AS MLG X WAS SHOOTING THE APCH NEW WX INFO AT GSP INDICATED THE WIND WAS NOT 240 DEGS AT 14 KTS. MLG X ADVISED THAT HE COULD NOT ACCEPT ILS 03 AND REQUESTED ILS 21 AT GSP. I ADVISED MLG X THAT ILS 21 GSP WAS UNAVAILABLE BECAUSE GSP TWR CTLS THE SWITCHING OF THE ILS AND THEY WERE CLOSED. MLG X RETURNED TO ATL. SMA Y SHOT THE ILS 03 AT GSP W/O INCIDENT. SMT Z LANDED AVL AND RETURNED TO GSP ILS 03 AND LANDED W/O INCIDENT. IN SUMMATION, I BELIEVE THIS SITUATION IS DANGEROUS BECAUSE ATC IS IN EFFECT FORCING ACFT TO SHOOT A DANGEROUS APCH. MLG X USED GOOD JUDGEMENT AND REFUSED THE APCH BECAUSE OF THE TAILWIND. DID SMA Y HAVE THAT OPTION CONSIDERING HE HAD ALREADY MISSED ONE APCH AT GMU? SMT Z HAD AN OPTION, BUT USED THE APCH ANYWAY. POOR JUDGEMENT, SCHEDULING PRESSURES? I DON'T KNOW, BUT DOES IT REALLY MATTER? CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR CLAIMS TO BE VERY CONCERNED WITH AVIATION SAFETY AND FINDS THE ELEMENTS OF HIS RPT TO BE TYPICAL OF AN UNCARING FAA WHICH ALLOWS SITUATIONS LIKE THIS TO BE TOO COMMONPLACE. HE MAINLY FEELS THAT BOTH ASHVILLE AND GSP APCH CTLS SHOULD BE KEPT OPEN 24 HRS/DAY AND NOT CLOSED AT 2300 AND 0000 RESPECTIVELY. REPORTER HAS FILED MANY UCRS ON VARIOUS SUBJECTS AND FEELS THAT NOBODY IN FAA MGMNT WILL LISTEN TO HIM. ANALYST SUGGESTED TO RPTR THAT NOTHING IN HIS NARRATIVE SEEMED TO INDICATE THAT SOMETHING UNSAFE TOOK PLACE. THE ACR MLG RETURNED TO ATL BECAUSE HE WOULD NOT LAND DOWNWIND WHEN THE ARPT WAS BELOW CIRCLING MINIMUMS. THE OTHER, SMALLER ACFT, DID LAND DOWNWIND, BUT WITH A 7600' RWY. ANALYST FEELS THAT THIS IS PERFECTLY SAFE WITH THESE TYPES OF ACFT. ANALYST SUGGESTED TO RPTR THAT HE DO SOME RESEARCH AND THEN SUBMIT A FORMAL SUGGESTION ABOUT A WAY TO REMOTE CTL OF THE ILS SWITCHING SYS TO SOMEPLACE THAT IS OPEN 24 HRS/DAY SO CTLRS HAVE THE OPTION OF BOTH ILS SYSTEMS.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.