AA pilots criticized for landing at DCA when controller was asleep

[FWAAA]

On the spectrum of safe ----- > dangerous, what they did last week would seem to be much better than landing on a taxiway or at the wrong airport. Nevertheless, a chorus of criticism appears to be building:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703576204576227111819017454.html?ru=yahoo&mod=yahoo_hs

 

[Mach85ER]

On the spectrum of safe ----- > dangerous, what they did last week would seem to be much better than landing on a taxiway or at the wrong airport. Nevertheless, a chorus of criticism appears to be building:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703576204576227111819017454.html?ru=yahoo&mod=yahoo_hs

A chorus of village idiots are voicing their opinions. The regulations are clear as to what to do in the event of lost comm. Both crews followed them. The FAA lawyer dingbat is the worst, but not surprising given what I've heard about others experiences those like her over the years.

All of them seem to have the opinion that are flights are "controlled" and flown by the tower cabs or enroute radar stations. These guys exist for traffic seperation only. the area around DCA was clear as reported by DCA approach, the runway would have been visually cleared by the pilots on short final. Other aircraft would have been able to communicate to the landing aircraft and remain clear of the runway.

This was a non-event until the hysterics started with the clueless, talking head media.

 

[eolesen]

Since TRACON told them to consider the airport tower unmanned. it's not like the two planes didn't have FAA permission to land. The only diverting I see here is the FAA trying to blame the airlines for the agency's own budget cuts and staffing decisions.....

One of my UA friends says their company procedures for DCA are "once committed, you land even if no radio"

On the approach they were using, diverting would have required an immediate turn in order to avoid the no-fly zones north of the airport, which presented a much bigger safety risk (and possible panic attack?) than landing did.

Oh, and who would have paid the price for those diversions (e.g. extra fuel to get the planes back to DCA, busing of customers, ground handling expenses)? The controller? The FAA? Doubt it. Once again, airlines being asked to pay the price for government incompetence....

 

[Deleted member 14439]

A chorus of village idiots are voicing their opinions. The regulations are clear as to what to do in the event of lost comm. Both crews followed them. The FAA lawyer dingbat is the worst, but not surprising given what I've heard about others experiences those like her over the years.

All of them seem to have the opinion that are flights are "controlled" and flown by the tower cabs or enroute radar stations. These guys exist for traffic seperation only. the area around DCA was clear as reported by DCA approach, the runway would have been visually cleared by the pilots on short final. Other aircraft would have been able to communicate to the landing aircraft and remain clear of the runway.

This was a non-event until the hysterics started with the clueless, talking head media.

Well said sir. You gotta love the monday morning quarterbacks. Clearly the FAA trying the ol` misdirection blame game.

 

[nbmcg01]

On the spectrum of safe ----- > dangerous, what they did last week would seem to be much better than landing on a taxiway or at the wrong airport. Nevertheless, a chorus of criticism appears to be building:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703576204576227111819017454.html?ru=yahoo&mod=yahoo_hs

Always blame the pilot... seriously. It all ended well (except for the controller). As someone who flew all nighters for a good portion of my career it is real easy to get "highway hipnosis" while watching a monitor or wall or the ground. When people are scheduled several nights in a row...just asking for trouble with only one in the tower.