LC1 and LC2 Coordination......

Messages
10
Likes
7
#1
Okay, lets set the scene and see what you guys come up with.

LC1 is responsible for single RWY ops.
LC2 is responsible for Helicopter ops in an airspace defined as 300' AGL below not including 1/2 mile finals and RWY
LC2 helo ops consist of air tour operators located just outside the airport property.

So the debate is this...... Flight paths of Helos overfly the RWY. Coordination is conducted verbally without any prescribed phraseology between LC1 and LC2 controllers (everyone says at minimum "Cross"). There is no prescribed ALT for Helos to cross RWY in the LOA. There are two parts to this debate. First, what is the proper, legal phraseology (if any) used to coordinate this operation. Second, is it required to be on the recorded line? Just some background, the facility is a Level 5 VFR Class Delta Airspace and consists of mostly tour operators. Apparently this has been ongoing for years and I get to be the lucky guy on the new SOP rewrite collaboration group. lol
Any insight helps.
 

Robertb

Forum Sage
FAA
Messages
368
Likes
377
Facility
A80 Atlanta Tracon
#2
How about: cross RWY X at approach end, midfield, or departure end

No need to have it recorded, but management will want some kind of mental aid (neon green sign, strip bar, etc.)
 

RL

Trusted Contributor
FAA
Messages
207
Likes
100
Facility
ZTL Atlanta Center
#3
How about: cross RWY X at approach end, midfield, or departure end

No need to have it recorded, but management will want some kind of mental aid (neon green sign, strip bar, etc.)
👆🏻
 
Messages
10
Likes
7
#4
How about: cross RWY X at approach end, midfield, or departure end

No need to have it recorded, but management will want some kind of mental aid (neon green sign, strip bar, etc.)

Yeah I figured as much and I’m on that line of thinking. Unfortunately I’m the minority. Supervisor and other CPC want recorded lines used. Really don’t see any need for that. Some mental aid would be ideal though. I like that. Thanks!
 

ajmezz

Trusted Contributor
Messages
422
Likes
220
#5
I would also put in that if traffic is within x mile final no crossing is allowed. Might help with not having to use recorded line.
 

DankVectorz

Forum Sage
FAA
Messages
519
Likes
711
Facility
N90 New York Tracon
#6
Wait, they want a recorded line to be used for 2 people standing next to each other? I would laugh except an AF AIB tried to list me as a contributing factor for an accident for not telling the scope (I was assist) something even though I had told him but it wasn’t on a recorded line.
 

MJ

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
1,879
Likes
1,302
#7
Same concept as Robert's suggestion, but slightly different take. Treat it like a point out. So instead of having to use "cross" (which is probably what people are getting their panties in a bundle about), you're just requesting approval through an area. You could toss some appropriate restrictions in the SOP to where no coordination is required (X miles from runway, below X altitude.. whatever makes sense). Assuming you have a TDW, change the color of the tag if a memory aid is required; or if each has its own position symbol use the actual automated point out function.
 
Messages
10
Likes
7
#12
hahaha I wish, I would love 1 Local! But thanks ya'll for the insight. Good points to use to change these other guys minds. I absolutely think its ridiculous to recorded and treat it like a RWY crossing!!!! I'll keep ya'll posted on this super upmost important matter for the NAS hahahaha jk!
 
Messages
1
Likes
0
#16
Maybe you could write up some prearranged coordination where the local not working the helos allows the operation and if verbal coordination is required to say "hold short" the non helo local is required to initiate.
 
Top