Ask the Tower Manager

Your ATC Operational questions answered by KTEB ATCT Manager Matt Petersen:

Q: When executing the RNAV(GPS)-Y Rwy 19 there exists a “disconnect” at UNVIL between the ATC cleared altitude of 2000’ and the published altitude of 2100’.

 A: This is not done at TEB ATCT, but on approach. From NY TRACON: [The reason that the controllers do this is because the airspace at 3,000 over UNVIL we do not own. It belongs to the N90 LGA Sector. So essentially, we have an approach that was designed within approach parameters however this internal airspace consideration was missed.]

Q: The ILS-Z Rwy 6 DANDY crossing restriction is 1300’. Please confirm that following the GS from outside of DANDY will lead an aircraft to cross this waypoint high.

A: Regarding the crossing restriction at DANDY, the glide slope is higher than the published crossing restriction. The reason for the lower altitude restriction at DANDY is primarily related to departures out of EWR that overfly the area while climbing.

We have experienced issues with slow climb rates from EWR departures. When an aircraft established on the RWY 6 final does not cross DANDY at the published lower altitude, we can lose the required vertical separation with the EWR departure.

I am not a procedures developer, so I cannot speak to whether there is an opportunity to modify the glide slope or otherwise adjust the procedure. However, this is the operational reason TEB has the lower crossing restriction at DANDY. Any potential modification would need to ensure that the necessary separation from EWR departure traffic can still be maintained.

Q: Since the publication and implementation of the WENTZ 1 SID, are operators correctly honoring the restriction to cross WENTZ at 1500’?

When looking at the WENTZ1 departure, it has been a significant improvement compared to the previous RUUDY departure. Since implementation of the WENTZ1, we have seen a noticeable reduction in altitude restriction deviations. While deviations still occur from time to time, they are significantly less frequent than what we experienced with the RUUDY departure.

The primary issue we continue to see with the WENTZ1, similar to what we experienced with RUUDY, is that aircraft will occasionally become airborne and make a left turn that places them directly in conflict with overhead EWR arrival traffic, resulting in a potential loss of separation. The aircraft generally appear to remain at the 1,500-foot restriction while making the turn, but the turn itself creates the conflict.

I am not a pilot and am not familiar with the specific functionality of the equipment and flight management systems being used in the cockpit. Based on what we are observing operationally, it appears that in some instances the departure SID may not be loaded or entered correctly, resulting in the aircraft turning toward a fix rather than following the published SID.

I would ask that this observation be brought forward during pilot and operator discussions as a reminder for pilots and copilots to carefully verify the procedure being entered and displayed prior to departure. TEB operates in an extremely congested airspace environment, and an unexpected turn or climb that differs from the published procedure can very quickly result in a separation issue.

Q: Have you any thoughts to share regarding the high incidence of TCAS RAs along the RYW 19 final approach course and transition from the northwest.

 A: As you know, we are also continuing to work on the TCAS RAs occurring along the RWY 19 final. I am hopeful that the work currently underway will result in additional changes and improvements to the overall operation.

Last but not least, some operators fail to secure an FBO reservation, contributing to gridlock and associated delays during high volume days.

The issue of FBO reservations and ramp capacity is a challenging one from an ATC perspective. ATC is not in the business of determining which aircraft are permitted to arrive at TEB or which FBO an aircraft may use. Once an aircraft is on the ground and advises ATC where it is parking, we take that information at face value and taxi the aircraft to the FBO of its choice.

This has been a recurring issue for TEB for many years, and as we move into our busier season, I am hopeful that users will make appropriate reservations and adhere to their scheduled arrival and departure times. Effective reservation management is critical to keeping aircraft moving efficiently both on and off the airport.

When a gridlock situation develops, there are several questions that unfortunately cannot be answered by ATC. For example:

• Did the FBO overbook its available ramp capacity?
• Did the aircraft have a reservation?
• Did the aircraft simply arrive and proceed to its normal FBO without a reservation?
• Are aircraft arriving outside of their scheduled reservation times?
• Is the FBO experiencing an unexpected surge in demand?

While these factors may contribute to the problem, ATC is ultimately left managing the operational consequences.

It is never an ideal situation to have double-digit numbers of aircraft held on active taxiways for extended periods while waiting for parking to become available at an FBO. TEB simply does not have the available taxiway real estate to hold large numbers of aircraft for extended periods of time.

When this occurs, frequency congestion increases, operational efficiency decreases, and the potential for a safety event increases. Additionally, holding aircraft for extended periods creates significant impacts for other users who may have reservations at different FBOs or need to access the airport for legitimate operational purposes.

We are actively working with all of the FBOs, TEB Airport Operations, and PANYNJ to get ahead of these situations. We have established daily communication with the FBOs and are working to obtain reservation numbers and better understand anticipated ramp demand. This information is extremely helpful in allowing ATC and airport stakeholders to anticipate potential problems before they develop. However, if aircraft arrive without reservations or outside of the information provided to us, the reservation numbers only provide limited insight into the actual demand on the ramps.

There are also occasions when FBOs issue PPR NOTAMs when they anticipate being extremely busy or when they are unable to accommodate additional unscheduled aircraft on their ramps. These measures can be very helpful in managing demand, and I encourage users to remain aware of applicable NOTAMs and FBO requirements before departing for TEB.

From an ATC perspective, we are not in a position to shut down the entire airport because one FBO has reached gridlock. Doing so would negatively impact every other user and FBO on the field in an attempt to address an issue affecting one location. Our goal is instead to work collaboratively with the FBOs, airport management, PANYNJ, and users to identify these issues early and prevent them from reaching a point where ATC has no reasonable place to hold additional aircraft.

Q: At times, when we call ground for taxi at TEB, we can go several calls without acknowledgement. I think the simple answer for why this happens is obvious, they’re busy and we get that. However, just wondering if this has come up from any other operators, and if we are to assume ground has heard us? Or should we continue calling until we receive acknowledgement? More concerned with the local customary position on this.

A: It could be a few things, maybe the ground controller is busy, and they are working on things in an order of necessity before getting back to aircraft who are not moving yet.  Examples would be, they coordinated crossing reference arrivals or departures, and they do not want to miss the gap.  At that point, the ground controller will almost block out people calling to ensure that they get the crossing done safely.  

Another possibility is that we do currently have 4 people training on the ground control position and they are still getting used to the volume.  In those cases, maybe they are a little behind, and they are moving people out the best they can safely.  

And last, there is a chance your call was not heard or mistaken for a different call sign. 

My suggestion is if you make a call and time passes where you feel you are being skipped then call again. I know some people may tell you they know, but you don’t know that and there is a chance they missed it.  Please do not take this personally, if you are told they know you are waiting or tell you to stand by it is most likely due to one of the scenarios above.  I wish we could get everyone moving right away but that is not always the case, there may be traffic opposite direction of your ramp, some kind of coordination happening not on frequency that you are not aware of so the GC can not respond right away or they are just behind and trying to catch up.  If you are waiting for what seems like a long time and others are checking in, call again.  I will say give it a little time for the response but if you feel you were not heard then call. 

Matthew J PetersenAir Traffic Manager TEB ATCT (A)Air Traffic Services (AJT) / NY DistrictU.S. Department of Transportation(201) 419-3484 (cell)(201) 426-9457 (work)[email protected]