Narrative:

Scheduled departure was well before tower closure time. Loader broke down several times while loading progressed. Evident at XX50Z that we weren't going to be able to depart prior to tower closing for the night. Reviewing the fom pages issued for the airport, we discovered that no 'insert' page information existed allowing us to comply with fom page 4-5, dated dec/xx/95. We used commercial radio to call and asked for them to provide us with the required pieces of information necessary to depart the field. After reviewing this information (clearly the 'wrong' reference) we agreed on the page 4-5 as being the 'correct' requirements. We said that departures at non-operating control tower airports were permitted, but that lndgs were not permitted. I commented that 'operations' (takeoffs and lndgs) were permitted reference page 6-18 listing the same exact requirements for landing at non-operating control tower airports. He insisted on giving us a takeoff alternate airport (since, in his opinion we could not return to pwm). He stated that bos would be the takeoff alternate. He said that he could verbally authority/authorized us to operate the departure from pwm, but, if I insisted, I could speak with the duty officer, mr X. Mr X and I reviewed the situation again verbally. He said that departures after closing occur all the time at pwm, and by virtue of his authority/authorized as a direct representative of the director of operations, he could authority/authorized the departure. I asked for written confirmation of the authority/authorized of the deviation for my records and safe-keeping. Eventually he sent an e-mail to the station, which although not worded as carefully as I might have engineered, reflected his belief that compliance with fom 4-5 had taken place. Pwm, while the tower being closed, does permit arrs/landing according to fom page 6-18. Although the braking action there was good to fair as well, the VMC WX, no delays, and immediate return potential far out-weighed the bos alternative, coupled with the 'known delays' information for bos of which we were blissfully unaware. It would appear that several things are in order: better understanding/training of the fom by gocc specialists, revision of the applicable inserts for airports with the part-time towers to include the information required in fom pages 4-5 and 6-18 for bos of which we were blissfully unaware, revision of the fom, deleting the 'insert' requirement and just require that the information be obtained prior to operating either in or out of these airports, and better dissemination of 'known' ATC delay information to the crews.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ATCT CLOSED IN A NIGHT OP. PIC DEP ARPT IN CONFLICT WITH AIRLINE MGMNT POLICY.

Narrative: SCHEDULED DEP WAS WELL BEFORE TWR CLOSURE TIME. LOADER BROKE DOWN SEVERAL TIMES WHILE LOADING PROGRESSED. EVIDENT AT XX50Z THAT WE WEREN'T GOING TO BE ABLE TO DEPART PRIOR TO TWR CLOSING FOR THE NIGHT. REVIEWING THE FOM PAGES ISSUED FOR THE ARPT, WE DISCOVERED THAT NO 'INSERT' PAGE INFO EXISTED ALLOWING US TO COMPLY WITH FOM PAGE 4-5, DATED DEC/XX/95. WE USED COMMERCIAL RADIO TO CALL AND ASKED FOR THEM TO PROVIDE US WITH THE REQUIRED PIECES OF INFO NECESSARY TO DEPART THE FIELD. AFTER REVIEWING THIS INFO (CLRLY THE 'WRONG' REF) WE AGREED ON THE PAGE 4-5 AS BEING THE 'CORRECT' REQUIREMENTS. WE SAID THAT DEPS AT NON-OPERATING CTL TWR ARPTS WERE PERMITTED, BUT THAT LNDGS WERE NOT PERMITTED. I COMMENTED THAT 'OPS' (TKOFS AND LNDGS) WERE PERMITTED REF PAGE 6-18 LISTING THE SAME EXACT REQUIREMENTS FOR LNDG AT NON-OPERATING CTL TWR ARPTS. HE INSISTED ON GIVING US A TKOF ALTERNATE ARPT (SINCE, IN HIS OPINION WE COULD NOT RETURN TO PWM). HE STATED THAT BOS WOULD BE THE TKOF ALTERNATE. HE SAID THAT HE COULD VERBALLY AUTH US TO OPERATE THE DEP FROM PWM, BUT, IF I INSISTED, I COULD SPEAK WITH THE DUTY OFFICER, MR X. MR X AND I REVIEWED THE SIT AGAIN VERBALLY. HE SAID THAT DEPS AFTER CLOSING OCCUR ALL THE TIME AT PWM, AND BY VIRTUE OF HIS AUTH AS A DIRECT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DIRECTOR OF OPS, HE COULD AUTH THE DEP. I ASKED FOR WRITTEN CONFIRMATION OF THE AUTH OF THE DEV FOR MY RECORDS AND SAFE-KEEPING. EVENTUALLY HE SENT AN E-MAIL TO THE STATION, WHICH ALTHOUGH NOT WORDED AS CAREFULLY AS I MIGHT HAVE ENGINEERED, REFLECTED HIS BELIEF THAT COMPLIANCE WITH FOM 4-5 HAD TAKEN PLACE. PWM, WHILE THE TWR BEING CLOSED, DOES PERMIT ARRS/LNDG ACCORDING TO FOM PAGE 6-18. ALTHOUGH THE BRAKING ACTION THERE WAS GOOD TO FAIR AS WELL, THE VMC WX, NO DELAYS, AND IMMEDIATE RETURN POTENTIAL FAR OUT-WEIGHED THE BOS ALTERNATIVE, COUPLED WITH THE 'KNOWN DELAYS' INFO FOR BOS OF WHICH WE WERE BLISSFULLY UNAWARE. IT WOULD APPEAR THAT SEVERAL THINGS ARE IN ORDER: BETTER UNDERSTANDING/TRAINING OF THE FOM BY GOCC SPECIALISTS, REVISION OF THE APPLICABLE INSERTS FOR ARPTS WITH THE PART-TIME TWRS TO INCLUDE THE INFO REQUIRED IN FOM PAGES 4-5 AND 6-18 FOR BOS OF WHICH WE WERE BLISSFULLY UNAWARE, REVISION OF THE FOM, DELETING THE 'INSERT' REQUIREMENT AND JUST REQUIRE THAT THE INFO BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO OPERATING EITHER IN OR OUT OF THESE ARPTS, AND BETTER DISSEMINATION OF 'KNOWN' ATC DELAY INFO TO THE CREWS.

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.