Argument at Chicago-Midway

The recording shows the culture FAA has built up... pilot keeps saying "I want you to acknowledge you cleared us onto that runway"... in other words, he wants it on tape that it was an Operational Error.

The controller is, of course, ****ed because he knows what's coming next for him is potentially career-threatening and doesn't want to say anything. Three "deals" and his career is gone.

Safety culture indeed. Fear is the driving motivator behind both people's actions in both the cockpit and the tower cab. Both afraid of the same thing...

Thank you airlines for the overcrowding of the hub airports in the venerable hub-and-spoke system.

What really ****es me off is the insinuation by the media that the problem was because of the "private plane"... who did absolutely nothing wrong. They could have left those words off, and the root-cause problem is still the same. An error at an overcrowded hub.
 
Even though the controller was clearly in the wrong I thought the pilot's attitude was out of check, rather condescending. He could have gotten the same message across without being a jerk.
 
denverpilot said:
The recording shows the culture FAA has built up... pilot keeps saying "I want you to acknowledge you cleared us onto that runway"... in other words, he wants it on tape that it was an Operational Error.

The controller is, of course, ****ed because he knows what's coming next for him is potentially career-threatening and doesn't want to say anything.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter who acknowledges what. The important part was on the tape already.
 
Last edited:
Everskyward said:
I doesn't matter who acknowledges what. The important part was on the tape already.
Click to expand...

Agreed. My point is... the culture of "punishment" has hit a level where everyone on both sides of the mic are completely paranoid as soon as something incorrect happens.

The concept that "risk is not tolerated" but then the hubs are allowed to continue to grow and grow and grow stuffing more and more aircraft into a relatively tiny little space. That's illogical.

Add a bad economy and a pilot who also doesn't want to start over at the bottom of the retarded totem-pole system known as "seniority" which takes neither skill nor ability into account, and a controller who if tossed, will be flipping burgers at McJob, and it's a perfect recipe for disaster, motivationally. Level a gun at them and tell them everything the do or say is recorded, too... for even more unintended consequences.
 
denverpilot said:
Agreed. My point is... the culture of "punishment" has hit a level where everyone on both sides of the mic are completely paranoid as soon as something incorrect happens.
Click to expand...
Personally I don't feel that kind of paranoia and I have not really witnessed it among the people I fly with either. It's not like we all don't make mistakes, controllers included.
 
denverpilot said:
The recording shows the culture FAA has built up... pilot keeps saying "I want you to acknowledge you cleared us onto that runway"... in other words, he wants it on tape that it was an Operational Error.
Click to expand...

All ATC transmissions are recorded, so the clearance across the runway was already on the tape. The pilot wanted the controller's confession on the tape.
 
"Runway Near Miss Creates Tension on Tarmac "

Really? The runways at Midway are tarmac? I would have thought they were concrete. Oh well...

And I can see where the SW pilot was upset.
 
Midway's criss cross runways are a real PITA. I've been in there quite a few times lately and you really have to pay attention. They have ground traffic radar (AWOS says to have your transponder on during taxi) so there's little excuse for this. The SW pilots' hearts were in their throats after the Lear passed over. I can't blame them at all for asking for the confirmation on the radio.
 
roncachamp said:
All ATC transmissions are recorded, so the clearance across the runway was already on the tape. The pilot wanted the controller's confession on the tape.
Click to expand...

The pilot asked for a phone number first - the controller ignored him. I guess he wanted to report the incident to a supervisor and not tie up the frequency if possible. It didn't sound like the pilot got upset until after he was ignored by the controller.

I'd be upset too.
 
Controller was probably already dealing with calling Supervisor over, handing off to another controller, and being pulled from the seat to await the Union rep in the breakroom.

Rattled, ticked off, and probably just wanted the SW jet off the local control frequency and into the ramp before something else got screwed up. "Down the tubes" as they say.

He kept telling them "Contact Ground".

I'm sure the ground controller knew all about his buddy's newly suspended status by watching him being escorted from the cab, long before the Southwest complained to the Ground controller about the "deal".

Three of those and you'll never work traffic again. I feel bad for the controllers in that situation.

Imagine if we could ban every Doctor, Lawyer, and IT guy from ever working in their chosen field ever again who had made three confirmed mistakes in a lifetime.

I know I wouldn't have the job I have if that were the rules.
 
and the big deal made in the media over this is the reason that "three strikes" rules exist.
 
dell30rb said:
The pilot asked for a phone number first - the controller ignored him.
Click to expand...

No he didn't, listen to the tape. The pilot asked if the tower had a phone number and he got an answer, "Yes we do, contact ground."

I guess he wanted to report the incident to a supervisor and not tie up the frequency if possible. It didn't sound like the pilot got upset until after he was ignored by the controller.
Click to expand...

Well, given that the pilot did tie up the frequency and was not ignored by the controller, your guess is wrong.
 
roncachamp said:
No he didn't, listen to the tape. The pilot asked if the tower had a phone number and he got an answer, "Yes we do, contact ground."
Click to expand...

When a pilot makes a mistake "Cessna xxx ready to copy a phone number? Its xxx-xxx-xxxx Call the tower."

I think the three strikes rule is tough but.. remember that pilots can get their ass handed to them on a platter by the FAA if they make mistakes as well. Not to mention they can die from their own mistakes, or controllers mistakes.
 
roncachamp said:
No he didn't, listen to the tape. The pilot asked if the tower had a phone number and he got an answer, "Yes we do, contact ground."
Click to expand...
My recollection (and I'm intentionally not going back to listen to it, because the pilot wouldn't have been able to) was that there was no clear indication that ground would give him the number. I think a clearer response would have been simply "Contact ground; they will give you that number." No ambiguity and just slightly longer.
 
While I think the SWA pilot was pushing it a bit too far on the radio, what I think really ticked him off (and what first ticked me off when I heard the tape) was when the SWA crew first informed the tower that there was a conflict, the tower immediately responded with 'cross 31R and contact ground' in a tone that sounded like he was ingoring what the Southwest crew pointed out.

If the controller had simply acknowledged the 737 crew's report with a simple 'roger' and then told them to 'cross the runway, contact ground and they can give you a number to call', I don't think the SWA pilot would have kept pushing it.

FWIW, the first thing I thought of when I heard that tape was the PVD incident where a United 757 made a wrong turn after landing in night fog and ended up on the active runway. The UAL crew realized they screwed up and tried to tell tower but tower kept telling them in a rather argumentative-insisting tone to continue taxi and kept telling the FedEx 727 holding in position to takeoff. The FedEx crew wisely told PVD tower that they weren't going anywhere until it was sorted out.
 
Last edited:
dell30rb said:
When a pilot makes a mistake "Cessna xxx ready to copy a phone number? Its xxx-xxx-xxxx Call the tower."
Click to expand...

Your point?

I think the three strikes rule is tough but.. remember that pilots can get their ass handed to them on a platter by the FAA if they make mistakes as well. Not to mention they can die from their own mistakes, or controllers mistakes.
Click to expand...

That the controller made a mistake is not disputed and is not the issue, it's the pilot's clogging a busy frequency with demands that the controller confess his sin.
 
gprellwitz said:
My recollection (and I'm intentionally not going back to listen to it, because the pilot wouldn't have been able to) was that there was no clear indication that ground would give him the number. I think a clearer response would have been simply "Contact ground; they will give you that number." No ambiguity and just slightly longer.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't ground give him the phone number when asked? Even if ground withheld it, the pilot could just pick up a phone book.
 
roncachamp said:
Why wouldn't ground give him the phone number when asked? Even if ground withheld it, the pilot could just pick up a phone book.
Click to expand...
Your contention was that the initial controller response told the pilot he could get the phone number from ground. My contention is that he could have said it more clearly, and thereby eliminated the ensuing back and forth on the tower frequency. Remember, "when in doubt, ask!" The pilot asked (repeatedly).
 
My suspicion is there is a prior history to this - and it was payback time...

denny-o
 
gprellwitz said:
Your contention was that the initial controller response told the pilot he could get the phone number from ground. My contention is that he could have said it more clearly, and thereby eliminated the ensuing back and forth on the tower frequency. Remember, "when in doubt, ask!" The pilot asked (repeatedly).
Click to expand...

The pilot had his question answered the first time he asked. He could have avoided "the ensuing back and forth on the tower frequency" entirely by contacting ground control as directed. He didn't have to be an a$$ about it
 
Fearless Tower said:
While I think the SWA pilot was pushing it a bit too far on the radio, what I think really ticked him off (and what first ticked me off when I heard the tape) was when the SWA crew first informed the tower that there was a conflict, the tower immediately responded with 'cross 31R and contact ground' in a tone that sounded like he was ingoring what the Southwest crew pointed out.
Click to expand...

That's how it sounded to me. Agreed the pilot took it a little too far. However had they not had their heads on a swivel and seen that learjet the controller could have effectively sent all of them to their death.

Now I know that pilots should not just blindly comply with ATC instructions but verify those instructions with a visual scan. However this was almost a very bad situation. An airliner is hard to miss but a learjet is quite small and very fast moving.
 
roncachamp said:
The pilot had his question answered the first time he asked. He could have avoided "the ensuing back and forth on the tower frequency" entirely by contacting ground control as directed. He didn't have to be an a$$ about it
Click to expand...

And how is the controller being a friendly little angel? He almost killed them, how about a "sorry"

Or at least not sound like you are brushing off the pilot's obvious and well warranted discontent after a near miss. "contact ground and they can give you a number to call" would have ended it, IMO

By the way I do not have an "us vs. them" attitude towards controllers. I have found all of them (a few exceptions) to be very professional and accommodating. And frankly i'm impressed with the overall operations of ATC considering most other gvt operated services are so messed up. I've never been asked to call the tower or anything like that either. knock on wood.
 
Last edited:
roncachamp said:
The pilot had his question answered the first time he asked. He could have avoided "the ensuing back and forth on the tower frequency" entirely by contacting ground control as directed. He didn't have to be an a$$ about it
Click to expand...
Which one of them just had a near-death experience? Which one of them just about caused the other's death? Which one was acting like an a$$?
 
dell30rb said:
And how is the controller being a friendly little angel?
Click to expand...

Did anyone say he was?

He almost killed them, how about a "sorry"
Click to expand...

Would that have made it all better?

Or at least not sound like you are brushing off the pilot's obvious and well warranted discontent after a near miss. "contact ground and they can give you a number to call" would have ended it, IMO
Click to expand...

I don't think so. The pilot had his question answered but still wanted to chastise the controller and tie up a busy frequency.
 
roncachamp said:
Would that have made it all better?
Click to expand...

Would have been better than blowing him off.

Have you ever made an honest mistake that made someone really mad? If you admit your mistake and apologize it goes a long way. If you ignore them, you're only going to make them more angry. And that also makes you an ass.

I used to run a small business by myself (terrible idea) and occasionally i'd screw up an order and get a customer call me all hopping mad. I've found that 90% of the time, all you need to say is "sorry sir, I must have made a mistake, I apologize, i'll take care of it" and that's the end of story. I got repeat business from most of them too.
 
Last edited:
dell30rb said:
Would have been better than blowing him off.
Click to expand...

He didn't blow him off.

Have you ever made an honest mistake that made someone really mad?
Click to expand...
Not that I recall.

If you admit your mistake and apologize it goes a long way. If you ignore them, you're only going to make them more angry. And that also makes you an ass.
Click to expand...
Do you understand that the controller didn't ignore the pilot? Do you understand the controller answered the pilot's question?
 
roncachamp said:
He didn't blow him off.

Not that I recall.

Do you understand that the controller didn't ignore the pilot? Do you understand the controller answered the pilot's question?
Click to expand...

The controller THOUGHT he answered the pilot's question. The pilot thought otherwise, and it went downhill from there.
 
"Yes we do. Contact ground" under stress can be understood as "yes we have a number, but I'm not going to give it to you. Begone!" Further elaboration, as suggested by others, could have helped defuse this misundertanding. I don't think the pilot was being an a$$ at all.
 
Ghery said:
"Yes we do. Contact ground" under stress can be understood as "yes we have a number, but I'm not going to give it to you. Begone!" Further elaboration, as suggested by others, could have helped defuse this misundertanding. I don't think the pilot was being an a$$ at all.
Click to expand...
I think people reading too much into an exchange which took less than a minute. The tower controller was still controlling traffic so I can't blame him for not wanting to have a discussion. The pilot was upset which is also understandable. Here's a less edited version of the tape.

http://www.avweb.com/podcast/podcas...g_learjet_cleared_audio_206011-1.html?kw=self
 
Having just heard this, it does sound like the tower controller just didn't want to have to deal with the SWA pilot. The "Yes we do, contact ground" sounded dismissive to me; had he said, "Yes we do, contact ground for that number", at least the pilot would know that the request was acknowledged, and the number would be available even if the tower controller was too busy at that moment to retrieve it.
 
lprellwitz said:
Having just heard this, it does sound like the tower controller just didn't want to have to deal with the SWA pilot. The "Yes we do, contact ground" sounded dismissive to me; had he said, "Yes we do, contact ground for that number", at least the pilot would know that the request was acknowledged, and the number would be available even if the tower controller was too busy at that moment to retrieve it.
Click to expand...
Yes that's how I felt when I heard it. I think it was an honest miscommunication after a big deal incident where stress whas high, and neither side handled it well.
 
The phone number is published in the IFR chart book. SWA hasn't gone to iPads yet.

Both people were jerks under stress. No big surprise there. One's at risk of losing his job, the other was almost killed or injured.

Watch how someone acts when they're almost hit by a car in a parking lot, and the responses of the driver. They're similar.

Adrenaline causes problems communicating everywhere.
 
If the intention truly was that ground would give him the number....why didn't ground offer the number when the pilot called?

Sounds like a case of a controller making a big mistake and refusing to help the pilot deal with what was quite probably the scariest moment of his life. Big man.
 
denverpilot said:
The phone number is published in the IFR chart book. SWA hasn't gone to iPads yet.

Both people were jerks under stress. No big surprise there. One's at risk of losing his job, the other was almost killed or injured.

Watch how someone acts when they're almost hit by a car in a parking lot, and the responses of the driver. They're similar.

Adrenaline causes problems communicating everywhere.
Click to expand...

Yeah the last time I almost ran someone over did not go so well.
 
I gotta go with the guy who almost ended up in a flaming ball of Jet-A and aluminum. I'll cut him some slack on comm procedures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top