Cutest ATC clip of all time

Ron Levy said:
That statement ignores a few thousand years of jurisprudential experience. In order to maintain order, rules are required. Absent rules, you have only chaos and anarchy, and those are not conducive to aviation safety.
Click to expand...

I don't like the result in this particular situation, but the ultimate bottom line is that Ron's absolutely correct in this. If you're not going to abide by the rules, why have them? That same process applies from the Constitution all the way down to dinky little traffic laws.

At the same time, I expect action we take on the rules to be proportionate to infractions thereof. Here, yeah, there was a violation of the rules - no disputing that, and I don't think anyone's going to dispute the rule itself. But, this was about as little a violation as you can get - there's no need to go all mediaeval on this guy.

We don't impose the death penalty for speeding tickets; sometimes, if you behave yourself long enough or take the right classes, we'll even forgive the ticket (but not the fine, of course :)). Same concept applies here - yeah, dude broke the rules, but impose a punishment that's in line with what he did.

All rule violations aren't created equal. Although someone dies in both instances, there's a difference between stabbing someone 50 times in cold blood and accidentally running over a drunk pedestrian alongside the highway in snowy conditions. Although an "unauthorized person" was on the radio, there's a difference between a dad getting a cup of coffee while the kid's on the horn and letting the kid say "switch to tower" whilst sitting on dad's lap.

Seriously - all I'm advocating for is reasonability. You can never go wrong if you always act reasonably. Speaking of blanket rules.... :redface:
 
Ron Levy said:
So how would you phrase the rule to allow this while ensuring safety was not compromised, but still ensuring the rule could still be applied objectively under the labor contract's terms?
Click to expand...

Was safety compromised? Did the child issue an instruction incorrectly?
Was any instruction or transmission late? Was the child responsible
for ensuring separation minimums were maintained? Were any
safety minimums compromised?

Those with security clearances may understand the difference between
a security infraction and a violation.

Let's say I had a safe with classified materials in it. If I left it unlocked
and this error was caught, then I'd get an infraction unless materials
were removed from my safe or possibly removed. In that case I'd a
violation, and possibly fired. If I get too many infractions I could be
fired even if there was no loss (or suspected loss) of classified materials.

Why couldn't something similar be applied here?

The child did better than most student pilots in Class D, never mind
Class B. The lynch-the-controller folks should just "lighten up"
(insert soundbite from Sgt Hulka).
 
Ron Levy said:
Neither you nor your dad would have liked what would have happened if it was my dog on whom you were operating and I found out about it, even if nothing went wrong.
Click to expand...

Not much difference between what transpired and what went on later in the semester when the students were learning. At that point, I had more experience and training than they did. :D Teaching hospital. And I'll bet that the animal was not a client's. 40+ years ago, so it's tough to say.
 
So your rule, Bob, would be that it's OK for unauthorized personnel to talk on the radio as long as they don't screw it up? I don't see that as an appropriate standard for Air Traffic Control given the risks involved if they do, and the inability to provide reasonable assurance that they won't.
 
N801BH said:
I lived in Miami back when that happened.. In fact several of my friends and I saw that aircraft lumber back to MIA, making a beeline straight down 36 street to get it on the ground. All the while it was spitting ALOT of sparks out of the engines the whole way... If I remember correctly those mechanics were drug tested and FAILED the THC part... The union fought for their jobs like no tomorrow. And they stayed employed at Eastern till it folded. Frank Borman was not a happy camper either ..From that day on I learned to hate unions, and I still do... The usefullness of unions has long since passed.
Click to expand...

Were the bozos working for SaberTech who put the oxygen generators without safety pins on ValuJet 592 union members?


Trapper John
 
Trapper John said:
Were the bozos working for SaberTech who put the oxygen generators without safety pins on ValuJet 592 union members?


Trapper John
Click to expand...

Beats me.. I left that god forsaken place,' Miami that is' long before then..:yesnod::yesnod::yesnod:
 
Ghery said:
Not much difference between what transpired and what went on later in the semester when the students were learning.
Click to expand...
One big difference -- you and your dad were breaking the rules as I understand them, and the students weren't. One might as easily suggest that one could bring one's son along to act as co-pilot on one's Lear despite the son's lack of documented compliance with 61.55, and compare it to a co-pilot trainee occupying the seat after complying with 61.55 requirements to act as SIC under training. The former is simply unacceptable.
 
Ron Levy said:
So your rule, Bob, would be that it's OK for unauthorized personnel to talk on the radio as long as they don't screw it up? I don't see that as an appropriate standard for Air Traffic Control given the risks involved if they do, and the inability to provide reasonable assurance that they won't.
Click to expand...

I think you are asking me....

No. That's not what I wrote.

I draw a distinction between violating a rule without any
compromise of safety (which appears to be the case here)
and violating a rule that does compromise safety (even if
it didn't lead to injury or death).

The message to this controller should be: "bad, don't do it
again."

Had there been an actual problem or compromise of safety,
then apply the same punishment that would happen if, say,
a controller let two aircraft get too close together.
 
The answer....keep the law written exactly the way it is, and add "in such a way that compromises safety." to the end.

Boom. Non event.
 
Ron Levy said:
One big difference -- you and your dad were breaking the rules as I understand them, and the students weren't. One might as easily suggest that one could bring one's son along to act as co-pilot on one's Lear despite the son's lack of documented compliance with 61.55, and compare it to a co-pilot trainee occupying the seat after complying with 61.55 requirements to act as SIC under training. The former is simply unacceptable.
Click to expand...

No rules broken that I know of, but as I said, that was 40+ years ago. I didn't say I did the surgery, I handed him instruments as requested. And keeping a dog properly anesthetized with the equipment of the day, when properly supervised by a professor who teaches the subject wasn't difficult. Oh, and this and calls at 3 in the morning saying the dog had been sick for 3 weeks and now it was an emergency just didn't work for me. I'll stick with engineering. :D
 
Bob Noel said:
Let's say I had a safe with classified materials in it. If I left it unlocked and this error was caught, then I'd get an infraction unless materials were removed from my safe or possibly removed. In that case I'd a violation, and possibly fired.
Click to expand...
So given the choice between:
A ) the penalty is based solely on what you do
​
and:
B ) the penalty is based on a combination of what you do and the outcome of a roll of the dice
​
You're advocating "B" as the best approach?

Based on that logic, Russian Roulette is usually a good idea.
-harry
 
Bob Noel said:
Was safety compromised? Did the child issue an instruction incorrectly?
Was any instruction or transmission late? Was the child responsible
for ensuring separation minimums were maintained? Were any
safety minimums compromised?

Those with security clearances may understand the difference between
a security infraction and a violation.

Let's say I had a safe with classified materials in it. If I left it unlocked
and this error was caught, then I'd get an infraction unless materials
were removed from my safe or possibly removed. In that case I'd a
violation, and possibly fired. If I get too many infractions I could be
fired even if there was no loss (or suspected loss) of classified materials.

Why couldn't something similar be applied here?

The child did better than most student pilots in Class D, never mind
Class B. The lynch-the-controller folks should just "lighten up"
(insert soundbite from Sgt Hulka).
Click to expand...

SkyHog said:
The answer....keep the law written exactly the way it is, and add "in such a way that compromises safety." to the end.

Boom. Non event.
Click to expand...

The problem with using that standard is that you'd never have a rule violation until safety was actually compromised. Which would defeat what is probably the most important purpose - to keep safety from being compromised through the existence of rules!

What I'd propose would be basing sanctions, at least in part, on whether safety was compromised.

That way, you get the best of both worlds. There'd be an incentive not to break rules - and thus not compromise safety at all - because you'd receive some punishment (even if it's just an embarassing slap on the wrist in front of your colleagues, with no long-term consequences). But, if you actually did compromise safety through your actions, there'd be an increased sanction (and thus an increased incentive not to do it).

What thinks everyone?
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
The problem with using that standard is that you'd never have a rule violation until safety was actually compromised. Which would defeat what is probably the most important purpose - to keep safety from being compromised through the existence of rules!
Click to expand...

Not true. See FAR 91.13:
"(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another."

They hang pilots on (a) all the time, without a problem happening first...
What I'd propose would be basing sanctions, at least in part, on whether safety was compromised.

That way, you get the best of both worlds. There'd be an incentive not to break rules - and thus not compromise safety at all - because you'd receive some punishment (even if it's just an embarassing slap on the wrist in front of your colleagues, with no long-term consequences). But, if you actually did compromise safety through your actions, there'd be an increased sanction (and thus an increased incentive not to do it).

What thinks everyone?
Click to expand...

No go on my part. If a controller doesn't cause a safety issue, I see no problem.
 
mantakos said:
So given the choice between:
A ) the penalty is based solely on what you do
​
and:
B ) the penalty is based on a combination of what you do and the outcome of a roll of the dice
​
You're advocating "B" as the best approach?

Based on that logic, Russian Roulette is usually a good idea.
-harry
Click to expand...

You didn't apply the logic of what I wrote. I did *not* say
no penalty unless safety was compromised. I am advocating
a harsher penalty if safety was actually compromised, but,
again, I am *not* advocating no penalty.

Using *that* logic Russian Roulette is a stupid idea.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
What I'd propose would be basing sanctions, at least in part, on whether safety was compromised.

That way, you get the best of both worlds. There'd be an incentive not to break rules - and thus not compromise safety at all - because you'd receive some punishment (even if it's just an embarassing slap on the wrist in front of your colleagues, with no long-term consequences). But, if you actually did compromise safety through your actions, there'd be an increased sanction (and thus an increased incentive not to do it).

What thinks everyone?
Click to expand...

concur.

In this case there doesn't appear to be any compromise of safety.
 
Re: ATC Lets Child Direct Traffic.

rpadula said:
Standard thread title phraseology can be found in the newest AIM. Whatsamatter you? :rofl::aureola:
Click to expand...
Rich, Rich, Rich,

It's not just a matter of pharseology, that's for radio work. It's also a matter of spelling.

Watts-a-Matta-U is the proper spelling. See the Rocky & Bullwinkle episode. It's a major university.

How the heck are we going to be able to search if you can't spell?

Joe
 
SkyHog said:
Not true. See FAR 91.13:
"(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another."

They hang pilots on (a) all the time, without a problem happening first...


No go on my part. If a controller doesn't cause a safety issue, I see no problem.
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying. It's a good point. But, I think you're focusing on only the result, as opposed to how we obtain that result.

In ATC, the goal is to prevent accidents - which is accomplished, as a general matter, through avoiding compromised safety via an efficiently operating system where all of the pieces do exactly what they're supposed to do in a prescribed manner. If you have rules that require safety to be compromised before they're effective, you're simply setting yourself up for trouble, because the entire concept of the system is that safety never be compromised (which, in theory, contributes to avoiding accidents). In other words, the point of the rule is to prevent anyone from even coming close to the line where safety is "compromised" - and you can't have an effective scheme for doing that if your rules aren't effective until safety has already been compromised. On top of that, you don't know whether you've compromised safety until safety is actually compromised - and it's too late to do anything about it at that point.

Imagine, for instance, if you're guarding a prison. Is it ok for you to, say, go on break when you're not supposed to, even if you think that it's safe for you to, because there's another guy watching your section? Do you want the rules for your local DOC facility to say, "you can go on break so long as safety isn't compromised," or do you want them to say "1 guard from Section A gets a 5 minute break at the top of the hour, and the other guard in Section A gets a 5 minute break on the half hour?"

Do you want the prison jump to be while you're both on break because you think it's safe to take a break, or do you want it to be when one of you is on break, and all the other guards know to cover for you for that 5 minutes?

It's the same in ATC - do you want the accident to be while you're on break because you think it's safe, or do you want it to be when you're on break because that's how the system works and there's someone covering for you?

I'm not sure that we can compare rules governing the functioning of a system with rules governing something involving a lot more individual discretion on the part of a single person that is operating independently (which is what the FAR you referenced does).

Anyway, I don't think I'm doing a particularly good job of expressing what I'm trying to say.
 
Bob Noel said:
concur.

In this case there doesn't appear to be any compromise of safety.
Click to expand...

While we obviously don't know all of the details, it sure doesn't sound like it.

I'd say that some minimal sanction would be appropriate. Were I the guy who had to make the decision, I'd consider something like a two-day suspension without pay, and a term of that suspension being bringing the kid to the airport to quietly watch the airplanes takeoff/land on one of the days (from the tower).
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
OK, Dan -- where would you draw the line on unauthorized personnel doing the talking on ATC radios? Remember, this has to be a rule which can be consistently, objectively, and impartially applied, and does not compromise safety to a degree unacceptable in "common carriage" operations (which require "the highest degree of safety and foresight humanly possible"). Unless you can produce such a rule, your point is pointless.
Click to expand...

How's this for a line in the sand:

"Transmissions on ATC radios by unqualified persons must be closely monitored and conducted in a manner that does not compromise safety."

Although I wasn't there, I strongly suspect that the "JFK Kid" incident would have met that requirement.
 
gismo said:
How's this for a line in the sand:

"Transmissions on ATC radios by unqualified persons must be closely monitored and conducted in a manner that does not compromise safety."

Although I wasn't there, I strongly suspect that the "JFK Kid" incident would have met that requirement.
Click to expand...

But Lance, that would allow enjoyment in aviation, and we all know the FAA exists solely to reduce enjoyment in aviation. ;)
 
If I were the head of the FAA, I'd announce:

Upon investigating this incident, we found that the child did nothing more than speak into a microphone as directed by his parent. He was not making decisions, planning any operations, or in any other sense of the word "controlling" the traffic. We find that there was adequate supervision exercised during the time in question. Finally, we find that there was no reduction in safety, and in fact the warmth and good will between ATC and the pilots in this case probably improved everyone's outlook and possibly increased safety.

While we don't have a policy of encouraging this sort of thing, neither do we have a policy of punishing people when they exercise reasonable and prudent judgment in doing something new or different. We also do not take into account the opinions of others who may be uninformed or misinformed on the subject, regardless of if they've appeared on TV or on the Internet. Accordingly, no disciplinary action has been taken against the ATC personnel in this case.


This is why I will never be nominated for a political appointee position....
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
The problem with using that standard is that you'd never have a rule violation until safety was actually compromised. Which would defeat what is probably the most important purpose - to keep safety from being compromised through the existence of rules!

What I'd propose would be basing sanctions, at least in part, on whether safety was compromised.

That way, you get the best of both worlds. There'd be an incentive not to break rules - and thus not compromise safety at all - because you'd receive some punishment (even if it's just an embarassing slap on the wrist in front of your colleagues, with no long-term consequences). But, if you actually did compromise safety through your actions, there'd be an increased sanction (and thus an increased incentive not to do it).

What thinks everyone?
Click to expand...

I think I agree completely. The distinction between an "infraction" (lesser offense) and a "violation" (major goof) should involve the potential consequences of a deviation from the rules. And in this case I think it's quite plausible to conclude that there may have been no significant adverse consequences, depending on the actual circumstances.

For the sake of this discussion let's assume for the moment that the true scenario here is benign as possible. I.E. traffic was light, the skies were clear, the controller was perfectly capable of handling the extra workload of monitoring and coaching the kid because he does that with trainees as part of the job. Heck, let's even through in a competent supervisor plugged in and standing by as a second monitor.

Now what's the potential safety risk? The kid might give a wrong heading or altitude, he might clear the wrong aircraft for takeoff, or he might just say something unintelligible. In any of those scenarios or others I can think of an immediate correction by the "real" controller (or the monitoring supe) would eliminate any serious consequences and in any case those same errors are made by the trainees fairly often even though they're on the mike legally and possibly under far less benign circumstances. If having a kid utter a few clearances when conditions are ideal is less safe than ATC OJT I can't see it.

That said, I do understand the need for ATC personnel to have and follow rules but it seems to me that there should be some mechanism to allow safe deviations from some of those rules (i.e. with a manager's approval) or at least a workable means to get the rules changed when they're too strict.
 
Re: ATC Lets Child Direct Traffic.

Geico266 said:
We need to have lessons on how to write thread titles. :rofl::rofl::rofl:
Click to expand...

When the first thread was started, there wasn't a public outcry about the "near catastrophe". What's needed is a way to revise the thread title when the subject changes.
 
How about this:
"This controller exercised great care in supervising his child in the handling of air traffic. While the current rules prohibit this, it is an excellent way to promote Air Traffic Control to youngsters, and therefore, we will change the rules to allow, with appropriate supervision and monitoring, children of current Air Traffic Controllers. It must be scheduled ahead of time and at a time when there is a lighter schedule."

Not a particularly difficult rewrite. That would make the child "authorized", but only to "parrot" directions from the parent. No decisions may be made.



Give this guy an unpaid day off for his "infraction", commend him on his forethought, and see how a program can be implemented that encourages this without undue hardships to the already overloaded ATC burden.
 
Bob Noel said:
Using *that* logic Russian Roulette is a stupid idea.
Click to expand...
But by that logic you can't say just how bad of an idea it was until after we find out how it turns out. By my way of thinking, we can judge the action based on the decision to take the risk, without needing to know what the dice showed at the end.

We apply sanctions for two reasons. One is to provide a disincentive for undesirable behavior, in the hopes of reducing its occurrence, and the other is to weed out those who demonstrate that they are too great a risk to allow to continue to serve.

In neither of these cases is there any relevance to how that roll of the dice turns out. If somebody is doing something they shouldn't be doing, then we apply a sanction to discourage a re-occurrence of such behavior, and that goal is the same regardless of how it turned out, because whether an undesirable action had an undesirable result or not is simply a matter of luck.

If a pair of drunk drivers lose control of their respective cars and crash in separate incidents, but only one of them was unlucky enough to encounter an oncoming car, killing its occupant, then that drunk driver will be penalized more harshly, though both were guilty of the same transgression and in the same measure. I understand that people "this this way", that the drunk driver who killed somebody did something worse than the guy who lucked out, but it's illogical.
-harry
 
TMetzinger said:
If I were the head of the FAA, I'd announce:

Upon investigating this incident, we found that the child did nothing more than speak into a microphone as directed by his parent. He was not making decisions, planning any operations, or in any other sense of the word "controlling" the traffic. We find that there was adequate supervision exercised during the time in question. Finally, we find that there was no reduction in safety, and in fact the warmth and good will between ATC and the pilots in this case probably improved everyone's outlook and possibly increased safety.

While we don't have a policy of encouraging this sort of thing, neither do we have a policy of punishing people when they exercise reasonable and prudent judgment in doing something new or different. We also do not take into account the opinions of others who may be uninformed or misinformed on the subject, regardless of if they've appeared on TV or on the Internet. Accordingly, no disciplinary action has been taken against the ATC personnel in this case.


This is why I will never be nominated for a political appointee position....
Click to expand...

Excellent Tim!
 
According to the NPR report this afternoon, both the controller and the supervisor are on administrative leave. NPR broadcast the tapes, BTW.
 
murphey said:
According to the NPR report this afternoon, both the controller and the supervisor are on administrative leave. NPR broadcast the tapes, BTW.
Click to expand...

As unfair as it might be, that's pretty standard practice anytime there's an investigation. Even if it's fairly obvious that there wasn't actually misconduct, you'll still often see somebody "placed on administrative leave."

For instance, suppose there's a police shooting of a guy with a gun during an arrest. Even if the entire thing was legally justified, the article will still read that the officer involved is "on admin. leave."
 
The FAA and the NTSB need to announce that the tower was properly staffed, that while it was the child's voice on the radio, his father coached and monitored the child, and NO SAFETY was compromised. Pilots are not stupid. They expect certain radio calls and received them on time as expected.
Then schedule Dad for training and redeploy him to East Overshoe.
 
silver-eagle said:
The FAA and the NTSB need to announce that the tower was properly staffed, that while it was the child's voice on the radio, his father coached and monitored the child, and NO SAFETY was compromised. Pilots are not stupid. They expect certain radio calls and received them on time as expected.
Then schedule Dad for training and redeploy him to East Overshoe.
Click to expand...

Ya got the airport identifier for East Overshoe. ??? :lol::lol::lol::rofl:
 
I have seen the quote about 'only qualified people....' But does anyone have the actual rule and where it was found that this controller is accused of violating? I have yet to see a quote anywhere that lists where that alleged rule is actually written as a regulation.
 
dmccormack said:
Well said, but in this case it's not just the "news wackos" that are overreacting.
Click to expand...

True, however IMO: The FAA has to overreact now since a whole bunch of far more powerful people who overreact even worse are their bosses. If they don't overreact now, the entire organization will end up on the carpet in front of congress then have to implement a very draconian set of rules that have no sense behind them at all that will likely jepordize air safety.
Placate the whiney nutcases because they are in charge of the asylum even though they have no working knowledge of the real world that is outside of their self induced hallucination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top