You have to be kidding

Amen to the thread title.

Quotes are from the article:

Under the new air traffic rules, flights carrying Mrs. Obama or the vice president will be handled by an air traffic supervisor rather than a controller, the agency said. The new rules apply to approaches and departures handled by a regional air traffic facility in Warrenton, Va., and takeoffs and landings at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, where the presidential fleet is based.

Flights with the president on board are already required to be handled by a supervisor
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that supevisors got less practice at handling traffic than non-supervisor controllers. Does anyone know if this is correct?

While aborted landings are not unusual, and the first lady apparently wasn't in serious danger, the episode became another embarrassment for the FAA.
Click to expand...

I would say that the First Lady wasn't in ANY danger from a safely executed go around.

The FAA requires a minimum separation of five miles between two planes when the plane in the lead is as large as the 200-ton military cargo jet, in order to avoid dangerous wake turbulence that can severely affect the trailing aircraft...

The required separation between the two planes "was compromised," the NTSB said in a statement Wednesday.
Click to expand...

If they want to investigate something, investigate the loss of separation. Investigating a go around makes no sense to me.
 
I would like to see the radar tapes from when they were handed to approach control and given their speed restrictions and vectors for spacing... I have a suspicion that the pilots bear the brunt of responsibility here... Once the green between disappeared, the tattle tales on the radar room should have been chiming away like demented chickadees...

denny-o
 
Wasn't it a supervisor at DCA that kicked off the whole sleeping controllers circus?
 
i always thought the supervisors were the guys that were too old to work traffic but still wanted to work at the tower?
 
chucky said:
Wasn't it a supervisor at DCA that kicked off the whole sleeping controllers circus?
Click to expand...

If they want a supe to handle the first ladies flights, they'll just have to go and wake one up ;) .
 
tonycondon said:
i always thought the supervisors were the guys that were too old to work traffic but still wanted to work at the tower?
Click to expand...

Where I'm from a supervisor is preferrable to a controller.
 
It's another case of the FAA reacting to the media BS. Situation normal. Isn't it about time someone with knowledge smarten up the general public and the media so they wouldn't think every aviation event is a near catastrophe.
I don't know what the weather was like in DC yesterday but if VMC, wouldn't the controller have cleared the plane for a visual at which point the separation is up to the pilot. Or is a military approach always controlled to the ground?
 
My understanding is the planes were on approach to parallel runways and the distance tween rwys wasn't sufficient for handing separation over to the pilots. IOW, it's a TERPS thing.
 
silver-eagle said:
I don't know what the weather was like in DC yesterday but if VMC, wouldn't the controller have cleared the plane for a visual at which point the separation is up to the pilot. Or is a military approach always controlled to the ground?
Click to expand...

As I understood it this was separation for wake turbulence, not regular old ATC radar separation. I dont believe that visual separation allows you to go below the required spacing for wake turbulence.
 
Richard said:
My understanding is the planes were on approach to parallel runways and the distance tween rwys wasn't sufficient for handing separation over to the pilots. IOW, it's a TERPS thing.
Click to expand...

My understanding is Andrews does not currently have parallel runways.
 
From the AP Article "...Andrews' civilian air traffic controllers initially ordered Mrs. Obama's plane to conduct a series of turns to bring it farther from the military jet. When controllers realized there still might not be enough time for the cargo plane to clear the Andrews runway before Mrs. Obama's plane landed, they directed the pilot of Mrs. Obama's plane to circle the airport. ..."


mmmmm so lets see, The controllers recognized and issue, instructed the 737 to take corrective actions and when the controllers realized there still MIGHT not be enough time to let the C17 clear the runway they told the 737 to circle. Shame on them for trying to take corrective action and ensure the safety of the first lady's plane.:skeptical:
 
AdamZ said:
mmmmm so lets see, The controllers recognized and issue, instructed the 737 to take corrective actions and when the controllers realized there still MIGHT not be enough time to let the C17 clear the runway they told the 737 to circle. Shame on them for trying to take corrective action and ensure the safety of the first lady's plane.:skeptical:
Click to expand...

I must have just read the same thing.... I don't read anything about wake tubulence being an issue. I read that the C17 had not cleared the runway. Also, according to: http://www.faa.gov/training_testing/training/media/wake/04SEC2.PDF
traffic seperation is 3NM, not 5.
 
roncachamp said:
Yes, and the 737 is a 'large'.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

When I enter the runway with my 'small' after a commercial jet has landed, I usually get the 'caution wake turbulence' if the required time interval hasn't elapsed yet. Would a controller be able to tighten up the spacing between landing aircraft (a 'heavy' and a trailing 'large' in this case) if he advises the 'large' with 'caution, wake turbulence' ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top