Well, ok then…
I've got time for this game if it means not getting a backlog of aircraft
Actually, you DON’T have time for this game either. You’re having to verify a whole new level of information and that’s my point. I’m saying that adding more to your plate is not the way to solve this problem.
As for comparing fire with pushbacks - well, apples and [potatoes] spring to mind.
Well, that’s not what I was doing. I pray that you realize this. My point was that we spend all day assuming that aircrew statements generally approximate the truth. I believe that the key here is to encourage veracity, not spend time double-checking every aircrew claim.
Let me try to be more clear:
1. Aircrew lies to get ahead of the game? Bad.
2. Controller issues clearance based on an aircrew lie and this jams up all other traffic? Bad.
3. Controller has to consult a video monitor to ensure aircrew isn’t lying? Bad.
Come on. The last thing I want to do working ground is to get into an argument about whether or not an airframe is truly ready to push. Driver says “ready,” I say “push,” and if nothing happens, then something’s got to hit the fan. That was the point about fire. If the driver says he or she is on fire or ready for an immediate takeoff or in moderate turbulence, than that’s what I’m depending on. If they’re going to lie about any of this for personal gain, then there’s going to be official trouble. But for me to have to visually verify that they’re telling the truth on any of these things will take me away from solving the problems I’m paid to solve. Sure, we always have a contingency plan, but we go with a primary plan based upon the representations made.
And as for apples and potatoes… both edible, somewhat spherical plant life? Yeah. Close
Bottom line: I agree this is a problem. I agree that there’s work to be done. There was work to be done the first time I ran into this issue in 1976. I probably should have had it fixed by now. Sorry.
Dave
