Originally Posted by
ATC Watcher
AA106 : NATCA is generally very well informed and when they make a statement , it is generally correct and verfified.
Austin : Which anwers would you like ? hanging the controller in a public place ? The correct answer in my view is , lack of staff, combined with increasing amount of traffic post COVID, pressure to expedite and lack of proper supervision /training .
Here focus on Training and supervsion is probably the case, as I have heard from various sources. So let's not focus on individuals but rather on fixing the system , which is something the FAA has a very poor record of doing. Fixing the system will cause masive delays though, |Refresher training means taking out controllers from the rosters, Applying standard procedures and R/T will also seriously reduce capacity. This will be highly unpopular and the person ordering this will need strong political back up.
Taking these points in reverse order:
I disagree that the need to focus on fixing the system, and all that doing so will involve, means that nothing more needs to be addressed with regard to the individual ATCO involved in the Austin incident. The performance record of a given individual controller certainly is material and relevant to assessing, from the incident which occurred, changes at the system level that need to be made. While "just culture" is important it does not remove accountability in the specific sense of identifying what errors were made and whether there had been performance deficiencies identified previously. Though the wording I used was imprecise, the answers about the record I contend are necessary would be information to be disclosed to, and used by, the officials working to "fix the system." Just as the working group meetings of the FAA Safety Summit were closed to the public, information of this type also could, and should, be non-public.
As for JFK and AA106, if NATCA issued a statement, I haven't yet located it. I was referring to the Allied Pilots Association interactions with the airline, prior to the incident, with regard to the manner in which changes in procedure were to be introduced. The relevance is not to exonerate the crew, rather the point is that in an incident presenting this level of seriousness, some deference to the position taken by the pilots' collective bargaining representative is called for. And, while the change in procedures is not the only factor (based on the discussion in the pertinent thread here), in such a serious incursion incident getting all the factors understood correctly should hold high priority.
Just to reiterate, no, there wasn't any intent or suggestion previously about hanging any ATCO out to dry in public. It's about getting all the relevant information onto the "fix the system" conveyor belt.