Kids controlling at JFK [Archive]

NorthSouth

3rd Mar 2010, 18:05

I'm sure I'll get some responses to this from over the pond, but isn't this just a rather poorly judged extension of the Americans' penchant for folksy, non-standard, and non-ICAO compliant RT? When I've flown there it's been really hard to make the switch from the folksy to the
properly professional (when that happens). Little things like the US habit of always saying "twelve sixty four" instead of the ICAO standard "one two six four" are a perennial irritation over here (Europe) too.

Having said that, the US has the best ATC system in the world in terms of the incident rate per 10,000 hrs.

I am reminded of the TV documentary some years ago where a bearded, lumberjack-shirted ground controller at JFK was interviewed on camera WHILE CONTROLLING IN LVPs, speaking to camera in between instructing taxi-ing aircraft which were lost in the fog and didn't know where they were. Amazing! Sacking offence in the UK for sure.
NS

Vector361

3rd Mar 2010, 19:24

"Twelve sixty four" is perfectly acceptable in the US. US still uses FAA Order 7110.65S, 2-4-20a and not the ICAO doc. you mentioned. It is a habit as it's a requirement.

MPN11

3rd Mar 2010, 19:38

Vector 361 - good news for the "FAA Order 7110.65S, 2-4-20a and not the ICAO doc".

International has never been a strong point for you guys, has it? How is the Rest of the Planet supposed to cope when they fly into US airspace?

GuruCube

3rd Mar 2010, 19:38

At the end of the day, when a trainee first turns up and knows nothing about what they do, they plug in with an instructor and the instructor tells them everything to say. Aside from an age gap, what's the difference?
If you know about how ATC and ATC training works, then you know there is no difference. If you don't know this, then you are not qualified to comment on this subject. I can assure you that some brand new trainees are just as green as this kid, so it was not an issue. :cool:

Politically, it may seem a less-than-great idea (if nothing else other than knowing how ignorant and dramatic the media are) but in terms of pure fact, it's a non-event. That should be the end of discussion. :hmm:

alfaman

3rd Mar 2010, 20:25

what's the difference?
- you seriously need to ask that? As far as the UK is concerned, no Trainee talks on the r/t until they've successfully completed a period of rating training involving simulator work & r/t training, amongst a whole host of other objectives; that simulated r/t time can be anywhere up to 100 hours. That is followed by what ever is encompassed in the UTP. This may, if required, include an additional period of simulator training - that depends on the unit requirement, but can be another 100 hours. Only then will they go live with an OJTI - hardly the same as here.
But, you already know that, don't you?:ugh:

V2-OMG!

3rd Mar 2010, 20:35

Well, at least this had a happier ending than the pilot who let his kid fly the plane. Aeroflot Flight 593 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_593)

Maybe the ATC kid was playing with this.....
http://pic80.picturetrail.com/VOL1942/12014112/21796710/383661589.jpg
....then started pestering dad about having a go at the "real thing"?

The solution is simple: no more toys. It gives the little buggars ideas. :}

Nubboy

3rd Mar 2010, 20:57

Looks like a previous post sums it up quite nicely.

100's of hours of training, loads of certificates before someone on the ground can speak to a skygod over a radio. And that's under the close personal supervision of a dedicated experienced professional personal trainer.

Persoanlly I like the other comment about the lowest incident rates from NorthSouth. Gurucube sums it up as well.:ok:

Anyway didn't those amerrycans invent aviation anyway?:=

endplay

3rd Mar 2010, 21:46

It has been reported that a dad (JFK ATC controller) took his kid into control and allowed him/her to pass instructions to ac. Crime of the century according to informed US sources.

Is it any different to CO/headmaster for a day or not. The pilots seemed pretty cool about the situation but is this a fuss about nothing (my call) or a serious breach of flight safety?

Seldomfitforpurpose

3rd Mar 2010, 22:02

Nothing in the least bit wrong :ok:

finfly1

3rd Mar 2010, 22:16

Listen to tape. Kid enjoyed it. Pilots definitely enjoyed it.

In a perfect world, FAA would tell him 'don't do it again without permission" and then go off to worry about things like young adults commuting from California to NJ to fly in the winter with a pilot who flunked several checkrides and didn't know stall recovery.

Too bad we live SO far from a perfect world.

GuruCube

3rd Mar 2010, 22:27

Yada yada yada yada yada yada...
But, you already know that, don't you?
I am perfectly aware of what the UK regulations are. I didn't say anything to the contrary. That doesn't mean I agree with them.*- you seriously need to ask that?Aww, bless you! It was a rhetorical question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question).:ugh:Be careful doing that, you may lose your medical... :}

*(In fact, I actually think they are a load of nonsense and do nothing except restrict people unnecessarily because of some previously poor OJTI skills. Yet another example of reducing our procedures to the lowest common denominator, rather than addressing the problem directly, but we digress....)

Cookie7

3rd Mar 2010, 23:04

And now back on subject....

There have been reports that a few kids (at different times) have been controlling at JFK. Also, 1 or 2 controllers have now been suspended. << I wonder if that last part is fact or fiction.

vikingdriver

3rd Mar 2010, 23:53

If he is supervised by a licensed air trafficer, and the readbacks are correct is there really a problem? How different is that from someone undergoing training? I couldnt hear any issues in the audio on the bbc site, flash in a pan methinks...

Vector361

4th Mar 2010, 00:09

International or domestic US, - What came first the chicken or the egg? Both have their strengths & weaknesses. And the rest of the world copes just fine when they fly in US airspace. Most aviation people are quite adaptable, but we all have our pet peeves.

Travelair

4th Mar 2010, 00:27

I didn´t think it was a BIG deal, like all the media is playing it to be. Its so sad to see we have become so paranoid. Its obvious the kid is with his dad...c´mon a bit of humour does not kill us. I even heard the pilots having a laugh, understanding the whole thing. Is this worth losing a great controller?
TAIR

John Hill

4th Mar 2010, 00:39

Hmmmmm....[thinks] what protection is there against some kid with a handheld VHF pretending to the the Tower?

Buster Hyman

4th Mar 2010, 00:48

You won't see this happening at Aeroflot.....:(

Torquatus

4th Mar 2010, 01:34

Very little, and none whatsoever if he does it so far away that the aeroplanes can hear him but the tower can't. Anecdotally, it has happened!

SASless

4th Mar 2010, 01:59

Alas....some guy is going to lose his hind end over this.....and for no good reason! Some folks in the media and the FAA management need to get their heads out of their butts!

I think it was a hoot....the kid learned something...Dad got to show his young one what he does for a living....no harm....no foul!

Captain Windsock

4th Mar 2010, 04:43

I think someone ought to offer that kid a job! His phraseology was pretty good.

sekos

4th Mar 2010, 06:06

i think there is just too much fuzz around it.most of us done things like that. not kids but girlfriends yes.we sing christmas carrol tell jokes, football results and lots of other stuff.my mate once asked 2 b2 pilots if they can make a low pass at lkpr while they were crusing at 390.we had to stop dep. for 5 mins but it was fun. no harm done like at jfk.you cant be ALWAYS serious.

Minesthechevy

4th Mar 2010, 06:50

One of the best photos I took whilst at EGLL was of a Spitfire doing a SE-NW flyby of the VCR. I somehow clicked the shutter just as it was passing over a Lufthansa A300 parked on (the old) stand Golf12.....

But then again, those were the days when you could drive an unmarked white van straight through the British Airways maintenance area and onto the Airside area.

Happier days, when the only Elfs were fuel bowsers and those placed around the windsock. Nowadays it's all Elf and Safety.

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

4th Mar 2010, 06:55

<<what protection is there against some kid with a handheld VHF pretending to the the Tower?>>

None and, in the UK, no restrictions on buying such equipment. I was involved in a loss of separation when someone with, presumably, a handheld transceiver issued "instructions" to traffic I was controlling. It is not funny. When one of my sons was young I took him into a control tower while I was working and he had strict instructions to keep well out of the way and not to touch anything. As for letting a kid talk on a busy ATC frequency - it's lunacy and I don't think it does anything for "professionalism". Would pilots be happy to let a kid sit in and fly their aeroplane? Ooooooppps.. sorry; it did happen once, didn't it? And a lot of people got dead all of a sudden.

Next time you have a surgical operation, think to yourself: "Wonder if it's the surgeon's kid doing it?"

extpwron

4th Mar 2010, 06:58

Down in the Falkland Islands in the days of the F4 I often used to hear children on the ATC frequencies – none from the tower though!

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

4th Mar 2010, 07:35

I can't believe some of the totally irresponsible comments on here. You're dealing with peoples' lives, or have you all forgotten that small fact?

Unless the person is properly authorised it is illegal to use ATC radio equipment. Do pilots allow their kids to fly their aeroplane? Oh yes, so one did.... and what happened? Everyone ended up dead.

semper fi

4th Mar 2010, 07:45

I am amazed at the people siding with the controller who let his kid get on the radio, maybe they should let their brain operations done by the 8 year old son of their local neurosurgeon. As long as daddy supervises the operation its ok I guess??

Talk about professionalism.................:ugh:

sekos

4th Mar 2010, 08:18

its not the same is it. you dont have to train to say what youve been told to say like the kid did and comparing it to brain operation by kid under supervision is simply stupid.:yuk:

Quintilian

4th Mar 2010, 08:57

I'm definately with the controller on this one.

As controllers we undergo countless hours of training (200h + in sim, 600h+ OJT) and gain tons of experience when working... A bucketload of "SAFETY" is molded to our backbones, and while working this is REALLY the number one priority.

Every single day we take lots of operational decisions, and every single one is passed by our "safety filter" before it's put into action. I am certain that the ATCO in question did exactly this before letting the kid "parrot" for a few moments.

I've listened to the audio-clip and it does not appear to be a busy situation. Regarding the juridical aspect I have no clue, but I am 100% certain that it was 100 % SAFE all the way. The instructions from the kid could not be misunderstood in any way, and the ATCO in question had him on a short leash, being able to take over in an instant if anything out of the ordinary happened.

my 2 c.

JustaFew

4th Mar 2010, 10:27

So where ARE you going to draw the line, boys & girls?

12 year-old, or younger, sat on mum/dad's lap 'driving' a 40-tonne artic/bus?

Or the 12.30 London to Glasgow non-stop train?

How about the space shuttle?

As an ADULT, you are examined, trained and tested repeatedly because you
have demonstrated the ability to cope from the time you said, 'I'd like to be
a ...... (whatever your job interest is)', until retirement.

Take youngsters to work, subject management agreement, show them what you do. It's what fires their interest, keeps them keen.

But also show them the adult world of responsibilities, don't let them grow up too fast, too soon.

To do so is irresponsible and you are failing them.

Ditchdigger

4th Mar 2010, 10:35

Unless the person is properly authorised it is illegal to use ATC radio equipment.

As I pointed out in the thread up in the R&N section, even if you're properly authorized, it's "illegal" to add "Good day", or any other pleasentry to the end of a transmission. Not essential communication you know. Where do you draw the line? Shall we fire them all?

G-CPTN

4th Mar 2010, 10:53

So "Adios Amigos" responded with "Adios Amigo" were, in themselves, contraventions of the law?

BARKAN

4th Mar 2010, 11:41

Congratulations to Jr. Controller :)

Rules for humans, NOT Humans for rules

rolaaand

4th Mar 2010, 12:14

While it all sounded very cute with a little kid speaking on the frequency this is surely going to end up with the controller being fired. I have had loads of people over the years plugged in with me and watching what i do. Friends, family, pilots, work experience kids from school etc, at no point have i thought it would be a good idea to let them have a go on the frequency, even with my strict supervision. I think from a UK (Nats) perspective this would come under the umbrella of gross misconduct and you would be shown the door.
I'm sure dad had junior on a very tight leash but what if an incident had occured that had nothing to do with the controller, like a runway incursion. Or what if dad, god forbid, made a mistake, and junior clears someone for takeoff with traffic on the runway. 75 people died when the aeroflot pilot let his kids 'have a go' a few years back. That was under strict supervision as well, and I'm sure dad in that case was a good pilot and a nice guy just showing his kids what he did for a living.
I'm sure the JFK controller is a nice guy but his actions here seem to be poor judgement at best. I hope he gets away with a warning but i fear the worst for his career.

anotherthing

4th Mar 2010, 12:50

Ditchdigger

As I pointed out in the thread up in the R&N section, even if you're properly authorized, it's "illegal" to add "Good day",
Rubbish. CAP 413 (UK) is produced to provide guidance to UK RTF users. It states that ...Users of RTF in the UK are expected to comply with the phraseology described in this manual... There is nothing within the manual that states use of pleasantries etc is 'illegal'. It is not standard RT Phraseology, but that's a hell of a lot different from being 'illegal'.

There are many times that even the most standard ATCO or pilot will have to use phrases/words outwith the scope of any RTF Phraseology Publication (not just CAP 413), because there are many situations that are not covered.

It is printed as a guideline and should be used whenever possible.

However, rules governing who can speak on ATC RT etc are laid down in law.

Vector361

4th Mar 2010, 13:54

Heard on local Florida news a suspension is being considered, not removal. Much more appropriate IMO since the FAA would/should have authorized the visit to begin with. And NATCA is most effective in the NY area so I'd bet if he's had no problems before a warning or reprimand may be the result. Depends on the charges.

Yahweh

4th Mar 2010, 15:05

This has been blown way out of proportion imo. Ok the controller screwed up, word in his ear rap on the knuckles and he won't do it again. Think suspending him is a bit much. But then once again when the media gets hold of a story like this it develops wings :rolleyes: pardon the pun...

atco-matic

4th Mar 2010, 15:29

I don't normally post on PPrune, but having read some of the ridiculous comments on here (and on other webistes)I feel compelled to reply.

Everybody is entitled to an opinion, but quite clearly there are lots of people in this thread (and around the world) who don't know the first thing about ATC or the job that we do.

For a start, in the UK you need a Radio Telephony licence in order to transmit on an ATC frequency. The minimum age for such a licence is 16 years of age. Does no such age restriction exist in the USA?

So if this were the UK, that's one rule broken before we've even started.

I am just stunned that anybody would allow a child to transmit instructions to aircraft on their ATC licence. This has nothing to do with "humour" at all. It's irresponsible, it smacks of total unprofessionalism, and I can't believe that anybody would think it would be a good idea. I wouldn't even supervise an ADULT on my licence if they hadn't got a student ATC licence, let alone a child with zero training whatsoever.

When you think that we aren't even allowed visitors in the Operations Room now unless you have an aviation background, what could possibly make ANYBODY think this is just harmless fun? Quite frankly, it beggars belief.

The people involved in this should be dismissed instantly without question.

EGLLBenji

4th Mar 2010, 15:43

Not sure whether this is the same event being discussed?!!

Login | LiveATC.net (http://www.liveatc.net/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7254.0;attach=3389)

Tourist

4th Mar 2010, 15:45

You all need to lighten up.
Was very nice to hear somebody allowing a child to have fun at no perceptible risk to anybody.
Incidentally, everyone goes on about the aeroflot crash, but the fact that one pilot allowed his kid to crash does not mean giving your kid a go is inherrantly unsafe if properly supervised.
My dad used to let me fly his aircraft from the right for hours on end in the holidays as a kid. It was only a twin turboprop, but none of the passengers ever seemed to mind, and I loved it! He used to let any kid who fancied it have a go.
This age is far too worried about health and safety to live a little and enjoy life.

mad_jock

4th Mar 2010, 16:03

For a start, in the UK you need a Radio Telephony licence in order to transmit on an ATC frequency. The minimum age for such a licence is 16 years of age.

Nope the minimum age you can start logging hours for a pilots license is 14. The kids do use the radio when they are 14. And I have had a couple of trial flights younger than that doing a bit of RT. Nobody had a problem with a "cleared takeoff".

Give the controller a good finger waving at, make him clean the fridge in the crew kitchen for a month and forget about it.

Uncle Wiggily

4th Mar 2010, 16:15

I had to laugh at the earlier post of US "folksiness" (is that a word?). If I hear another "ok..we'll pedal a little bit harder" from a pilot, after an increase in speed instruction, I may vomit. LOL :bored:

Vector361

4th Mar 2010, 16:28

TV report 10 minutes ago, suspension. Don't know how long.

MPN11

4th Mar 2010, 17:26

I have no idea what the professional background is of the people who have posted here. As a 'lifetime' ATCO I find this whole episode sadly un-professional and embarrassing - simple as that.

ATC is not something trivial. It's core Flight Safety, along with what happens in the cockpit, and with engineering. It's NOT something to let kids use, especially at an International airport - period. I'm surprised, and disappointed, that flight crew didn't submit a complaint, TBH.

Sorry to sound grumpy, but this is not some minor airstrip and it's not a playground. If that ATCO had been on my staff, I'd have nailed his nuts to the desk before the interview.

Married a Canadian

4th Mar 2010, 18:05

Someone please enlighten me (as a valid atco) how this kid making SUPERVISED transmissions with a professional controller next to him...who also happened to be his dad...was going to all of a sudden cause chaos, mayhem and death all around the skies of JFK on that particular day.
Are there some very dangerous buttons that shall not be pushed in control towers around the world as they would cause all planes to crash? Are there self destruct buttons? Was this kid going to go crazy all of a sudden? Was he going to make up clearances...the like of which pilots would understand...that would cause safety implications?

If you answer yes to the above..then go hand in your water bottles and coke and half eaten chocolate bar as you pass through security because of the threat they pose.

I also am just hazarding a guess that a tinpot airport such as JFK would allow OJIs to overide transmissions made by their trainees just in case..and am also just having a stab in the dark that perhaps that is what the dad had his child and their headsets hooked into.

Did the guy break the rules. Yes.
Was it unprofessional. Possibly.
Did he compromise safety. NO

Us ATCOS can be so up ourselves at times ye know. Are we just scared that even though we have gone through years training and are at the "core of flight safety", a young child can make a transmission (supervised) and the other side of the mic respond. Does that make you feel unworthy? Your job isn't as hard as it may seem.

BTW If someone could look up how long it takes to train as a surgeon..and then how long it takes to train as an atco and get back to me.

Two-Tone-Blue

4th Mar 2010, 18:09

@ MAC ... i see where you're coming from, but it is simply unprofessional to allow a kid to do the RT. Period.

I know it's not going to knock the planet off its axis, or anything like that. It's just "not the done thing" IMO.

God, I'm getting old. :cool:

obwan

4th Mar 2010, 18:12

atco-matic Quite frankly I haven't read so much sanctimonious tripe for many a long day

Bandbox4Training

4th Mar 2010, 18:44

Yeah, what harm did they do. They were only showing their kids what they do at work, and it's not like they weren't sitting right behind them ready to take over at any point.

Come to think of it, it's a such great idea lets ALL take our kids into work and let them pass instructions on the RT. I mean nothing went wrong when they did so it must be okay right?

I hope they throw the book at them... idiots...

Two-Tone-Blue

4th Mar 2010, 19:13

Come to think of it, it's a such great idea lets ALL take our kids into work and let them pass instructions on the RT. I mean nothing went wrong when they did so it must be okay right?

I wonder if bankers have ever taken their kids to work and show them how to do auto-trading? :eek:

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

4th Mar 2010, 19:35

MPN11... Thank God for you, sir.

MPN11

4th Mar 2010, 19:52

MPN11... Thank God for you, sir.

Pilots often used to say that to me :cool: :)

dolphinops

4th Mar 2010, 21:04

Murphys Law applies and in the ensuing BOI the tapes would be played.
Get out of that one Bloggs:=

djwebby

4th Mar 2010, 21:09

Agree with MPN11 too; surprised at the controllers playing down the importance of their jobs.

Pheasant Plucker

4th Mar 2010, 21:22

Married a Canadian - Quite agree.

After all, if it was good enough for the 'Silver Fox'.....:)

Married a Canadian

4th Mar 2010, 23:51

surprised at the controllers playing down the importance of their jobs.

Not playing down the importance...just keeping it in perspective.

Are we really saying that EVERY single transmission you make on a daily basis as an atco is a life or death transmission...and that all the time
are times when a split second wrong decision can make the difference . Maybe I am not treating my shifts with enough reverence....along with a lot of my colleagues it seems (from both countries).

We don't have to hype our jobs any more than needed. No pilot or aviation professional would deny the role that we play in the role of flight safety.

I think it undermines the professionalism that we try to convey to the travelling public and does us all as professional ATCOs a disservice.

Lets be honest...the general public on the whole doesn't have a clue what we do. How many ping pong bat references do you get when you tell someone you are an atco. It isn't the general public you should be worried about except when they step on that plane and your professionalism takes over (infact whenever SLF asks a question here they get roasted for not knowing anything) Worry about what the pilots think as they are the ones you deal with one to one. As has been mentioned numerous times over this incident..none of them seemed to have a problem.
We seem to spend a lot of time on this forum slagging off the people on the other side of the mic...and a lot of them have the same training and responsibilties we do. Maybe it should be their opinion that matters in this case....they took the calls.

When you think that we aren't even allowed visitors in the Operations Room now unless you have an aviation background So THAT is how much we care about the general public maybe getting to know our job a bit better. Ah I see.

this was the most idiotic thing I have ever heard an ATCO do

I dunno.....when we have airmisses, deals, airproxes or whatever you call them in your part of the world I am sure there have been some pretty "weird" calls on the part of us atcos in the past. We get all het up when something like that is released to the media or made public as they "don't understand".
I guess no air traffic controller we know has ever worked sick, hung over or fatigued. None of us has ever issued a bone headed clearance and then thought "why did I say that". None of us chat on the frequency or chat with colleagues along side us whilst plugged in. None of us eat or drink whilst in position. None of us have ever fallen asleep at the console or in the tower on a night shift with planes calling. No one has ever fallen down the stairs in the tower whilst on alone, No one has ever used bad language on the frequency or had arguments, no one has ever abused a pilot into a live mic not realising the mic is open, none of us have ever used the phone in position to call home or somewhere else,

We can talk about our professionalism till the cows come home..and it would all be valid...but we are not perfect...and we are not "skygods" or whatever the term you want to use. The more we hype ourselves...the less people will understand.

We had better close down the humour thread on this forum as it shows us atcos at our least professional.....jokes being told on the frequency when we are all seconds from disaster...imagine! How could you regain control when your sides are aching so much from laughter..or if some split second event intervened before you could get a punchline in. Dangerous and irresponsible stuff in my opinion :rolleyes:

Pheasant Plucker

5th Mar 2010, 01:05

There is a big difference between perceived risk and actual risk.

The kid was just a mouth piece - when I was a trainee (and yes, maybe even now), making my own decisions, I was waaayyyy more dangerous!

Tarq57

5th Mar 2010, 01:13

Married a Canadian,

Nice post. Completely agree. I do sincerely hope the "trial by media" doesn't adversely affect this man and his family too much.

semper fi

5th Mar 2010, 04:51

'What is the similarity between air traffic controllers and pilots?
If a pilot screws up, the pilot dies; but If ATC screws up, .... the pilot dies.'
-Sign over Control Tower Door-

Pugilistic Animus

5th Mar 2010, 05:03

Can we please hear some FAA controllers on this issue or at least state if you control traffic in the US at least.... more professional:suspect:

garp

5th Mar 2010, 06:16

^^^^Is director communication NATCA good enough?

Because we do not condone this behavior. At all. It does NOT reflect on the extremely high level of professionalism that NATCA members display on the job each and every day. It is unfair to have this incident tarnish what you and the rest of our members do for the safety of the system and the flying public. We will not allow our high level of public credibility on matters of aviation safety -- built up over many years with the hard work of thousands of NATCA members every day -- to be put at grave risk by trying to defend something that is indefensible.

Whether fair or unfair, the court of public opinion has spoken and this incident has been mostly criticized and ridiculed from all corners and has probably unnerved a lot of people who fly or follow aviation. And let's not even discuss the late-night comics. Did you see the Jay Leno Show last night? First FIVE jokes. Did you see Letterman too?

This is NOT the picture we want painted for the public about who we are and what we do. My goodness ... we are only 18 days away from the sixth annual Archie League Medal of Safety awards, honoring the best NATCA member flight assists of 2009. How easy do you think our job is now trying to get people to pay attention to that? We're certainly going to try, I can guarantee you. Because THAT is what this union is all about -- extreme professionalism and extreme skill and determination that ensures safe outcomes for pilots and passengers on so many occasions.

NATCA is a labor union and we will vigorously defend the rights of this controller. However, we are also an aviation safety organization and we have staked our reputation on Capitol Hill and in the public as putting safety above all and conducting ourselves with the utmost level of professionalism at all times.

-Doug

Hold West

5th Mar 2010, 07:25

^^^^Is director communication NATCA good enough?

No. Doug Church is not a controller, he's a union spokesmodel.

I, however, am, with 25 years of FAA and contract time under my belt. What this guy at JFK did was not very smart, but definitely not deserving of all the accusations flying around here.

I'd rather have a kid repeat exactly what I told him than a trainee cooking up weirdness in his fertile brain on his own. The kid is much safer.

And finally, all you UK people are way too impressed with yourselves. Lighten up, pull that stick out of your "bum" or whatever you call it, and admit you're human too.

Pugilistic Animus

5th Mar 2010, 07:47

Thankyou Hold West

listen folks like you know the crap aviation professionals take,...best ATC perspective yet:D

Sounded managerial:suspect: 'cuz I know how good unions can be :*:mad:

not trying to start a war amongst professionals,...but the FAA IS:ugh:

I was hesitant about posting my little Gulfstream incident,..yes I know the procedure and how to CMY and CYA too, [with NASA's help.;)]..let's not play this game:) ...in general:(

PA

Ditchdigger

5th Mar 2010, 10:35

Quote:

As I pointed out in the thread up in the R&N section, even if you're properly authorized, it's "illegal" to add "Good day",

Rubbish. CAP 413 (UK) is produced to provide guidance to UK RTF users. It states that
Quote:
...Users of RTF in the UK are expected to comply with the phraseology described in this manual...
There is nothing within the manual that states use of pleasantries etc is 'illegal'. It is not standard RT Phraseology, but that's a hell of a lot different from being 'illegal'.

No, not rubbish. I'm neither controller nor pilot, but Mrs. Ditchdigger, who has been with the FAA for 17 some years now tells me that it is so.

From the ATC Order 7110.65
( http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/ATC.pdf )

2-4-5. AUTHORIZED TRANSMISSIONS

Transmit only those messages necessary for air traffic
control or otherwise contributing to air safety.

REFERENCE
FAAOJO 7210.3, Para 3-2-2, Authorized Messages Not Directly
Associated with Air Traffic Services.

And the referenced 7210.3 ( http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/FAC.pdf (http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/FAC.pdf) )

3-2-1. Responsibility

The air traffic manager is responsible for taking action to detect, prevent, and report:

<snip>

e. Remarks of a personal nature on any means of communications (e.g., voice frequencies, SATCOM, CPDLC).

FAA management has been known to "write up" controllers for using phraseology as innocuous as "Good day", or "Have a nice day", when there's no other stick handy to beat them with.

On edit: BTW, while Mrs. Ditchdigger usually holds Doug Church in the highest regard, she is of the opinion that the NATCA statement was far to quick to condem the controller. "We have no comment until the investigation is complete" would have been the appropriate statement, in her opinion.

G-CPTN

5th Mar 2010, 11:44

When you think that we aren't even allowed visitors in the Operations Room now unless you have an aviation background
So THAT is how much we care about the general public maybe getting to know our job a bit better. Ah I see.
A few years back I observed a fastjet (at high speed and low level) crossing (at 90 degrees) over a small private aircraft - sufficiently close for me to suck-in breath and remark to myself 'Wow, that was close'. Visually (from the ground, at less than one kilometre horizontally and directly in line with the track of the fastjet (ie it had just flown over me), the separation looked to be 'just a few tens of metres'.
The light aircraft was on approach to the local airport (14 miles) and directly in-line with the runway, and the fastjet was operating on an acknowledged low-altitude-flying corridor that crosses the airport approach. There is a minimum altitude requirement on the airport approach to allow for the military low-flying 'crossing', but it appeared to me that the light aircraft was below this.

As I regularly observed both civilian and military aircraft at this location (and there had been a mid-air collision between a Tornado and a Harrier within a couple of miles - the Tornado landed at the airport minus part of its tail whilst the Harrier crew ejected and 'landed' safely - though the aircraft was lost of course), I considered that what I saw was 'unusual' and worthy of reporting.

I called the airport to express my concern about this 'near miss' and was connected to air-traffic control, only to be told that they would not accept my report as only the pilots of the aircraft involved or a controller could register an airprox.

Hardly encouraging . . .

ATCO1962

5th Mar 2010, 13:39

Some kind controller many years ago, when I was a mere space cadet, let me have a thoroughly supervised go on the frequency at a major unit during a quiet time and before I had a "right" to speak on the radio. Those few moments were sheer bliss and not only confirmed my belief that air traffic was my calling but showed me that a little human kindness can go a long way. I will never forget that first moment on the RT.

As has been stated already on this thread, a trainee on a bad day can concoct far worse scenarios than a little parrot like this boy was. I say "Viva" to the JFK controller and I hope your kindness doesn't result in any harsh penalties.

Lighten up a little, guys. This doesn't demean our profession and certainly doesn't endanger safety. I have no doubt that the controller concerned would have stepped in any time the situation even smelt a little funny.

planetalkerman

5th Mar 2010, 14:16

I thought it was funny...

Roffa

5th Mar 2010, 14:51

I'm just waiting for the first pilot to say to me "put your Dad back on, sonny".

vector4fun

5th Mar 2010, 16:37

We were laughing all afternoon yesterday at my facility. We have a couple females that sound about 12 1/2 yrs old at times. One said she would have to work on her "big girl voice" before she winds up on the news.

Glad all you Europeans have such wonderful simulator training before actually using the radio. Our U.S. trainees, are not nearly so well prepped, even though they've had sims too. They often "lock up" completely their first few transmissions. Look like a goldfish short on oxygen. I'd often feel more comfortable training my kids on freq than what the FAA sends.

I flew my Dad's C140 from the right seat at age 8, flew Delta's Link simulators at about the same age too. Drove a truck and tractor at age 12 around the ranch. Dad drove a 3 ton truck to the grain mill in town at age 14, because he had to. Kids today have no such experiences, hence can't operate a push mower properly or safely, though they are skilled at electronic games!

Vector361

5th Mar 2010, 16:48

Ditchdigger

Tell the Mrs. to ask those controllers that were around before your wife & see if anyone has a copy of the old MBI or bulletin that encouraged & allowed the controllers to exchange brief pleasantries with our customers, the flying public. I had a copy until August '09, when I downsized & purged unnecessary papers. It was never rescinded that I know of & had no expiration date. It's encouraged when time permit, but not mandatory. Used to love to show that to anyone following an "over-the-shoulder" or "tape talk review".

As to the incident - I'm a little surprised how busy it seemed on the audio I heard, but I expect the "dead" time might have been edited out. On the unprofessional /bad judgement side, definitely, but this isn't a rare instance. Unsafe - very low on the scale. Compare letting someone, even a child, parrot "...contact departure." to when OJTIs are forced to train someone that knows they will never certify/validate, have lost all confidence and are possibly angry just to max out the hours so you can say they had every opportunity, then give them extended hours. It doesn't get any worse than that, yet it's almost standard procedure with FAA. That training happens all the time in the large facilities. (Hats off to the OJTIs.) My sympathy to the guy if this is his first "screw up." He's already suspended, but there may be more. A warning or reprimand would be my choice.

To the white shirt / black tie & "stick up your ***" groups, get over yourselves. To those still working, do an extra good job for the next few weeks. You know they're listening.

30 yrs ATC / 27 yrs FAA

MPN11

5th Mar 2010, 19:00

Folks, I think most of it has been said, here and in R&N.

IMO ...

It was not a good idea to do what he did at a major International airport. At Fukknukkle Creek Regional it might have passed un-noticed.
At his stated age [47?] he should have been substantially more professional.
It was NOT the biggest Flight Safety issue of 2010.

And he should not be dismissed, but his balls should be stapled to the control desk for a week or four. It was tacky, unprofessional and sloppy, and completely unbefitting a controller at JFK.

Roffa

5th Mar 2010, 20:05

It was tacky, unprofessional and sloppy, and completely unbefitting a controller at JFK.

If this is the usual non-sloppy, professional, befitting JFK product (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NZZJzvKa6s) bring back the kid(s)!

kontrolor

5th Mar 2010, 20:39

@those who support kid speaking over the frequency > consider this > would you allow your kid to operate 10 ton truck if you were truck driver, or would you allow your kid to "have a taste of your job" if you were a male/female prostitute?

non-authorised personnel is not allowed to "work" in safety critical workplaces. Comparing ATCO trainee with 7 year-old child is immature. I hate to say this, but if the ATCO in question was realy sacked, it was with reason. Once we allow the safety standards to sink, we **** in our bowl. sorry.

Pugilistic Animus

5th Mar 2010, 21:15

sooo sad this has become:{

TonyWilliams

5th Mar 2010, 21:40

Many parents have had their kids say something on the radio at least once in the ATC business. How many, I don't know, but more than this one.

In my FAA ATC days, I was working at a facility where a fellow employee let his daughter talk on the radio in a tower. I was the union (NATCA) representative, and met with the manager who proposed a 3 day suspension.

I got it down to 1 day. Seemed like a good outcome.

But, like pilots overflying airports, that has happened many times before. But when two very unlucky Northwest pilots did it last year, they were not only fired, but their professional pilot licenses were revoked (not just suspended).

HotDog

6th Mar 2010, 02:08

kontrolor; would you allow your kid to operate 10 ton truck if you were truck driver, or would you allow your kid to "have a taste of your job" if you were a male/female prostitute?
With all due respect, I feel you could have chosen a more suitable example to shore up your views on this incident.:rolleyes:

ATCO1962

6th Mar 2010, 02:14

kontrolor, please. What this controller did was akin to letting a youngster operate the on/off button of the radio in a truck cab (so what?) and since when did prostitution constitute a valid profession in most of the civilised world?

And I would fire any controller who fell asleep at an operational position, Tony. Completely different scenario.

Again, as a trainer, I have been left high and dry by trainees who have supposedly earned the right to broadcast and have had to use all my skills to dig myself out of unsavoury situations. This controller did not let matters fall into a state of chaos; he WAS in control, albeit doing a bit of "remote" controlling.

Pugilistic Animus

6th Mar 2010, 07:53

With all due respect,...

the pilots were informed by the controller of the situation AND it was obvious by the back transmissions made by Dad wrt to ATIS info,...I'm a good pilot, who like told, read the pilot controller glossary the AIM,...yes I exit the active unless instructed......no pilot would accept a clearance with out consideration,...cleared for TO to me is not just a read back.... it's a whole long detailed procedure,...and lights, camera action,....and I even read the AFD so that I'm advised of arpt procedures and don't make unnecessary RT,...operation rain check complete:ok:

PA:)

jfkjohan

6th Mar 2010, 07:54

Hi Guys,

Wrote more here DISQUS Profile | Johan Farid Khairuddin (http://disqus.com/jfkjohan) ; but in summary -

I understand and respect everyone's thoughts, comments & concern especially re: aviation safety in this #kidcontroller case.

Personally, I do believe that the FAA and all other air transport governing bodies around the world are doing an excellent job to regulate amongst the many other points of course -- aviation safety.

Hence I do believe this should be made an example of, so that a possible negative escalation of such an act (bringing a kid to work) which WOULD begin to jeopardize safety -- be now prevented from ever happening.

I'd like to think that some day from now, when say someone/somewhere/somehow would believe that "its safe to do something somewhat harmless", they would remember this "dad and the kid controller at JFK" story, and refrain from doing anything stupid which could involve threatening safety.

I believe there are many other loop hopes in the industry which have yet to be discovered or in the media's thoughts "exploited" which would have a more devastating effect. You (and I even) could possibly not even know it yet!

For air safety worldwide, primarily at JFK too, my prayers are for the dad to get his job back and to continue directing air traffic as he is undoubtedly one of the rare few who are skilled, competent & patient enough to deal with the 6th busiest airport in the United States.

God bless.

JFK

Lon More

6th Mar 2010, 09:26

it was not the best idea in the world. However it could have been dealt with quietly internally. It looks like these two people are being hung out to dry for a minor bad judgement call. This was not as serious as an Airprox, IMO, and, having seen nothing beyond brief press releases, I even wonder if the full story has been made known? I can recall something similar being done in the dim pre Elf and Safety days but pilots were advised on the previous freq. that it would happen. Who can state at the moment that this did not happen? If anybody had an objection then would have been the time to state it.
Where will the lines now be drawn? God forbid CC should ever make an R/T call again without receiving instructions to land at the nearest airfield, possibly with several f16s or similar in attendance.
Why only suspend the father and the Supervisor? Why not everybody in the TWR, as by not speaking up, they have condoned the action. Presumeably the child (singular, I believe, despite the leader here) had a permit to enter a Federal building. Who issued that? He/she has also made a bad call. Where does the buck stop? Obama? (I'm surprised nobody has blamed him yet)

A rap on their knuckles, a couple of days off to think about things and then back to normal. Time to bury this - as already stated it isn't the aviation story of the year.

Ditchdigger

6th Mar 2010, 10:16

Ditchdigger

Tell the Mrs. to ask those controllers that were around before your wife & see if anyone has a copy of the old MBI or bulletin that encouraged & allowed the controllers to exchange brief pleasantries with our customers, the flying public. I had a copy until August '09, when I downsized & purged unnecessary papers. It was never rescinded that I know of & had no expiration date. It's encouraged when time permit, but not mandatory. Used to love to show that to anyone following an "over-the-shoulder" or "tape talk review".

Thanks. I'll do that.

@those who support kid speaking over the frequency > consider this > would you allow your kid to operate 10 ton truck if you were truck driver,

As my screen name would lead you to believe, I really am a professional ditchdigger. I've let my children operate excavating machinery, under my direct supervision, with the engine barely above idle, and away from any hazards or obstructions. And yes, I let one of my daughters, at the age of 8, steer my dump truck around the yard, while sitting in my lap. Did I endanger anyone's life, or compromise my professionalism?

To those who think this was safety issue, or an example of lack of professionalism, I pose the following question--any given human endeavor contains elements of risk, and success or failure depends on how those risks are managed. Professionals, by virtue of their training, experience, and good judgement are given the responsibility of managing relatively great degrees of risk. Can anyone enumerate the risks involved here, and specify how the controller failed to manage those risks?

2control

6th Mar 2010, 12:51

It could seem harmless that a kid issues a take-off clearance or tells a pilot to switch to departure frequency BUT this has to do with licenses and training and even more with confidence in ATC from the pilot side.
It's true that there are trainees who are working the frequencies but they have been through intensive training in ATC academies before being allowed into position together with an instructor.
So, boring as it may be, this is far from OK. Anyone who lets an untrained person work the frequency is not the responsible person who should be in this type of profession.

radarman

6th Mar 2010, 13:46

Ditchdigger,

Your comparisons about what your kids did is not valid. I notice you did not let your son operate excavating machinery at full power on a busy building site, or let your daughter drive the dump truck on a public road in the rush hour.
Your comment about managing the risk is not valid either - the risk should not have been there in the first place.
To those who think this was just a harmless bit of fun, can I ask where in fact you would draw the line? Would it be OK for the controller to have had a family day in atc and let the boy's brother switch the airfield lighting panel, while the sister is in radar handing off traffic to tower, with maybe the wife inputting data into the flight planning computer. All under strict supervision of course!
Having said that, suspension or revocation of licence does seem a bit harsh in this case. A public reading of the riot act would probably be more appropriate, followed by formal written instructions in the US equivalent of MATS Pt 1 and CAP413.

Ditchdigger

6th Mar 2010, 15:03

Ditchdigger,

Your comparisons about what your kids did is not valid. I notice you did not let your son operate excavating machinery at full power on a busy building site, or let your daughter drive the dump truck on a public road in the rush hour.

True, but that's what makes the comparison valid. "Cleared for takeoff" and, "Contact departure" are about as basic and unequivocal as ATC transmissions get. How much potential for an uncorrectable mistake, with uncorrectable consequences, existed there?

Your comment about managing the risk is not valid either - the risk should not have been there in the first place.

I asked first for somebody to enumerate the risks. I'm listening, and of an open mind.

To those who think this was just a harmless bit of fun, can I ask where in fact you would draw the line? Would it be OK for the controller to have had a family day in atc and let the boy's brother switch the airfield lighting panel, while the sister is in radar handing off traffic to tower, with maybe the wife inputting data into the flight planning computer. All under strict supervision of course!

I would draw the line somwhere short of the situation you describe, because I doubt "strict supervision" could be maintained. I do draw the line somewhere beyond the handful of transmisions under discussion. I don't find them any more problematic than the limited, strictly supervised experiences I gave my own kids. Your opinion may differ.

Of course, now we're thoughtfully excercising judgement based on the merits of given sets of circumstances, not on what the media panders to the sensation hungry public. I'm afraid the way this is being handled leans more towards the latter than the former.

Two-Tone-Blue

6th Mar 2010, 16:47

Come on, people. It was an unprofessional move at an International airport by a controller who should have thought a bit more about it.

We can discuss forever about "What If" ... that's not the point. Forget the detail, forget the trivia, it's simply not a good move at an International Airport. It makes the entire ATC operation look slack, and sloppy, and ... unprofessional.

With luck, the controller will have a job in a week' time.

Let's put it to bed, eh?

MarcK

6th Mar 2010, 20:38

It could seem harmless that a kid issues a take-off clearance or tells a pilot to switch to departure frequency BUT this has to do with licenses and training
Sounds more like it has to do with job protection. If a kid can do it maybe you shouldn't be paid so much.

Lon More

6th Mar 2010, 21:40

le Pingouin

7th Mar 2010, 12:29

Sounds more like it has to do with job protection. If a kid can do it maybe you shouldn't be paid so much.

I'll vote for this as the silliest post on the thread :}

le Pingouin

7th Mar 2010, 12:37

My PC was left running with this page open. Curious neighbour, a professional, but not in aviation asks if she can read it. Some 15 minutes later a succinct summation. "It looks like no damage occurred except for some bruised egos who are afraid the mystery may be dispelled."Sounds like you neighbour is involved in a profession where rules & regulations are something to negotiated over & don't apply to those with deep pockets. Care to say what it is?

Lon More

7th Mar 2010, 14:04

Care to say what it is? Management Consultant

Ditchdigger

7th Mar 2010, 14:16

Sounds like you neighbour is involved in a profession where rules & regulations are something to negotiated over...

So, the phrase "work to rule" should carry a positive connotation rather than a negative one?

le Pingouin

7th Mar 2010, 14:33

Management ConsultantFunny about that......

Tell me I'm wrong: She comes from the direction that unless something is specifically forbidden it's permitted, whereas a controller comes from the direction that unless it's specifically permitted it's forbidden.

Obviously taking things to extremes but that's the underlying philosophy.

le Pingouin

7th Mar 2010, 14:53

So, the phrase "work to rule" should carry a positive connotation rather than a negative one?Certainly in terms of aviation procedures. The vast majority of which are in place as a result of hard won lessons from bitter experience.

At the very least it should be a case of "understand the rules you're bending". I'm the first to admit that at times I bend certain rules because I understand why those specific rules were written - when the rule is an overreaction (overly broad). Other rules I will not bend because I understand why they were written too.

GavReal

7th Mar 2010, 15:25

I've read all the comments on here and watched the opinions develop with interest - it was also the topic of conversation in my pub one afternoon..... the verdict came out that the actions of this controller were at best a severe lack of judgement and at worst pure stupidity.

As an enthused amateur who is weghing up making the jump into air traffic, I'm lucky to have visited control towers both civi and mil, always on the express understanding that I am there to look and not touch.

My dad is a mil controller amd I've sat on console with my dad listening and having him explain everything to me. I consider myself lucky to have been and to continue to be allowed to see him at work.

Just something that hasnt been mentioned, kids do stupid things - dad wouldn't take me to a tower until I was 14 years old (my bros and sis the same) because we were responsible enough to behave and not wonder off.
If that kid had pressed the light panel and changed reds, it could have had serious consequences.
Had the kid wondered off, he would have left his dad distracted and worried whilst working what to all accounts is a busy tower.

The controller was stupid and deserves the book thrown at him. BUT, I do not think he deserves to lose his job - a lack of judgement, a good boll*&%ing and a lesson learnt the hard way should hopefully suffice.

My penny's worth!

Gavin

MPN11

7th Mar 2010, 16:24

At the very least it should be a case of "understand the rules you're bending". I'm the first to admit that at times I bend certain rules because I understand why those specific rules were written - when the rule is an overreaction (overly broad). Other rules I will not bend because I understand why they were written too.

That sounds to me like an experienced controller!! Understanding the "WHY" is critical when things get difficult.

Working completely by the book could be done by a computer [OK, I'm joking, but I think you know what I mean]. What used to drive me wild, as an OJT Instructor and SATCO in both Terminal and Area, was the people who didn't understand what it was all about. There's a world of difference between cutting 3 miles in front and squeezing 3 miles behind in VMC with all crews aware of what's happening.

A trainee Director I was examining for his Competency Certificate ... with his only aircraft 10 miles downwind, I switched his display to standby [I was monitoring on the adjacent display, before you ask]. He had NO IDEA what to do next. The fact that his aircraft was in a known position, about to turn GCA base leg for what was now going to be a "DF into PAR" completely eluded him. After being pressured out of his glazed state, his proposed solution was the home aircraft back to the overhead ... and then do a "DF into PAR". :ugh:

An old buddy of mine was SATCO at a major RAF Flying Training station. After endless sh1t from the 'master race' he informed OC Flying that his sqn was going to work to rule. Exactly by the book, nobody cutting the odd corner or trying to make things easy/better for the students and instructors. By 1030, the flying rate was down by 50% and OC Flying was acknowledging that ATC went the extra mile.

Oh, shut up, MPN11 - you're dribbling again ... :oh:

Ditchdigger

7th Mar 2010, 18:25

At the very least it should be a case of "understand the rules you're bending". I'm the first to admit that at times I bend certain rules because I understand why those specific rules were written - when the rule is an overreaction (overly broad). Other rules I will not bend because I understand why they were written too.

I hesitate to quote myself, but since there are two separate threads on this subject, and it seems to be on point here, this is something I posted in the other one:

To approach from a different angle, the question of how this violated the rules...

Clearly, it is a violation for an unlicensed, uncertified individual to make an ATC radio transmission. It seems to me that the intent of that rule is to prevent an individual with dishonorable intentions from causing a catastrophe, and to prevent an individual with honorable intentions, but lacking the necessary abilities, from causing a catastrophe. I have to wonder whether an individual capably relaying a valid clearance from a qualified and attentive controller was considered much of a factor. Perhaps, perhaps not.

Since I'm clearly in the camp that believes this wasn't a capital offense, is there something else to the "why" of this particular rule that I'm not getting? Or is it a simple case of controller Duffy not maintaining such a strict interpretation of which rules he could bend and which he could not?

Two-Tone-Blue

7th Mar 2010, 18:39

@ Ditchdigger ... I personally think the controller wasn't in "Controller Mode". He was giving the kids an insight into what he does for a living, which is basically a good thing. In the process, he 'forgot' what's involved in being a controller at a MAJOR International Airport.

We can hack this around forever ... it was a dumb thing to do.
We could pursue the legal and technical aspects until ... forever.
Lawyers could become VERY rich if some JetBlue passenger decides he has a possible case agains [whoever].

It's an ATC issue, and it was S T U P I D to do that at JFK.

It has nothing, repeat nothing, to do with experienced controllers who know "which, what and why" doing things which aren't 100% within local, or National, procedures.

Ditchdigger

7th Mar 2010, 19:01

Just a question, how did the recording of the transmissions make it into the worlds media???

It was posted on LiveATC.net.

I personally think the controller wasn't in "Controller Mode". He was giving the kids an insight into what he does for a living, which is basically a good thing. In the process, he 'forgot' what's involved in being a controller at a MAJOR International Airport.

I can't disagree that he was stupid, or at the very least, shortsighted, for not seeing the potential problem, particularly at JFK. If you've ever spent any time reading the forums there at LiveATC, those guys LOVE JFK. I can't agree about him not being in "Controller Mode" though. Mrs. Ditchdigger will frequently make the point that controllers are bombarded with distractions throughout the day, and they just deal with that. In a less-than-peak hour, even at JFK, I suspect this controller was still well within his capabilities to deal with his traffic, and whatever distraction his kid may have presented.

It's an ATC issue, and it was S T U P I D to do that at JFK.

It has nothing, repeat nothing, to do with experienced controllers who know "which, what and why" doing things which aren't 100% within local, or National, procedures.

Again, my opinion differs a little. If it's only an ATC issue, then the only basis on which he should be judged is on its impact on the safe, orderly, and expiditious flow of air traffic. Maybe, just maybe, he'll be judged only on that, but from all that's been publicly stated by the higher authorities, it seems as if the FAA is going to punish him for its black eye instead.

On edit: And it seems as if many controllers are willing to punish him for the black eye the profession got too...

Irvin_man

7th Mar 2010, 19:10

It is a shocking news but that was funny. :ugh: i feel sad for his dad who got fired.

jfkjohan

8th Mar 2010, 11:38

Hi Guys,

Just thought i'd share Mark H's comments, found them on the FOX network (http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/national/child-directs-airplanes-over-radio-transmissions-at-jfk-airport#comment-38486198) where the news first broke. More than 600 people have commented on it so far. As I was the first one to actually say something there/then, having clicked to have all follow up emails sent to me directly -- I have actually read all the other comments posted after mine. This was one of the best, for me of course:

Mark H wrote:

"This is ridiculous. I am betting the farm that most of the negative responders here have never set one foot in a Control Tower, Approach Control, or ARTCC. Probably not a cockpit either. I spent 20 years as a Controller and now have 18,000 hours as a pilot. I can certainly affirm that safety was never compromised in this situation. Blown out of proportion by the media and amateur nay sayers. The Father has INSTANT over-ride capability over his son's transmission and capability to cut off his transmission in the blink of an eye. I am quite positive he was supervising his son with the closest of tolerances. Controllers are careful professionals and again never was safety compromised. He would never allow that, not would the supervisor. Again, just send a memo out that this is a no-no from now on, put them back to work, and get on with life."

Just thought i'd share. Anybody have any ideas on the fate of Mr. Duffy and/or his kids so far? I hear they are selling tshirts with his name on it, which comes with a cape now! Not soo sure how far this is true... ;)

Regards,

Johan F. Khairuddin (JFK).
Johan Farid Khairuddin.com (http://www.johanfaridkhairuddin.com)

Global Warrior

8th Mar 2010, 13:44

Selling T-Shirts???

What do they say.........Duffy Clears it With His Kids? That would be another major exclusive ground breaking media event!!!!!

MikeGranby

8th Mar 2010, 14:54

I am 100% siding with the guys on here saying this was the most idiotic thing I have ever heard an ATCO do.

As opposed to, say, clearing an aircraft for takeoff when there's a lost airplane blundering around on the active in the fog downfield, or countless other mistakes controller have made over the years? Yep. You're right. This surely is "the most idiotic thing" we have to worry about. A sense of proportion would help here, I think.

TonyWilliams

8th Mar 2010, 15:35

Mark H wrote: "This is ridiculous. I am betting the farm that most of the negative responders here have never set one foot in a Control Tower, Approach Control, or ARTCC. Probably not a cockpit either. I spent 20 years as a Controller and now have 18,000 hours as a pilot."

I love blow-hard stuff like this.

Dear Mr. Farm Better,

Ok, you said most, not "all", so I'll be one of the teeny, tiny few who spent a day of two controlling air traffic (FAA ARTCC "center", TRACON "approach", and TOWER "uh, tower"), and has spent a couple of minutes flying transport category aircraft around for real money. I obviously do not have your experience, since I'm well under 87 years old.

So, to make my point. I do not approve of letting kids talk to "live air traffic" at any ATC facility. Having said that, I have had my own kids talk on the radio in an ATC facility. It was stupid. I also have the distinct honor of representing a controller who had his daughter perform this same stunt, as I previously reported on this thread.

I can certainly affirm that safety was never compromised in this situation. Blown out of proportion by the media and amateur nay sayers. The Father has INSTANT over-ride capability over his son's transmission and capability to cut off his transmission in the blink of an eye.

As you might know, there are (at least) two headset "jacks" at each ATC control position. One has override capability over the other. What if the dad just happened to make (another) mistake by getting the jacks reversed, where the kid overrides dad? Oh, sure, that's never happened in the history of ATC you might say. And if so, I'd say you're full of BS.

Controllers are careful professionals

Who never screw up? No controller's actions have lead to DEATH and destruction? Pilots, mechanics, controllers, airframe manufacturers, etc, have all been successful in piling up a body count. Because they share something.... being human.

Again, just send a memo out that this is a no-no from now on, put them back to work, and get on with life."

I don't think he should be fired, although he may, because of the notoriety. A week "on the beach" seems about right. Naturally, the agency will go big, and it'll get negotiated / grieved / arbitrated down to something less.

Hugs and kisses,

Tony