another ATC suspension

[iskyfly]

FAA suspends controller for loss of separation between a Cirrus and Southwest 737

The US FAA has suspended a controller in the Central Florida Terminal Radar Approach Control after a Southwest 737 was placed in "close proximity" to a Cirrus SR22 during an incident on 27 March.

FAA states the controller requested assistance from the Southwest aircraft to check on the Cirrus after it was out of radio contact for over an hour.

The Cirrus was on course for Kissimmee, Florida maintaining an altitude of 11,000ft (3,352m), says FAA, with air traffic controllers at the Jacksonville centre repeatedly trying to reach the aircraft without success.

Southwest Flight 821 was ten miles in trail of the Cirrus at 12,000ft, en route to Orlando, says FAA.

The controller, a supervisor, asked the Southwest crew to check the cockpit of the Cirrus. The crew agreed, was directed toward the aircraft and reported two people present in the SR22 cockpit.

Afterwards, the Southwest 737 was turned away from the Cirrus, and vectored for its arrival at Orlando International airport.

Roughly 30 seconds later the Cirrus contacted Jacksonville centre and communicated its current frequency. Both aircraft landed safely.

"Preliminary information indicates that there was a loss of required separation between the two aircraft. The FAA has suspended the air traffic controller," the agency says. FAA states it is reviewing air traffic procedures used in the incident.

"By placing this passenger aircraft in close proximity to another plane, the air traffic controller compromised the safety of everyone involved. This incident was totally inappropriate," says FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt.

[ATC Watcher]

Probably an ex military controller nostalgic of his air defence days. . :rolleyes:

[FoxHunter]

Probably because,:=
Poor Pilot Judgment Blamed For Crash That Killed Heinz - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/1991/09/18/us/poor-pilot-judgment-blamed-for-crash-that-killed-heinz.html)

[Ditchdigger]

I'm curious as to whether the 737 crew would have taken it on their own authority to comply with that request, or whether they sought, and recieved, permission from the airline first. I can see that as the sort of thing that would get the Captain in hot water with his employer too...

[iskyfly]

and really, how much could you see at min sep distance?

careless and reckless....

[BrATCO]

The problem here is the altitude : 11000'.
Had they been 1000' below, they could have said that it was a visual separation... If the Cirrus didn't say he refused the visual separation, then he approved it! :p

I had once a plane checking another (big noise, suspicion of a hole somewhere below the body). There was a parallel traffic in the vicinity. My colleague vectored the other traffic one mile away, 1000' feet below (ODL), traffic information, "maintain level, turn at discretion"...and the pilot had the answer without separation blast.
Don't know if that was a lucky day, the pilots had binoculars on board.

If the Cirrus was 11000' and the 737 was at 12000', when did they lose separation ?
As I understand it, "Check the plane 1000ft below" doesn't mean "Descend 11000 ft"...

If there was a fault, then the pilot is at least as guilty as the controller : there's no mention of a clearance for lower.

[ATC Watcher]

Big media hype and FAA over-reaction as usual if you ask me. Was this dangerous ? Nah... Good airmanship initiative to help defuse a potential catastrophic situation , yes. Outside the book , definitively .
So we only look at the book and hang the guy in public :rolleyes:

Reminds me of the guy that let his kid repeat "clear for take off" on the R/T.in NYC... same hanging in public for nothing .

Foxhunter, did not know that story, yes sh..t happens. but Checking gear out/locked visually using another a/c ? , this has been done 1000x times before all over the world since aviation began.

[BOAC]

Don't initially get too exercised about the 'suspension' folks - it is correct and normal practice and means nothing per se.

[Brian Abraham]

From Avweb.

March 29, 2011
Controller, 737 Crew Suspended After Cirrus Intercept

By Mary Grady, Contributing Editor

The FAA said on Tuesday it is investigating an incident in which a Southwest 737 crew allegedly flew too close to a Cirrus at the request of a controller. The incident took place about 5 p.m. on Sunday, when a controller in the Central Florida Tracon asked the 737 crew if they would check on an SR22 that had been out of radio contact for over an hour. The Southwest crew approached the Cirrus and told ATC they saw two people in the cockpit, then turned away. About 30 seconds later the Cirrus pilot contacted Jacksonville Center. Both aircraft landed safely at their destinations. "Preliminary information indicates that there was a loss of required separation between the two aircraft," the FAA said. The controller, who is a supervisor, has been suspended. Southwest also suspended the flight crew pending an investigation.

"By placing this passenger aircraft in close proximity to another plane, the air traffic controller compromised the safety of everyone involved. This incident was totally inappropriate," said FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt. "We are reviewing the air traffic procedures used here and making sure everyone understands the protocols for contacting unresponsive aircraft." The FAA didn't say how close the airplanes came. The Southwest flight had originated in Phoenix and landed in Orlando.

[patrickal]

So here is new and different kind of incident. A Southwest Airline Crew and an air traffic controller in Florida were suspended by their respective employers this week. It seems that the controller asked the SW flight to approach a small single engine aircraft which had been out of radio contact for more than an hour to see if there was any activity in the cockpit. The SW crew complied, saw all was well, and reported it back to the controller, and then continued to their destination. All have been suspended for failure to maintain proper separation. Details in this CNN article

Controller, airline crew suspended over incident in Florida skies - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/03/29/faa.southwest.incident/index.html?hpt=Sbin)

[aterpster]

NTSB Press Advisory (http://www3.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2011/110329.html)

[Mercenary Pilot]

"By placing this passenger aircraft in close proximity to another plane, the air traffic controller compromised the safety of everyone involved," FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt said in a statement. "This incident was totally inappropriate."

Glad to see the FAA waiting for the outcome of their own investigation before deciding that its inappropriate!

The 737 was 10 miles behind, how long is it going to take a military aircraft to scramble and intercept? Certainly longer than it took for a 737 to catch it up and have a quick look, that's for sure.

The controller was obviously concerned enough about the Cirrus to reduce the separation enough for the 737 to make visual contact. No doubt the conditions were good VMC and both aircraft were on radar. If there was any doubt of safety then I'm sure ether the crew would have refused or the controller would have called on military or local police for the intercept.

Hopefully everyone involved will be exonerated and then the FAA can go and write a some new regulations and everyone is happy.

I wonder how long before the FAA or some lawyer brings terrorism into this?

[Loose rivets]

My memory of American Air Law is rather vague, due to the tickbox system. However, Despite it being over 50 years ago, I recall clearly reading the last line of my CAP publication from the ministry of planes, which said more or less:

"The captain of an aircraft may take any action he deems necessary for the purpose of saving life."

It was a statement that seemed to override every previous part of the regulations.

There is no doubt an aircraft with an unconscious crew can be a huge danger to the public. I'm reminded of this every time I drive up the 183 in Austin Texas where one angry man destroyed a large steel and glass building with a light aircraft.

2010 Austin plane crash - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Austin_plane_crash)

It was a tax office - not that it makes a difference.

[Mr A Tis]

Like most industries, common sense is no longer allowed.:uhoh:

[S76Heavy]

Nice opportunity to deflect attention away from the sleeping controller, methinks.

[Ditchdigger]

I'm curious as to whether the 737 crew would have taken it on their own authority to comply with that request, or whether they sought, and recieved, permission from the airline first. I can see that as the sort of thing that would get the Captain in hot water with his employer too...


Well I guess that answers that question...

[ImnotanERIC]

randy babbit? isn't he the guy who got his penis cut off by his missus?

[Ditchdigger]

Nice opportunity to deflect attention away from the sleeping controller, methinks.


I don't know about that. It seems as if it's being painted as terrible judgement by a controller who was wide awake at the time. In the public's eye, which would look worse?

Here's the question I asked down below in the ATC section of the forum:

I'm curious as to whether the 737 crew would have taken it on their own authority to comply with that request, or whether they sought, and recieved, permission from the airline first. I can see that as the sort of thing that would get the Captain in hot water with his employer too...


Apparently, the answer must be, no they didn't.

So, the questions I'll ask up here are, should they have, and would they have gotten such permission?

[finfly1]

Just when I think my opinion of the FAA could not get any lower, they prove me wrong.

[ATC Watcher]

or whether they sought, and recieved, permission from the airline first.

Common. as a controller if you make such a request you want an answer now, not after Capt ask OPS, Ops ask chief pilot , etc...
Big media Circus again.

[caucatc]

If I am right, I think the controller did the similar thing in the film United93, controller lost contact with a "hi-jacked" aircraft, and he vectored another aircraft to "get visual" of it, but of course I do not know if it is true or not in the real, but I thought if maintain visual separation, it is not a bad idea.

[On the beach]

Seems to me that everyone is missing the real culprit/s in all this - the Cirrus pilot/s. If they had maintained a listening watch, then all this would never have happened. If the FAA really want to suspend anyone, I would suggest the Cirrus pilot/s would be higher on my list of suspensions than the other parties trying to see if the Cirrus crew were incapacitated.

On the beach

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

The Captain of the aircraft is responsible for the conduct of the flight and I can think of no earthly reason why he should have to contact his airline in this matter. Would you expect a pilot to contact his airline for permission to fly through weather? Is he supposed to ask for permission to fly alongside other traffic on a parallel runway?

The situation in question has occurred before and may well happen again. I seems to me that the controller used initiative and the pilot agreed and there was no safety issue. End of story.

[Ditchdigger]

The Captain of the aircraft is responsible for the conduct of the flight and I can think of no earthly reason why he should have to contact his airline in this matter. Would you expect a pilot to contact his airline for permission to fly through weather? Is he supposed to ask for permission to fly alongside other traffic on a parallel runway?



A) From some of the things I've heard and read, in today's environment, any questions of safety notwithstanding, it wouldn't surprise me to hear that the Captain was disciplined for burning an extra 20 pounds of fuel by diverting to have a look.

B) If a controller makes a similar request of a crew tomorrow, do you think they'll think of a reason to ask for permission first?

(I'm not trying to be contnentious, but the suspensions seem to speak for themselves in terms of whether the airline management is second guessing the Captain's on-site judgement.)

On edit: I see the thread from Rumors and News has been merged with this one.

[Quintilian]

As a controller I would have done the exact same thing as long as the flight crew was happy with it. Not being able to contact a flight on any frequency through many sectors is highly unusual.

As long as the weather is OK and the passenger plane has visual contact and is slightly above and to the side of the the lighter aircraft there is no danger involved what so ever.

[aterpster]

OPS11IA428A (http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20110330X05145&key=1)

Separation came as close as 100 feet verically and 1/10 of a mile laterally.

[Huck]

I'd be willing to bet this was a violation of their flight ops manual. It would be of ours....

[aterpster]

Quintilian:
　
As long as the weather is OK and the passenger plane has visual contact and is slightly above and to the side of the the lighter aircraft there is no danger involved what so ever.

I trust that is your opinion. Have you had training in this procedure? Do you know whether SWA crews have been so trained?

I know the Air Force interceptor pilots have, plus they have ejection seats.

This is the governing federal regulation:

§ 91.111 Operating near other aircraft.

(a) No person may operate an aircraft so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard.

(b) No person may operate an aircraft in formation flight except by arrangement with the pilot in command of each aircraft in the formation.

(c) No person may operate an aircraft, carrying passengers for hire, in formation flight.

[aterpster]

PBR:

Don't do it. You will lose the bet.

I'll go with F.A.R. 91.111.

[bubbers44]

One clear day landing a B737 from the south on 28L into KSFO we were cleared for a visual to 28L. A B747 was cleared for a visual on a head on course with us from the north to 28R. I noticed he was going to overshoot so simply leveled off, let him slide underneath us and waited til he got back on his runway centerline to descend and reintercept the 28L glideslope. We were side by side, same altitude and about 500 ft apart on the approach as per normal at SFO after he got established. We felt it was not an event worth writing up so that was the end of it. We were 500 ft apart on final with zero altitude difference and felt totally safe. This is normal procedure at SFO. This thing with SWA is getting silly.

[aterpster]

bubbers44:

One clear day landing a B737 from the south on 28L into KSFO we were cleared for a visual to 28L. A B747 was cleared for a visual on a head on course with us from the north to 28R. I noticed he was going to overshoot so simply leveled off, let him slide underneath us and waited til he got back on his runway centerline to descend and reintercept the 28L glideslope. We were side by side, same altitude and about 500 ft apart on the approach as per normal at SFO after he got established. We felt it was not an event worth writing up so that was the end of it. We were 500 ft apart on final with zero altitude difference and felt totally safe. This is normal procedure at SFO. This thing with SWA is getting silly.

You did not cause that to happen at SFO.

I was based at LAX most of my career. For a long time ATC let that happen to 25L/R and 24L/R. The hot-rod pilots thought it was "neat." Other pilots didn't feel great about a 747 passing them with perhaps 200 feet of wing-tip clearance.

And, over time, a whole lot of more sophisticated passengers complained.

So, the FAA pretty much eliminated the practice.

Nonetheless, neither what you experienced or what happened a lot at LAX involved FAR 91.111.

[moosepileit]

Cirrus should have been monitoring 121.5. Plenty of comms onboard. At least 2 comm radios, leave one on 121.5.

Cirrus carries four souls. Guppy carries many dozens more. That is of course to be considered- The Heinz collision is a good comparison, written in blood.

VMC/CAVU, it's armchair QB to say that because the Cirrus was OK, that made the Captain wrong. If they the pax and pilot were slumped over on A/P, the SWA crew would be heroes for passing the info to ATC.

Cirrus cruises at what, top of 250 knots, flat out?
Guppy can do what, 350, smooth air- 7 minute rejoin. Yawn. Ever seen air refueling?

The nail that sticks up gets hammered down.

[KKoran]

A Cirrus has four comm radios?