another ATC suspension
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: BeiJing ,China
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: On a foreign shore trying a new wine diet. So far, I've lost 3days!
Age: 75
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
On the beach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somwhere between 6 and 15 feet below ground level
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NTSB Factual on SW Formation Flying
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quintilian:
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bubbers44:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by moosepileit; 23rd Apr 2011 at 21:12. Reason: clarity. # of seats vs.# of Radios
