another ATC suspension
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: MD
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
another ATC suspension
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.
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.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Unionville, PA, USA
Age: 76
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somwhere between 6 and 15 feet below ground level
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: France
Age: 55
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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.
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!
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.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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.
So we only look at the book and hang the guy in public
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.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seperation?
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montgomery, NY, USA
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SW Crew and Controller Suspended
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
Controller, airline crew suspended over incident in Florida skies - CNN.com
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NTSB Press Advisory
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: エリア88
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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."
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?
Psychophysiological entity
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
It was a tax office - not that it makes a difference.
"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
It was a tax office - not that it makes a difference.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somwhere between 6 and 15 feet below ground level
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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...
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somwhere between 6 and 15 feet below ground level
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice opportunity to deflect attention away from the sleeping controller, methinks.
Here's the question I asked down below in the ATC section of the forum:
Originally Posted by 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...
So, the questions I'll ask up here are, should they have, and would they have gotten such permission?
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
or whether they sought, and recieved, permission from the airline first.
Big media Circus again.