JFK ATC in the news...

[Panop]

It now appears to be more important to cover your rear, than to have a clear assessment of real risk.

That's the point - THAT is now the REAL risk (probably always was except the number of ways you can now be shot at from the back have increased exponentially). You've got to deal with the world, day to day, as it is - not as you'd like it to be or how it was last year.

Kind of tough but unavoidable and the rule is timeless - it's just the application of it keeps changing. Charles Darwin famously wrote, "Survival is ultimately dependent on the ability to change and evolve". Or more briefly you could say, "Adapt or the world will get you!"

Keep protecting those precious backsides, folks!

[SDFlyer]

Rj111: "These incidents always look sweet and innocent until something bad happens - then they look barbaric."
Yes, and that's because they are truly barbaric.

In that case, the kid sitting in left seat had his hands on the yoke and applied pressure counter to the turn his father had initiated with the knob. As a result, the autopilot disconnected, undiscovered by the brilliant professionals in that cockpit until it was too late. A lot of lives were lost due to the unalloyed stupidity and irresponsibility of that pilot.

[SK8TRBOI]

Excellent Observation...

It is interesting that those making excuses for and otherwise defending the controller in this thread are the ones, in much larger proportion than their opponents, making insulting personal remarks about other posters. Not in every case certainly, but the difference between groups is clear.

Perhaps I should run a contingency table analysis and come up with a Fisher's exact P value.

Don't get me wrong, it wouldn't bother me a bit if directed at me. But I'm curious .... why all the animus? by SDFlyer 6-March-10

Too true! Excellent observation.
It reminds me of the old attorney's gouge when arguing a case: "If the law is on your side - pound on the law...if the facts are on your side - pound on the facts...if neither is on your side - pound on the table!"

IANAL

[protectthehornet]

Question...of magnitude

so, its up to you

fire the guys...run JFK shorthanded and risk an accident due to being shorthanded

or

tell the guys not to do it EVER AGAIN and get them recertified and back to work without further prejudice

every action has some sort of long term influence

so, its up to you

[dvv]

How about… Fire the guy and get another one in his stead? Or do you think that if he were hit by a bus (God forbid!) JFK ATC operations would be put in great long term danger of working shorthanded?

[p51guy]

dvv, You don't seem to understand ATC and how it works. The controller is a professional and did not compromise safety letting his children give a routine, not crucial, clearance, cleared for takeoff and contact departure. If the aircraft is on the runway the only clearance he is waiting for is cleared for takeoff, next, contact departure which is the boring routine they do all day long over and over again. PTH is right. He should be reinstated immediately to put JFK in his competent hands again. He will not invite his children to the tower again, I guarantee it. I hope the controller has a wonderful career and his children remember what he did to give them a memorable experience. I did it for my daughter on my retirement flight and understand how it was important to you to show your children what you did and let them experience a bit of it.

[dvv]

A lesson that nobody's entitled to break laws would be an even more important lesson to his kids. Or any kid at all.

BTW, I once happened to find myself 50 ft away from a midair — no thanks to the work of one of those tower professionals, so spare me that condescending "You don't seem to understand".

[protectthehornet]

dvv

if it were so easy to hire another controller in his place, why is JFK currently understaffed?

indeed, the whole ATC system is on the short side...with lots of retirements coming up.

and believe me...I know what ATC screwups can do to you...imagine...cleared PHL ILS 9R...a United DC10 cleared for takeoff PHL 27L despite asking 7 times about what was going on...and at 800' agl being head on...we went underneath them and landed...they never saw us and THREE CONTROLLERS WERE DECERTIFIED ON THE SPOT.

[p51guy]

You were 50 ft away from a midair? Wow, I have been there too but did something about it, what did you do? Duck? please don't throw rocks at these guys. they do a great job and what he did was no big deal. get over it, he won't do it again. let him go back to what he does and life will go on just fine.

[Global Warrior]

BTW, I once happened to find myself 50 ft away from a midair — no thanks to the work of one of those tower professionals, so spare me that condescending "You don't seem to understand".

The windshield.............. The least used instrument in the cockpit!!!!

If you were really only 50 feet away from a midair, i would suggest that its NOT just the controllers fault and.............. as its illegal to fly within 50 feet of another aircraft unless both commanders agree, this should be dealt with as

A lesson that nobody's entitled to break laws

and according to your interpretation of "the law", YOU SIR BROKE THE LAW and should be fired!!!

Now in your defence, i don't believe that anybody should have been fired in your particular case. What has probably made the skies safer is that im sure both you and the controller have learnt from the experience.

All the best

GW

[dvv]

GW, you have just made way too many assumptions without bothering about any of the facts or pertinent laws.

[dvv]

protectthehornet, wow. So familiar. Except I was in place of that DC10, it wasn't PHL, and it wasn't one heavy iron against another. The lesson I learned was — if it looks like you're erring on the safe side, just go ahead and err on the safe side, don't assume that the controller is any more focused and caring about your ass than you are (and as the recent events show, he might as well be chatting with his girlfriend or showing off to his kid). Say unable and vacate the effin runway.

[rottenray]

S76Heavy writes:

Rules are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. I would not trust anybody who advocates strict adherence to rules just because they happen to be the rules, to operate any safety critical machinery for their obvious lack of critical thinking capability.

Absolutely correct.

And, for what it's worth, RULES are the most palatable "means to an end" known to society.

We must remember that rules are usually made AFTER something bad happens, and are rarely re-approached.

Also remember that most rules, regulations, and laws are written to constrain the lowest common denominator.

I'll mention seatbelt law in the US as an example. In most states, you can be fined as a passenger should a police officer look inside the car you're riding in and notice that you are not buckled in. This is because the cops are tired of finding heads stuck in windshields, in accidents which should have been minor and easy to "clean up" and non-nightmare-inspiring.

There are also "public drunk" laws in virtually every US town of more than 3 people. Again, the reason is simple: a great percentage of the population needs to be "corrected" a bit so they don't wander around so damn drunk they wander through plate-glass shop windows, wander underneath moving vehicles, wander into storm drains.



S76Heavy also writes

Like has been said before, I sincerely hope my kids will choose any career as long as it is not in aviation.

which is the saddest thing I've read in many a thread on this fine site.

I can understand his logic and I can't fault him for it.

But it certainly points to the fact that aviation - from the "fly my butt somewhere" perspective has become a job, rather than a love.

And that from the "my butt's going on a plane" perspective, it's just as bad. Too many have no idea of the science and discipline involved, and do not or cannot appreciate the remarkable, incredible achievement commercial air travel represents.

I was looking at some Pan Am posters the other night, those dealing with the Clippers. What a wonderful era - still exploring, still figuring out just how to go about a goal. The work put it on developing the routes, the work put in on every bloody flight.

We have, most unfortunately, devolved beyond the old Cunard slogan: "Getting there is half the fun."

We have gotten to the point where we, in fact, speak to people who aren't around us on cell phones instead of speaking to the people we are face to face with us.

It gets much worse. Go out in public sometime, and witness the number of folks who are busy making plans to be somewhere else in the nearest future, instead of actually enjoying where they are for the moment.

Motel 6... er, Hotel Tango, writes:

You're the idiot 411A. Shame on you. Even you have admited to making errors of judgement. It happens to us all. The reality is that there was never any danger whatsoever. Unfortunately in todays holy-than-thou Big Brother is watching world we live in, it was an unfortunate error of judgement. The guy does not deserve the sack. That is simply ridiculous. Too many perfect and sanctimonious posters on this thread.

First, anyone who has the temerity to call 411 an idiot or even infer he has moments of same deserves the tongue-lashing soon to follow.

Next, you can't really say there was "never any danger whatsoever" as simply having a child - or any other visitor in the tower - is slightly more distracting than not having a visitor.

But, most of the folks weighing-in seem to think that the distraction factor was very low, and not much danger was added to the mix.

I have no experience in a tower, so I don't really know what I'm talking about. But I suspect the kids provided less distraction than a windy afternoon or a mild snowstorm would have.

And, of course, you always put your ass on the fine line when you get into an airplane with running engine(s).

(Years ago, one of my father's pals used to take us on weekend flights in a Tri-Pacer 22. Tony was an excellent (if somewhat bold) pilot who NEVER let another human anywhere near his aircraft until he had thoroughly pre-flighted it, had taxied a bit (even if that was simply running it up and back around for a few hundred feet) and had had it fueled for the flight. "Most fu*k-ups happen because someone distracts the pilot when he's getting his sh*t together," was how Tony explained it.

This was around Prescott Muni in Arizona, during the early 1970s - and Tony was a master at finding places where he could nearly "hover" his 22 in thermals near mountains - it would seem you were sitting still, although you were still well above stall speed, and the illusion came from simply flying into the wind.)

I agree that it has become a ridiculous situation, and I agree that there have been a few "perfect and sanctimonious posters" herein.

Stay tuned - eventually this discussion will become mostly constructive, as the "heat" fades a bit...

Then, we'll start to see some really interesting comments.

At some point, this thread will start discussing things which went right in this event, and how those things can be constructively applied to the future.

Because this thing is destined to stay in the BOLD / "you haven't seen it yet category" for a while as everyone weighs in, it will prolly take some time.

But don't give up hope yet...

'Specially you dads out there who have kids interested in your career and might be considering getting into aviation.

I can understand hotel's point of view, but I certainly hope that it isn't universal - because if it is, air travel will one day become truly unsafe and truly ugly.

The only thing making commercial travel palatable and safe at this point is the "culture lag" which keeps experienced FD/Cabin crew, controllers, and OPs folks in the loop.

At some point, we'll see "Air Travel v. 3.0" and at that point, we'll all be looking for bus rides.


The most disturbing thing about this thread, for me, is that we have so many non-US pilots and controllers weighing-in with opinions that clearly are against the idea of bringing children to work.

Even in this weird, hopefully never-again situation.

I hate to write this, and it will certainly get a flame or three dozen, but, frankly, we in the US tend to care for our children - and we are willing to take unbelievable steps to make sure our kids know how much we care for them.

This controller isn't anything special in this regard.

There are thousands of pilots, controllers, cabin crew, MX folks, city bus drivers, who have felt satisfaction with their careers and have taken every opportunity to pass that satisfaction on to their children.

I'm a huge fan of Greyhound in the US. I usually try to do my "lower-48" travel via the running dog. And on every trip, I've met a father or mother who had a child on the bus, simply for the reason of bringing them along and showing them what mom or dad did for a living. Regarding Greyhound, I've had my travel tickets punched by 5 or 6 year old girls who were the son or daughter of the driver.

[stickyb]

relaying?

non pilot (not even flight sim) here, asking for a bit of clarification.

Aren't there procedures in place that allow communications to be relayed in the event of some failures? If so, what would be the difference between another pilot relaying an atc instruction and this kid relaying an atc instruction?

I can understand that neither the other pilot nor the kid is qualifed to generate the atc instruction, but is there a specific qualification required for relaying?

[Global Warrior]

GW, you have just made way too many assumptions without bothering about any of the facts or pertinent laws.

dvv, definately i am not trying to turn this into a personal thing so my apologies if it came across that way. On the contrary, your previous comment is actually a very pertinent comment with regards to this discussion because there are several schools of thought developing............ one of which is the ATCO broke the law so fire him.

I personally don't agree with that particular line and for 1 MAJOR reason.............. I'm prepared to bet that if you visit 10 FSDO's with regards to an interpretation of a Reg, you will get more than 1 answer.

One of the most respected (BCA magazine opinion) FAR135 operators in the US, a west coast based company, had their certificate suspended because of interpretation of the Law. In their eyes, they hadn't been doing anything wrong and in fact, held and maintained a very good reputation within the industry. But as a result of an accident, which did not even involve one of their aircraft, a can of worms was opened up and what had always been the accepted interpretation actually turned out to be somewhat different in the eyes of the FEDs.

To open up my point a little more, the word in the English language that has the most meanings is the word "set". I don't know the exact number of different meanings but lets assume 20. If that was the case, any piece of legislation that had the word "set" in it could be open to various interpretations and if you or I are ever in the s**t professionally, its going to be a Lawyer that will represent us with the interpretation of the law that is hopefully going to get us out of the s**t. Our opinions on the specific interpretation of a Reg at that point in time stands for nothing. The suits hammer it out in court.

If we push the "you broke the law, so you deserved to be fired mentality", i guarantee you that big brother will find away to fire all of us because in one way or another, we probably have all "broken the law"..... and most of the time, without even knowing it, but ignorance is not a defence.

So i cannot subscribe to the mentality that the guy that blatantly breaks the law............ say the guy that knowingly falsify's his log book to gain a professional qualification............... should be regarded, within the eyes of the law, the same as a person that forgot to sign their medical certificate and operate an aircraft after their previous certificate had expired.

If we go down the road where these two people are treated equally, we will end up with lawyers in the cockpit, who wont do anything ever because what they have been asked to do, or the way they go about doing what they get paid to do, will be open to interpretation and until they get the green light that guarantees they wont get as ass whipping, wont do anything anyway.

If we fire good people all the time for, lets call them "transgressions", the industry will suffer because we will lose the experience within the industry and end up with 22 year old Captains (who can play the keys on an FMS like a concert pianist but only have 1500 hours in their Log books) because they haven't been around long enough to "transgress" yet.

This industry needs the aviation experience of people like yourself and 411A because it makes the industry safer. We don't have to always agree with each others opinions and we don't have to dance together but anybody that has carved out a few years of a good career within this profession, and i include ATCO's in that statement, gets a very healthy dose of my respect. The fact that they/we "transgress" should not a reason to fire them/us.

Black and White is not good for the longevity of the aviation industry.

dvv, i hope the above has gone some way to pointing out that the reason i used your post in quotes was to further my arguments above as opposed to being personal.

GW

[Married a Canadian]

A lesson that nobody's entitled to break laws would be an even more important lesson to his kids. Or any kid at all.

BTW, I once happened to find myself 50 ft away from a midair — no thanks to the work of one of those tower professionals, so spare me that condescending "You don't seem to understand".

DVV...interesting because it seems to add fire to the argument that people are using on here of a controllers "professionalism".
Do you think the controller involved in your incident should be fired? The controllers involved in the scenario that protect the hornet mentioned?
Were they being unprofessional? or did they make a mistake? There IS a difference.

Mistakes happen....there are systems in place to limit the damage a mistake can cause (TCAS for one). In aviation it is too simplistic to say all mistakes should be punished by "firing the guy".

don't assume that the controller is any more focused and caring about your ass than you are (and as the recent events show, he might as well be chatting with his girlfriend or showing off to his kid).

That isn't going to help any reasoned argument. I might aswell say..."Don't assume the pilot is any more focused as they might aswell be looking up new crewing schedules whilst overflying their airport".
Dosen't really reflect the industry as a whole?

[protectthehornet]

stickyb

I think you are thinking of the phrase: ATC clears:

but the little kid didn't use it...

anyone remember the LP record called: ATC CLEARS...how I learned to copy clearances!!! pre acars days

[dvv]

Do you think the controller involved in your incident should be fired? The controllers involved in the scenario that protect the hornet mentioned?
Were they being unprofessional? or did they make a mistake? There IS a difference.

The controller in my case issued correct clearances, it was the pilot of the conflicting traffic that missed the runway change. And the pilot's landing clearance acknowledgment wasn't exactly by the book, but made sense assuming it was made in the context of the current information. And the controller made exactly that assumption, which, of course, was a very wrong thing to do. It wasn't premeditated, the other pilot's phraseology, unfortunately, was customary for the airport; and had I not made the assumption that I had missed something and the controller knew better, nothing would've happened. Anyways, at the end, the controller told the other pilot to "phone the tower", so I knew the issue wasn't swept under the rug, and it was OK by me then (8 years ago).

In protectthehornet's case, there was no premeditation either, but all the probing by the DC10 crew absolutely should've lighted all the red lights and triggered all the warning bells in the controllers' heads, yet it didn't happen. So I think they were totally unfit for the job and decertification was justified.

And in this JFK case, it was a deliberate and wanton breach of rules and regulations, so I'll have even less problems with these guys being fired.

I might aswell say..."Don't assume the pilot is any more focused as they might aswell be looking up new crewing schedules whilst overflying their airport".
Dosen't really reflect the industry as a whole?

If you think that I'm saying pilots are a superior species, you're missing my point by a mile. And yes, that would be totally fair to assume they're looking up new crewing schedules overflying the destination airport. Particularly if they're doing it NORDO and at a cruising altitude. Anyway, the rule they teach you at motorcycle riders courses "on the road, everybody wants to kill you" might be a good rule of thumb in the air, too.

And as for the industry, my airborne ass is always first, and any industry is a very distant second.

[jfkjohan]

stickyb wrote Yesterday 18:33:
"I can understand that neither the other pilot nor the kid is qualifed to generate the atc instruction, but is there a specific qualification required for relaying?"

I stand corrected however, to transmit you would need some sort of a radio license similar to the FROL (Flight Radio Operators License) in Australia. To relay instructions (which happens quite often when flying OCTA near terrain/mountains as the signals are line-of-sight), other aircraft (usually higher up and not blocked by these mountains) can relay instructions by the following/similar phrases "<callsign to be raised>, <callsign assisting" Relay for ATC, <passing on the ATC instruction>"

Of course, there are always procedures for lost-communications as well. Which for instrument (most/all) commercial/professional pilots flying RPT, the instructions are even on the departure/arrival plate(s). It actually says "If Lost Comms, Squawk 7600 etc etc etc....".

After all that is said & done, I am sure most others on this forum will agree as well, that the final responsiblity lies on the pilot-in-command. Lots of PICs as well work & live by tons of check & balances which include the phrase "don't let ATC crash your plane".

On a bigger picture, with the short staff at JFK, i'm for those who vote Glen Duffy get back at a job he most definitely does best, and have this whole fiasco made an example of worldwide so that it improves air-safety.

Regards,
@jfkjohan

[rmiller774]

"It is always easy to lend vicarious support to those who would rebel or display maverick tendancies, simply because the rules seem overly restrictive, or because we would wish to live in a different time, but there is little doubt that the parties involved in this incident, showed precious little awareness and perception as to the likely consequences".

Quoting Bealzebub who said this so very well. I suspect that the several pilots who actually moved their aircraft upon hearing instructions in this child's voice are now saying "What was I thinking?"