PDA

View Full Version : Small Child Directs Air Traffic And FAA Not Amused.



Daquan13
March 3rd, 2010, 06:18 AM
http://nydailynews.com (News Section).

www.consumerist.com (http://www.consumerist.com) (to listen to audio).


Another thing sparks a wave of controversy in the air traffic control business. As if you had already seen and heard enough, then along comes THIS news to add even more problems to the already troubled airline industry.

An air traffic controller who works at Kennedy Int'l Airport in NYC has decided to bring his small child with him to work on February 17, 2010 and had let the child direct air traffic.

Audio tape reveals the conversations held between the child and the flights as he or she clears aircraft for take-off and landing and tells flights to contact the depature center. They all acknowlleged and welcomed his direct orders.

One pilot on a flight can be heard congratulating the child, saying; 'Awesome job!" Yet another can be heard saying; "I wish that I could bring MY child to work.". Still another can be heard saying; "This is what you get, guys, when the kids are out of school.". They all knew that the child was there telling them all what to do.

They found it to be kind of amusing, fun and seemed to get a kick out of it! But the FAA is not smiling. It is fuming!

The supervisor and the ATC were both suspended pending the outcome of the investigation into the snafu. Officials are not sure as to whether it's a boy or girl talking to the flights.

Yet another reason not to fly! :(

Ninjahedge
March 3rd, 2010, 08:51 AM
I think that is OK, so long as the kid was not left alone.

It is the classic "sitting in the pilot's seat" kind of thing that they used to do in some airlines.

(Tell me Timmy, have you ever seen a grown man naked?)


If Daddy was telling the kid what to say, and none of these were emergency experiences, I see no problem.

If Jr wants to tighten the spark plug on the engine, fine, let him do it. Just don't let him near the air-hammer.

ZippyTheChimp
March 3rd, 2010, 09:00 AM
DQ: In the future, please link to the article page, or copy-paste the article. The newspaper home page changes daily, and the link to the article disappears.



FAA not amused as kid gives directions
to pilots in Kennedy Airport's air-traffic control tower

BY Kerry Burke and Leo Standora
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS

Originally Published:Wednesday, March 3rd 2010, 1:29 AM
Updated: Wednesday, March 3rd 2010, 1:32 AM

Although those involved in the potentially high-risk hijinks at one of the nation's busiest airports seemed to get a kick out of it, the FAA was not laughing.

Employees at the Kennedy Airport air-traffic control tower are under federal investigation for apparently allowing a school-age kid to give directions to pilots.

The youngster, seemingly under adult supervision, makes five transmissions to amused pilots on a tape obtained by Channel 26 in Boston and confirmed as genuine by the Federal Aviation Authority.

One exchange went like this:

JFK TOWER: JetBlue 171 contact departure

PILOT: Over to departure JetBlue 171, awesome job.

A male voice then comes on with a laugh.

JFK TOWER: That's what you get, guys, when the kids are out of school.

Later, the kid clears another pilot for takeoff and says, "Adios, amigo." The pilot responds with the same wish.

Although those involved in the potentially high-risk hijinks at one of the nation's busiest airports seemed to get a kick out of it, the FAA was not laughing.

The control tower is a highly secure area, and the FAA says only licensed controllers are supposed to communicate with planes.

"Pending the outcome of our investigation, the employees involved in this incident are not controlling air traffic," the FAA said in a statement. "This behavior is not acceptable and does not demonstrate the kind of professionalism expected from all FAA employees."

The union that represents air-traffic controllers said the behavior in the tower "is not indicative of the highest professional standards that controllers set for themselves and exceed each and every day in the advancement of aviation safety."

It was unclear when the incident occurred.

lstandora@nydailynews.com

ZippyTheChimp
March 3rd, 2010, 09:05 AM
With all the indignities the FAA and the airlines put their customers through, a high degree of professionalism should be demanded of the group of people (along with the flight crew) that have more impact on passenger safety than anyone else.

This fool should be fired.

Daquan13
March 3rd, 2010, 10:24 AM
Sorry, but I don't know how to do that.

Haven't had much practice on it.

ZippyTheChimp
March 3rd, 2010, 11:35 AM
^
If you want to post the link, just take the extra step and bring up the page.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2010/03/03/2010-03-03_now_landing_your_plane__a_schoolboy.html

If you want to copy the text:

Most articles links have a 'print' or 'printer friendly' button. Click on it, and you get the article in this format (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2010/03/03/2010-03-03_now_landing_your_plane__a_schoolboy.html?print= 1&page=all).

If you have a PC: Hold down the left mouse button and scan through the text. What you want to copy will be highlighted. Then either 'right-click > copy' or 'edit > copy'.

In the post message box, either 'right click > paste' or 'edit > paste'.

195Broadway
March 3rd, 2010, 03:38 PM
With all the indignities the FAA and the airlines put their customers through, a high degree of professionalism should be demanded of the group of people (along with the flight crew) that have more impact on passenger safety than anyone else.

This fool should be fired.

Sigh...... We have become so dehumanized. :(

lofter1
March 3rd, 2010, 04:35 PM
Sorry, but I don't know how to do that.

Haven't had much practice on it.

Give it a shot. Also try the "insert link" icon in the reply tool bar (image of the earth with a chain link); that allows you to imbed an external link (http://www.churchinwales.org.uk/parishwebsite/imgs/3_10c.jpg). Highlight a word (or words) that you've typed and want to use as reference, then click the icon: a box opens, then paste the http link into the box and click OK. The word(s) you've highlighted (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=318125&postcount=5) becomes the link.

Such as:

FAA not amused as kid gives directions to pilots in Kennedy Airport's air-traffic control tower (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2010/03/03/2010-03-03_now_landing_your_plane__a_schoolboy.html)

Very handy (http://www.washyourhandsofthem.com/documents/childrenspack/handy-a5-print.jpg). You'll be hooked (http://www.handmadefishhooks.com/images/home/hand_held_hook_shadow.jpg) once you get the hang (http://www.iheartluxe.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/hang.jpg) of it. ;)

Ninjahedge
March 3rd, 2010, 06:23 PM
Agreed 195. Like I said, I did not see that much wrong with this. There was no congestion problem or high-stress situation.

If they object to it, they should have just offered a public warning and announcement saying "Hey guys, there was no real problem with this incident, but we would like to draw the line now. No kids should be allowed to direct traffic, no matter how minor the instructions may be. Anyone doing so from now on shall be warned and suspended for XX days, etc etc".

ZippyTheChimp
March 3rd, 2010, 08:05 PM
Sigh...... We have become so dehumanized. :(I don't understand how taking your job seriously has become dehumanizing.

Last year, a Delta pilot and co-pilot were "chatting" and flew 100 miles past the Minneapolis approach. They lost their licenses, or should I say, were dehumanized.


March 3, 2010
Contact: Laura Brown
Phone: (202) 267-3883


FAA Statement

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Aviation Administration announced today that two employees at John F. Kennedy Airport Tower are on administrative leave following an incident last month when a child was permitted to talk with pilots on an air traffic control frequency.

“This lapse in judgment not only violated FAA’s own policies, but common sense standards for professional conduct. These kinds of distractions are totally unacceptable,” said FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt. “We have an incredible team of professionals who safely control our nation’s skies every single day. This kind of behavior does not reflect the true caliber of our workforce.”

The two JFK Tower employees, a supervisor and an air traffic controller, are on administrative leave pending the outcome of an official FAA investigation into the incident which is already underway.

In addition, all unofficial visits to FAA air traffic control operational areas, such as towers and radar rooms, will be suspended during the investigation. The FAA Administrator has directed a team to conduct a full-scale review of air traffic control policies and procedures related to facility visitors.

ablarc
March 3rd, 2010, 09:05 PM
The control tower is a highly secure area, and the FAA says only licensed controllers are supposed to communicate with planes.

The union that represents air-traffic controllers said the behavior in the tower "is not indicative of the highest professional standards that controllers set for themselves and exceed each and every day in the advancement of aviation safety."

It was unclear when the incident occurred.
Not reassuring.

Bob
March 3rd, 2010, 10:26 PM
An investigation is underway. The FAA is taking appropriate measures to ensure the rules are followed, and that any (hard-earned) lessons from this event are fully absorbed into the Agency's corporate culture. I for one do not expect recurrence, at any facility, but hey--you never know -- people are people, and people from time to time do dumb and inexplicable things. Any FAA manager could wake up, tomorrow, and find himself or herself in a predicament such as this, regardless of what proactive measures were taken in an effort to prevent dumb behavior.

Before any disciplinary action in the federal service is proposed, it is important to establish the facts. Should the investigation show that one or more FAA employees need to be disciplined, the employees need to be able to tell their side of the story, respond verbally and/or via written form to any proposed disciplinary action, and in all be afforded DUE PROCESS: 1. as human beings, 2. as federal employees, 3. as members of the NATCA bargaining unit (if applicable,) and 4. as prescribed by law.

As a nation, and as a people, we seem to have lost the ability to laugh at ourselves. We are quick to chop people's heads off, often to satisfy political expediency or to keep CNN at bay, and we have millions and millions of people behind bars. Sensationalized news stories add fuel to what otherwise would be small brush fires, quickly extinguished. Our current political and cultural climate turns my stomach. So there, I said it.

Should the investigation confirm a serious lapse in judgment, and that the employee(s) were guilty of just being stupid, a stern warning and "If you pull a stunt like that again, I'll have your head" might be sufficient. But could that happen in this America? In 2010? Don't count on it.

ZippyTheChimp
March 3rd, 2010, 11:25 PM
As a nation, and as a people, we seem to have lost the ability to laugh at ourselves. We are quick to chop people's heads off, often to satisfy political expediencyThe only thing political here seems to be your post.

OmegaNYC
March 4th, 2010, 12:24 AM
JFK air traffic controller let not one, but TWO kids direct planes: officials

BY Rich Schapiro (http://www.nydailynews.com/authors/Rich%20Schapiro)
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Wednesday, March 3rd 2010, 5:50 PM

http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2010/03/04/alg_airport_jfk-tower.jpg

The Kennedy Airport air traffic controller who brought his son to work and let him direct several planes let a second child do the same thing, officials said. HEAR AUDIO BELOW.






The Kennedy Airport (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/John+F.+Kennedy+International+Airport) air traffic controller who brought his son to work and let him direct several planes let a second child do the same thing the next day, officials said Wednesday.
An initial investigation by the Federal Aviation Authority (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Federal+Aviation+Administration) revealed that the unidentified controller's second child gave directions to two separate planes on Feb. 17.

The revelations emerged a day after the controller and his supervisor were suspended over the Feb. 16 incident.
On that day, the controller's young son made a total of five transmissions to pilots operating four separate aircrafts.

"JetBlue (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/JetBlue+Airways+Corporation) 171 cleared for takeoff," the boy says in his first call.
His dad then gave more detailed instructions to the pilot and said: "This is what you get, guys, when the kids are out of school."
The pilots were amused. But the stunt infuriated regulators.

"This lapse in judgment not only violated FAA's own policies, but common sense standards for professional conduct," FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Randy+Babbitt) said Wednesday.

"These kinds of distractions are totally unacceptable."
The union that represents air traffic controllers also criticized the controller's judgement.

Ninjahedge
March 4th, 2010, 07:51 AM
I don't understand how taking your job seriously has become dehumanizing.

Last year, a Delta pilot and co-pilot were "chatting" and flew 100 miles past the Minneapolis approach. They lost their licenses, or should I say, were dehumanized.

Question. Who flew 100 miles past the approach this time?

Also, what collision nearly happened because of this?

How many were delayed?

How much money did the act cost the company?



It is an over reaction. It should not be encouraged,but calling for people's heads over something as small as this is not the logical thing to do.

ZippyTheChimp
March 4th, 2010, 08:09 AM
^

Reactive is better than proactive?

Policy regarding safety standards shouldn't be driven by the result. If there was a collision, we'd all be screaming for criminal indictments.

"No harm no foul" may work in the NBA, but not places like air traffic control.

Merry
March 4th, 2010, 08:12 AM
Question. Who flew 100 miles past the approach this time?

Also, what collision nearly happened because of this?

How many were delayed?

How much money did the act cost the company?



It is an over reaction. It should not be encouraged,but calling for people's heads over something as small as this is not the logical thing to do.

Agreed. The pilots seemed to get a kick out of it and didn't get fazed. I'm not condoning it either, but surely it was just a bit of father-son bonding, which is perhaps what it would have been seen as in less paranoia-prone days.

Merry
March 4th, 2010, 08:15 AM
If there was a collision...

There wasn't.

ZippyTheChimp
March 4th, 2010, 08:18 AM
There wasn't.So you think that a reactive policy is preferable to a proactive one?

Merry
March 4th, 2010, 08:26 AM
^ No. I just think it's unfortunate that society is IMO far too what-if driven and overreacts to situations like this.

Edit: I also think "Small Child Directs Air Traffic" is overstating things a bit. It's not as if he was on his own and/or doing it for a lengthy period of time.

ZippyTheChimp
March 4th, 2010, 08:41 AM
Why is society being dragged into this?

If a company or organization has rules in place, shouldn't they act if the rules are broken? That seems to be what the FAA is doing.

Many companies, mine included, have zero-tolerance policies in place. When someone crosses the line on one of these issues, they're gone. I've had to deal with this reality, standing by helpless as people lost their jobs.

I'm sure the guidelines for an air-traffic controller are more strict than for me.


I just think it's unfortunate that society is IMO far too what-if driven and overreacts to situations like this.You and NH seem to be driven by what-if, in this case, the absence of such condoning the behavior. I'm saying that what-if has nothing to do with it.

Merry
March 4th, 2010, 08:51 AM
I'm not condoning it, as I said. I'm just saying that I think there was an overreaction. And I HATE the way the media causes a frenzy.

Zero-tolerance certainly has its place, but is often misused and misdirected.

Ninjahedge
March 4th, 2010, 08:58 AM
^

Reactive is better than proactive?

That wasn't the question.

Was this a situation where even an error would have meant anyone was at risk? Was he letting the kid handle a tight situation, or just give clearance to a specific plane for takeoff on a closed channel?


Policy regarding safety standards shouldn't be driven by the result. If there was a collision, we'd all be screaming for criminal indictments.

IF is the key word here. Was this a situation that could have caused a collision? It did not sound like it to me. It sounded like a simple "go ahead". Was this kid unsupervised? Did they make this decision? If they called the plane the wrong name would it have mattered?

If you really want to pull the "what if" card, the ONLY argument, which NOBODY has presented so far is that Kids in the control room are a distraction and can impair the controllers ability to do their job.


No, everyone is focusing on Jr saying "adiós" rather than what could have really caused a problem.


"No harm no foul" may work in the NBA, but not places like air traffic control.

People are just missing the mark. It ain't the fur on the animal that will do you the most harm, it's the claws and the teeth.

ZippyTheChimp
March 4th, 2010, 09:02 AM
^
Well, the media always tries to cause a frenzy; that's sort of their job (although I don't see much of it here). In such situations, a public momentum develops that drowns out everything else. Politicians get involved.

But the coverage and reaction have been light. The FAA didn't seem to be forced into taking action, and the union hasn't exactly disagreed with them.

Ninjahedge
March 4th, 2010, 09:07 AM
Many companies, mine included, have zero-tolerance policies in place. When someone crosses the line on one of these issues, they're gone. I've had to deal with this reality, standing by helpless as people lost their jobs.

The way you phrase this makes it sound like this was not something you liked, or possibly even agreed with.

The key is this. Would that act, the way it was done, have put anyone at risk?

The reason this should be discouraged is ONLY because it is easier to draw the line at "absolutely not" than to try and describe individual instances where it is OK.

I think the fact that, even if this was a no tolerance policy, that the FAA seems to be out to gut this guy instead of admitting reluctance for enforcement on a relatively innocuous event is what gets me irked.

No "While this was an innocent enough occurance, we are sorry to say that it is in the contract that this kind of behavior, no matter how innocent it may be, is not allowed in the control tower".

Instead they sound like this guy had the plane full of Nuns, orphans and puppies on the line between life and death and he let this kid risk them all.....




Or maybe that is just how the media is trumping it up.....

Merry
March 4th, 2010, 09:23 AM
...Kids in the control room are a distraction and can impare the controllers ability to do theior job.

Good point.


...that's sort of their job...

Totally disagree.


In such situations, a public momentum develops that drowns out everything else.A frenzy.


Anyway, it was a lapse in judgement, he broke the rules, nothing went wrong, rap him on the knuckles, move on. I'd be interested to know how long he's been an ATC and what motivated him to do what he's done.

ZippyTheChimp
March 4th, 2010, 09:25 AM
The way you phrase this makes it sound like this was not something you liked, or possibly even agreed with.No, realization of the inevitable. One such zero-tolerance policy is workplace violence. I defended someone in a case where no contact was made, but the threat was enough. I tried to minimize the damage, but I knew it was a lost cause. Of course I didn't like it, but I didn't disagree with it.


I think the fact that, even if this was a no tolerance policy, that the FAA seems to be out to gut this guy instead of admitting reluctance for enforcement on a relatively innocuous event is what gets me irked.Speculation on your part. If in fact, the policy is zero-tolerance, then the event isn't innocuous.


Instead they sound like this guy had the plane full of Nuns, orphans and puppies on the line between life and death and he let this kid risk them all....You are stuck in reactive rules, which are no rules at all.

ZippyTheChimp
March 4th, 2010, 09:42 AM
Totally disagree.Sarcastic of course. It's what they do; what they've always done. Probably worse in the past, judging by historical news items. But the media didn't seem to drive this. Even DQ's title didn't have a http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/images/icons/icon4.gif

A "slap on the wrist" for an incident (two) in what should be a secure area? Just makes security theater (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater) more of a joke.

Ninjahedge
March 4th, 2010, 10:09 AM
A "slap on the wrist" for an incident (two) in what should be a secure area? Just makes security theater (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater) more of a joke.

You see, I think we are kind of coming to a focus point here.

Most of us agree that it is not right to have kids in the control tower in the first place for various reasons, but we are in disagreement over whether the act committed once IN the tower was as bad as the forthcoming punishment (and FAA reaction) might be.

That should have been the statement, that should have been the focus.

Don't say that a relatively innocuous contact on the radio is the reason for punishment, but allowing children in the control room in the first place.

Daquan13
March 4th, 2010, 10:15 AM
What puzzles me is how were those kids able to get past security?

That is a very highly restricted area, and ordinary people are not allowed up there according to the FAA. :(

ZippyTheChimp
March 4th, 2010, 11:34 AM
the act committed once IN the towerIt seems like twice by the same person.


bad as the forthcoming punishment (and FAA reaction) might be.No punishment was announced; administrative leave during an investigation is common practice.

What exactly in the FAA statement is unacceptable?

------------------------------

Daddy, can I push in the control rods?

What's everyone making such a big deal over? I was watching everything; it wasn't a peak-load period; and there was no core meltdown.

OK, don't do it again. :)

Ninjahedge
March 4th, 2010, 12:35 PM
Straw man.

It would be like forbidding the kid to turn on the lights in the lunchroom of the nuclear facility.

As for the punishment, I know nothing was announced yet, that's why I said "might" ;)

ZippyTheChimp
March 4th, 2010, 01:27 PM
Straw man.How is it so different? Both high security facilities, limited access, agency regulated, potential for danger.


It would be like forbidding the kid to turn on the lights in the lunchroom of the nuclear facility.What the kid did in the control tower is the controller's job. Turning on the lights in the lunchroom of a nuclear plant isn't the job.


As for the punishment, I know nothing was announced yet, that's why I said "might" ;)The question was what problem you have with the FAA statement.

lofter1
March 4th, 2010, 01:28 PM
Talking to pilots and directing flights is akin to allowing "the kid to turn on the lights in the lunchroom of the nuclear facility" :confused:

Seems that simply having the kid turn on the lights in the control tower would be a better comparison.

Doubt anyone would be moaning about that. Plus there'd be no recording of it to play on the airwaves.

ZippyTheChimp
March 4th, 2010, 01:33 PM
Plus there'd be no recording of it to play on the airwaves.Maybe this is all just nature's way of weeding out dumb people.

Ninjahedge
March 4th, 2010, 03:21 PM
How is it so different? Both high security facilities, limited access, agency regulated, potential for danger.

The difference is the action you described. Like I said, we are in agreeance about the venue, just not on the action itself.

The major infraction was permission to enter in the first place. THAT was what could cause problems if someone did something OTHER than give a plane the OK to take off under the watchful eye of another.


What the kid did in the control tower is the controller's job. Turning on the lights in the lunchroom of a nuclear plant isn't the job.

Splitting hairs. What if the kid at the nuke plant simply came in and watched for an alarm to go off? What if he mopped the floor? Isn't that someone's job in there?

Saying riding in a squadcar is the same as pointing a gun at a suspect is not equitable. Not all jobs in any of the three situations listed are equally risky.


The question was what problem you have with the FAA statement.

The statement they issued on TV sounded like they caught a terrorist, not that they caught Daddy allowing his son to see what he did for a living and toot the siren on the fire engine.

Ninjahedge
March 4th, 2010, 03:43 PM
Talking to pilots and directing flights is akin to allowing "the kid to turn on the lights in the lunchroom of the nuclear facility" :confused:

It is nearly as harmless. It is not controlling the fuel rods at a nuclear facility, although there are probably safeguards preventing a Simpson-like episode from happening from a simple act such as that anyway....


Seems that simply having the kid turn on the lights in the control tower would be a better comparison.

Doubt anyone would be moaning about that. Plus there'd be no recording of it to play on the airwaves.

But he would still be breaking the rules of being in an area he was not allowed. So, strictly according to the rules, if this had happened, the people involved should have been chastized just the same for their breaking of the rules as the YouTube video made its way around the net... ;)

Guys, I am not saying he did nothing wrong, but the acts that were comitted were not any that endangered anyone. The purpose of forbidding unothorized people from coming in is not to specifically prevent an act such as this, but others that may be more life threatening. It is a MUCH simpler rule to enforce than "You can have your kids here, but only during XX hours, only on break, you can allow them to listen to your radio communications, but they can't talk, etc etc etc"


Again, it just seems, as ironic as this "discussion" is getting, that they took it much more seriously than what was warranted. It seems like they were trying to convince a bunch of people that did not really care that they were safe and they (the FAA) was keeping an eye out for them. :cool:

ZippyTheChimp
March 4th, 2010, 05:00 PM
Splitting hairs.You did that in the first sentence of this post I'm quoting.


What if the kid at the nuke plant simply came in and watched for an alarm to go off?What's with the what-ifs? You're still hung up on rules enforced by results. I gave you simple list of similarities, and you go off in a squad car. Or have janitors mopping floors.


The statement they issued on TV sounded like they caught a terroristDo you have a video; is there a text copy, and is it different than the posted FAA statement?


It is not controlling the fuel rods at a nuclear facility,Daddy to son: "Just push that button right now."

It's ridiculous that you're trying to set up a hierarchy of dangerous jobs.

Ninjahedge
March 5th, 2010, 07:53 AM
What's with the what-ifs? You're still hung up on rules enforced by results. I gave you simple list of similarities, and you go off in a squad car. Or have janitors mopping floors.

You made the analogy between this and a nuclear meltdown.

I was trying to find a nice way to sy that was an ill-fitted analogy.


Do you have a video; is there a text copy, and is it different than the posted FAA statement?

Do I need one for a post on an internet chat forum?


Daddy to son: "Just push that button right now."

And? Your analogy implied that all hell could break loose and another Chernobyl could result. If it was only pressing a "that was easy" button with no ramifications I really do not care who presses it so long as they were instructed to do so by someone in the know AND there could be no harmful ramifications.


Again, we come back to "why were they allowed in in the first place'

NOT

"They never should have done XXX"


It's ridiculous that you're trying to set up a hierarchy of dangerous jobs.

Your opinion.

195Broadway
March 5th, 2010, 08:44 AM
Sorry about the delayed reply. It's been a busy week.


I don't understand how taking your job seriously has become dehumanizing.
Seriously, it was about wanting to take his job for acting like a human. I think a reprimand or fine would be more in line.

How does this
With all the indignities the FAA and the airlines put their customers through, relate to the procedures in a control tower? It smacks of sour grapes, and when tied with firing the dad, it sounds like revenge. Did someone serve you stale peanuts or something? ;)


Last year, a Delta pilot and co-pilot were "chatting" and flew 100 miles past the Minneapolis approach. They lost their licenses, or should I say, were dehumanized.

Those guys missed an airport. The kid (and his dad) missed nothing.
Are you suggesting that pilots not chat during a flight?

195Broadway
March 5th, 2010, 09:16 AM
Again, we come back to "why were they allowed in in the first place'


I'm not so sure that they were not allowed in there.
Maybe Bob could comment on this.
looking though the regs, I did find that anyone directing air traffic must hold the applicable rating to do so. (FAR 65.31) http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_65-31.html
The kid was definately in violation of that one.

ZippyTheChimp
March 5th, 2010, 10:10 AM
Seriously, it was about wanting to take his job for acting like a human.Most people lose their jobs for acting like humans.


How does this relate to the procedures in a control tower?See my link on "security theater."


It smacks of sour grapes, and when tied with firing the dad, it sounds like revenge. Did someone serve you stale peanuts or something? ;)Do you have a relative in air-traffic control?

Yes, my question is just as silly as yours. I'll add a ;) to make it less insulting.

I like that touch of calling him "the dad." Makes it all excusable.


Those guys missed an airport. The kid (and his dad) missed nothing. "The dad" again.

Are we getting back to results-driven. Yes officer, I was speeding, but I didn't hit anyone.


Are you suggesting that pilots not chat during a flight?Before this last remark, I would have at least taken your post seriously.

195Broadway
March 5th, 2010, 11:54 AM
Most people lose their jobs for acting like humans.
An increasingly limiting trait these last few decades.


See my link on "security theater."
Ok. I'll check it out after I finish my response here.


Do you have a relative in air-traffic control?
No. The ;) was meant to convey a little levity. I apologize if you were truly insulted.


I like that touch of calling him "the dad." Makes it all excusable.
I haven't said it is excusable, just that I don't see it as a firing offence.
Hey, at least I didn't add that the kid would have to give away his puppy.:D


Before this last remark, I would have at least taken your post seriously.

Zippy,
You brought up the chatting in making your point. "they missed the airport by 100 miles" would have been sufficient to point out their obvious blunder. It is a serious question meant to explore your perception of what goes on up there.

Fabrizio
March 5th, 2010, 12:29 PM
How wrong.... just wrong. It is simply about respect for the job and respect for the public they serve.

Kids should not be in a control room, they should not be in an operating room either.

It does not matter whether people where harmed or not. That is not the issue. And this business about how we should "lighten up" over such stuff is absurd.

Some things should just not be done. It is as simple as that. Period.

It is a matter of respect, of protocol, of standards, of professionalism. The father should be serverely punished. Play Frisbee with your kid outside on your lawn if want you to bind with him.

--

Alonzo-ny
March 5th, 2010, 01:35 PM
I'm with Fab on this one. Call me old fashioned but kids need to be in their correct place. That place is not an air traffic control room. Considering the minute chances of something going wrong and the consequences if it does it just isn't worth it.

ZippyTheChimp
March 5th, 2010, 03:52 PM
An increasingly limiting trait these last few decades.I think more latitude is given today to excuse behavior as human error. And by today, I include myself a few decades ago. My pop used to say, "You owe a man's day." (not in front of my mother).


Zippy,
You brought up the chatting in making your point. "they missed the airport by 100 miles" would have been sufficient to point out their obvious blunder. It is a serious question meant to explore your perception of what goes on up there.The chatting was in quotes - represents whatever they were doing that distracted them from doing their jobs, not that they're not permitted to talk. The point was that they both lost their licenses - in effect, fired.

Whether of not this guy is fired is up to the FAA. I think he should be, or at the very least, transferred to other assignments. A warning is not enough. This was not a case where you have a child with you at work, and a situation arises where you exercise bad judgment. He allowed his son to use restricted equipment, and then repeated the same thing the next day with his daughter. He had plenty of time to think about what he was doing.

Back in the early 1970s, AT&T had a work directive called Condition Blue. It went into effect during critical times, like Apollo launches. There was no internet, and we had direct lines from IBM to the Cape, Houston, and tracking stations. For a number of hours before and after launch, no installation work was to be done, for fear of damaging one of these lines. During one of these periods, an employee at 32 6th ave violated the directive, and was dismissed.

195Broadway
March 5th, 2010, 09:05 PM
It will be interesting to see what happens. My guess is that he'll lose his job.

I wish my dad was still alive. I would have liked to ask him about condition blue. I can't recall him mentioning it to us In those days. Probably for security reasons.

Merry
March 5th, 2010, 09:37 PM
We cost Dad his job! Kids who took over for Kennedy airport air traffic controller blame themselves

BY Michael J. Feeney and Rich Schapiro

An air traffic controller's stunt in letting his 9-year-old twins direct planes has landed with a thud - on the kids.

The brother and sister are blaming themselves because their father has been suspended for bringing them to work at Kennedy Airport, a relative said Thursday.

"The kids are upset," Glenn Duffy's brother-in-law, Larry Johnstone, told the Daily News. "They feel it's their fault ... They're thinking, 'Daddy's in trouble because of me.'"

And the twins aren't the only ones suffering as a result of Duffy's lapse in judgment, relatives said. Johnstone said the firestorm has turned Duffy and his family into "a wreck."

"We're all so upset that he's being demonized like this," said Johnstone, 50, of Alpharetta, Ga.

"The guy is the safest guy in the world. He wouldn't do anything that would hurt or put anybody in jeopardy," said Johnstone, whose sister is married to Duffy.

"We all bring our kids to work," he added. "That just happens to be his profession."

Johnstone's defense of his brother-in-law came a day after investigators revealed that Duffy, 48, let his two children relay instructions to pilots on two separate days.

He brought his son to work on Feb. 16. The boy's twin sister got her chance to talk to pilots preparing for takeoff the following day.

Duffy and his supervisor have been suspended with pay as the Federal Aviation Administration completes its probe.

More recordings of the conversations emerged late Wednesday.

In one, Duffy's daughter is heard telling a pilot: "JetBlue 57 contact departure."

The pilot replies, "JetBlue 57. Thank you. Have a good day."

Then, Duffy himself chimes in.

"You bet. Just the next generation of air traffic control going here," he says.

Federal Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood ripped into Duffy at a Senate committee hearing.

"This is a stunning example of a lack of professionalism, not following the rules, not using common sense," LaHood said.

Mayor Bloomberg also weighed in, saying he was mystified by Duffy's stunt.

"It was certainly inappropriate," said Bloomberg, a licensed pilot.

But Duffy's sister called the stunt a "harmless mistake."

"He didn't do it maliciously," said Kathleen Schueler, 45, of Lynbrook, L.I. "He just meant to bring his kids to work."

Schueler's husband joked that he was amazed at how well the twins performed in the tower.

"I think they did a pretty good job," said Charles Schueler, 46.


http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/03/05/2010-03-05_we_cost_dad_his_job_kids_who_took_over_for_air_ traffic_controller_blame_themselv.html#ixzz0hMO1DP qr

195Broadway
March 5th, 2010, 11:21 PM
It's clearly up to dad to let his kids know that it's not their fault. What a mess.

Fabrizio
March 6th, 2010, 04:54 AM
The family sounds like just another bunch of friggin' narcissists:

"We're all so upset that he's being demonized like this" "He didn't do it maliciously" "He wouldn't do anything that would hurt or put anybody in jeopardy"

"The kids are upset".

Tough.

Try instead, setting a good example for them: admit the mistake, apologise, take your punishment like a man, deal with it privately.