Error Puts 3 Planes on Same Path at LAX

Are controllers given medical substance abuse tests after an incident
like this?

With an attitude like this:

"We're human beings and we do make mistakes," said Bob Marks, vice
president for the regional office of the National Air Traffic
Controllers Assn.

Is it time Air Traffic Controllers be made to suffer some physical
consequence (like those of the people aboard the aircraft) if their
errors result in an accident?

Pilots have their lives on the line; why shouldn't controllers tasked
with similar responsibility have the same Sward Of Damocles hanging
over their heads?

Would you be comfortable flying with a _pilot_ who was that nonchalant
about errors?

What sort of consequences are ATC personnel subject to as a result of
an operational error? Retraining? Suspension? Loss of certificate?
Loss of pay? Dismissal? Incarceration? Restitution?


-----------------------------------
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...nes-california
Error Puts 3 Planes on Same Path at LAX

An arriving jet passes within 275 feet of one flight as another
aircraft crosses the runway.
By Amanda Covarrubias, Times Staff Writer

Two planes flew dangerously close to each other at Los Angeles
International Airport on Friday after an air traffic controller
directed three aircraft to use the same runway at the same time,
officials said Wednesday.

Federal aviation officials will investigate the incident, and then the
FAA will classify it as to severity. Officials attributed the incident
to human error on the part of the controller.

"We're human beings and we do make mistakes," said Bob Marks, vice
president for the regional office of the National Air Traffic
Controllers Assn., who added that the incident involved a veteran
controller who is set to retire this year.

....

Friday's incident began a few minutes before 11:30 p.m. when a
Southwest Airlines jet that was about to land on the airport's
northernmost runway was diverted by an air traffic controller to a
nearby runway.

Moments later, the controller told a regional SkyWest plane that it
could cross the same runway as it taxied to the terminal. He also told
an arriving Air Canada jet that it could cross the far end of the
runway in the Southwest flight's path.

The SkyWest aircraft was making its way toward the runway and stopped
short when its pilot saw the Southwest jet approaching. The Southwest
aircraft flew within about 275 feet of the SkyWest plane, according to
the initial investigative report, FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said.

As the Southwest jet touched down, the Air Canada plane crossed its
path at the far end of the runway on its way to the terminal. Seeing
the Air Canada plane, the Southwest pilot slowed and turned onto a
taxiway, never getting closer than 5,600 feet to the other aircraft,
Brown said.

The FAA has not determined what led the controller to switch the
Southwest aircraft to the other runway as it prepared to land.

But typically, Marks said, controllers make such decisions in order to
use runways more efficiently.

The incident marked the first such near miss of 2006. Officials said
it pointed to the need to rework the runway configurations at LAX,
which has had one of the worst records for runway safety violations in
the nation in recent years.

Last year, the airport had five near-miss incidents. It had seven in
2004, nine in 2003, six in 2002 and nine in 2001.

"We've worked very closely with the city to identify what we can do to
improve runway safety at LAX," Brown said. "Our primary focus is on
reducing all runway incursions. We take them all seriously because we
see them as precursors to accidents, and our main goal is to prevent
runway collisions."

Although the controllers' union has complained in the past that
understaffing can lead overworked controllers to make more mistakes,
Marks said staffing did not appear to be a contributing factor on
Friday. He estimated that four controllers were on duty in the control
tower, the usual number for that hour of the night.
....

In article , Larry Dighera
wrote:

What sort of consequences are ATC personnel subject to as a result of
an operational error?

Well....

http://www.idsnews.com/news/story.php?id=21651

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 16:41:17 GMT, Garner Miller
wrote in ::

In article , Larry Dighera
wrote:

What sort of consequences are ATC personnel subject to as a result of
an operational error?

Well....

http://www.idsnews.com/news/story.php?id=21651

ZURICH, Switzerland -- An air traffic controller who ordered a
passenger plane into the path of another aircraft over Germany --
a crash killing dozens of Russian children -- was stabbed to death
Wednesday in front of his wife ...

Unfortunately we're all subject to the acts of the lawless, but I was
referring to authorized consequences, enforced by the FAA and state
and local judiciary, as a result of ATC errors.

You know the old maxim as well as I do:

Pilot screws up, pilot gets killed.

Controller screws up, pilot gets killed.


Jim

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 09:30:11 -0800, "RST Engineering"
wrote in
::

You know the old maxim as well as I do:

Pilot screws up, pilot gets killed.

Controller screws up, pilot gets killed.


In light of the Administrator's determination to implement user fees
for ATC services, wouldn't now be the time to make the consequences
for ATC errors commensurate with the consequences to those aboard the
flights subject to those errors?

It's one thing for the FAA to insulate ATC personnel from litigation
and responsibility for their errors, and it's quite another thing for
a NonGovernmental Organization's personnel to escape accountability
for the errors they may commit.

It seems to me, that the most equitable policy would be for individual
ATC personnel responsible for operational errors to have the added
personnel responsibility to make monetary restitution to the estates
and survivors subjected errors they committed.

I'll bet in Canada if their ATC kills you, NavCanada would cheerfully refund
your $15.00.

In light of the Administrator's determination to implement user fees
for ATC services, wouldn't now be the time to make the consequences
for ATC errors commensurate with the consequences to those aboard the
flights subject to those errors?

Larry Dighera wrote:
It seems to me, that the most equitable policy would be for individual
ATC personnel responsible for operational errors to have the added
personnel responsibility to make monetary restitution to the estates
and survivors subjected errors they committed.

That giant sucking sound you would hear would be every traffic
controller immediately retiring, quiting, or otherwise exiting.
Furthermore, there would be no job applicants under those conditions.

NOW, who ya gonna call?

Besides, no one ELSE in this country is held responsible for their
mistakes (it sometimes seems like that, anyway...)

I know we treat ATCs like gods, and we do everything they tell us to,
and we pray to them to save our souls when we are stupid sometimes....
but after all, doggone it, they are human. Which means that if they
make a mistake and someone gets hurt, they'll feel real bad for a long
time. I used to know a former ATC guy. His lunch was pepto-bismol,
which he claimed he needed for ATC stress.
I don't like their union much, but all the controllers I've talked to
have been real nice and helpful, even when I was in the middle of a
mistake.

I also observed a tower controller make a couple mistakes in a very
busy pattern. It was still up to us pilots to see the problem and take
proper action.

wrote:

I don't like their union much, but all the controllers I've talked to
have been real nice and helpful, even when I was in the middle of a
mistake.

Same here.

I've also met some in person during tours and noted that many of them
are also pilots, some are CFI's and CFII's. So in the long run, many of
them fly in the same system they work on.

They're still people.

Nothing that involves human intervention is infallible, but humans
cross-checking other humans can drive the chance of an error becoming
more serious higher than Powerball odds.

On 23 Feb 2006 12:51:27 -0800, wrote in
. com::

Larry Dighera wrote:
It seems to me, that the most equitable policy would be for individual
ATC personnel responsible for operational errors to have the added
personnel responsibility to make monetary restitution to the estates
and survivors subjected errors they committed.

That giant sucking sound you would hear would be every traffic
controller immediately retiring, quiting, or otherwise exiting.
Furthermore, there would be no job applicants under those conditions.

NOW, who ya gonna call?

Of course your opinion regarding the dearth of ATC applicants is not
backed by any credible supporting facts. So with the same underlng
evidence, I'll contend that there will still be an adiquate supply of
responsible talant to fulfill ATC positions.

Besides, no one ELSE in this country is held responsible for their
mistakes (it sometimes seems like that, anyway...)

Have you ever received a traffic citation? Did you pay the fine?

I know we treat ATCs like gods, and we do everything they tell us to,

When you're on an instrument approach in IMC heading toward Saddleback
Peak (KSNA, runway 19R), you are relying on ATC to turn you before you
reach the granite directly in your path. Your safety is almost
totally in ATC's hands. There are times that the PIC must trust his
life and those of his passengers to ATC. At these times we must do
what ATC instructs us to do to remain safe, but relying on _another_
for my wellbeing is completely counter to my desire for safety. So
ATC responsibility is crusial, but they do not face the same
consequences as those whom they control. That doesn't seem equitable.

and we pray to them to save our souls when we are stupid sometimes....

Fortunately I haven't had that experience.

but after all, doggone it, they are human. Which means that if they
make a mistake and someone gets hurt, they'll feel real bad for a long
time.

Unfortunately, feeling real bad for a long time doesn't provide the
same level of motivation that paying for their mistake would.

I used to know a former ATC guy. His lunch was pepto-bismol,
which he claimed he needed for ATC stress.

That's one of the reasons ATC personnel are so well compensated.

I don't like their union much,

NATCA seems to be primarily focused on increasing ATC employment
numbers and wages to the exclusion of providing additional training
and assuring professional behavior among their ranks.

but all the controllers I've talked to
have been real nice and helpful, even when I was in the middle of a
mistake.

Ummm..

I also observed a tower controller make a couple mistakes in a very
busy pattern. It was still up to us pilots to see the problem and take
proper action.

Or at least request clearification from ATC.

Larry Dighera wrote:


Of course your opinion regarding the dearth of ATC applicants is not
backed by any credible supporting facts.

Because in this country no controller can be sued. No way I do this job
if I am exposed to the legal system for any minor perceived injustice,
not to mention an actual accident.