Error Puts 3 Planes on Same Path at LAX

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.

Larry Dighera wrote:

websurf1 wrote:
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.

There isn't a dearth now. But I will prognosticate that dearth if the
controllers were to be held _personally_ liable for their mistakes.
Currently, controllers can be fired or otherwise disciplined through
their job structure. Any controllers reading this will correct that
statement if it is incorrect. That's a far cry different from
personal liability for something. Especially in today's litigious USA,
virtually any mistake {regardless of who makes it :( } would
result in a lawsuit. We all have responsibilities and consequences in
our jobs, but legal liability like this would dry up the applicant pool
to a trivial mud puddle.

Actually, this experiment is already being run. In many areas it is
getting harder to find an ob-gyn doctor. The malpractice insurance,
even if the doctor hasn't had a lawsuit, is prohibitively high.
Doctors hate this situation, patients don't benefit from it (If you
don't have a doctor, who ya gonna sue?). The only group benefitting is
the insurance companies.

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?
That method of law enforcement is a far cry different from personal
liability for mistakes.
First, _I_ am only in trouble to the limit of the fine, set by statute.
More to the point, the cop isn't liable at all, even if the ticket is
a boo-boo (unless I could demonstrate that he broke a law of some sort,
like a Rodney King beating thing.)

I also had a cop stop me once by mistake. He was not personally
financially liable for that mistake. If he were, he likely would not
accept the job. Who would need the headache? (There's enough people
out there who think cops are the bad guys anyway. Once in a while they
are of course, but it is rare.)

BTW, see the post by "Newps". Sounds like he is a controller. Sounds
like he just gave you his answer. He is probably credible since it is
his decision.


Unfortunately, feeling real bad for a long time doesn't provide the
same level of motivation that paying for their mistake would.
Who sank your rubber ducky? Methinks you are way too high on wanting
to make people pay.

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.
The situation did not need clarification. It needed some alertness and
some proper, though not immediate, action. No big deal. I left the
pattern a bit later to allow some traffic to decrease.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Actually, this experiment is already being run. In many areas it is
getting harder to find an ob-gyn doctor. The malpractice insurance,
even if the doctor hasn't had a lawsuit, is prohibitively high.
Doctors hate this situation, patients don't benefit from it (If you
don't have a doctor, who ya gonna sue?). The only group benefitting is
the insurance companies.

Certainly not the lawyers...nosiree!!!


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

Matt Barrow wrote:
Certainly not the lawyers...nosiree!!!

Ok, them too.

Any snow in Montrose?

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:52:25 -0700, Newps wrote
in ::


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.

No way? Why not? Have you ever had situations occur in which you
have had to be defended by the FAA?

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.


No way? Why not? Have you ever had situations occur in which you
have had to be defended by the FAA?

No because the FAA becomes the defendant. That's the deepest pocket out
there and stops the vast majority of lawsuits. But I have talked to
numerous aircraft that have crashed over the years. Lawsuits are not
about fixing a wrong, they are about squeezing money out of turnips.
Insurance companies don't fight lawsuits, they settle, which then drives
up premiums.

But I have talked to numerous aircraft that have crashed over the years.

Did the aircraft talk back?

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 04:00:47 GMT, Jose
wrote in ::

But I have talked to numerous aircraft that have crashed over the years.

Did the aircraft talk back?


I know. Such a statement seems to depersonalize the occupants of the
aircraft. That is my whole point: ATC personnels' emotional regard
for the soles on board consists of treating them as a phosphor target
on a CRT. Such regard is considerably more personal for the SOB, and
I would feel better if ATC had a personal interest in the flights they
handle as well.

Did the aircraft talk back?
Such a statement seems to depersonalize

Actually, I didn't realize it was Newps (a controller) making the
comment; in that context it makes perfect sense. I however had pictured
somebody walking up to a crashed aircraft and having a conversation with
it (figuring he probably meant to say "talked to pilots of aircraft
after the crash") and shortened it.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.