Federal Aviation Administration to cut more air traffic controllers

"John Mazor" wrote in message
...

And the tower? Might they be perching controllers so high up, in
windowed cabs, so they can see what's happening on the ground there? Such
as airplanes deviating from their clearances? If not, you don't need a
tower, any darkened room on the ground will do.


The tower provides runway separation. You can't do that from a darkened
room on the ground, you have to see the runways and be able to scan the sky
in the immediate vicinity to establish a sequence.



Stephen, I'm not going to get out in front of the investigation. If
you're truly interested in safety and not just in beating up on pilots,
please follow it as it unfolds. Yes, confusing airport layout and
markings and notices can play a role in an accident and may very well do
so here.


Jon, you got out in front of the investigation when you concluded that
anomalies in airport markings and notices and layout played a role in this
accident.



Meanwhile, ponder the significance of this portion of the probable cause
statement in the 1990 runway collision in Detroit. Part of the accident
chain was one of the crews becoming confused in low viz weather by a taxi
intersection known colloquially to pilots as "spaghetti junction."

CONTRIBUING TO CAUSE OF ACDNT WERE (1) DEFICIENCIES IN ATC SVCS PROVIDED
BY DETROIT TWR, INCLUDING FAILURE OF GND CTLR TO TAKE TIMELY ACTN TO ALERT
LCL CTLR TO PSBL RWY INCURSION, INADQT VIS OBS, FAILURE TO USE PROGRESSIVE
TAXI INSTRNS IN LOW-VIS CONDS, & ISSUANCE OF INAPPROPRIATE & CONFUSING
TAXI INSTRNS COMPOUNDED BY INADQ BACKUP SUPERVISION FOR LEVEL OF
EXPERIENCE OF STAFF ON DUTY; (2) DEFICIENCIES IN SURFACE MARKINGS, SIGNAGE
& LGTG AT ARPT & FAILURE OF FAA SURVEILLANCE TO DETECT OR CORRECT ANY OF
THESE DEFICIENCIES;

Not all of that applies here, but yes, airport and ATC issues can play a
role in an accident. The intersection was closed and the taxiways were
revamped after the accident.


Does any of it apply here?



And what else, pray tell, would the controller who cleared the accident
aircraft from the gate have been doing? Controlling and monitoring ground
movement was his responsibiity - until he turned away to do another task
that related to movement of aircraft in the air, not ground movement.


What was there for him to monitor? Was there another aircraft or vehicle
moving on the airport? It's been reported that he turned to some
administrative tasks after clearing Comair for takeoff, I've heard no
mention of any other aircraft in the air or on the ground.



There's no guarantee that he would have noticed the erroneous movement if
he hadn't been required to turn to other tasks because of the lack of the
second controller, but it's a pretty sure bet that once he turned from
that area of responsibility (control and monitoring of ground movement),
he wasn't going to notice anything happening on the runway. Thus, his
potential role to provide redundancy and prevent an accident was negated
by FAA's violation of its own staffing rules.


He had not been required to turn to other tasks because of the lack of the
second controller. Nothing to date suggests any error on the part of the
controller or any failure to meet any of his responsibilities.



That's exactly my point. What's yours?


That a second controller would not ensure the chain was broken.



Care to guess how many times a day that two pilots (never mind just one)
miss something and a warning system or a controller (that's all part of
redundancy, you now) prevents a mishap? Get out your calculator, your
fingers and toes aren't sufficient to the task. The system depends in
part on redundancy to keep us all safe. When it fails, we're all less
safe.


These pilots didn't miss one thing, they missed MANY indicators that they
were on the wrong runway.



You can't deny that the crew missed it, but is that as far as your
understanding of aviation safety goes? "The crew screwed up, end of
discussion"?


Nobody's denying that the crew missed it. The cause of the crash is already
known, they attempted to takeoff on the wrong runway, a runway that was too
short. The only purpose of the investigation is to attempt to determine why
they did so.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"John Mazor" wrote in message
...

And the tower? Might they be perching controllers so high up, in
windowed cabs, so they can see what's happening on the ground there?
Such
as airplanes deviating from their clearances? If not, you don't need a
tower, any darkened room on the ground will do.

The tower provides runway separation. You can't do that from a darkened
room on the ground, you have to see the runways and be able to scan the
sky in the immediate vicinity to establish a sequence.

And in order to do that, they have to watch the airplanes on the taxiways
and runways, don't they? Which was my point.

Stephen, I'm not going to get out in front of the investigation. If
you're truly interested in safety and not just in beating up on pilots,
please follow it as it unfolds. Yes, confusing airport layout and
markings and notices can play a role in an accident and may very well do
so here.

Jon, you got out in front of the investigation when you concluded that
anomalies in airport markings and notices and layout played a role in this
accident.

What I said was "Of course the crew had primary responsibility, although the
anomalies in airport markings and notices and layout will play a role, too."
So yes, I did get a bit ahead here, but I wasn't specific as to what the
"role" was, and the NTSB already has said that it is looking at those
factors, so I didn't just make it up.

Meanwhile, ponder the significance of this portion of the probable cause
statement in the 1990 runway collision in Detroit. Part of the accident
chain was one of the crews becoming confused in low viz weather by a taxi
intersection known colloquially to pilots as "spaghetti junction."

CONTRIBUING TO CAUSE OF ACDNT WERE (1) DEFICIENCIES IN ATC SVCS PROVIDED
BY DETROIT TWR, INCLUDING FAILURE OF GND CTLR TO TAKE TIMELY ACTN TO
ALERT
LCL CTLR TO PSBL RWY INCURSION, INADQT VIS OBS, FAILURE TO USE
PROGRESSIVE
TAXI INSTRNS IN LOW-VIS CONDS, & ISSUANCE OF INAPPROPRIATE & CONFUSING
TAXI INSTRNS COMPOUNDED BY INADQ BACKUP SUPERVISION FOR LEVEL OF
EXPERIENCE OF STAFF ON DUTY; (2) DEFICIENCIES IN SURFACE MARKINGS,
SIGNAGE
& LGTG AT ARPT & FAILURE OF FAA SURVEILLANCE TO DETECT OR CORRECT ANY OF
THESE DEFICIENCIES;

Not all of that applies here, but yes, airport and ATC issues can play a
role in an accident. The intersection was closed and the taxiways were
revamped after the accident.

Does any of it apply here?

What I wwas doing here was responding to the narrow-minded views expressed
here, to the effect that since the pilot has the primary responsibility for
everything that happens, then runway, taxiway, and controller
responsibilities had nothing to do with the accident in KY. I wasn't
drawing a direct, exact connection regarding the conditions at the two
airports.

And what else, pray tell, would the controller who cleared the accident
aircraft from the gate have been doing? Controlling and monitoring
ground
movement was his responsibiity - until he turned away to do another task
that related to movement of aircraft in the air, not ground movement.

What was there for him to monitor? Was there another aircraft or vehicle
moving on the airport? It's been reported that he turned to some
administrative tasks after clearing Comair for takeoff, I've heard no
mention of any other aircraft in the air or on the ground.

He would have been watching the accident aircraft. If those "administrative
tasks" normally should have been performed by the controller at the other
position, then the working controller was prevented from sticking to his
position. I don't know what those tasks were, so we'll have to wait and
see.

There's no guarantee that he would have noticed the erroneous movement if
he hadn't been required to turn to other tasks because of the lack of the
second controller, but it's a pretty sure bet that once he turned from
that area of responsibility (control and monitoring of ground movement),
he wasn't going to notice anything happening on the runway. Thus, his
potential role to provide redundancy and prevent an accident was negated
by FAA's violation of its own staffing rules.

He had not been required to turn to other tasks because of the lack of the
second controller. Nothing to date suggests any error on the part of the
controller or any failure to meet any of his responsibilities.

See previous.

That's exactly my point. What's yours?

That a second controller would not ensure the chain was broken.

I already said that, just above: "There's no guarantee that he would have
noticed the erroneous movement if he hadn't been required to turn to other
tasks because of the lack of the second controller."

So yes, the working controller may not have noticed the aircraft even if
there were a second contoller. OTOH, he might have done so, just as the
controller (and crew) noticed the exact same error, same airport, same
runways, 13 years ago, and warned the crew..

Care to guess how many times a day that two pilots (never mind just one)
miss something and a warning system or a controller (that's all part of
redundancy, you now) prevents a mishap? Get out your calculator, your
fingers and toes aren't sufficient to the task. The system depends in
part on redundancy to keep us all safe. When it fails, we're all less
safe.

These pilots didn't miss one thing, they missed MANY indicators that they
were on the wrong runway.

And redundancy has prevented many accidents where the crew "missed MANY
indicators." Try reading some ASRS reports.

You can't deny that the crew missed it, but is that as far as your
understanding of aviation safety goes? "The crew screwed up, end of
discussion"?

Nobody's denying that the crew missed it. The cause of the crash is
already known, they attempted to takeoff on the wrong runway, a runway
that was too short. The only purpose of the investigation is to attempt
to determine why they did so.

I think we're getting bogged down in semantics when we really aren't that
far apart. You also got caught in some crossfire with another poster, where
a lot of my vehemence was directed at him.

That's what the probable cause statement probably will start out with - the
crew took the wrong runway. Then there will be contributing factors, which
might include airport issues. There also will be a list of findings, a list
of recommendations, and a lengthy report.

Accident investigators and other safety experts view all this as a whole.
The probable cause statement, in itself, does not convey an true
understanding of the accident, which is necessary for taking steps to
prevent another one like it. Unfortunately, that's what most of the media -
and some posters - focus on.

John Mazor wrote:
"Judah" wrote in message
. ..

JohnSmith wrote in news:eaeRg.21555$eW5.17847
:


Incorrect. It is an issue. Fatigued controller working a
double shift without proper rest combined with the FAA
violating their own staffing orders at KLEX.

Irrelevant. Taking off and landing safely is the pilot's responsibility.
The
presence or absence of a tower, a controller, or even a runway is
irrelevant.


Really? Then why bother having them?

Of course the crew had primary responsibility, although the anomalies in
airport markings and notices and layout will play a role, too.

The point about the ATC role goes to redundancy, not the crew's actions. If
the controller had been able to stick to just one of his two jobs, he might
have noticed the errant takeoff and warned the crew. There was a fairly
recent posting in one of the aviation groups of exactly the same incident -
same airport, same runways confused by a regional airliner crew - 13 years
ago. The crew and the controller caught it at about the same time. This
time neither did, but the controller couldn't have caught it because by then
he was engaged in other duties - the job that should have been performed by
the second (required) controller.

This is not to excuse the crew's oversight, but redundancy is an essential
pillar of our safety system. It's prevented far, far more accidents than
have occurred. Redundancy failures often are part of the chain of events
that has to occur before you actually get an accident. The secret to
airline safety's excellent record is identifying the links that can make up
such a chain, and fixing or preventing them.


It is a HUGE issue. The word is Liability. Look it up.

In the US, anyone can sue anyone for anything with pretty much no risk.
For
example, if it bothers you so much that there are black homosexuals in the
FAA, you are certainly able to sue.


The FAA has been successfully sued as part of post-acciident liabilities,
and we're not talking chump change, either. Furthermore, there are other
"liabilities" involved - the PR and political price to be paid when an FAA
screw-up results in an accident, expecially one with many fatalities.


Just please stop ranting about it here.


Safety isn't his agenda here.

To blame this accident on an FAA "social engineering" program is like saying
that the reason that Johnny can't read is because he had to listen to a
classroom discussion of African-American history. He's using a legitimate
safety issue as an excuse to plaster aviation newsgroups with racist crap.



FAA is cutting funding for Air Traffic controllers BUT they
are continuing to fund social feel good meetings at Black
only gatherings at Resort Spas.

http://www.nbcfae.org/2006AnnualTraining.htm

And do you really think that identifying that anomaly in FAA
funding and staffing priorities makes a person racist?

How do you define "Whistle blowing"?
How do you define Discrimination?
What is Reverse Racism to you?
Define poor funding priorities in Air Safety?

Did you know the FAA will not allow Anglo/Saxon only social
groups?

Is that not racist???

Did you know there are laws protecting whistle blowers
especially if it involves safety of human life?

What is more important for National Air Safety?

Additional Air traffic Controllers or Black only social
gatherings at resort spas??

Which one???

Don't have the balls to answer Mr.PC Brainwashed person??

No doubt you are Black or Gay or have been mind programmed
so long by PC brainwashing that the identification of ANY
minority SCAM makes that person automatically racist.

You poor unable to form your own thought Government School
educated brainwashed *******.

Freedom has left your soul
You are blinded by the PC God of Distortion

Reminder- It is called Freedom of Speech here in America

As long as the FAA discriminates against Anglo-Saxon
Heterosexual males of European ancestry our group will not
go away.

EVER

"BillClinton" wrote in message
.. .
John Mazor wrote:

To blame this accident on an FAA "social engineering" program is like
saying that the reason that Johnny can't read is because he had to listen
to a classroom discussion of African-American history. He's using a
legitimate safety issue as an excuse to plaster aviation newsgroups with
racist crap.

FAA is cutting funding for Air Traffic controllers BUT they are continuing
to fund social feel good meetings at Black only gatherings at Resort Spas.

http://www.nbcfae.org/2006AnnualTraining.htm

And do you really think that identifying that anomaly in FAA funding and
staffing priorities makes a person racist?

The way you have presented it, yes.

How do you define "Whistle blowing"?
How do you define Discrimination?
What is Reverse Racism to you?

What is racism? It's what we see here in your posted crap.

Define poor funding priorities in Air Safety?

The list of examples of, and reasons for poor funding prioritie in aviation
safety is so long that the one item that you have a hard on for is
insignificant.

Did you know the FAA will not allow Anglo/Saxon only social groups?

They also do not permit all-male hiring policies. So what? Exactly what is
it that an all-Anglo-Saxon social group could accomplish that can't be done
if non-Anglo-Saxons are allowed to be present?

Is that not racist???

No. It tends to prevent racist activities. Duh.

Did you know there are laws protecting whistle blowers especially if it
involves safety of human life?

Yes. So what? The story came to light, didn't it?

What is more important for National Air Safety?

Additional Air traffic Controllers or Black only social gatherings at
resort spas??

So if FAA stopped that program, we'd have enough controllers? Or even more
controllers? Bwha-wha-wha-wha! Gawd, your naivete is exceeded only by your
racist cant. Arguing from your lack of political acumen is the Internet
equivalent of bringing a knife to a gun fight.

Don't have the balls to answer Mr.PC Brainwashed person??

I just did, Mr. Crow.

No doubt you are Black or Gay or have been mind programmed so long by PC
brainwashing that the identification of ANY minority SCAM makes that
person automatically racist.

When it's presented the way you have here, it's racism, not safety.

You poor unable to form your own thought Government School educated
brainwashed *******.

You have done well, glasshoppah, to master the technique of cutting and
pasting from "The Maroon's Guide to Racist Taunts and Other Irrelevant
Answers" - I see many such examples in your posting. I particularly like
your use of accusatory Items 6, 23, 31, and 61, and the ironic choice of
your nom de Web here. I must, however, dock you points for omitting Item 4,
where you would accuse me of being Jewish - confer with your anti-semitic
colleagues on the advantages of that rant - and the ever-popular Item 9,
where you would accuse me of being a paid shill for The eViL GuMMinT. So
you only get a B-minus here, but don't let that discourage you in your quest
for complete ignorance.

Freedom has left your soul
You are blinded by the PC God of Distortion

Not only do I curse PC, I doubly curse maroons like you that gave rise to
it.

Reminder- It is called Freedom of Speech here in America

Freedom of speech is both a two-edged sword, and our most precious freedom.

It's a two-edged sword because it means that maroons like you have access to
the marketplace of ideas, even if what you're peddling is the argumentive
equivalent of rotten fish.

It's our most precious freedom because of the heavy price we pay: letting
maroons like you annoy us.

As long as the FAA discriminates against Anglo-Saxon Heterosexual males of
European ancestry our group will not go away.

Close, but your Know Nothing argumentative skills still leave much to be
desired. The correct answer is, "As long as loser maroons like you can
manage to cover the cost of a third-hand computer and $10 a month in ISP
charges to post anonymously (and, in your case, using identifiable sock
puppets), then you and your ilk will continue to go trolling with outrageous
crap that you may or may not actually believe."

Not at a controlled field, it's not irrelevant. Try landing on the wrong
runway at a controlled field and see what happens. All of a sudden, the
controller takes control of everything.

But if they let you taxi onto the wrong taxiway, or issue confused
directions because they've been working double shifts, it all of a sudden
becomes 'the pilot's responsibility'???

Or if you break out on an ILS 1/4 mile out and find a Cessna 172 right
underneath you, that's not controller responsibility either, is it?

What planet are you from?

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..
JohnSmith wrote in news:eaeRg.21555$eW5.17847
@bignews5.bellsouth.net:

Incorrect. It is an issue. Fatigued controller working a
double shift without proper rest combined with the FAA
violating their own staffing orders at KLEX.

Irrelevant. Taking off and landing safely is the pilot's responsibility.
The
presence or absence of a tower, a controller, or even a runway is
irrelevant.

It is a HUGE issue. The word is Liability. Look it up.

In the US, anyone can sue anyone for anything with pretty much no risk.
For
example, if it bothers you so much that there are black homosexuals in the
FAA, you are certainly able to sue.

Just please stop ranting about it here.

"Mike Fergione" wrote in news:1Yn6h.269117
:

Not at a controlled field, it's not irrelevant. Try landing on the wrong
runway at a controlled field and see what happens. All of a sudden, the
controller takes control of everything.

The controller may take control and attempt to continue to properly
separate traffic. But if you are short final on a runway at a towered
airport, and another plane lands on your runway, you do a go around
regardless of whether you were cleared by the tower. You don't wait for the
tower controller to tell you to go around.

But if they let you taxi onto the wrong taxiway, or issue confused
directions because they've been working double shifts, it all of a sudden
becomes 'the pilot's responsibility'???

If the directions are too confusing for the pilot to understand, it is his
responsibility to ask for proper directions. If a controller issues an
instruction to taxi on an incorrect taxiway, if the pilot sees another
plane coming at him, the pilot's responsibility is to stop or divert, not
to blindly follow the instructions of the tower.

Or if you break out on an ILS 1/4 mile out and find a Cessna 172 right
underneath you, that's not controller responsibility either, is it?

What are you proposing is controller responsibility here? That there was a
Cessna 172 right underneath you when you broke out on the ILS? Was the
Cessna 172 under ATC control? Did it violate the FARs by flying too close
to the clouds? Did it have a working transponder?

In visual conditions, the pilot is responsible to see and avoid other
traffic, regardless of whether he is under ATC control or not.

ATC is responsible for separation of IFR traffic. But that was not an issue
in LEX.

What I mean by "All of a sudden, the controller takes control of everything"
is, you are going to be instructed to call the tower upon landing. That
will start the ball rolling to you losing your certificate, and the
controller you are suggesting was not at fault is going to be the catalyst,
and the most important witness for you losing it.

If that doesn't imply some sort of 'ultimate authority', I'm at a loss.

If your argument was true, a pilot's defense would simply be "I'm the final
authority, and it was my choice, not yours". There would be no violations
by ATC. They will violate you when it was your fault but when it's their
fault, they hide behind the 'ultimate authority' clause in the FAR's.


"Judah" wrote in message
. ..
"Mike Fergione" wrote in news:1Yn6h.269117
:

Not at a controlled field, it's not irrelevant. Try landing on the wrong
runway at a controlled field and see what happens. All of a sudden, the
controller takes control of everything.

The controller may take control and attempt to continue to properly
separate traffic. But if you are short final on a runway at a towered
airport, and another plane lands on your runway, you do a go around
regardless of whether you were cleared by the tower. You don't wait for
the
tower controller to tell you to go around.

But if they let you taxi onto the wrong taxiway, or issue confused
directions because they've been working double shifts, it all of a sudden
becomes 'the pilot's responsibility'???

If the directions are too confusing for the pilot to understand, it is his
responsibility to ask for proper directions. If a controller issues an
instruction to taxi on an incorrect taxiway, if the pilot sees another
plane coming at him, the pilot's responsibility is to stop or divert, not
to blindly follow the instructions of the tower.

Or if you break out on an ILS 1/4 mile out and find a Cessna 172 right
underneath you, that's not controller responsibility either, is it?

What are you proposing is controller responsibility here? That there was a
Cessna 172 right underneath you when you broke out on the ILS? Was the
Cessna 172 under ATC control? Did it violate the FARs by flying too close
to the clouds? Did it have a working transponder?

In visual conditions, the pilot is responsible to see and avoid other
traffic, regardless of whether he is under ATC control or not.

ATC is responsible for separation of IFR traffic. But that was not an
issue
in LEX.

"Mike Fergione" wrote in
:

What I mean by "All of a sudden, the controller takes control of
everything" is, you are going to be instructed to call the tower upon
landing. That will start the ball rolling to you losing your
certificate, and the controller you are suggesting was not at fault is
going to be the catalyst, and the most important witness for you losing
it.

If that doesn't imply some sort of 'ultimate authority', I'm at a loss.

So if I witness a robbery, and call the police, does that make me the
'ultimate authority' for the safety of the bank?

The pilot has the ultimate responsible for safety of flight. Period.
Following ATC instructions, barring a specific reason not to, is part of
ensuring safety of flight.

Had there been a legitimate safety reason for violating the ATC instruction,
no action would be taken against the pilot. At worst I imagine he might get
chastised for failing to properly inform ATC of his inability to comply with
their request, so that they could safely coordinate with other planes in
their airspace.

Making a random choice in contrast to an ATC request is not safe, and is not
a legitimate safety reason for violating an ATC instruction.

If your argument was true, a pilot's defense would simply be "I'm the
final authority, and it was my choice, not yours". There would be no
violations by ATC. They will violate you when it was your fault but
when it's their fault, they hide behind the 'ultimate authority' clause
in the FAR's.

If what you said was true, Pilots would be required to follow ATC
instructions without the ability to declare an emergency or respond "unable".
However, if ATC issues an instruction, and the pilot cannot follow it, the
pilot has the authority (and responsibility) to respond that he is unable to
comply and ATC will react appropriately. This even applies in IMC.

Another example of this is the policy to require reaction to TCAS Resolution
Advisories, even if they conflict with ATC clearances.

http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/AERO/miscinst.htm

If ATC is the final authority, then each instance of this would be
actionable. But that is not the case, and the FAA and ICAO have even put out
orders and advisories to help ensure that ATC controllers are properly
trained on how to deal with planes that take TCAS action.

http://www.arinc.com/downloads/tcas/...t_bulletin.pdf

Judah wrote:
"Mike Fergione" wrote in
:


What I mean by "All of a sudden, the controller takes control of
everything" is, you are going to be instructed to call the tower upon
landing. That will start the ball rolling to you losing your
certificate, and the controller you are suggesting was not at fault is
going to be the catalyst, and the most important witness for you losing
it.

If that doesn't imply some sort of 'ultimate authority', I'm at a loss.


So if I witness a robbery, and call the police, does that make me the
'ultimate authority' for the safety of the bank?

The pilot has the ultimate responsible for safety of flight. Period.
Following ATC instructions, barring a specific reason not to, is part of
ensuring safety of flight.

Had there been a legitimate safety reason for violating the ATC instruction,
no action would be taken against the pilot. At worst I imagine he might get
chastised for failing to properly inform ATC of his inability to comply with
their request, so that they could safely coordinate with other planes in
their airspace.

Making a random choice in contrast to an ATC request is not safe, and is not
a legitimate safety reason for violating an ATC instruction.


If your argument was true, a pilot's defense would simply be "I'm the
final authority, and it was my choice, not yours". There would be no
violations by ATC. They will violate you when it was your fault but
when it's their fault, they hide behind the 'ultimate authority' clause
in the FAR's.


If what you said was true, Pilots would be required to follow ATC
instructions without the ability to declare an emergency or respond "unable".
However, if ATC issues an instruction, and the pilot cannot follow it, the
pilot has the authority (and responsibility) to respond that he is unable to
comply and ATC will react appropriately. This even applies in IMC.

Another example of this is the policy to require reaction to TCAS Resolution
Advisories, even if they conflict with ATC clearances.

http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/AERO/miscinst.htm

If ATC is the final authority, then each instance of this would be
actionable. But that is not the case, and the FAA and ICAO have even put out
orders and advisories to help ensure that ATC controllers are properly
trained on how to deal with planes that take TCAS action.

http://www.arinc.com/downloads/tcas/...t_bulletin.pdf

The "new" goal of the FAA is to create more layers of
worthless Management, less real workers, promote unqualified
minorities and remove and discard experienced white male
employees so lesbian women(ex-secretaries) can be in charge
and feel good about themselves.

Air Safety is not on the radar any longer within the "New"
FAA. It has become a social engineering cluster
****/alphabet soup empire in Washington D.C. burning tax
dollars like drunken sailors.

Privatize Air Traffic Control and ban affirmative action and
social engineering.

"JohnSmith" wrote in message
. ..

Incorrect. It is an issue. Fatigued controller working a double shift
without proper rest combined with the FAA violating their own staffing
orders at KLEX.

It is a HUGE issue. The word is Liability. Look it up.


How is the FAA liable? The tower controller did everything required and
without any error. What might have been different had the staffing policy
been followed and a second controller had been on duty in the TRACON?