A tower-induced go-round

"TheSmokingGnu" wrote in message
...

5,000 public-use airports.
500 controlled aerodromes.

4,500 uncontrolled public-use airports.

10 mid-airs a year.
2 NMAC's a year.
6 ground collisions a year.

Just how are all those dumb-ass pilots managing to miss each other so
often without the controller's help?


I'm pretty sure all of those incidents involved pilots. How many of them
involved controllers?



Never mind that 61 accidents a year are caused by miscommunication or ATC.


How many of them are caused by ATC?

What is your source for these statistics?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
I'm pretty sure all of those incidents involved pilots. How many of them
involved controllers?

None, as it's very hard to achieve best rate in a control tower.

How many of them are caused by ATC?

I can't say, the statistics don't get more granular than that.


What is your source for these statistics?

The NTSB 2002 Accident Statistics report, available on their website.

TheSmokingGnu

"TheSmokingGnu" wrote in message
...

None, as it's very hard to achieve best rate in a control tower.


So pilots experience ten mid-airs, two NMACs, and six ground collisions
each year without any controller involvement. Good point, well taken.



I can't say, the statistics don't get more granular than that.


What point were you trying to make?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
So pilots experience ten mid-airs, two NMACs, and six ground collisions
each year without any controller involvement. Good point, well taken.

No, no, no. With and without controllers available. If your
prognostication that the Godly controllers save all we pitiful pilots
from slamming into each other, then there should be a comiserate
increase in the number of such events. That it is so low is a testament
of how little controller involvement A): exists, and B): is necessary to
safe separation of traffic.

What point were you trying to make?

That communication and/or ATC causes at least as many accidents as there
are mid-airs and NMACs. If it's included as a header title, there is at
least one directly-attributable accident to ATC, which soundly disproves
that said Godly controllers are A): infallible, as you seem to think
them, and B): that they always give proper instruction in a situation,
disproving your absolutes.

TheSmokingGnu

"TheSmokingGnu" wrote in message
...

No, no, no. With and without controllers available.


So some happened without controllers available and some happened with
controllers available but not involved. What the hell is your point?



If your
prognostication that the Godly controllers save all we pitiful pilots from
slamming into each other, then there should be a comiserate increase in
the number of such events. That it is so low is a testament of how little
controller involvement A): exists, and B): is necessary to safe separation
of traffic.


I said nothing remotely like that.



That communication and/or ATC causes at least as many accidents as there
are mid-airs and NMACs. If it's included as a header title, there is at
least one directly-attributable accident to ATC, which soundly disproves
that said Godly controllers are A): infallible, as you seem to think them,
and B): that they always give proper instruction in a situation,
disproving your absolutes.


You said the statistics don't state the cause. It sounds like you're
misinterpreting data. If you can tell me what you're referring to I'm sure
I can make sense of it for you.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
So some happened without controllers available and some happened with
controllers available but not involved. What the hell is your point?

Available and involved. Available and uninvolved. Unavailable. Three
options, covered under the same header.

I said nothing remotely like that.

Your post dated 4/1:

"We don't need dumb ass controllers at all. One of the reasons we need
competent controllers, such as the one that may very well have saved
Jay's life at JEF, is because we have dumb ass pilots."

But here we get to play the "implication game", where you can't assume
anything until it suits your argument.

You said the statistics don't state the cause.

I said they aren't more granular than that.

It means that there are 61 incidents listed as "miscommunication/ATC",
not how many are caused by either. The cause IS either miscommunication
or ATC. If all the incidents were caused solely by miscommunication,
then the ATC header would be omitted.

It sounds like you're
misinterpreting data. If you can tell me what you're referring to I'm sure
I can make sense of it for you.

This is what leads me to suspect your prescription. I have explicitly
stated the source of the data. It's your ball now.

TheSmokingGnu