Error Puts 3 Planes on Same Path at LAX

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.

Other than lawyers getting paid to put the house, cars, and kid's
college money in the wife's name, nothing would change as the US
taxpayers would still be paying damages after the controller sold his
1984 Yugo and declared bankruptcy.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message

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.

"sfb" wrote in message Other than lawyers getting paid to put the house,
cars, and kid's
college money in the wife's name, nothing would change as the US
taxpayers would still be paying damages after the controller sold his
1984 Yugo and declared bankruptcy.

A Yugo? Maybe an ops inspector, but not a controller. They are the prime
donnas of the FAA. Administrator Blakey made sure of that.

D.

She didn't have much to do with it. It was the union and the Clinton
administration in the mid 90's.



Capt.Doug wrote:

"sfb" wrote in message Other than lawyers getting paid to put the house,

cars, and kid's

college money in the wife's name, nothing would change as the US
taxpayers would still be paying damages after the controller sold his
1984 Yugo and declared bankruptcy.


A Yugo? Maybe an ops inspector, but not a controller. They are the prime
donnas of the FAA. Administrator Blakey made sure of that.

D.

Is there an Usenet icon for tongue in cheek? When your personal wealth
is at stake, the only auto in your own name is a clunker.

"Capt.Doug" wrote in message
...
"sfb" wrote in message Other than lawyers getting paid to put the
house,
cars, and kid's
college money in the wife's name, nothing would change as the US
taxpayers would still be paying damages after the controller sold his
1984 Yugo and declared bankruptcy.

A Yugo? Maybe an ops inspector, but not a controller. They are the
prime
donnas of the FAA. Administrator Blakey made sure of that.

D.

Seems the controller should be yanked from active duty until the
investigation is complete.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

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.

Dave Stadt wrote:
Seems the controller should be yanked from active duty until the
investigation is complete.

That's automatic.



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

They may be.



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.

That's NATCA. They generally say stupid things. They can't help it,
they're a union.

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 11:31:06 -0700, Newps wrote
in ::


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

They may be.


Do you have any idea what criteria are used to determine if such
medical tests will be required?



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.

That's NATCA. They generally say stupid things. They can't help it,
they're a union.

Does Mr. Marks represent you?

Larry Dighera wrote:

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 11:31:06 -0700, Newps wrote
in ::


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

They may be.



Do you have any idea what criteria are used to determine if such
medical tests will be required?

Anytime there's an accident there will be a determination made as to
whether drug testing will be done, regardless of the controllers
actions. And I mean that literally. If you suddenly come up on my
frequency and announce you are going down because you are on fire I may
be drug tested to remove all doubt. Management has discretion for drug
testing if they feel it's needed. There's also random testing of course.



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.

That's NATCA. They generally say stupid things. They can't help it,
they're a union.


Does Mr. Marks represent you?


He has to as I am by definition in the bargaining unit. I am not,
however, in the union. Of the 18 controllers here there will be 5 left
in the union as of March. The more they open their mouth the more they
lose at facilities like mine.

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 17:43:55 GMT, "Dave Stadt"
wrote in ::


Seems the controller should be yanked from active duty until the
investigation is complete.

That would be the very least action to be expected.