SeaTac Tower: Nobody Home

Mike Schumann wrote:

Also remember the mid-air in Switzerland a couple of years ago where the
controller took a break in the middle of the night.

Are you stating that the only controller on that night took a break, which
led to the mid-air?

If so, that is incorrect. There was one controller and he was working both
the high airspace and an approach. The controller couldn't reach the tower
of the airport to properly hand off an Airbus flying the approach, which
raised his workload. When he spotted the potential conflict between the
Russian aircraft and DHL 757, he issued a descend command to the Russian
airliner.

Roughly at the same time, the copilot of the DHL 757 left to use the
bathroom, and when the TCAS alert sounded in their cockpit, the flying
pilot responded but did not make the call that they were descending. When
the copilot returned, he made the call, but was stepped on by another
transmission.

Don Brown has a column about this accident and he describes all the links
that led up to this accident:

http://avweb.com/news/columns/191072-1.html

--
Peter

"Peter R." wrote:

Mike Schumann wrote:

Also remember the mid-air in Switzerland a couple of years ago where the
controller took a break in the middle of the night.

Are you stating that the only controller on that night took a break, which
led to the mid-air?

Ah, disregard my post, Mike. Perhaps you were referencing the second
controller taking a break. I initially interpreted your post to mean the
one and only controller took a break, as I most likely was misled by the
subject of this thread.

--
Peter

I have not read the journalist's report, but if he is suggesting the accident
was not the controller's fault, or was a shared fault with the flight crew,
that is in contradiction to the official reports at the time. The Swiss
controller could not be reached because he was on the phone for personal
reasons - the emergency phone, which French controllers tried to use to
contact him, was out of order. The Swiss controller then issued an avoidance
order which was in contradiction to the TCAS order, and this was the direct
cause of the accident.

GF



In article ,
says...


If so, that is incorrect. There was one controller and he was working both
the high airspace and an approach. The controller couldn't reach the tower
of the airport to properly hand off an Airbus flying the approach, which
raised his workload. When he spotted the potential conflict between the
Russian aircraft and DHL 757, he issued a descend command to the Russian
airliner.

Roughly at the same time, the copilot of the DHL 757 left to use the
bathroom, and when the TCAS alert sounded in their cockpit, the flying
pilot responded but did not make the call that they were descending. When
the copilot returned, he made the call, but was stepped on by another
transmission.

Don Brown has a column about this accident and he describes all the links
that led up to this accident:

http://avweb.com/news/columns/191072-1.html

--
Peter

Greg Farris wrote:

snip
The Swiss controller then issued an avoidance
order which was in contradiction to the TCAS order, and this was the direct
cause of the accident.

How was the controller going to know that his avoidance order conflicted
with the TCAS resolutions?

--
Peter

In article ,
says...

How was the controller going to know that his avoidance order conflicted
with the TCAS resolutions?


OK, I went back and read the article you pointed to before replying this time.
I agree it's a pretty good article, and leaves some unknowns and imponderables.
There are significant differences between the (relatively forgiving) writer's
description of the events and the (comparatively harsh) accounts given by the
European press at the time. One would imagine that the article written by the
technically qualified author would give a more faithful account - although
some of the indispoutable facts at the time did not help the Swiss controllers.
Notably the fact they immediately tried to blame the accident on the Russian
crew, saying they did not respect their clearances. This was vociferously
refuted, and finally disproven, leaving the Swiss controllers with a bit of a
credibility problem. There may also have been some "opportunism" on the part of
the French controllers, who made public statements condemning their swiss
counterparts (perhaps trying to shield from any attention coming their own way
in the investigation).

The article suggests the controller was preoccupied with getting the phone
system working. The press articles at the time suggested instead he was
blocking the phone system with an extended, personal call, and was either
oblivious to or uncaring of the fact that the emergency line was out of order.
There is a significant difference in responsibility assumed between these two
versions.

This being Europe, it is likely the controller(s) will be charged in the
investigation, and hauled into court sometime over the next few years to find
out whether their actions will be considered "criminal" or not. At that time we
could expect to have a full and detailed report of the whole thing. Sad story,
in every aspect.

GF

Greg Farris wrote:

This being Europe, it is likely the controller(s) will be charged in the
investigation, and hauled into court sometime over the next few years to find
out whether their actions will be considered "criminal" or not. At that time we
could expect to have a full and detailed report of the whole thing. Sad story,
in every aspect.

Sad to report, but the controller was murdered by a grieving relative
sometime after the accident.

http://newsfromrussia.com/world/2005/10/26/66272.html

--
Peter

In article ,
says...


Sad to report, but the controller was murdered by a grieving relative
sometime after the accident.

http://newsfromrussia.com/world/2005/10/26/66272.html


Yes, I remember that now - That's not justice.

GF

Gary Drescher wrote:
"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"Gary Drescher" wrote:


What happens when the lone controller needs a bathroom break?

You think us pilots are the only ones that need to practice holding
procedures to stay current?


But at least we pilots often have the option of landing and taking an
unscheduled break if needed (though not always, of course).

--Gary


zip-lock bags

in article , Robert M.
Gary at wrote on 4/18/06 9:09 PM:

I guess he wouldn't have fallen asleep had it been busy. Surprised
he wasn't woken up when approach tried to call him on the land line.

-Robert


I wonder if any pilots have had the nerve to crack wise with the tower about
this yet?

Suggested call-ups to Seattle Tower at 4AM:

"Seattle Tower, XXXXX inbound for the ILS on runway Two-one, rise and
shine."

"Seattle Tower, you sound sleepy...am I calling at an inconvenient time?"

"Dude, can you come bail me out?"

"Philip S." wrote

I wonder if any pilots have had the nerve to crack wise with the tower
about
this yet?

Suggested call-ups to Seattle Tower at 4AM:

"Seattle Tower, XXXXX inbound for the ILS on runway Two-one, rise and
shine."

"Seattle Tower, you sound sleepy...am I calling at an inconvenient time?"

"Dude, can you come bail me out?"

LoL!!! It might be worth a late night flight, just to try out one of those
lines on them! g
--
Jim in NC