If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
I hope the FAA has a very fat wallet
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Maybe. Maybe a second controller wouldn't have noticed anything amiss. After, two well-qualified, experienced professional pilots didn't catch the error. Yes, especially since the aircraft had to be crossing (and turning while crossing) 26 to get to 22, even given the fact that the aircraft was stopped on 26 might not have registered that they were intending to depart on commence a takeoff from there until the aircraft moved substantially down the runway, at which time it might have been too late for a controller to say anything effective. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
I hope the FAA has a very fat wallet
"FUBAR" wrote in message ... Did you see the original post? Yes. The FAA order REQUIRES 2 controllers. What FAA Order contains that requirement? Why does the FAA require two controllers even when only one is needed? I have been in ATCT cabs hundreds of times. I have never seen ALL the controllers with an aircraft active with their backs to the runway. Then you haven't been in enough tower cabs yet. The "Administrative" duty the controller turned to do could have waited. Was there any reason for it to wait? With 2 controllers, the odds are way less 4 eyeballs would have been off the active that long. Nonsense. With two controllers you increase the odds there are four eyes trained on a checkerboard. How long do the controllers eyeballs need to be on the active? Should the controllers eyeballs remain on the aircraft as long as they are on frequency? If that's the case, you need one controller per aircraft. I stand by my opinion. IF? the FAA HAD FOLLOWED THEIR OWN ORDERS THAT REQUIRED 2 controllers people would be alive today. Prove it. Why write or publish an official order if you are going to VIOLATE it??? Agreed. It shouldn't have been published. Unless you are incompetent, poorly trained or don't give a ****?? There's no indication of that in this case. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
I hope the FAA has a very fat wallet
FUBAR wrote:
Steven P. McNicoll wrote: "FUBAR" wrote in message .. . If the controller staffing had been according to FAA orders(2 controllers), maybe the second controller would have been keeping an eye on the active field(That's what controllers do) and the other is filling out some worthless Government paperwork? Controller screams abort on departure frequency and maybe an aborted and embarrassed takeoff is the only result. Maybe. Maybe a second controller wouldn't have noticed anything amiss. After, two well-qualified, experienced professional pilots didn't catch the error. It's all about math and odds. IF? just one more controller had been on duty the "Number" may not have come up. Sure both pilots screwed up. The odds two controllers and two pilots would have screwed up or been looking the other way is much less than 2 pilots and 1 controller. The "odds" are with two controllers in the cab 49 people would still be alive today. I don't believe that. If two pilots can't determine that they are on the correct runway then you are out of luck unless you have a person hold their hands out to the runway, have double, triple and quadruple checks, sign all sorts of paperwork, etc. A second controller is not relevant to this accident. Ron Lee |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
I hope the FAA has a very fat wallet
FUBAR wrote:
Did you see the original post? The FAA order REQUIRES 2 controllers. I have been in ATCT cabs hundreds of times. I have never seen ALL the controllers with an aircraft active with their backs to the runway. I've been in ATCT cabs hundreds of times and there have been time, time when aircraft should have been departing, where none of the several controllers were looking at the end of the runway. Why would they. The cleared the aircraft to take off and expect him to. I specifically recall a controller looking back at the runway getting ready to clear the next plane to land and finding the previous flight still parked there doing is god awful I'm too stupid to set all my instruments, turn on the lights and transponder and whatever in less than two minutes. I stand by my opinion. IF? the FAA HAD FOLLOWED THEIR OWN ORDERS THAT REQUIRED 2 controllers people would be alive today. Why write or publish an official order if you are going to VIOLATE it??? Did it occur to you that the second controllers job isn't there to provide redundancy to the first, but to handle additional responsibility and provide coverage where one controller must leave the duty station temporarily? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
I hope the FAA has a very fat wallet
In any case, there was 49 deaths with some quasi-VIP people
on board. The FAA will be paying out millions. ALL a lawyer needs is one hook. The FAA violated their own orders. There is your hook. Why was the controller staffing short? Actually the gov't isn't required to accept the suite. You need permission from the gov't to sue it for damages. In any case, I don't think this was very odd. I've been in lots of towers where only one person was on duty. Now the FAA said that the two controller rule only applies when the controllers are ALSO working approach. I know that in MRY its very common for delivery, ground, tower, and approach to be worked by one controller. I can't swear that there isn't another person in the tower but I've never heard two voices at night. -Robert |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
I hope the FAA has a very fat wallet
Robert M. Gary wrote:
In any case, I don't think this was very odd. I've been in lots of towers where only one person was on duty. Now the FAA said that the two controller rule only applies when the controllers are ALSO working approach. I know that in MRY its very common for delivery, ground, tower, and approach to be worked by one controller. I can't swear that there isn't another person in the tower but I've never heard two voices at night. I've run into situations where I could swear that there are zero controllers in the tower :-) |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
I hope the FAA has a very fat wallet
We have a tower where sometimes you WISH there were zero controllers in it.
Ron Natalie wrote: Robert M. Gary wrote: In any case, I don't think this was very odd. I've been in lots of towers where only one person was on duty. Now the FAA said that the two controller rule only applies when the controllers are ALSO working approach. I know that in MRY its very common for delivery, ground, tower, and approach to be worked by one controller. I can't swear that there isn't another person in the tower but I've never heard two voices at night. I've run into situations where I could swear that there are zero controllers in the tower :-) |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
I hope the FAA has a very fat wallet
Not having flown an EFIS or EFMS myself, I'm not sure of the "into position checklist items". For example, in a standard steam-gauge panel one of the last things we check is to align the directional gyro with the runway heading and compass. With an EFIS or EFMS, is there any such last minute check, or is the heading assumed to be correct because it was aligned by the GPS when the bird came out of the chocks? If there is no requirement to manually align and verify runway heading, compass, and EFIS/EFMS then our technological advances have inadvertently removed one of our heretofore unrecognized safety checks. I heard some retired commuter pilot on the news last weekend suggesting that the only way to prevent this in the future is to put traffic lights (stop / go) on the end of every runway. I absolutely got the impression that he was there to convince the public that it is almost impossible for the pilots to get it right and the lack of the traffic signal was the whole cause of the problem. Sort of the typical "not my fault" attitude. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
I hope the FAA has a very fat wallet
Yep, when only one is on duty and they have to make a potty run. Been
there, done that! JPH Ron Natalie wrote: Robert M. Gary wrote: I've run into situations where I could swear that there are zero controllers in the tower :-) |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
I hope the FAA has a very fat wallet
Ron that requirement which was issued on Nov 5, 2005 applied to towers that
ran their approach/departure radar from the cab. AFAIK the rationale was one controller couldn't watch the radar and the airfield at eh same time. Al "Ron Natalie" wrote in message ... FUBAR wrote: Did you see the original post? The FAA order REQUIRES 2 controllers. I have been in ATCT cabs hundreds of times. I have never seen ALL the controllers with an aircraft active with their backs to the runway. I've been in ATCT cabs hundreds of times and there have been time, time when aircraft should have been departing, where none of the several controllers were looking at the end of the runway. Why would they. The cleared the aircraft to take off and expect him to. I specifically recall a controller looking back at the runway getting ready to clear the next plane to land and finding the previous flight still parked there doing is god awful I'm too stupid to set all my instruments, turn on the lights and transponder and whatever in less than two minutes. I stand by my opinion. IF? the FAA HAD FOLLOWED THEIR OWN ORDERS THAT REQUIRED 2 controllers people would be alive today. Why write or publish an official order if you are going to VIOLATE it??? Did it occur to you that the second controllers job isn't there to provide redundancy to the first, but to handle additional responsibility and provide coverage where one controller must leave the duty station temporarily? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hope U.S. soldiers don't get railroaded | B2431 | Military Aviation | 22 | June 7th 04 10:17 PM |
Still there is always HOPE... | X98 | Military Aviation | 0 | March 21st 04 03:48 PM |
Military hasn't given up hope on Scott Speicher | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | January 11th 04 11:51 PM |
Hope you make it to our fly-in | Gilan | Home Built | 0 | September 7th 03 04:46 AM |
Bob Hope | Bill Kambic | Naval Aviation | 2 | August 4th 03 01:33 AM |