Federal Aviation Administration to cut more air traffic controllers

"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.

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.

"John Mazor" wrote in message
...

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?


Controllers? For separation.



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


Airport markings and notices and layout share responsibility with the crew?
What airport markings, notices, or layout indicated that runway 26 was
runway 22?



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.


The job that should have been performed by the second (required) controller
was radar. Had that requirement been adhered to it wouldn't have guaranteed
a second controller in the tower cab.



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.


Two pilots were on duty in the cockpit, that didn't provide sufficient
redundacy.

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

John Mazor wrote:

"JohnSmith" wrote in message
. ..


cor wrote:
Call and ask this simple question....

The only question here is why you think that nobody notices that in
addition to being a racist kook, you keep posting in the aviation groups
using various sock nyms. This is at least the fourth time you've posted
the same crap here under four different nyms in the past month.

Bwha-wha-wha-wha! What a maroon!

Maroon?


Whoosh! Google the phrase and see how you're still a maroon.


If you are going to give me crap(I am guessing you are a probably either a
Bull Dike, Black or Homosexual)then spell it correctly asswipe


Your guessing abilities are no better than your ability to put on a sock


ma?roon1 /m?'run/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[muh-roon] -adjective
1. dark brownish-red.
2. Chiefly British.
a. a loudly exploding firework consisting of a cardboard container filled
with gunpowder.
b. a similar firework used as a danger or warning signal, as by railway
brakemen.


Bwha-wha-wha!


Racist Kook? So I guess you are saying it's OK for the FAA to cut
controller staffing but fund with the same money racist boondoggles by
Black FAA employees at resort spas?


You still can't guess.


I hope YOU are not caught in IFR low on fuel with your alternate down for
minimums.


I hope you don't think anyone is fooled by this into thinking that you know
squat about aviation.


All those worthless Black Civil Servants in the FAA at that resort spa
sucking the Guvment Tit will not help you much.


You're still a racist kook, too.


"Political Correctness is Tyranny with Manners and the downfall of America
as we know it"


It's maroons like you who gave rise to PC.


Yep, You gotta be Gay

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

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

"John Mazor" wrote in message
...

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?

Controllers? For separation.

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.

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

Airport markings and notices and layout share responsibility with the
crew? What airport markings, notices, or layout indicated that runway 26
was runway 22?

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.

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.

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.

The job that should have been performed by the second (required)
controller was radar. Had that requirement been adhered to it wouldn't
have guaranteed a second controller in the tower cab.

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.
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.

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.

Two pilots were on duty in the cockpit, that didn't provide sufficient
redundacy.

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

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.

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"?

"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."

John Mazor writes:

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 pilot-in-command is the final authority. The crash was the
pilot's fault. There was nobody else around, except the copilot, and
the PIC's decision is still final.

The air regulations are a double-edged sword: if a competent pilot
feels he needs to do something for the sake of safety, he can do it,
no matter what anyone else says, and the regulations will protect him.
However, if he's incompetent and screws up, he takes the full blame;
it's not anyone else's responsibility to check up on him.

Controllers function in an advisory capacity. The PIC can always
deviate from a controller's instructions, if he deems it necessary.

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 ...

None of it applies here. ATC services were not deficient. No
conflicting instructions were given. There were no other aircraft
involved. And even on an unmarked grass strip, a competent pilot will
still check his heading before he rolls.

And what else, pray tell, would the controller who cleared the accident
aircraft from the gate have been doing?

He could be playing pool, and it would still be the sole
responsibility of the pilot-in-command. That's the say the FARs work,
and I think that's how they should work (it's inherited from maritime
law).

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.

The PIC's negligence was so glaring in this case that any question of
ATC is moot. It is not ATC's job to hold the hand of pilots.

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?

How many times?

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"?

My understanding is that if you cannot trust the crew, nothing else
matters. The buck stops in the left-hand seat.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
The air regulations are a double-edged sword: if a competent pilot
feels he needs to do something for the sake of safety, he can do it,
no matter what anyone else says, and the regulations will protect him.

You're a funny guy!

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
John Mazor writes:

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"?

My understanding is that if you cannot trust the crew, nothing else
matters. The buck stops in the left-hand seat.

Then your understanding of how the aviation safety system works is woefully
deficient.

It starts there, but if it stopped there, then aviation still would be an
extremely hazardous form of transportation.

"Steve Foley" wrote in message
news:P%RRg.366$8U2.342@trndny08...
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
The air regulations are a double-edged sword: if a competent pilot
feels he needs to do something for the sake of safety, he can do it,
no matter what anyone else says, and the regulations will protect him.

You're a funny guy!

I'd like to see how far he gets in defending himself against an FAA citation
using that argument - "I can do anything I see fit as PIC for the safe
operation of my aircraft, and the FARs protect me so you can't touch me."

It is a starting point for a defense, but as we see, he is rather weak on
where such discussions go after laying down a basic principle or two. Ditto
on his simplistic, tunnel-vision view of aviation safety.