Federal Aviation Administration to cut more air traffic controllers

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..
TheNPC wrote in
:

The FAA violated their ATCT staffing orders
They will be cutting a big check after all the Civil suits
You can take that too the bank

The failures of the US Court System have no bearing on the cause of the
accident.

I have to agree wholeheartedly here, in that court/jury decisions often bear
little relationship to the relevant safety issues as seen by safety
professionals. That's because the purpose of the courts is to "dispense
justice" (however that may be determined) whereas the purpose of a
competently and fairly conducted investigation is to figure out what went
wrong and try to see that it doesn't happen again. (Notice that terms like
"blame" and "fault" generally do not figure anywhere into an investigation
because those are legalistic terms that more properly belong in the legal
proceedings to determine monetary liability.)

Nevertheless, having said all that, it is also correct that the FAA can
bear, and has borne, legal responsibility for a share of the liabilities in
accidents, which is why you have to take with a grain of salt any
declarations by them that their actions had no role in whatever accident
they may be on the hook for. This, of course, is in addition to the
political motives for denying any failures on their part.

Juday wrote...
The failures of the US Court System have no bearing on the cause of the
accident.

Well, um...

While true in the sense that what the courts decide to "blame" may have
no bearing on the actual cause, past court cases do influence future
events. There are unintended consequences (which we debate all the time
here when we complain about insurance requirements and new FAA rules).
It is not inconcievalbe that the human factors which caused the pilots
to make [any given] error were aggrivated by "safety" requirements that
=were= a consequence of the failures of the US court system.

Not that that's likely to be relevant here, but attractive sweeping
statements don't always hold up under scrutiny.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

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

I'm not a controller, but I suspect that monitoring the progress of
ground traffic is one of those "do as workload permits" chores. As I
have repeatedly stated here, if there had been a second controller, that
doesn't guarantee that the error would have been caught - but no one can
show that it wouldn't have been caught, either. We know from an
incident report that 13 years ago a controller did catch exactly the
same error at the same airport with the same two runways. Why did that
not happen this time?

Because the logic that "a second controller might have caught it but might
not" is inconclusive.

Where have I said otherwise?

As such it's a poor speculation to cause regulatory actions,

Your profound ignorance of how aviation safety works is showing.

or even to claim that it was a ***cause*** of the accident.

I'm tired of repeating this, so I'm hoping that everyone gets it this time:

1. The crew screwed up.
2. Factors like the ones I have cited can be, and have been cited as
contributory causes to accidents.
3. Where human error is involved, contributing factors don't excuse the
human error, but they are vitally important to help explain how it happened
so that we can reduce the probability that it will happen again.

Some airports have video cameras on line that allow people to watch the
runways. Maybe if they had a video camera installed on this runway, the
pilot's girlfriend would have been watching and called his cell phone to
warn him that he was about to take off on the wrong runway. It doesn't
guarantee that the error would have been caught - but no one can show that
it wouldn't have been caught that way, either.

Perhaps the accident was caused by the pilot's girlfriend or the lack of a
video camera?

Perhaps your sense of sarcasm far outruns your knowledge of how aviation
safety works.

No, I take that back. Delete "perhaps".

A million other things could have happened that might have helped catch
the
error and didn't. It's inconclusive speculation about circumstances that
aren't regulated.

Correct, but it's up to the investigation to determine which "speculative"
factors are relevant. I don't know about you, but I'm not going to bet the
farm that none of the issues that I have mentioned will make it into the
NTSB report - or even the probable cause statement.

Even if there were a second controller, unless the
regulations require that the controller monitor each and every airplane
from taxi through departure handoff, a second controller would have had no
impact on the situation.

Can I borrow your crystal ball? If it can see events that well, I would
like to ask it for some winning Lotto numbers.

Unless you can prove that the reason the first
controller turned away was specifically to perform a task that the second
controller would have been doing, or prove that the second controller
would
have been staring out the window instead of doing his own job, you simply
have no case.

Cripes, pay attention, will you? I already have stated repeatedly that this
is speculative, but as the incident report showed, it's hardly an impossible
scenario.

Conjecture like this does nothing to improve the safety of the air traffic
system. It only distracts from determining the things that really were
causal in this accident to try to prevent them from happening in the
future.

Duh. So what should we say about your presumptive, absolutist declarations
here? At least I've been careful to make clear that mine are tentative and
that any opinions are meaningless until we get the NTSB report.

The media wants to sensationalize the apparent lack of safety in the Air
Traffic system because it sells papers and improves TV ratings.

So "Incompetent pilots kill passengers in massive cockpit screw-up" wouldn't
sell as many papers or attract as many viewers?

When fearful flyers strap themselves in, they aren't even thinking about
controllers. They're worried about ceding all control over their fate to
the people up in front of the airplane. Or to put it more bluntly, when's
the last time you heard a Leno or Letterman joke about the air traffic
controller who showed up drunk at the airport?

Controller error makes it into the news, pilot error sells the news.

What's your mission?

Trying to inject some facts and informed insight into the postings that we
get from so-called experts on aviation. God forbid that there should be
innocent lurkers out there who think that the bombastic declarations of some
of our posters are authoritative, complete, and credible.

-- John Mazor
"The search for wisdom is asymptotic."

"Except for Internet newsgroups, where it is divergent..."
-- R J Carpenter

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

I'm not a controller, but I suspect that monitoring the progress of
ground
traffic is one of those "do as workload permits" chores. As I have
repeatedly stated here, if there had been a second controller, that
doesn't
guarantee that the error would have been caught - but no one can show
that
it wouldn't have been caught, either. We know from an incident report
that
13 years ago a controller did catch exactly the same error at the same
airport with the same two runways. Why did that not happen this time?

Apparently workload did not permit.

Duh.

If an FAA regulation had existed to prevent crews from flying if they
didn't know which aircraft to fly, then that would have prevented the
accident, too, since this crew initially got onto the wrong aircraft.
That did not bode well for the rest of the flight.

Do you have any idea how often this happens? (Apparently not.) Aircraft are
parked overnight but then are moved or reassigned, etc. They - the gate
agents, not the pilots - even board pax on the wrong aircraft because of
such conditions. Per se, it doesn't necessarily signify anything here.

Oh, really? Irrelevant? I'll be surprised if the NTSB agrees with that
sweeping conclusion.

You don't think that pilots should check for a lighted runway?

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

I'm tempted to say that your sig apparently indicates some dyslexia problem
on your part. How else to explain the fact that despite repeated statements
by me that the crew screwed up, you keep throwing up a strawman argument to
the contrary. (And the term "throwing up" was not selected randomly here.)

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...
John Mazor wrote:

For a Part 121 flight crew to takeoff during nighttime on a runway
without operating runway edge lights rises to the level of criminal
negligence. At that point ambiguous or even misleading airport signage
became irrelevant.

Oh, really? Irrelevant? I'll be surprised if the NTSB agrees with that
sweeping conclusion.

The NTSB is not the district attorney.

Which case do you want to argue here, the technical investigation or the
tort liability one?

Had the signs caused them to end up on a dead-end taxiway, well, ok,
shame on the signs. But, for them to take an unlighted runway, and
diregard their heading bug or FMS runway display, well, gee..."Honest
officer, I wouldn't have driven 90 the wrong way on this one way street
and collided with the school bus, had only the one-way signs had been
more visible."

An overly simplistic analogy, to say the least. Rather than deconstruct
it - which wouldn't convince you anyway - suppose we wait and see what
the NTSB report says after the investigation is completed.

Overly simplistic to you,perhaps because you seem to think a Part 121 crew
taking off at night on an unlighted runway is no big deal.

Bz-z-z-z-t! Buy a vowel, get a clue, take a course in reading
comprehension, and then let us know when you've read and fully compehended
all my statements and position here.

I addressed all this in an earlier response to you, so just see the added
reply at the end.

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

"John Mazor" wrote in message
...

I'm not a controller, but I suspect that monitoring the progress of
ground
traffic is one of those "do as workload permits" chores.

Here's a link to FAA Order 7110.65, feel free to relieve your suspicion:

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/index.htm

As I have
repeatedly stated here, if there had been a second controller, that
doesn't guarantee that the error would have been caught - but no one can
show that it wouldn't have been caught, either.

That's true, there could have been a dozen other controllers in the tower
cab, and that still wouldn't have guaranteed that the error would have
been caught, but no one can show that it wouldn't have been caught,
either. But what anyone can show is that if there had been just one
person aboard that airplane performing the duties of pilot this crash
would not have happened. Why wasn't there a functioning pilot aboard that
airplane? What was the crew doing that took them away from their assigned
tasks and responsibilities?

We know from an incident
report that 13 years ago a controller did catch exactly the same error at
the same airport with the same two runways. Why did that not happen this
time?

We know from that report that the pilot caught the error at the same time
the controller did. Why did that not happen this time?

Comments to the effect that once you could see that the crew screwed up
by
using the wrong runway, nothing else matters.

What matters is determining why the crew screwed up, if possible. Has a
CVR transcript been made available yet?

No. It will be published the first day of the public hearing if there is
one, or within a prescribed time frame if there isn't.

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

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..

A million other things could have happened that might have helped catch
the
error and didn't. It's inconclusive speculation about circumstances that
aren't regulated. Even if there were a second controller, unless the
regulations require that the controller monitor each and every airplane
from taxi through departure handoff, a second controller would have had
no
impact on the situation. Unless you can prove that the reason the first
controller turned away was specifically to perform a task that the second
controller would have been doing, or prove that the second controller
would
have been staring out the window instead of doing his own job, you simply
have no case.
Conjecture like this does nothing to improve the safety of the air
traffic
system. It only distracts from determining the things that really were
causal in this accident to try to prevent them from happening in the
future.

The mystery here is why this crew could have made the error given that
there
were so many indications that it was the wrong runway.

Indeed, and succinctly put.

The media wants to sensationalize the apparent lack of safety in the Air
Traffic system because it sells papers and improves TV ratings.

What's your mission?

He's a front for the pilot's union. He's just trying to deflect some of
the
responsibility for the crash from a couple of dues-paying members.

Bull****, and Stephen, you've just lost whatever respect I may have had for
you as an informed poster here. You obviously have no idea what these
discussions are all about, or you would have taken note of my repeated
declarations here that "the crew screwed up".

I know that will hardly keep you awake tonight, but then, my disappointment
in your self-evident, self-important ignorance doesn't cause me to lose any
sleep either. You're just another wannabe aviation safety ******.

AMF.

Newps writes:

Judah wrote:

The failures of the US Court System have no bearing on the cause of the
accident.

They have everything to do with who will pay.

But that won't prevent any accidents.

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

I had composed this before I realized what a complete dolt you are, but I'll
post it for the record.

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

"John Mazor" wrote in message
...

And in order to do that, they have to watch the airplanes on the taxiways
and runways, don't they? Which was my point.

They don't have to keep watching them after they've determined them to be
clear. There was no need for the controller to keep watching the Comair
after the clearance was issued, that's the point you're missing.

And there was no need for the controller to do so in the incident report
from 13 years ago - but he/she did it anyway, saw the aircraft lining up on
the exact same wrong runway at the exact same airport, and if the crew
hadn't caught it simultaneously, the controller would have been the one
responsible for preventing the exact same accident.

Instead of all these hair-splitting armchair critiques of exactly what the
controller might or might not have been *required* to do, we ought to admit
the possibilty of what the controller *might actually have done*. He/she
might have gone for a potty break, done some other chore... or seen the
Comair plane and warned the crew. We know that's possible because it
actually happened before.

What I wwas doing here was responding to the narrow-minded views
expressed
here, to the effect that since the pilot has the primary responsibility
for everything that happens, then runway, taxiway, and controller
responsibilities had nothing to do with the accident in KY. I wasn't
drawing a direct, exact connection regarding the conditions at the two
airports.

Based on what has been reported the controller met all of his
responsibilities.

See previous.

He would have been watching the accident aircraft.

Watching it for what purpose? Was separation an issue here or not?

See previous.

If those
"administrative tasks" normally should have been performed by the
controller at the other position, then the working controller was
prevented from sticking to his position. I don't know what those tasks
were, so we'll have to wait and see.

No tasks prevented the controller from sticking to his position. All of
the duties and responsibilities of his position were successfully
completed.

See previous.

The tasks that were not successfully completed were those of pilot. If
there had been just one person aboard Comair performing the duties of
pilot this accident would not have happened. What tasks were the crew
doing that prevented either one of them from performing the duties of
pilot?

Stephen, you very well know that I have not once tried to excuse the actions
of the crew. They screwed up.

So yes, the working controller may not have noticed the aircraft even if
there were a second contoller. OTOH, he might have done so, just as the
controller (and crew) noticed the exact same error, same airport, same
runways, 13 years ago, and warned the crew..

That crew didn't need warning, they caught the error themselves. That's
the question here, why did this crew attempt a takeoff when there were so
many indicators that they were on the wrong runway?

Because human beings are not automatons who can be relied upon to perfectly
and always repeat the same performance every time under all conditions.
That's why we have redundancy and why it is important to reognize when it
fails. If all three electrical systems on an aircraft fail, do we just say
"Oh, well, the electrics failed, too bad" or do we want to find out why the
redundancy of three systems was not adequate in this case? Why should it be
any different when it's a human rather than a mechanical failure?

And redundancy has prevented many accidents where the crew "missed MANY
indicators." Try reading some ASRS reports.

I have. Many.

Then you should be showing a little more informed and enlightened attitude
in this discussion.

God forbid that you should ever do this, but if you ended up a bloody smear
a mile short of the runway, would you be happy with a simplistic probable
cause statement (and summary judgments from all the armchair "experts" here
on the Internet) that "Pilot McNicholl failed to maintain adequate altitude
and situational awareness in his approach"? IOW, "The dumb ass, he didn't
have any business being at the controls." Or might you hope that the
investigation would also consider and give due importance to whatever
factors put you in that box in the first place?

"Newps" wrote in message
. ..


John Mazor wrote:


I'm not a controller, but I suspect that monitoring the progress of
ground traffic is one of those "do as workload permits" chores.

No, it's required.

Thanks.