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.

"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.

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

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?

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

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 :-)

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 :-)

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.

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 :-)

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?