Federal Aviation Administration to cut more air traffic controllers

"Mike Fergione" wrote in news:1Yn6h.269117
:

Not at a controlled field, it's not irrelevant. Try landing on the wrong
runway at a controlled field and see what happens. All of a sudden, the
controller takes control of everything.

The controller may take control and attempt to continue to properly
separate traffic. But if you are short final on a runway at a towered
airport, and another plane lands on your runway, you do a go around
regardless of whether you were cleared by the tower. You don't wait for the
tower controller to tell you to go around.

But if they let you taxi onto the wrong taxiway, or issue confused
directions because they've been working double shifts, it all of a sudden
becomes 'the pilot's responsibility'???

If the directions are too confusing for the pilot to understand, it is his
responsibility to ask for proper directions. If a controller issues an
instruction to taxi on an incorrect taxiway, if the pilot sees another
plane coming at him, the pilot's responsibility is to stop or divert, not
to blindly follow the instructions of the tower.

Or if you break out on an ILS 1/4 mile out and find a Cessna 172 right
underneath you, that's not controller responsibility either, is it?

What are you proposing is controller responsibility here? That there was a
Cessna 172 right underneath you when you broke out on the ILS? Was the
Cessna 172 under ATC control? Did it violate the FARs by flying too close
to the clouds? Did it have a working transponder?

In visual conditions, the pilot is responsible to see and avoid other
traffic, regardless of whether he is under ATC control or not.

ATC is responsible for separation of IFR traffic. But that was not an issue
in LEX.

What I mean by "All of a sudden, the controller takes control of everything"
is, you are going to be instructed to call the tower upon landing. That
will start the ball rolling to you losing your certificate, and the
controller you are suggesting was not at fault is going to be the catalyst,
and the most important witness for you losing it.

If that doesn't imply some sort of 'ultimate authority', I'm at a loss.

If your argument was true, a pilot's defense would simply be "I'm the final
authority, and it was my choice, not yours". There would be no violations
by ATC. They will violate you when it was your fault but when it's their
fault, they hide behind the 'ultimate authority' clause in the FAR's.


"Judah" wrote in message
. ..
"Mike Fergione" wrote in news:1Yn6h.269117
:

Not at a controlled field, it's not irrelevant. Try landing on the wrong
runway at a controlled field and see what happens. All of a sudden, the
controller takes control of everything.

The controller may take control and attempt to continue to properly
separate traffic. But if you are short final on a runway at a towered
airport, and another plane lands on your runway, you do a go around
regardless of whether you were cleared by the tower. You don't wait for
the
tower controller to tell you to go around.

But if they let you taxi onto the wrong taxiway, or issue confused
directions because they've been working double shifts, it all of a sudden
becomes 'the pilot's responsibility'???

If the directions are too confusing for the pilot to understand, it is his
responsibility to ask for proper directions. If a controller issues an
instruction to taxi on an incorrect taxiway, if the pilot sees another
plane coming at him, the pilot's responsibility is to stop or divert, not
to blindly follow the instructions of the tower.

Or if you break out on an ILS 1/4 mile out and find a Cessna 172 right
underneath you, that's not controller responsibility either, is it?

What are you proposing is controller responsibility here? That there was a
Cessna 172 right underneath you when you broke out on the ILS? Was the
Cessna 172 under ATC control? Did it violate the FARs by flying too close
to the clouds? Did it have a working transponder?

In visual conditions, the pilot is responsible to see and avoid other
traffic, regardless of whether he is under ATC control or not.

ATC is responsible for separation of IFR traffic. But that was not an
issue
in LEX.

"Mike Fergione" wrote in
:

What I mean by "All of a sudden, the controller takes control of
everything" is, you are going to be instructed to call the tower upon
landing. That will start the ball rolling to you losing your
certificate, and the controller you are suggesting was not at fault is
going to be the catalyst, and the most important witness for you losing
it.

If that doesn't imply some sort of 'ultimate authority', I'm at a loss.

So if I witness a robbery, and call the police, does that make me the
'ultimate authority' for the safety of the bank?

The pilot has the ultimate responsible for safety of flight. Period.
Following ATC instructions, barring a specific reason not to, is part of
ensuring safety of flight.

Had there been a legitimate safety reason for violating the ATC instruction,
no action would be taken against the pilot. At worst I imagine he might get
chastised for failing to properly inform ATC of his inability to comply with
their request, so that they could safely coordinate with other planes in
their airspace.

Making a random choice in contrast to an ATC request is not safe, and is not
a legitimate safety reason for violating an ATC instruction.

If your argument was true, a pilot's defense would simply be "I'm the
final authority, and it was my choice, not yours". There would be no
violations by ATC. They will violate you when it was your fault but
when it's their fault, they hide behind the 'ultimate authority' clause
in the FAR's.

If what you said was true, Pilots would be required to follow ATC
instructions without the ability to declare an emergency or respond "unable".
However, if ATC issues an instruction, and the pilot cannot follow it, the
pilot has the authority (and responsibility) to respond that he is unable to
comply and ATC will react appropriately. This even applies in IMC.

Another example of this is the policy to require reaction to TCAS Resolution
Advisories, even if they conflict with ATC clearances.

http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/AERO/miscinst.htm

If ATC is the final authority, then each instance of this would be
actionable. But that is not the case, and the FAA and ICAO have even put out
orders and advisories to help ensure that ATC controllers are properly
trained on how to deal with planes that take TCAS action.

http://www.arinc.com/downloads/tcas/...t_bulletin.pdf

Judah wrote:
"Mike Fergione" wrote in
:


What I mean by "All of a sudden, the controller takes control of
everything" is, you are going to be instructed to call the tower upon
landing. That will start the ball rolling to you losing your
certificate, and the controller you are suggesting was not at fault is
going to be the catalyst, and the most important witness for you losing
it.

If that doesn't imply some sort of 'ultimate authority', I'm at a loss.


So if I witness a robbery, and call the police, does that make me the
'ultimate authority' for the safety of the bank?

The pilot has the ultimate responsible for safety of flight. Period.
Following ATC instructions, barring a specific reason not to, is part of
ensuring safety of flight.

Had there been a legitimate safety reason for violating the ATC instruction,
no action would be taken against the pilot. At worst I imagine he might get
chastised for failing to properly inform ATC of his inability to comply with
their request, so that they could safely coordinate with other planes in
their airspace.

Making a random choice in contrast to an ATC request is not safe, and is not
a legitimate safety reason for violating an ATC instruction.


If your argument was true, a pilot's defense would simply be "I'm the
final authority, and it was my choice, not yours". There would be no
violations by ATC. They will violate you when it was your fault but
when it's their fault, they hide behind the 'ultimate authority' clause
in the FAR's.


If what you said was true, Pilots would be required to follow ATC
instructions without the ability to declare an emergency or respond "unable".
However, if ATC issues an instruction, and the pilot cannot follow it, the
pilot has the authority (and responsibility) to respond that he is unable to
comply and ATC will react appropriately. This even applies in IMC.

Another example of this is the policy to require reaction to TCAS Resolution
Advisories, even if they conflict with ATC clearances.

http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/AERO/miscinst.htm

If ATC is the final authority, then each instance of this would be
actionable. But that is not the case, and the FAA and ICAO have even put out
orders and advisories to help ensure that ATC controllers are properly
trained on how to deal with planes that take TCAS action.

http://www.arinc.com/downloads/tcas/...t_bulletin.pdf

The "new" goal of the FAA is to create more layers of
worthless Management, less real workers, promote unqualified
minorities and remove and discard experienced white male
employees so lesbian women(ex-secretaries) can be in charge
and feel good about themselves.

Air Safety is not on the radar any longer within the "New"
FAA. It has become a social engineering cluster
****/alphabet soup empire in Washington D.C. burning tax
dollars like drunken sailors.

Privatize Air Traffic Control and ban affirmative action and
social engineering.