Federal Aviation Administration to cut more air traffic controllers

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:UOSWg.32348$tO5.22560@fed1read10...
Beavis wrote:
In article 0wDWg.32302$tO5.12002@fed1read10,
Sam Spade wrote:

Runway edge lights, unlike CL lights, are mandatory for a night takeoff
under Part 121.

Not at my Part 121 airline.

From our FAA-approved manual: "Runway lighting is required by FAR 121.97
for takeoff or landing at night. Centerline lights are considered
adequate in the event that the runway edge lights are inoperative."

That is an authorized substitution. It doesn't changed 121.97.

That's actually wrong. FAR 121.97 says *nothing* about forbidding runway
ops on an unlighted runway. Nor have I found any FAR that does that.
121.97 goes to operator requirements WRT airports and disseminating
information on them to their flight crews.

An airline's FOM might forbid using unlit runways, but there's no
requirement that such a rule be included in its FOM.

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

"John Mazor" wrote in message
...

No, it was your implication that the controller failed to prevent this
accident that was a not-so-clever attempt to deflect attention away from
the crew.

The controller was otherwise occupied,...

"Otherwise occupied"? What does that mean? He wasn't playing a video
game or reading a comic book, he was counting strips. An administrative
task, but still part of his job.

Yes, as in he wasn't looking out on the airport runways and taxiways.
"Otherwise occupied."

This is yet another example of you taking a neutral statement and trying to
make it mean that I was implying controller error. How you can leap the
vast chasm necessary to inject terms like "playing a video game" or "reading
a comic book" is beyond me, but then, I'm not paranoid.

...and I never stated or implied that
if he had not been otherwise occupied, the controller *would* have
prevented the accident. Furthermore, I have made clear that even if
there
had been the two controllers there and the lone controller had not been
responsible for working both positions, he would not have committed any
error if he had failed to notice the pilot error and warn them.

He *might* have, yes, but that goes to redundancy, one of the safety
concepts that I have contributed to these discussions and which you have
ignored in your determined but unneccesary obsession with ensuring that
no
one attributes any controller error to this accident.

You didn't? Never? On 9/24/2006, 3:27 PM, John Mazor posted:

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?"

Jon, those words imply the controller has that responsibility. Did you
post them, or is someone else using your system?

You failed to include my subsequent comment:

"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."

This, as well as the comment you cited and others in my post, goes to
redundancy, and redundancy includes things that might happen to prevent an
accident even though the failure for them to happen does not necessarily
involve a mistake or rule violation. For example, a jumpseating pilot might
spot an oncoming aircraft and warn the crew. That's redundancy. If the
crew failed to "see and avoid" and there was a collision, they might well be
cited, but no one is going to violate the jumpseater or accuse him of making
a mistake for failing in his role of redundancy because he didn't see the
airplane.

You still are stretching to make my words mean something that they do not.
You also are ignoring the many, many times that I have stated in clear,
unmistakeable language that the controller made no error.

On 9/25/2006, 12:58 AM, John Mazor posted:

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."

Jon, those words imply a purpose of tower controllers is to see airplanes
deviating from their clearances. Did you post them, or is someone else
using your system?

Explain why one of the purposes of control towers CANNOT POSSIBLY be to
watch aircraft ground movements, including the possibilty that an aircraft
might deviate from its cleared route.

The operative phrase there was "such as" - of course that's not the only
reason.

Jon, do you have any background at all in aviation? What makes you
think
you have any understanding of how aviation safety works?

My many explanations here of how the investigation process and safety
system work, none of which you have acknowledged, let alone refuted.

I'll have to assume the answer to the first question is, "No." What makes
you think you understand how the investigation process and safety system
work?

If I told you that I was a corn farmer from Iowa who never got closer to an
aeroplane than my crop duster's flight patterns, would that alter in the
least the validity of anything I've said here?

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

"John Mazor" wrote in message
...

And I repeat my request that you show even one example of me accusing the
controller of any error. You haven't, because you can't.

I never said you accused the controller of making an error, I said you
implied that he had.

Implication is in the minds of both the source and the beholder. There was
no intent in my mind, nor was there any reasonable basis for it to form in
the mind of the beholder, but apprently it has in yours.

As I said, we're not going to change each other's minds on this, so there's
no point in going around and around on this.

You have no connection to ALPA?

Irrelevant.

It's completely relevant.

If I told you that I was a corn farmer from Iowa who never got closer to an
aeroplane than my crop duster's flight patterns, would that alter in the
least the validity of anything I've said here?

Then why are you trying to protect the controller at all costs? I've
admitted numerous times that there is crew error involved.

I'm not trying to protect him at all. Why would you think he needed
protection if you knew he had made no error?

Why do you keep insisting on his innocence if he doesn't need any protection
here?

A comparison of the body of information that the two of us have
contributed to the discussion of this accident will show that I have
provided far more information to educate readers than you have.

Jon, these are aviation forums. You're not in a position to educate
anyone here.

I suppose the words "newbies" and "lurkers" have no meaning for you. Even
those who are well-informed on GA may not know much about the world of
airline ops.

There's a lot you could learn here, but it's clear you have no interest in
that.

Right. I suppose that's why, on 10/7/06, I posted the following in response
to one of the few substantively informative posts you've made he

"Thank you for the constructive information. I read it with great interest.
(Really.)"

So do tell us, what is my "true goal" here?

As I've already said, you're trying to deflect some of the responsibility
for the crash from a couple of dues-paying union members.

There's a difference between "Don't jump on the crew, it's also somebody
else's fault" and "You can't simply hang the crew for their error and let it
go at that." Apparently the difference is too subtle for you to grasp.

I never killfile anyone, but unless you have something new to contribute
beyond your hollow mantras and UseNet dodges, I see no point in
responding
to any more of your "nanner, nanner, are so!" whining. Let us know if
and
when you want to contribute anything substantive.

What makes you think anyone here gives a damn if you respond to their
messages?

You, for one, apparently do, and you're the only one I was referring to.

"John Mazor" wrote in message
...

Under what circumstances would choosing to depart from an unlighted
runway at night be considered consistent with professional flight crew
conduct in this type of operation?


As far as I've been able to determine so far, if it is not in the FOM,
nothing precludes a 121 crew from using an unlighted runway. As I said,
I'm still trying to get information on the Comair FOM.

Another poster cited a reference to FAR 121.97. That reg says *nothing*
about whether a crew can use an unlighted runway. It goes to the
operator's requirements with respect to using airports and distributing
necessary information on airports to flight crews.

http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part121-97-FAR.shtml

So while most pilots might say in the abstract that they wouldn't take off
from an unlighted runway, there is no FAR against it as far as I can tell.
So unless it's in the crew's FOM, not only is not an absolute rule, for
them, it's not a rule at all. Granted, that puts it in the realm of an
after-the-fact judgment call as to how "professional" a crew's
discretionary decisions might have been, but that means that it is
debatable, and not the automatic slam-dunk that some here seem to think.


The question was not to legality but to judgment.

John Mazor wrote:

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:UOSWg.32348$tO5.22560@fed1read10...

Beavis wrote:

In article 0wDWg.32302$tO5.12002@fed1read10,
Sam Spade wrote:


Runway edge lights, unlike CL lights, are mandatory for a night takeoff
under Part 121.

Not at my Part 121 airline.

From our FAA-approved manual: "Runway lighting is required by FAR 121.97
for takeoff or landing at night. Centerline lights are considered
adequate in the event that the runway edge lights are inoperative."

That is an authorized substitution. It doesn't changed 121.97.


That's actually wrong. FAR 121.97 says *nothing* about forbidding runway
ops on an unlighted runway. Nor have I found any FAR that does that.
121.97 goes to operator requirements WRT airports and disseminating
information on them to their flight crews.

An airline's FOM might forbid using unlit runways, but there's no
requirement that such a rule be included in its FOM.


Oh there isn't? What about 121.590 (d) (2) (i) and (ii)? Bevis'
carrier elected to tie the reference of their ops specs authorization to
substitute CLs for RLs to 121.97, which is fine from a regulatory
standpoint, because 121.97 is subject to 121.590.

I cite the pertinent requirements from 121.50. Note in particular (d) (2).

§ 121.590 Use of certificated land airports in the United States.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) or (c) of this section, or
unless authorized by the Administrator under 49 U.S.C. 44706(c), no air
carrier and no pilot being used by an air carrier may operate, in the
conduct of a domestic type operation, flag type operation, or
supplemental type operation, an airplane at a land airport in any State
of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any territory or
possession of the United States unless that airport is certificated
under part 139 of this chapter. Further, after June 9, 2005 for Class I
airports and after December 9, 2005 for Class II, III, and IV airports,
when an air carrier and a pilot being used by the air carrier are
required to operate at an airport certificated under part 139 of this
chapter, the air carrier and the pilot may only operate at that airport
if the airport is classified under part 139 to serve the type airplane
to be operated and the type of operation to be conducted.

(d)....

(2) For an airplane carrying passengers at night, the pilot may not take
off from, or land at, an airport unless--
(i) The pilot has determined the wind direction from an illuminated wind
direction indicator or local ground communications or, in the case of
takeoff, that pilot's personal observations; and
(ii) The limits of the area to be used for landing or takeoff are
clearly shown by boundary or runway marker lights. If the area to be
used for takeoff or landing is marked by flare pots or lanterns, their
use must be authorized by the Administrator.

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:Yq5Xg.32373$tO5.1670@fed1read10...

Oh there isn't? What about 121.590 (d) (2) (i) and (ii)? Bevis' carrier
elected to tie the reference of their ops specs authorization to
substitute CLs for RLs to 121.97, which is fine from a regulatory
standpoint, because 121.97 is subject to 121.590.

I cite the pertinent requirements from 121.50. Note in particular (d)
(2).

§ 121.590 Use of certificated land airports in the United States.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) or (c) of this section, or unless
authorized by the Administrator under 49 U.S.C. 44706(c), no air carrier
and no pilot being used by an air carrier may operate, in the conduct of a
domestic type operation, flag type operation, or supplemental type
operation, an airplane at a land airport in any State of the United
States, the District of Columbia, or any territory or possession of the
United States unless that airport is certificated under part 139 of this
chapter. Further, after June 9, 2005 for Class I airports and after
December 9, 2005 for Class II, III, and IV airports, when an air carrier
and a pilot being used by the air carrier are required to operate at an
airport certificated under part 139 of this chapter, the air carrier and
the pilot may only operate at that airport if the airport is classified
under part 139 to serve the type airplane to be operated and the type of
operation to be conducted.

(d)....

(2) For an airplane carrying passengers at night, the pilot may not take
off from, or land at, an airport unless--
(i) The pilot has determined the wind direction from an illuminated wind
direction indicator or local ground communications or, in the case of
takeoff, that pilot's personal observations; and
(ii) The limits of the area to be used for landing or takeoff are clearly
shown by boundary or runway marker lights. If the area to be used for
takeoff or landing is marked by flare pots or lanterns, their use must be
authorized by the Administrator.


Why did you delete subparagraph (d)?

(d) An air carrier, a commercial operator, and a pilot being used by the air
carrier or the commercial operator-when conducting a passenger-carrying
airplane operation under this part that is not a domestic type operation, a
flag type operation, or a supplemental type operation-may operate at a land
airport not certificated under part 139 of this chapter only when the
following conditions are met:

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:Yq5Xg.32373$tO5.1670@fed1read10...

Oh there isn't? What about 121.590 (d) (2) (i) and (ii)? Bevis' carrier
elected to tie the reference of their ops specs authorization to
substitute CLs for RLs to 121.97, which is fine from a regulatory
standpoint, because 121.97 is subject to 121.590.

I cite the pertinent requirements from 121.50. Note in particular (d)
(2).

§ 121.590 Use of certificated land airports in the United States.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) or (c) of this section, or unless
authorized by the Administrator under 49 U.S.C. 44706(c), no air carrier
and no pilot being used by an air carrier may operate, in the conduct of a
domestic type operation, flag type operation, or supplemental type
operation, an airplane at a land airport in any State of the United
States, the District of Columbia, or any territory or possession of the
United States unless that airport is certificated under part 139 of this
chapter. Further, after June 9, 2005 for Class I airports and after
December 9, 2005 for Class II, III, and IV airports, when an air carrier
and a pilot being used by the air carrier are required to operate at an
airport certificated under part 139 of this chapter, the air carrier and
the pilot may only operate at that airport if the airport is classified
under part 139 to serve the type airplane to be operated and the type of
operation to be conducted.

(d)....

(2) For an airplane carrying passengers at night, the pilot may not take
off from, or land at, an airport unless--
(i) The pilot has determined the wind direction from an illuminated wind
direction indicator or local ground communications or, in the case of
takeoff, that pilot's personal observations; and
(ii) The limits of the area to be used for landing or takeoff are clearly
shown by boundary or runway marker lights. If the area to be used for
takeoff or landing is marked by flare pots or lanterns, their use must be
authorized by the Administrator.



Why did you delete subparagraph (d)?

(d) An air carrier, a commercial operator, and a pilot being used by the air
carrier or the commercial operator-when conducting a passenger-carrying
airplane operation under this part that is not a domestic type operation, a
flag type operation, or a supplemental type operation-may operate at a land
airport not certificated under part 139 of this chapter only when the
following conditions are met:


Too quick I guess. The missing part imposes the foregoing requirement
on non-Part 139 land airports, which would be an unusual authorization.

But, probably every airport Comair operates into is certified under Part
139; certainly LEX is. Whether this is a distinction with any
difference is doubtful, since Part 139 requirements that have
operational implications become a part of a 121 certificate holder's
operations specifications (which are considered regulatory):

The pertinent part of 139 reads:

§ 139.311 Marking, signs, and lighting.
(a) Marking. Each certificate holder must provide and maintain marking
systems for air carrier operations on the airport that are authorized by
the Administrator and consist of at least the following:
(1) Runway markings meeting the specifications for takeoff and landing
minimums for each runway.
(2) A taxiway centerline.
(3) Taxiway edge markings, as appropriate.
(4) Holding position markings.
(5) Instrument landing system (ILS) critical area markings.
(b) Signs.
(1) Each certificate holder shall provide and maintain sign systems for
air carrier operations on the airport that are authorized by the
Administrator and consist of at least the following:
(i) Signs identifying taxiing routes on the movement area.
(ii) Holding position signs.
(iii) Instrument landing system (ILS) critical area signs.
(2) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, the signs required
by paragraph (b)(1) of this section must be internally illuminated at
each Class I, II, and IV airport.
(3) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, the signs required
by paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (b)(1)(iii) of this section must be
internally illuminated at each Class III airport.
(c) Lighting. Each certificate holder must provide and maintain lighting
systems for air carrier operations when the airport is open at night,
during conditions below visual flight rules (VFR) minimums, or in
Alaska, during periods in which a prominent unlighted object cannot be
seen from a distance of 3 statute miles or the sun is more than six
degrees below the horizon. These lighting systems must be authorized by
the Administrator and consist of at least the following:
(1) Runway lighting that meets the specifications for takeoff and
landing minimums, as authorized by the Administrator, for each runway.
(2) One of the following taxiway lighting systems:
(i) Centerline lights.
(ii) Centerline reflectors.
(iii) Edge lights.

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:IttXg.32427$tO5.4398@fed1read10...

Why did you delete subparagraph (d)?

(d) An air carrier, a commercial operator, and a pilot being used by the
air carrier or the commercial operator-when conducting a
passenger-carrying airplane operation under this part that is not a
domestic type operation, a flag type operation, or a supplemental type
operation-may operate at a land airport not certificated under part 139
of this chapter only when the following conditions are met:

Too quick I guess. The missing part imposes the foregoing requirement on
non-Part 139 land airports, which would be an unusual authorization.

But, probably every airport Comair operates into is certified under Part
139; certainly LEX is.

Exactly. In discussing Comair's attempted night departure from a dark
runway you asserted that runway edge lights are mandatory for a night
takeoff under Part 121,
but the only such requirement in that part applies to airports at which
Comair does not operate.

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.

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'???

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 planet are you from?

"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.

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.

Just please stop ranting about it here.

Ohhh, screw it. Let's get back to the original reason for this thread.

I think the White employees in the FAA should form a "Whites Only Coalition
Of Federal Aviation Employees". I'll bet even an attempt at such a thing
would be swiftly met with heads rolling and racial discrimination lawsuits.

Furthermore, there do not appear to be any racial restrictions on joining
the group."

Then why is it called the "National BLACK Coalition of Federal Aviation
Employees"????

There aren't any restrictions on you joining a Black Little Leage Team
either, is there??



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

"JohnSmith" wrote in message
. ..

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.

It is a HUGE issue. The word is Liability. Look it up.


How is the FAA liable? The tower controller did everything required and
without any error. What might have been different had the staffing policy
been followed and a second controller had been on duty in the TRACON?