A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Federal Aviation Administration to cut more air traffic controllers



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 24th 06, 09:27 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr,alt.aviation.safety,rec.aviation.student
John Mazor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 34
Default 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.


  #2  
Old September 24th 06, 10:03 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr,alt.aviation.safety,rec.aviation.student
Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 660
Default Federal Aviation Administration to cut more air traffic controllers


"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.


  #3  
Old September 25th 06, 06:28 AM posted to rec.aviation.ifr,alt.aviation.safety,rec.aviation.student
BillClinton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Federal Aviation Administration to cut more air traffic controllers

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
  #4  
Old November 14th 06, 06:31 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr,alt.aviation.safety,rec.aviation.student
Mike Fergione
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Federal Aviation Administration to cut more air traffic controllers

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.



  #5  
Old November 14th 06, 09:50 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr,alt.aviation.safety,rec.aviation.student
Judah
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 936
Default 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.
  #6  
Old September 24th 06, 02:57 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr,alt.aviation.safety,rec.aviation.student
Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 660
Default Federal Aviation Administration to cut more air traffic controllers


"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?


  #7  
Old November 14th 06, 06:49 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr,alt.aviation.safety,rec.aviation.student
Mike Fergione
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Federal Aviation Administration to cut more air traffic controllers

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?



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) Rich Stowell Aerobatics 28 January 2nd 09 02:26 PM
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder John Doe Piloting 145 March 31st 06 06:58 PM
terminology questions: turtledeck? cantilever wing? Ric Home Built 2 September 13th 05 09:39 PM
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund Dr. Guenther Eichhorn Home Built 3 May 14th 04 11:55 AM
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund Dr. Guenther Eichhorn Aerobatics 0 May 11th 04 10:43 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.