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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |