JFK Air Traffic Controller/Who thought this was a good idea?

[Checkmite]

Bring your kids to ATC day (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100303/ap_on_re_us/us_child_air_traffic)

A child's voice can be heard on a tape making five transmissions to pilots preparing for takeoff on Feb. 17. The recording was obtained by WFXT-TV in Boston.

Any one particular tower controller's duties, even at a major international airport, really aren't that stressful and fast-paced - compared to, say, a regional center or approach controller. So I'm not concerned that control was compromised at all during this incident. Still - what an idiot this guy. I hope he doesn't lose his job over it.

[theprestige]

Bring your kids to ATC day (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100303/ap_on_re_us/us_child_air_traffic)



Any one particular tower controller's duties, even at a major international airport, really aren't that stressful and fast-paced - compared to, say, a regional center or approach controller. So I'm not concerned that control was compromised at all during this incident. Still - what an idiot this guy. I hope he doesn't lose his job over it.
I, too, hope that people responsible for airplane traffic control, who exhibit gross errors of judgement to the point of idiocy, do not lose their jobs. After all, consistently sound judgement is not an important part of such a job. [/sarcasm]

[Checkmite]

I, too, hope that people responsible for airplane traffic control, who exhibit gross errors of judgement to the point of idiocy, do not lose their jobs. After all, consistently sound judgement is not an important part of such a job. [/sarcasm]

The person's error in judgment did not affect any control of any air traffic, nor did it place any air traffic in danger. It's like saying a controller who accelerated on yellow and squeaked through a traffic light just as it turned red exercised an error of judgment and therefore should lose his job.

The kid only communicated with two planes. I'm confident that's because the supervisor noticed what was going on and told the controller to cut that out. I'm satisfied with that action.

[NYCEMT86]

Updated 12:26 PM EST, Wed, Mar 3, 2010

The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating why a child was allowed to direct air traffic at John F. Kennedy airport, one of the busiest airports in the country.

The FAA says a controller brought the child to work on February 17th and allowed him to talk to pilots.

Source (http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/CHILDS-PLAY-AT-JFK-86174177.html)



I honestly have no problem with this at all. The kid was obviously being told what to say by his father and did it in a very mature way.

My grandfather used to be a yardmaster in upstate NY for Conrail/Norfolk & Southern and anytime I visited him, he would take me to work. I dispatched trains, threw switches, and performed other tasks under the supervision and direction of my grandfather all at the age of 9.

God forbid parents actually stimulate their kids minds by allowing them to engage in their work at a reasonable and controlled level, such as this.

[LTC8K6]

Well, it was illegal on several levels, wasn't it?

[Rolfe]

Duplicate thread.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=168903

Rolfe.

[NYCEMT86]

Thanks Rolfe, didn't even notice it.



Mods please merge thread.

[stilicho]

The kid only communicated with two planes.

Demonstrates lack of judgement, lack of self-discipline, willingness to break or ignore regulations. Not a good resume entry for an air traffic controller.

Similar to a police officer allowing his kid to assist in taking down a suspect. Immediate dismissal.

[Springfork]

The kids father and the father's supervisor should be fired immediately.

[jiggeryqua]

It's like saying a controller who accelerated on yellow and squeaked through a traffic light just as it turned red exercised an error of judgment and therefore should lose his job.

Poor example - the yellow (or 'amber' in civilised nations) light indicates caution, it warns of an imminent red light. The proper response is to decelerate - anything else is an error of judgement, though I wouldn't be so harsh as to suggest someone should lose their job over it. Unless their job was driving...

Chances are the controller didn't make an error of judgement - he judged the child capable of performing the task sufficiently well, he trusted the child not to say 'eat my shorts' instead of what he'd been told to say. He didn't, apparantly, judge the child capable of holding his place for him while he took a dooby break. He did, however, make a serious error of judgement if he thought middle-management wouldn't kick off about it. I don't suppose he even stopped to consider what internet users would make of the news...and for that alone he should be sacked, hung, drawn, quartered and never work in this town again.

[Skeptical Greg]

The kids father and the father's supervisor should be fired immediately.
Can you explain why the supervisor should be fired ?

( ... not that I think the father should be fired either ... )

[DallasDad]

Seems harmless, if somewhat ill-considered. The planes the kids talked to were all on the ground, idling in line, waiting for take-off clearance. He only told them if they were cleared. There's PLENTY of time for the adult to countermand anything the kid said wrong.

I'm assuming the kid was more or less sitting on his father's lap, the father was verifying what the kid should say before it was said, the father was wearing his own headset, and the father was the one pushing the talk button for the kid. If these assumptions are false, then the behavior moves from cute to reckless.

[Yoink]

This strikes me as pure fauxtrage. It's one of those instances where instead of asking "o.k., what actually happened here and was anyone put at risk?" (answer: no), people instead make up lunatic imaginary scenarios which <i>did not happen</i> ("what if the kid had been left alone with the radio and given whatever instructions that popped into his head to anybody who could hear him!?!?!?!?") and choose to get all excited about <i>that</i>.

Unfortunately, now that the "won't somebody think of the children" brigade have got hold of the story, the guy's career is almost certainly toast.

[Questioninggeller]

That ATC should be fired immediately. Lucky there was no accident.

Anyone remember what happened when a child of a pilot was allowed to sit in the captain's seat for a few minutes? One of the most advanced airplanes crashed killing everyone on it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_593).

[The Central Scrutinizer]

When I worked at a racquetball club some 30 years ago, my coworker and I would sometimes let the 4 year old child of another coworker answer the phone, just for laughs.

No one was ever killed or injured even. So I say no harm, no foul.

[Drudgewire]

This strikes me as pure fauxtrage.


Agreed. The pilots didn't seem especially concerned about it.

[WildCat]

Seems harmless, if somewhat ill-considered. The planes the kids talked to were all on the ground, idling in line, waiting for take-off clearance. He only told them if they were cleared. There's PLENTY of time for the adult to countermand anything the kid said wrong.

I'm assuming the kid was more or less sitting on his father's lap, the father was verifying what the kid should say before it was said, the father was wearing his own headset, and the father was the one pushing the talk button for the kid. If these assumptions are false, then the behavior moves from cute to reckless.
IMHO even having the kid there should be grounds for dismissal. Is daddy's undivided attention on his job, or does he have to keep one eye on the kid also?

This isn't a profession where distractions only cost time or money.

[Questioninggeller]

When I worked at a racquetball club some 30 years ago, my coworker and I would sometimes let the 4 year old child of another coworker answer the phone, just for laughs.

No one was ever killed or injured even. So I say no harm, no foul.

Answering a phone at a club and giving clearance to airplanes at one of the most important airports in the country, if not the world, is much different. Giving clearance to planes is serious (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster) and so is avoiding cross-talk, which can impede the reception of instructions.

I think most people would say letting a child answer the phone at a business is at least unprofessional, but not potentially deadly.

Agreed. The pilots didn't seem especially concerned about it.

So if someone died or there was an accident, only then there would be a problem with it?

The ATCers have regulations, as do pilots that unneeded communication (jokes, personal issues and so on) is supposed to left outside of the cockpit. The reason is unneeded communication has been cited as a cause in several air accidents. Commerical flying is supposed to be a sterile enviroment with matter-of-fact communication so pilots can focus on their duty.

From the transcript (http://avherald.com/h?article=4281b0e5):


ATC: "Aero Mexico 403, Kennedy, 31L position and hold.
AMX403: "position and hold, Aero Mexico 403."
ATC: "Here's what you get, guys, when the kids are out of school."
Unknown pilots: Laughter and "Check, bring Mike to work."
Son: "Jetblue 171, contact departure"
JBU171 (amused): "Over to departure, Jetblue 171, awesome job."
ATC: "have a good day."
Son: "(illegible) cleared for takeoff"
AMX403: "403, cleared for takeoff, thank you very much, you have a great day."



A child should not clear a plane for take-off nor should there be any communication that is unneeded. Notice that that's an international flight and it is unknown what plane the child cleared? Language issues between adults have been one factor in a crash at JFK before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avianca_Flight_52).

The child gave SIX clearances to planes.

Clearance for a plane taking off is not a game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster).

[Drudgewire]

So if someone died or there was an accident, only then there would be a problem with it?


If its and buts were candy and nuts, then... ummmm... man, I wish I had some candy. :(

[WildCat]

It's being reported now this idiot let another kid do the same thing the next day.

Unfit to be an ATC.

And I find it hard to believe the supervisor didn't know there were children in the tower, he/she should be gawn also.

[Questioninggeller]

If its and buts were candy and nuts, then... ummmm... man, I wish I had some candy. :(

The FAA has regulations that aim to protect life from potential accidents. If you violate the rules then you lose your job. If you violate rules you risk lives. No employer should tolerate unneeded risk of life.

You haven't acknowledged this.

Can you explain why the supervisor should be fired ?

( ... not that I think the father should be fired either ... )

Because:


2 suspended after child radioed pilots at JFK
By DAVID B. CARUSO
Posted on Wed, Mar. 3, 2010
The Associated Press (http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/business/20100303_ap_2suspendedafterchildradioedpilotsatjfk .html)

...
Authorities suspended the controller and a supervisor Wednesday after a recording of the radio calls was posted on the Internet, then reported by a Boston television station.

"This lapse in judgment not only violated FAA's own policies, but common-sense standards for professional conduct. These kinds of distractions are totally unacceptable," FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt said in a statement. "This kind of behavior does not reflect the true caliber of our work force."
...
The FAA offered scant detail on its investigation and would not reveal the name of the controller or supervisor. Control towers are highly secure areas, although the agency does sometimes give employees permission to bring their children for a tour.

The union representing air traffic controllers condemned the worker's behavior.
...
The episode comes less than seven months after a controller at an airport in nearby Teterboro, N.J., was placed on leave for his actions in the moments leading up to a deadly crash between a helicopter and small plane over the Hudson River.

The controller was recorded joking on the phone with his girlfriend as he dispatched instructions to the doomed plane. He ended the call when he realized the plane had dropped out of radio contact, just seconds before the crash.
...

[Yoink]

That ATC should be fired immediately. Lucky there was no accident.

Anyone remember what happened when a child of a pilot was allowed to sit in the captain's seat for a few minutes? One of the most advanced airplanes crashed killing everyone on it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_593).

Yes, because speaking exactly the words that you're being told to say into a microphone is exactly the same thing as monkeying around with the controls of a jet in midair. Why, if that kid had accidently said the word "dishwasher" every single plane in the world would have blown up simultaneously.

It's a little known fact.

[Yoink]

The child gave SIX clearances to planes.

Are you suggesting that he gave them at whim?

He didn't give the clearances. He repeated words that he was being told to say. The controller was giving the clearances and monitoring the radio traffic. He was perfectly able to tell if the instructions had been understood and to decide whether it was a critical juncture in the process.

The "what ifs" here are ridiculously strained at best.

[Questioninggeller]

Yes, because speaking exactly the words that you're being told to say into a microphone is exactly the same thing as monkeying around with the controls of a jet in midair. Why, if that kid had accidently said the word "dishwasher" every single plane in the world would have blown up simultaneously.

It's a little known fact.

1) The pilot did not violate any rule other than common sense. The plane still crashed and killed everyone. (Also the child did not "monkey" around with the controls. He disengaged autopilot unbeknownst to the pilots (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YX6uZsZkuNY) by simply doing what he was told to do by the captain.)
2) The ATC mentioned in the OP, violated two FAA rules.

There are several differences in the cases.

The FAA has created these rules because lives have been lost because of ATC and pilots being distracted by external sources. They have a difficult job and do not need distractions.

[Questioninggeller]

Are you suggesting that he gave them at whim?

The clearances, no. But the childs other remarks ("adios") were.


He didn't give the clearances. He repeated words that he was being told to say. The controller was giving the clearances and monitoring the radio traffic. He was perfectly able to tell if the instructions had been understood and to decide whether it was a critical juncture in the process.

The "what ifs" here are ridiculously strained at best.

1) The ATC violated FAA rules.
2) The rules are put in place to protect lives.
3) Unneeded talk is potentionally dangerous.
4) Telling me or anyone else on this forum what was understood (or not) doesn't matter. At no time should the child have been put on the headset. Whether the child did good or not is beside the point. Distraction and cross-talk risks lives.

Even the ATC union criticized these two.

[WildCat]

I'm surprised no one has blamed Reagan yet for firing the PATCO strikers.

[WildCat]

Yes, because speaking exactly the words that you're being told to say into a microphone is exactly the same thing as monkeying around with the controls of a jet in midair. Why, if that kid had accidently said the word "dishwasher" every single plane in the world would have blown up simultaneously.

It's a little known fact.
You miss the point. It's not what the kid said or did, it's the fact he's there in the first place.

I really doubt you can make a case that the kid wasn't a distraction, and tookk the father's attention away from his ATC duties.

[Thunder]

um..didn't Reagan lay off all the good air-traffic controllers?

[Rolfe]

I suspect this guy's toast, whether or not he introduced any actual danger.

Rolfe.

[Yoink]

You miss the point. It's not what the kid said or did, it's the fact he's there in the first place.

I really doubt you can make a case that the kid wasn't a distraction, and tookk the father's attention away from his ATC duties.

Certainly no one here has provided evidence that the kid was a distraction or that he took the father's attention away from his ATC duties.

Look, I'm not saying that this was the guy's smartest move. Yes he should be disciplined. Yes he should be told very sternly that this was a bad idea and he shouldn't do it again. But all the hysterial "lives were hanging in the balance" stuff is just ridiculous hyperbole. Nothing bad happened here and there is no plausible scenario in which it was particularly likely to happen.

[Thunder]

i think the guy should not be fired. 2 weeks without pay? sure why not. i think losing a couple thousand $$ in pay will send a damn good message.

[Yoink]

1) The pilot did not, I repeat, did not violate any rule other than common sense.

Which is somehow supposed to show that ALL violations of common sense are potentially lethal? "OMG, don't remove that mattress tag OR WE'LL ALL DIE IN A FLAMING FIREBALL!!!!"

The plane still crashed and killed everyone. (Also the child did not "monkey" around with the controls. He disengaged autopilot unbeknownst to the pilots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_593) by simply doing what he was told to do by the captain.)

From your source: "Unlike his sister, Eldar applied enough force to the control column to contradict the autopilot for 30 seconds." He monkeyed around with the controls. The fact that the stupid pilot gave him free rein to monkey around with the controls doesn't change that.

2) The ATC mentioned in the OP, violated two FAA rules.

There are several differences in the cases.

The FAA has created these rules because lives have been lost because of ATC and pilots being distracted by external sources. They have a difficult job and do not need distractions.

Yes, and he should be punished for violating the rules. The punishment, however, should fit the severity of the offence. He didn't show up to work drunk. He didn't put his kid at the microphone and wander off to the shops. He didn't say "wait a minute, if I'm a true Jedi I should be able to do this just by using the Force!" He simply had his kid in the room with him and let him speak a few commands--under instruction--into the microphone. That's a "don't do this again" offence; not a "you'll never work in this industry again" offence.

[Questioninggeller]

Certainly no one here has provided evidence that the kid was a distraction or that he took the father's attention away from his ATC duties.

It introduced unneeded both talk from the ATC, child and pilots. That is the definition of a distraction.


Nothing bad happened here and there is no plausible scenario in which it was particularly likely to happen.

Maybe, maybe not. Besides knowing he violated FAA rules, we don't know that until the investigation is completed.

[WildCat]

I'm surprised no one has blamed Reagan yet for firing the PATCO strikers.

um..didn't Reagan lay off all the good air-traffic controllers?
Thank you, I thought the forum was broken...

[Questioninggeller]

From your source: "Unlike his sister, Eldar applied enough force to the control column to contradict the autopilot for 30 seconds." He monkeyed around with the controls. The fact that the stupid pilot gave him free rein to monkey around with the controls doesn't change that.

The quote is basically true what happened, but your analysis of it isn't.


That version of the AIRBUS had a new autopilot feature. That is, parts of autopilot can be disengaged by applying force to it in the opposite direction.

The son pushed the controls for several seconds in the way the captain told him. That way was the opposite of the autopilot. (The son simply held the stick for seconds longer than his sister.)

Thus, the child obeyed instructions of the captain and unknowingly disengaged autopilot control of the stick. Minutes later, the plane crashed and killed everyone.


Yes, and he should be punished for violating the rules. The punishment, however, should fit the severity of the offence.

I hope the FAA does.

[Yoink]

The quote is basically true what happened, but your analysis of it isn't.


That version of the AIRBUS had a new autopilot feature. That is, parts of autopilot can be disengaged by applying force to it in the opposite direction.

The son pushed the controls for several seconds in the way the captain told him. That way was the opposite of the autopilot. (The son simply held the stick for seconds longer than his sister.)

Thus, the child obeyed instructions of the captain and unknowingly disengaged autopilot control of the stick. Minutes later, the plane crashed and killed everyone.

A: your source does not make that clear. You may be right. It would still be "monkeying around with the controls" whether it was under the direction of the pilot or not, however. You're simply splitting hairs.

B: what possible relevance does this have the air traffic control situation? The fact that it's a bloody stupid idea to have a child sit in the cockpit of a jet plane in flight and tell him to push the controls about has no bearing on what the air traffic controller did. They are not remotely comparable. Had the pilot told the kid to go on the intercom and inform the passengers of their speed, altitude and ETA that would be roughly comparable to what the ATC guy did.

You're trying to draw some sort of equivalence because planes are involved in both situations. It's ridiculous.

[WildCat]

You're trying to draw some sort of equivalence because planes are involved in both situations. It's ridiculous.
What's ridiculous is claiming having children in the control tower isn't a dangerous distraction worthy of severe punishment, firing IMHO.

[Thunder]

this behavior was unprofessional, immature, and dangerous. the ATC should get a harsh reprimand, lose some pay, and maybe a year or two off his pension.

that said...the kid sounded really funny. :)

[Questioninggeller]

A: your source does not make that clear. You may be right. It would still be "monkeying around with the controls" whether it was under the direction of the pilot or not, however. You're simply splitting hairs.

What's keeping you from researching the finer details before claiming he "monkeyed" around?


B: what possible relevance does this have the air traffic control situation? The fact that it's a bloody stupid idea to have a child sit in the cockpit of a jet plane in flight and tell him to push the controls about has no bearing on what the air traffic controller did. They are not remotely comparable. Had the pilot told the kid to go on the intercom and inform the passengers of their speed, altitude and ETA that would be roughly comparable to what the ATC guy did.

In the AIRBUS crash, a child was under direct supervision of an experienced pilot. Even still, the child was in a situation he shouldn't have been in. It lead to the deaths of everyone on an airplane.

My point from this event: A child, even if supervised by someone experienced, has no business being in control/communication with aircraft.

THAT IS WHY THE FAA HAS RULES AGAINST UNAUTHORIZED PEOPLE EVEN BEING IN THE TOWER OR COCKPIT. Are you saying this is a bad rule? Do you think a ATC should be allowed to let his children communicate with planes landing or taking off?

[roger]

Hmm, I guess I shouldn't relate stories of controllers following a baseball game on MLB.com, or the time a bird got in the tower.

[theprestige]

I mean, "[t]he union representing air traffic controllers condemned the worker's behavior (http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/business/20100303_ap_2suspendedafterchildradioedpilotsatjfk .html)".

Jeff Foxworthy: You might be an epic failure if... labor sides with management, against you.

But I don't know. Maybe the FAA will draft some new regulations as a result of this incident. Maybe from now on, safety rules can be broken any time anybody wants to, so long as they believe it'll be okay, and as long as nothing bad happens, it doesn't even count as breaking the safety rule at all!

Here in California, it was recently discovered that a safety inspector at the San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant had falsified fire suppression equipment inspection reports for over five years.

However, since the plant never actually caught on fire, and nothing really seriously bad ever happened, there's no reason to question his judgement is there? What's a little harmless rule-breaking, after all? It's just a "don't do this again" offense, right?

And really? "Don't do this again"? How insulting! It's not like this guy was a child himself, who didn't know about the rule or lacked the maturity to choose to comply with it. What justifiable thought process could there possibly be, that leads to the situation where he has to be told not to bring a child into the control center again? Why would he think it was okay to do even once--other than, as proposed above, because rule-breaking doesn't count as long as you think it'll be okay.

[quixotecoyote]

Hmm, I guess I shouldn't relate stories of controllers following a baseball game on MLB.com, or the time a bird got in the tower.

Better not, Wildcat might explode... :D

[Checkmite]

In the AIRBUS crash, a child was under direct supervision of an experienced pilot.

I would say decidedly not, if the child was able to disengage the autopilot without either of the pilots noticing the plane's descent until it was too late to do anything about it.

[Yoink]

What's keeping you from researching the finer details before claiming he "monkeyed" around?

He was monkeying around. The fact that the pilot TOLD him to monkey around doesn't mean he wasn't monkeying around.

In the AIRBUS crash, a child was under direct supervision of an experienced pilot. Even still, the child was in a situation he shouldn't have been in. It lead to the deaths of everyone on an airplane.

So therefore if a child is ever in a position he shouldn't be in, deaths are likely to result. Right?

My point from this event: A child, even if supervised by someone experienced, has no business being in control/communication with aircraft.

You know what would be a really telling and interesting example to bring up that would bolster this argument? A case of an air traffic controller being distracted by a child in the tower and an accident occurring. You know what's a completely irrelevant and stupid example to bring up? A case of a PILOT in a JETPLANE allowing a child to MONKEY AROUND WITH THE CONTROLS and an accident occurring. There's just no valid point of comparison in the two cases. NONE!

THAT IS WHY THE FAA HAS RULES AGAINST UNAUTHORIZED PEOPLE EVEN BEING IN THE TOWER OR COCKPIT. Are you saying this is a bad rule? Do you think a ATC should be allowed to let his children communicate with planes landing or taking off?

Could you show me the exact wording of this rule? I can't really comment on it being a good or a bad rule without seeing it's actual content.

[ServiceSoon]

I, too, hope that people responsible for airplane traffic control, who exhibit gross errors of judgement to the point of idiocy, do not lose their jobs. After all, consistently sound judgement is not an important part of such a job. [/sarcasm]
They should try to be more perfect like everybody else

[Corsair 115]

Anyone remember what happened when a child of a pilot was allowed to sit in the captain's seat for a few minutes? One of the most advanced airplanes crashed killing everyone on it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_593).


In fairness, part of that disaster is attributable to the design of the avionics. Note that the autopilot partially disconnected without giving any audible warning that it had done so. Also, the crew was unfamiliar with a simple action which would have saved the aircraft: letting go of the controls, which would have allowed the automated systems to recover the aircraft.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Seems harmless, if somewhat ill-considered....I can understand a supervisory letter of reprimand. We do want controllers full attention being paid to their job.

Public outrage, OTOH, seems pretty absurd. The kids were pretty professional, clearly the dad was right there, the pilots considered the performance to be correct, they said so with compliments.

[LTC8K6]

Twice with 2 different children on different days?

Why is there any question here? This is illegal a couple of different ways.

[richardm]

It introduced unneeded both talk from the ATC, child and pilots. That is the definition of a distraction.

There is usually bags of chit-chat between tower and aircraft holding for takeoff. I mean they're not exactly nattering away as though they were on a tea-break, but a bit of non-essential chat is hardly unusual.

[Foolmewunz]

I'm surprised no one has blamed Reagan yet for firing the PATCO strikers.

Bastages! Yeah, you and Parky both!

(Yeah, I was going there! Figure Lefty can't always represent the lunatic fringe - some of us have to carry the ball now and then. But I would've probably made some crack about his seniority or at least his shop steward covering him - at least prior to Ronnie the Hatchet.)

[JFrankA]

I have to go along with Yoink, here.

What the kid said wasn't all that distracting and the pilots, though amused, didn't seem to be distracted either. I think this whole thing was blown completely out of the water. The father deserves a discipline, yes, but to be fired for it? Come on.

As to this the connection to the incident of the last time a child was doing this, so? Planes have crashed all the time. Seems to me that the last time there was a plane crash an adult was talking in the tower.

I don't think the news is based on the news anymore. I think it's based on how outraged we can make the public. I feel this is an example of that. To me, this whole story is blown up from "this incident happened and the people involved were suspended" to "OH MY GOD!!! CAN YOU BELIEVE HOW BAD THAT WAS!!!! LAST TIME THIS HAPPENED EVERYONE DIED!!!! PUNISH HIM NOW!!!! NOW NOW NOW NOW!!!!"

...just my two pennies.

[Cayvmann]

um..didn't Reagan lay off all the good air-traffic controllers?

Nawww, why would you say that?

[WildCat]

Bastages! Yeah, you and Parky both!

If Reagan hadn't fired them I'm sure there'd be 1 or 2 of them still around who hadn't retired by now...

I bet 50 years from now Reagan will still be blamed whenever an ATC does something stupid.

[Foolmewunz]

If Reagan hadn't fired them I'm sure there'd be 1 or 2 of them still around who hadn't retired by now...

I bet 50 years from now Reagan will still be blamed whenever an ATC does something stupid.

Well, of course. It's an American tradition. Haven't the conservatives spent 78 years blaming FDR for everything that anyone does?:spjimlad:

[Alt+F4]

What the kid said wasn't all that distracting and the pilots, though amused, didn't seem to be distracted either. I think this whole thing was blown completely out of the water. The father deserves a discipline, yes, but to be fired for it? Come on.

I don't think what the kid said is the issue at all. I think the issue is the presence of the kid in the tower. What if the kid fell or threw up while the father was landing a plane, what do you think he would do?

[theprestige]

They should try to be more perfect like everybody else
You don't have to be very perfect at all, to decide to not to bring a child into a restricted area against regulations. It's not like he was late back from lunch because he underestimated traffic conditions on the road.

I think you're setting a very low bar, here.

I think this whole thing was blown completely out of the water. The father deserves a discipline, yes, but to be fired for it? Come on.
Why shouldn't he be fired for it? He knew it wasn't permitted. It was an easy mistake to avoid. It's almost impossible to break this rule by accident or inattention or overwork.

I mean, if it were a situation where he was doing the best he could, staying as close to the spirit of the regs as possible, while cutting corners here and there to get planes up and down on schedule because they were short-staffed or something, then sure: discipline the guy, but also show some leniency, on account of nobody's perfect, mistakes happen, and he tried hard to do the job well and do the job right.

What mitigating circumstances excuse this behavior, though? He knew the regulation. He chose to break it. It's my position that when a rule is easy to keep and hard to break, if somebody decides to go out of their way to break it anyway, they should be fired.

[Region Rat]

I don't think what the kid said is the issue at all. I think the issue is the presence of the kid in the tower. What if the kid fell or threw up while the father was landing a plane, what do you think he would do?

It wasn't the fathers job (at that particular time) to land planes or direct traffic in the air.

This is such an over reaction. The planes are sitting still on the ground, in a line, waiting to take off. Somebody tells them when it is time to go. For all it matters, they can have a canned recording of the words and just press a button to start the transmission.

[Yoink]

I don't think what the kid said is the issue at all. I think the issue is the presence of the kid in the tower. What if the kid fell or threw up while the father was landing a plane, what do you think he would do?

"Landing a plane"? Do you picture air traffic controllers sitting at their desks with joysticks flying the planes by remote control?

[Bob Klase]

Well, of course. It's an American tradition. Haven't the conservatives spent 78 years blaming FDR for everything that anyone does?:spjimlad:

I'm always pleased when a liberal (or conservative) openly admits that they're no better and no different than a conservative (or liberal).

[CORed]

Poor example - the yellow (or 'amber' in civilised nations) light indicates caution, it warns of an imminent red light. The proper response is to decelerate - anything else is an error of judgement, though I wouldn't be so harsh as to suggest someone should lose their job over it. Unless their job was driving...

Chances are the controller didn't make an error of judgement - he judged the child capable of performing the task sufficiently well, he trusted the child not to say 'eat my shorts' instead of what he'd been told to say. He didn't, apparantly, judge the child capable of holding his place for him while he took a dooby break. He did, however, make a serious error of judgement if he thought middle-management wouldn't kick off about it. I don't suppose he even stopped to consider what internet users would make of the news...and for that alone he should be sacked, hung, drawn, quartered and never work in this town again.

I hate to derail, but the correct response to a yellow light is to decide quickly whether you are far enough from the intersection to stop safely. If not, the correct response is to maintain speed or accelerate in order to make it through the intersection before the traffic that currently has the red starts to move. Decelerating when you do not have sufficient distance to stop increases the chance that you will not clear the intersection in time, and trying to make a panic stop with somebody behind you creates a significant risk of being rear-ended.

[Foolmewunz]

I'm always pleased when a liberal (or conservative) openly admits that they're no better and no different than a conservative (or liberal).

Well, thanks, Bob. I concur. I don't get how people can get so thin-skinned over political issues that they cannot step back and laugh at themselves. We've got a couple here (from both sides of the great fight) who have that ability, and it's appreciated.


We now return to your regularly scheduled bickering. Let's see, where were we? Ah, yes....
The affirmatives were busy thinking the dad was really cool and was showing his kid his work place and allowing him to goof around with the equipment but always on top of things. (Guess we can be happy he didn't run a smelter, eh?)

And the negatives were busy..., well, they were busy being right.

Continue.....

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Public outrage, OTOH, seems pretty absurd. The kids were pretty professional, clearly the dad was right there, the pilots considered the performance to be correct, they said so with compliments.

This is what gets me too. Clearly the air traffic controller shouldn't have had his kid there, maybe he should be fired and maybe not, but the outrage and media coverage has been ridiculous. Some of the headlines (Child Directed Traffic at JFK! etc.) make it sound like they stuck a kid in the tower and then all the air traffic controllers went to lunch or something.

The guy had his kid read some words into a microphone.

Also, clearly this wasn't a big secret. At least 5 or 6 pilots knew about it. Surely everyone else in the tower at the time knew about it. Doesn't sound like anybody cared until the media coverage happened. They probably should have, and it was unprofessional, but really... that might be the bigger issue than the incident itself.

[bpesta22]

To the people claiming he shouldn't be fired: Would you be comfortable on a plane with your family where you knew that a kid-- even under dad's supervision-- was communicating with the pilot / giving clearances?

If you would be comfortable, would any reasonable person also be comfortable? If not, I think the guy should be canned.

[ServiceSoon]

You don't have to be very perfect at all, to decide to not to bring a child into a restricted area against regulations. It's not like he was late back from lunch because he underestimated traffic conditions on the road.

I think you're setting a very low bar, here.


...Restricted you say. Restricted by identification or restricted by guards? None of this persons colleagues questioned what was going on?

[a_unique_person]

The kids father and the father's supervisor should be fired immediately.

Don't forget the kid.

[Checkmite]

To the people claiming he shouldn't be fired: Would you be comfortable on a plane with your family where you knew that a kid-- even under dad's supervision-- was communicating with the pilot / giving clearances?

If you would be comfortable, would any reasonable person also be comfortable? If not, I think the guy should be canned.

The pilots in command of the planes the child communicated with were obviously comfortable enough that they even threw in an "attaboy".

[Yoink]

To the people claiming he shouldn't be fired: Would you be comfortable on a plane with your family where you knew that a kid-- even under dad's supervision-- was communicating with the pilot / giving clearances?

If you would be comfortable, would any reasonable person also be comfortable? If not, I think the guy should be canned.

I would be entirely comfortable, yes.

[Skeptic Ginger]

This strikes me as pure fauxtrage. ....Great new term. Fitting in this example as well.

If this was really so outrageous, why were the communicating pilots so unconcerned? Honestly, you think these folks never have any causal conversation during their workday.

I think some of you would be quite shocked to listen in to the conversation during complicated surgery.

[Skeptic Ginger]

um..didn't Reagan lay off all the good air-traffic controllers?He fired them with no chance for redemption.

[theprestige]

Restricted you say. Restricted by identification or restricted by guards? None of this persons colleagues questioned what was going on?
Restricted by regulation.

The guy is so stupid, so incontinent, that he needs robotic locks and armed guards looking over his shoulder all the time, making sure he's not breaking any rules?

How would you feel, if your employer hired somebody to follow you around all day, to make sure you were behaving in a professional and trustworthy manner? Why would it be necessary? Can't you be trusted to abide by the rules you agreed to, when you took the job?

More to the point, can't you be trusted to comply with a rule that's easier to comply with than to break?

And if you can be trusted to comply with easy rules, without being micro-managed, why not this guy? Are you implying that an air traffic controller shouldn't be at least as competent, professional, and trustworthy as you are?

[bpesta22]

Part of the mission has to be the public's trust in the system as far as ensuring as much as possible that flying is safe. I think reasonable people w/o experience in day-to-day flight control ops would be troubled by this, especially if their family were in the plane in question. Even if thier fears are based on ignorance, most reasonable people don't know how ATC works, and might rightly be concerned about being on planes where this is going on.

So, on the public trust issue, I say can him. While nothing bad happened here, the general rule has to be no good can come from kids participating in this process-- cute or not-- and at least one example above (albeit in a different context) showed how no good came from letting kids control the plane. Perhaps apples and oranges, but it does highlight the fact that kids should not be near serious business like this. It's inconsistent with the serious goals of the FAA for this process

[Region Rat]

It seems that some think that every job associated with air travel holds the lives of the passengers in their hands, and any deviation from 100% by the book professional conduct will result in death.

The guy's job at that time was nothing more than what a bus dispatcher does. "Bus 12, its time to leave". Pretty scary, huh?

[theprestige]

It seems that some think that every job associated with air travel holds the lives of the passengers in their hands, and any deviation from 100% by the book professional conduct will result in death.

The guy's job at that time was nothing more than what a bus dispatcher does. "Bus 12, its time to leave". Pretty scary, huh?
That all there is a judgement call. It's a judgement call the controller is explicitly prohibited from making on his own authority. It's a judgement call that is trivially easy to avoid ever being in a position to make. Why should the controller go out of his way to make judgement calls he doesn't have the authority to make?

And it's not like he's the only controller in the room. It's not like everything is guaranteed to go well that day. It's not like that kid--or any other kid--is guaranteed to behave well. It's not like air traffic controllers are supposed to be encumbered with babysitting duties while in the control room doing the job they've been hired for.

I think, in an ATC, Occam's Razor applies, and for good reason: Do not multiply entities unnecessarily. Keep kids out of the control room.

And, again, it's an easy rule to keep, and a difficult rule to break. It's not like being late to work because traffic was unexpectedly heavy. That kind of thing can happen to anyone. Bringing a kid into the control room only happens to people who go out of their way to break the rules.

For me it's no so much about the safety issue (though I do think that's a valid concern as well). It's about the level of effort necessary to break the rule, and the mentality that decides to make that effort.

[Foolmewunz]

I take my son to work, sometimes, and I know that I can be in the middle of the world's most gruesome spreadsheet (with lives in the balance, I tell ya!) and if he trips or knocks something over, I'm up and racing over to him in a heartbeat.... As are thirteen or fourteen other people.

That's the issue here. Were all the ATC people in "bus parking" mode that day? Or were some of them doing what Air Traffic Controllers do - CONTROLING AIRCRAFT?

I'm sure he's a swell guy, and I'm sure he meant nothing wrong, and it sounds like he was even in control of the situation. But that's because none of those kid things happened, like knocking over drinks, tripping on table legs, whacking a keyboard and changing a couple of numbers on a plane's heading, etc...

[theprestige]

I'm sure he's a swell guy, and I'm sure he meant nothing wrong, and it sounds like he was even in control of the situation. But that's because none of those kid things happened, like knocking over drinks, tripping on table legs, whacking a keyboard and changing a couple of numbers on a plane's heading, etc...
Well, nothing wrong besides taking up slack in the system intended to be used to deal safely with air traffic crises, and dedicating that slack to babysitting--something the FAA prohibits, and something he wasn't hired to do anyway. Which, when you think about it, kinda calls into question the idea that he's really such a swell guy.

[luchog]

I think people here are taking this too lightly. Just think of what coud have happened. At any moment, the kid could have thrown up on the electronics, throwing the system into disarray, causing spectacular mid-air crashes. Or he could have waited until everyone was busy then grabbed a mic and directed planes to fly into office buildings. The horror potential was overwhelming, a threat to hundreds, if not thousands of people, and a possible threat to national security.

The kid, his father, the supervisor, and everyone in the tower was complicit in this potential disaster. All of them should be extensively "questioned" at gitmo before being publically executed. Anything else is just softheaded liberal coddling of potentially dangerous criminals.

[BobTheDonkey]

I take my son to work, sometimes, and I know that I can be in the middle of the world's most gruesome spreadsheet (with lives in the balance, I tell ya!) and if he trips or knocks something over, I'm up and racing over to him in a heartbeat.... As are thirteen or fourteen other people.

That's the issue here. Were all the ATC people in "bus parking" mode that day? Or were some of them doing what Air Traffic Controllers do - CONTROLING AIRCRAFT?

I'm sure he's a swell guy, and I'm sure he meant nothing wrong, and it sounds like he was even in control of the situation. But that's because none of those kid things happened, like knocking over drinks, tripping on table legs, whacking a keyboard and changing a couple of numbers on a plane's heading, etc...

Well, why not use this as a chance to educate the public a little more about exactly what goes on in the ATC tower?

I'm with Yoink in being unconcerned with a child, directed by his father, giving clearances.

If people are really going to be up in arms when it comes to air-travel, be up in arms about the lack of maintenance performed on the aircraft. That, at least, has real potential for harm to you and/or your loved ones.

Realistically, it's not automated pilots. If the kid says/does something that doesn't seem right to the pilot, he/she will ask for clarification. That's just good SOP when it comes down to it.


And as for "knocking a keyboard and changing a flight's heading", it doesn't exactly work that way. But that's where public education wouldn't be so bad.

[Foolmewunz]

Oh, sure... and the next thing you're gonna say is that the China Syndrome isn't real, huh? (I knew there was little chance of the kid actually redirecting a flight into a school bus full of nuns - I was exaggerating.)

Why should any given Tuesday when some guy decides to take his kid into the ATC area be a good chance for education? Don't we have libraries and schools for that? Weren't those "Learn More" segments with Lavar Burton sufficient to that task?

I see it as a good chance to educate people that if you have a job and it involves safety and it has rules that you don't just flaunt them because you think your little precious is smart enough to handle the situation and you're the bestest ATC and daddy in the whole world and you can also handle it.

Like I said, if the kid barked his shin and shouted out, eleven concerned mommies and daddies (well, everyone in the room except for Lou - he just plain hates kids) would be distracted from what they were supposed to be doing. A thirty second break in their attention isn't likely to bring a jumbo down on the White House, but stranger crap has happened.

[BobTheDonkey]

Oh, sure... and the next thing you're gonna say is that the China Syndrome isn't real, huh? (I knew there was little chance of the kid actually redirecting a flight into a school bus full of nuns - I was exaggerating.)

Why should any given Tuesday when some guy decides to take his kid into the ATC area be a good chance for education? Don't we have libraries and schools for that? Weren't those "Learn More" segments with Lavar Burton sufficient to that task?

I see it as a good chance to educate people that if you have a job and it involves safety and it has rules that you don't just flaunt them because you think your little precious is smart enough to handle the situation and you're the bestest ATC and daddy in the whole world and you can also handle it.

Like I said, if the kid barked his shin and shouted out, eleven concerned mommies and daddies (well, everyone in the room except for Lou - he just plain hates kids) would be distracted from what they were supposed to be doing. A thirty second break in their attention isn't likely to bring a jumbo down on the White House, but stranger crap has happened.
I wasn't talking about educating the child. I was talking about educating the public. You know - people that haven't been around the industry/aircraft and are getting bent out of shape over this because they don't understand what ATC is really like.

As for the child banging his shin, how is that any different from if I bang my shin and let out a curse? Everyone in the room (even Lou because we get along - we're both jerks) is going to look to see what's going on. Same argument can be made for the child throwing up (adults throw up too, ya know).

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Spoke with a friend tonight who was a full time air traffic controller (he's a contractor these days). I asked him if he was the one who put the kid on the microphone. His response:

"We used to do stuff like that all the time".

"You'd be surprised what goes on in the tower".

"No one was ever in even the slightest amount of danger".

YMMV

[Foolmewunz]

Spoke with a friend tonight who was a full time air traffic controller (he's a contractor these days). I asked him if he was the one who put the kid on the microphone. His response:

"We used to do stuff like that all the time".

"You'd be surprised what goes on in the tower".

"No one was ever in even the slightest amount of danger".

YMMV

Well, Hell, that changes everything. A guy on the internet knows a guy who says all kinds of stuff went on that we don't know about.

Sounds to me like my good friend Lin Kee up in Qingdao. He shipped fireworks all the time without declaring the cargo as hazardous. Like he said,
"The stuff's in a container. What could go wrong?"
"Besides, you wouldn't believe the stuff we've put in containers over the years."
"No one was ever in the slightest amount of danger."
(Until one day in the early 2000s, that is.....)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_110854b95f7215bae1.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19373)


Yeah, now you know a guy on the internet who knows a guy who offsets your "what they don't know might shock 'em but certainly won't hurt 'em" tale. The above is the MV Hanjin Pennsylvania off of Colombo WITH MISDECLARED FIREWORKS ON BOARD.... well, I guess some of 'em were still on board; most of 'em were shooting off into the sky.

[BobTheDonkey]

And...how many accidents have occurred due to children in the Control Tower?

[Foolmewunz]

And...how many accidents have occurred due to children in the Control Tower?


Well, the same number as the number of misdeclarations of cargo causing ships to explod that happened prior to the a.m. incident on the Hanjin Pennsylvania. Zero.

And prior to the Space Shuttle liftoff explosion, there were no recorded deaths associated with Shuttle liftoff.

And even after that incident, the chances of the Shuttle disintegrating upon re-entry - why they'd have to be miniscule, I'd say..... Uh, oops....

[BobTheDonkey]

Well, the same number that happened prior to the a.m. incident on the Hanjin Pennsylvania. Zero.

And prior to the Space Shuttle liftoff explosion, there were no recorded deaths associated with Shuttle liftoff.

And even after that incident, the chances of the Shuttle disintegrating upon re-entry - why they'd have to be miniscule, I'd say..... Uh, oops....

So...how's that slippery slope doing for you?

[Foolmewunz]

So...how's that slippery slope doing for you?

My grip is fine, Bob.

You're arguing that because there's no record of an accident due to a kid in a control tower, we shouldn't worry that they're in there playing around.
Methinks that's a slipperier slope and that you didn't follow my facetious examples in the previous post.

Let's be a little more blatant: How many incidents(crashes or even near crashes) have occurred as a result of having allowed a herd of bison into the control tower.
Nope, me neither.
So I guess we can say it's okay to allow a herd of bison into the control tower, then?

[BobTheDonkey]

I'm the one blowing this out of proportion? Says the guy who compares a supervised child to a herd of bison.

I think this discussion has gone just about as far as it can go.


Bottom line is that for every action you take, there can be a negative outcome. Some actions bring the possibility of more harm than others. In this instance, there was relatively little possible harm given the conditions involved.

Had the father left the child to his own means, rather than properly supervised him, yes - I would have issue. But that's not what happened.

I find it sadly humorous that you believe the ATC and Pilots at JFK were so incompetent that they would be unable to recognize a bad command from the tower and thus be unable to avoid, I dunno, crashing into a hanger or terminal or something? These guys are trained professionals. If/when a direction from ATC doesn't make sense, they do the sensible thing and ask for clarification/repeat of the direction.

It's truly not rocket science, and your ignorance of how ATC and Pilots operate and their training is woefully apparent.

[Foolmewunz]

I'm the one blowing this out of proportion? Says the guy who compares a supervised child to a herd of bison.

I think this discussion has gone just about as far as it can go.


Bottom line is that for every action you take, there can be a negative outcome. Some actions bring the possibility of more harm than others. In this instance, there was relatively little possible harm given the conditions involved.

Had the father left the child to his own means, rather than properly supervised him, yes - I would have issue. But that's not what happened.

I find it sadly humorous that you believe the ATC and Pilots at JFK were so incompetent that they would be unable to recognize a bad command from the tower and thus be unable to avoid, I dunno, crashing into a hanger or terminal or something? These guys are trained professionals. If/when a direction from ATC doesn't make sense, they do the sensible thing and ask for clarification/repeat of the direction.

It's truly not rocket science, and your ignorance of how ATC and Pilots operate and their training is woefully apparent.

Oh, p'shaw, Bob. You know that the child was properly supervised, how? At all times? Do you work in ATC?

I sort of no longer enjoy this game of "gee I don't understand exaggeration or hyperbole so I'll pretend you meant your argument at face value". You're very good at it and you do it with such a straight face, it's almost believable. Almost. As it is, it's a strawman because you're busy tearing things down that I didn't mean. So maybe you're right - we should end this conversation.

[BobTheDonkey]

Oh, p'shaw, Bob. You know that the child was properly supervised, how? At all times? Do you work in ATC?

I sort of no longer enjoy this game of "gee I don't understand exaggeration or hyperbole so I'll pretend you meant your argument at face value". You're very good at it and you do it with such a straight face, it's almost believable. Almost. As it is, it's a strawman because you're busy tearing things down that I didn't mean. So maybe you're right - we should end this conversation.

I just so happen to have spent some time in the AF with quite a few friends in ATC.

Wait, how is it a strawman to show how ridiculous your argument is?

I fully understand exaggeration and hyperbole. However, neither do us any good when discussing this situation. But, if that's how you want to discuss this issue:

If you want to start talking in "how do we know"'s, we can do that. How do we know that a herd of bison in an ATC tower would be catastrophic? How do we know that the entire tower would be disrupted if a child banged his shin? How do we know there was any danger, whatsoever, to the travelers out of JFK that day?

[theprestige]

The FAA regulations build slack into the system so that when there is a crisis, there is slack available to be taken up to deal with that crisis.

The regulations do not permit that, at the controller's discretion, that slack may be taken up by babysitting, instead of being kept in reserve to deal with crises.

Meanwhile, bringing a child into the control center to be babysat increases the potential for a crisis, in ways not directly related to or required by the nature of modern air travel.

Finally, it's an easy regulation to comply with, and a difficult regulation to violate.

What's so hard to understand about that, Bob the Donkey?

[BobTheDonkey]

The FAA regulations build slack into the system so that when there is a crisis, there is slack available to be taken up to deal with that crisis.

The regulations do not permit that, at the controller's discretion, that slack may be taken up by babysitting, instead of being kept in reserve to deal with crises.

Meanwhile, bringing a child into the control center to be babysat increases the potential for a crisis, in ways not directly related to or required by the nature of modern air travel.

Finally, it's an easy regulation to comply with, and a difficult regulation to violate.

What's so hard to understand about that, Bob the Donkey?

Ever broken a rule at work?

Or sped?

What about turned without using a turn signal? Or maybe just switched lanes without using a turn signal.



All of those actions can have dire consequences (depending on where you work), yet did you instantly lose your license for the infraction? I doubt it.

[theprestige]

Ever broken a rule at work?

Or sped?

What about turned without using a turn signal? Or maybe just switched lanes without using a turn signal.



All of those actions can have dire consequences (depending on where you work), yet did you instantly lose your license for the infraction? I doubt it.
Well, to be fair, none of my actions have knowingly taken up slack set aside to deal with air traffic crises, in direct contravention of regulation, when it would have been easier to simply comply with the regulation. So I'm not sure what your point is.

But I guarantee you, the day my driving violates FAA regulations and increases the chance of an air traffic crisis for no good reason, I'm perfectly happy to have my license privileges seriously considered for revocation. And I think you would agree to similar consequences for yourself, if you ever found your actions producing the same result, yes?

[BobTheDonkey]

Well, to be fair, none of my actions have knowingly taken up slack set aside to deal with air traffic crises, in direct contravention of regulation, when it would have been easier to simply comply with the regulation. So I'm not sure what your point is.

But I guarantee you, the day my driving violates FAA regulations and increases the chance of an air traffic crisis for no good reason, I'm perfectly happy to have my license privileges seriously considered for revocation. And I think you would agree to similar consequences for yourself, if you ever found your actions producing the same result, yes?

Nice dodge.

The point is that there was an infraction - no different from driving your car over the speed limit: people could have died. No crisis occurred, no accidents, nothing. A slap on the wrist is far more appropriate. But, then, I don't suppose that makes for good headlines.

[theprestige]

Nice dodge.

The point is that there was an infraction - no different from driving your car over the speed limit: people could have died. No crisis occurred, no accidents, nothing. A slap on the wrist is far more appropriate. But, then, I don't suppose that makes for good headlines.
Last year it was revealed that the person responsible for inspecting fire suppression equipment at the San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant (just up the highway from where I live) had falsified his inspection reports for the previous five years.

Obviously, people could have died. But there were no fires, no accidents, nothing. Is a slap on the wrist appropriate?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Well, Hell, that changes everything. A guy on the internet knows a guy who says all kinds of stuff went on that we don't know about.

Sounds to me like my good friend Lin Kee up in Qingdao. He shipped fireworks all the time without declaring the cargo as hazardous. Like he said,
"The stuff's in a container. What could go wrong?"
"Besides, you wouldn't believe the stuff we've put in containers over the years."
"No one was ever in the slightest amount of danger."
(Until one day in the early 2000s, that is.....)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_110854b95f7215bae1.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19373)


Yeah, now you know a guy on the internet who knows a guy who offsets your "what they don't know might shock 'em but certainly won't hurt 'em" tale. The above is the MV Hanjin Pennsylvania off of Colombo WITH MISDECLARED FIREWORKS ON BOARD.... well, I guess some of 'em were still on board; most of 'em were shooting off into the sky.

We're talking about air traffic control, not fireworks.

[BobTheDonkey]

Last year it was revealed that the person responsible for inspecting fire suppression equipment at the San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant (just up the highway from where I live) had falsified his inspection reports for the previous five years.

Obviously, people could have died. But there were no fires, no accidents, nothing. Is a slap on the wrist appropriate?

So, now we're going to compare a chronic issue with a one time happening?

That's without taking into account that in this particular instance, the ATC was fully aware of what was going on and had the situation under control. In your example, the inspections were ignored - which means the Fire Systems Inspector had no knowledge of the situation.

Bit different circumstances, so I don't see how that situation applies to this one (I see how you'd like it to, though).


Let's say, for instance, that the Inspector skipped the inspection one time. Does that deserve a firing vs a slap on the wrist?

[theprestige]

So, now we're going to compare a chronic issue with a one time happening?

That's without taking into account that in this particular instance, the ATC was fully aware of what was going on and had the situation under control. In your example, the inspections were ignored - which means the Fire Systems Inspector had no knowledge of the situation.

Bit different circumstances, so I don't see how that situation applies to this one (I see how you'd like it to, though).


Let's say, for instance, that the Inspector skipped the inspection one time. Does that deserve a firing vs a slap on the wrist?
Why would he skip an inspection even once? Is it that hard to remember to carry out the basic responsibilities of the job?

[BobTheDonkey]

Why would he skip an inspection even once? Is it that hard to remember to carry out the basic responsibilities of the job?

The question was:

Does he deserve to be fired, or a slap on the wrist/warned?

[WildCat]

The bureau found the controller was distracted by a non-operational conversation, leading him to unintentionally clear the regional flight to climb through the 767's level.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/12/2489613.htm?site=news

Go ahead, tell me that a kid isn't a distraction.

Fire this idiot, and any supervisor who knew the kid was in the tower.

[Bob Klase]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/12/2489613.htm?site=news

Go ahead, tell me that a kid isn't a distraction.

Fire this idiot, and any supervisor who knew the kid was in the tower.

It says his supervisor was too preoccupied with administrative work to monitor the control room effectively.

Let's also fire anyone who does administrative work, or requires others to do administrative work. And be sure we never try to distinguish between millions of types of distractions.

[BobTheDonkey]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/12/2489613.htm?site=news

Go ahead, tell me that a kid isn't a distraction.

Fire this idiot, and any supervisor who knew the kid was in the tower.

So because one guy is involved in an accident because he was not in control of the children in the backseat, we should just not let anyone drive their cars?

[theprestige]

The question was:

Does he deserve to be fired, or a slap on the wrist/warned?
Fired, on principle.

I reserve slap on the wrist for employees who make a judgement call to cut corners in a pressure situation, violating the letter of the law while trying to stay as close to the spirit of the law as possible.

Assuming the supervisor was overworked, and had to balance competing demands--overseeing the control center and completing administrative tasks--with insufficient resources, I'd apply the principle above and give him a slap on the wrist.

The controller himself, however, I'd fire, on the principle that there was no compelling reason for him to break this particular rule. It would have been easier for him to keep the rule. He had to intentionally go out of his way to break it. Why would I want an employee who goes out of his way to break rules when it's easier to keep those rules?

Not to mention that by breaking this rule, he's taking up slack in the control center and dedicating it to babysitting tasks, instead of leaving it in reserve so that if a pressure situation were to arise, it could be addressed without having to cut corners.

Not to mention that, in addition to taking up slack that should be reserved for dealing with pressure situations, a child in the control room increases the risks of a pressure situation occurring, without any substantial added benefit to the air traffic control system or the people that use it, to balance out that risk.

So there's three reasons to fire that guy right there.

[ZirconBlue]

Fired, on principle.

I reserve slap on the wrist for employees who make a judgement call to cut corners in a pressure situation, violating the letter of the law while trying to stay as close to the spirit of the law as possible.

Assuming the supervisor was overworked, and had to balance competing demands--overseeing the control center and completing administrative tasks--with insufficient resources, I'd apply the principle above and give him a slap on the wrist.

The controller himself, however, I'd fire, on the principle that there was no compelling reason for him to break this particular rule. It would have been easier for him to keep the rule. He had to intentionally go out of his way to break it. Why would I want an employee who goes out of his way to break rules when it's easier to keep those rules?

Not to mention that by breaking this rule, he's taking up slack in the control center and dedicating it to babysitting tasks, instead of leaving it in reserve so that if a pressure situation were to arise, it could be addressed without having to cut corners.

Not to mention that, in addition to taking up slack that should be reserved for dealing with pressure situations, a child in the control room increases the risks of a pressure situation occurring, without any substantial added benefit to the air traffic control system or the people that use it, to balance out that risk.

So there's three reasons to fire that guy right there.

I'd say, that if it were that *********** important to keep others out of the control tower, that there should be actual safeguards in place to keep them out.

It's sort of like the "personal electronic devices" rule. If it's so dangerous for me to operate them during certain parts of the flight, then something more stringent than a stewardess' warning is in order.

[theprestige]

I'd say, that if it were that *********** important to keep others out of the control tower, that there should be actual safeguards in place to keep them out.
Why? Are we to assume air traffic controllers are so mentally or emotionally defective that millions of dollars must be spent nationwide on strict enforcement of an easy and obvious rule like "don't bring children into the control center"?

If controllers are that retarded and incontinent, why hire them in the first place?

And if they're not, in general, that retarded or incontinent, why not institute a system that appropriately balances the amount of risk against the cost of safeguarding against it, by assuming that most controllers are intelligent and reliable, and firing the few that turn out otherwise, without having to implement costly total-control measures?

[BobTheDonkey]

Why? Are we to assume air traffic controllers are so mentally or emotionally defective that millions of dollars must be spent nationwide on strict enforcement of an easy and obvious rule like "don't bring children into the control center"?

If controllers are that retarded and incontinent, why hire them in the first place?

And if they're not, in general, that retarded or incontinent, why not institute a system that appropriately balances the amount of risk against the cost of safeguarding against it, by assuming that most controllers are intelligent and reliable, and firing the few that turn out otherwise, without having to implement costly total-control measures?

Why? Are we to assume that drivers are so mentally or emotionally defective that millions of dollars must be spent nationwide on strict enforcement of an easy and obvious rule like "come to a full and complete stop at every stop sign"?

If drivers are that retarded and incompetent, why let them drive in the first place?

And if they're not, in general, that retarded or incontinent (I think you meant incompetent?), why not institute a system that appropriately balances the risks against the cost of safeguarding against it, by assuming that most drivers are intelligent and reliable, and removing the driving privileges of the few that turn out otherwise, without having to implement costly total-control measures?

(ETA: Point is that the driving system works in a similar manner - you don't always just lose your license. Sometimes (most of the time) it's just a slap on the wrist and away you go. So why not the same here?)


So, let's gauge the risk:

Tower controller was not controlling airborne flights. Tower controller was telling/coaching child on what to say to aircraft waiting in line on the tarmac.

Really, pretty low risk. If the child hurts himself, the next aircraft in line waits a few extra minutes before receiving clearance. Or the next aircraft waiting for clearance for ground movement waits a few extra seconds/minutes.

The Controller was present with the child, so in the event of an emergency, he could immediately move the child away from the mic and speak directly to the pilots.

I fail to see any serious risk here.

[Foolmewunz]

I'd say, that if it were that *********** important to keep others out of the control tower, that there should be actual safeguards in place to keep them out.

It's sort of like the "personal electronic devices" rule. If it's so dangerous for me to operate them during certain parts of the flight, then something more stringent than a stewardess' warning is in order.

And... smoking... and putting on a life vest... and manning an exit aisle. Why, yes, if it was so damned important, surely they'd do something other than have it in the pre-flight video/announcement.

There are rules about smoking on flights, are there not?
Rules about personal electronic devices?
Seat belts?
Who gets to go into the ATC area?
Opening the emergency door during the flight?
Crossing on the red?
Walking on the lake before it's completely frozen over?
Peeing on the warp drive?


One could go on and on. Surely if those things were bad or dangerous we'd have heavily armed guards with tasers patrolling our every step to make sure we didn't do them, so they must all be okay, since all we have is some obscure statute and a rule posted somewhere (and maybe a sign or two).

Glad we cleared that up.

[BobTheDonkey]

There are rules about smoking on flights, are there not?
Rules about personal electronic devices?
Seat belts?
Who gets to go into the ATC area?
Opening the emergency door during the flight?
Crossing on the red?
Walking on the lake before it's completely frozen over?
Peeing on the warp drive?


Ok, so if you smoke on the jet, do you immediately get deboarded or are you asked to put it out?
If you use a personal electronic device, do you immediately get kicked off the plane or are you asked to turn it off/put it away?
If you're pulled over without a seatbelt on, do you immediately lose your license?
I didn't realize opening the emergency door during flight (a guaranteed emergency) was akin to this situation.
Does crossing on the red immediately cause the loss of your license (if you're driving) or arrest (if you're walking)?
There are rules against walking on the lake before it's frozen over? If so, are you immediately arrested for doing so?

[Foolmewunz]

Follow the argument, Bob. My post relates to the one I quoted, wherein ZirconBlue asserted something I've actually heard someone use as a defence in a case: Hey, if it's so wrong, how come no one stopped me?

Hair-splitting is at Booth 4. No, wait, Nit-picking is Booth 4, Hair-splitting is at Booth 5.

(And I know a guy who was turned over to the local police for smoking on a flight to Japan.)

[BobTheDonkey]

Follow the argument, Bob. My post relates to the one I quoted, wherein ZirconBlue asserted something I've actually heard someone use as a defence in a case: Hey, if it's so wrong, how come no one stopped me?

Hair-splitting is at Booth 4. No, wait, Nit-picking is Booth 4, Hair-splitting is at Booth 5.

(And I know a guy who was turned over to the local police for smoking on a flight to Japan.)

I was following the argument.

You presented the argument that all those things are illegal/against the rules. I asked whether all those resulted in knee-jerk reactions or slaps-on-the-wrist.

Did your buddy lose his ability to fly ever again?

[KDLarsen]

I'm fairly sure of one outcome of this: JFKtower.com will either be closed or severely restricted, and LiveATC is going to face the music.

Given how much s*** has been said and done about this, the public would be horrified if they opened up either of the above sites and heard a controller blowing some steam.

Hell, go open up YouTube and there's plenty of funny, non-regulation chatter, heard on the ATC frequencies around the world.

Letting the kid speak on the frequency was bad, letting others find out about it, worse.

Incidently, it sounds like the pilots flying in and out of JFK are siding with the ATCO in question. Plenty of Adioses heard on the frequency after he was suspended :D

[ZirconBlue]

And... smoking... and putting on a life vest... and manning an exit aisle. Why, yes, if it was so damned important, surely they'd do something other than have it in the pre-flight video/announcement.

There are rules about smoking on flights, are there not?
Rules about personal electronic devices?
Seat belts?
Who gets to go into the ATC area?
Opening the emergency door during the flight?
Crossing on the red?
Walking on the lake before it's completely frozen over?
Peeing on the warp drive?

It's interesting that the rule about smoking on flights is apparently enforced much more stringently than the one about who has access to the ATC area. Even though the no-smoking rule isn't a safety rule, the minute you try to light up on a plane someone be there to put a stop to it.


One could go on and on. Surely if those things were bad or dangerous we'd have heavily armed guards with tasers patrolling our every step to make sure we didn't do them, so they must all be okay, since all we have is some obscure statute and a rule posted somewhere (and maybe a sign or two).


Hyperbole aside, if this posed such a huge danger to the lives of airline passengers, then it is too important to leave it to the honor system. I've worked in factories (and even office buildings) that have simple mechanisms that ensure that only authorized personnel enter the premises. I'm sure such procedures could be easily implemented for ATC.

[Foolmewunz]

It's interesting that the rule about smoking on flights is apparently enforced much more stringently than the one about who has access to the ATC area. Even though the no-smoking rule isn't a safety rule, the minute you try to light up on a plane someone be there to put a stop to it.





Hyperbole aside, if this posed such a huge danger to the lives of airline passengers, then it is too important to leave it to the honor system. I've worked in factories (and even office buildings) that have simple mechanisms that ensure that only authorized personnel enter the premises. I'm sure such procedures could be easily implemented for ATC.

Oh, I agree. I couldn't get into my own CFS(terminal) in Shenzhen if I had a kid with me unless it was some sort of special event where kids were included - e.g. an official opening where the staff and family were all invited.

But I do think there should be exceptions for swell dads who have the best of intentions. :spjimlad::spjimlad:

[theprestige]

Hyperbole aside, if this posed such a huge danger to the lives of airline passengers, then it is too important to leave it to the honor system. I've worked in factories (and even office buildings) that have simple mechanisms that ensure that only authorized personnel enter the premises. I'm sure such procedures could be easily implemented for ATC.
Hyperbole aside? You're the one who's casting it in such absolute black and white terms! Why not compromise? Why not find some middle ground? Why not leave it to the honor system, and dismiss those who behave dishonorably?

[BobTheDonkey]

Hyperbole aside? You're the one who's casting it in such absolute black and white terms! Why not compromise? Why not find some middle ground? Why not leave it to the honor system, and dismiss those who behave dishonorably?

Really? I would think you're dealing in just as much of an absolute as someone who says "ignore that this even happened." That's black and white. Fire the guy or do nothing. A slap on the wrist is that exact compromise you speak of desiring.

[ZirconBlue]

Hyperbole aside? You're the one who's casting it in such absolute black and white terms! Why not compromise? Why not find some middle ground? Why not leave it to the honor system, and dismiss those who behave dishonorably?

Too each his own, I guess. To me, "Fire everyone who breaks any rule ever", seems much more "absolute" and "black and white" than anything I have advocated.

Personally, I don't think what he did was so dangerous as to warrant firing. If I thought it were that dangerous, though -- if it's plausible that this event could have lead to a plane crash, for example -- then I certainly wouldn't want to be the airline spokesman having to explain that we had decided to rely on "the honor system" rather than actual safeguards.