84 replies to this topic

[Cactus]

JET_PILOT, on Mar 3 2010, 04:46 PM, said:

Like we would folow an improper clearance from a 7yo and plunge from the sky like a lawn dart making a flaming hole in the ground.

Would you let a 7 year old fly an airplane with 300 passengers on board? Afterall, there's an FO sitting next to the kid..... right?

[TheBearJew]

I'd let a monkey fly a plane with 300 pax on it and a chicken flying FO.

[Cactus]

Those sound like our wide-body guys... how long have you been working at my company

[TheBearJew]

LOL!  

[fredrick_thy_grt]

Stupid, just stupid. He said contact departure..big deal not like he was vectoring them for the ILS...

Thats my opinion though...I guess I'm not the FAA huh. oh well.

[wyoairbus]

IMO they blew that completely out of proportion, i understand they have standards to live up to but really, they couldve dealt with it better than with a suspension

[Toyuko]

Cool, lucky kid!

[divemaster08]

Duke, on Mar 3 2010, 05:11 PM, said:

JET_PILOT, on Mar 3 2010, 04:46 PM, said:

Like we would folow an improper clearance from a 7yo and plunge from the sky like a lawn dart making a flaming hole in the ground.

Would you let a 7 year old fly an airplane with 300 passengers on board? Afterall, there's an FO sitting next to the kid..... right?

So a 7 year old being told what to do is bad? I mean you let a brand new aircraft be controlled by a computer and its still able to mess up.

This i see is quite interesting.

The Controller is actually there on the job also plugged in. He is acting like a OTJI. Would this have made news if it was his mate in the tower doing this? i bet not! Even though its the same principal. The Controller told the kid what to say and then the kid said it. If there was a problem he would of stepped in and corrected it.

Now i do love it how the news people think the kid was in "control". Yes he gave a clearance, but he was just a puppet really.
You also notice how the Controller actually comes in to give the instructions to line up and wait. All they need after that pretty much is a takeoff clearance. If there was an incident/problem the controller would be on that problem in no time.

Its also not like the kid was just doing what he wanted..... Its gonna be a real shame though that this guy is gonna get flammed for doing this big time now when it to me is a very small thing.

Again i bet if this was some hick town airport, it would of never made the news, but because its JFK its a big thing!

[Cortez]

If the kid was 17 no one would have realized
or cared

Edited by Cortez, 03 March 2010 - 07:37 PM.

[Cactus]

divemaster08, on Mar 3 2010, 07:34 PM, said:

So a 7 year old being told what to do is bad? I mean you let a brand new aircraft be controlled by a computer and its still able to mess up.

This is a completely ludicrous statement when you consider the thousands of hours that go into development and construction of prototypes, flight tests, and government testing that is undergone prior to introduction of an aircraft into commercial service. Not to mention that Human Factors are the leading cause of accidents, much higher than aircraft malfunctions.

divemaster08, on Mar 3 2010, 07:34 PM, said:

The Controller is actually there on the job also plugged in. He is acting like a OTJI. Would this have made news if it was his mate in the tower doing this? i bet not! Even though its the same principal. The Controller told the kid what to say and then the kid said it. If there was a problem he would of stepped in and corrected it.

An OJTI is somebody that provides guidance to a trainee that has already received thorough training. Do you think the FAA allows recruits to jump into the Tower Cab the day after they have had successful job interviews?

divemaster08, on Mar 3 2010, 07:34 PM, said:

You also notice how the Controller actually comes in to give the instructions to line up and wait. All they need after that pretty much is a takeoff clearance. If there was an incident/problem the controller would be on that problem in no time.

How can you be 100% confident of this statement? Does anybody EVER expect an incident/problem until it has already surfaced, or in some cases, already too late? That comparison is not much different than allowing Flight Crews or Controllers to talk on cell-phones while on the job until "something comes up" that might require their attention. (Speaking of which, a TEB controller was making a 'harmless' personal phone call recently when a mid-air collision occurred involving a TEB departure. Are any more reminders of complacency in this industry really required?)

I do not think anyone needs a reminder of how many hundreds of lives can be jeopardized in a split second in this industry. Even more importantly at an airport the size of JFK (but policies must be correctly enforced for all ATS units)

[LA_PHX]

Duke, on Mar 3 2010, 12:59 PM, said:

Alex - MetroAir, on Mar 2 2010, 11:04 PM, said:

10 years ago, no one would have known about this.  Thank you LiveATC.Net!

The people in the tower know they are being monitored.

Any un-encrypted communications can be monitored. Why do people forget this?

I don't forget that but what I meant by "no one" was the general public and media.  Things like this used to happen in the past but would slide under the rug because the media didn't have such an easy tool like LiveATC.  Now that they do, combined with the fact that aviation stories usually gather much more attention than they used to, things like this are reported on and the FAA resorts to damage control.

franthree, on Mar 3 2010, 03:19 PM, said:

I heard the kid was just directing JFK ground control ATC! --not as potentially catastrophic as the kid doing the actual landings! But maybe it is?

He was actually giving takeoff clearances and such.

JET_PILOT, on Mar 3 2010, 04:46 PM, said:

I have taled to this controller at JFK hundreds of times if not thousands. I will be uber pissed if he loses his job becasue of this!

Like we would folow an improper clearance from a 7yo and plunge from the sky like a lawn dart making a flaming hole in the ground.

No, but nowadays this industry is built off of professionalism and a serious image to the public.  They don't want to know that a 7 year old was directing their plane.  The general public would be freaking out.

Plain and simple here, the controller was an idiot.  Whether it is right or wrong for him to be punished (I actually believe he should...not because of what could go wrong (as that is very minimal) but what kind of flak the FAA and ATC will get), the guy had a MAJOR lapse in judgment.  In the times we now live in, letting a kid make transmissions like this at even a smaller commercial airfield is a bad idea...doing it at JFK of all places is just stupid.  Really, what was this guy thinking?  He knew FAA policies and he knew that he could face consequences...guess what, he is and he is really the only one to blame (well, you can also blame whoever the Sup. was if they knew about it).

Think about this...at ANY job, if you hurt the companies image, you can bet your a$$ you will face a punishment and possibly termination.  This job is no different.

Edited by Alex - MetroAir, 03 March 2010 - 08:30 PM.

[Timmeh]

Uh, you probably don't realize that the parent of the kid was probably telling him what to say.

I doubt a kid that young could process all that information.

[LA_PHX]

Towelie, on Mar 3 2010, 08:45 PM, said:

Uh, you probably don't realize that the parent of the kid was probably telling him what to say.

I doubt a kid that young could process all that information.

Uh, everyone already knew that.   

[divemaster08]

Duke, on Mar 3 2010, 08:12 PM, said:

divemaster08, on Mar 3 2010, 07:34 PM, said:

So a 7 year old being told what to do is bad? I mean you let a brand new aircraft be controlled by a computer and its still able to mess up.

This is a completely ludicrous statement when you consider the thousands of hours that go into development and construction of prototypes, flight tests, and government testing that is undergone prior to introduction of an aircraft into commercial service. Not to mention that Human Factors are the leading cause of accidents, much higher than aircraft malfunctions.

Yes they do, but its still equipment that can fail! it can be common to work when it was installed and after 4 uses a flaw actually in the product stops it working. Its just a bad component. It does normally get product tested and quality assured before installation, but sometimes the problems arise after installation due a problem maybe happening elsewhere and can be totally unrelated to it but still can have a "knock on effect".

Duke, on Mar 3 2010, 08:12 PM, said:

An OJTI is somebody that provides guidance to a trainee that has already received thorough training. Do you think the FAA allows recruits to jump into the Tower Cab the day after they have had successful job interviews?

And do you not think the controller is telling the kid what to say? isnt that guidance?
Also their are aptitude tests before you begin your training which normally involves a tower session with an instructor telling you exactly what to say to see how well you remember and also your speech.

Duke, on Mar 3 2010, 08:12 PM, said:

divemaster08, on Mar 3 2010, 07:34 PM, said:

You also notice how the Controller actually comes in to give the instructions to line up and wait. All they need after that pretty much is a takeoff clearance. If there was an incident/problem the controller would be on that problem in no time.

How can you be 100% confident of this statement? Does anybody EVER expect an incident/problem until it has already surfaced, or in some cases, already too late? That comparison is not much different than allowing Flight Crews or Controllers to talk on cell-phones while on the job until "something comes up" that might require their attention. (Speaking of which, a TEB controller was making a 'harmless' personal phone call recently when a mid-air collision occurred involving a TEB departure. Are any more reminders of complacency in this industry really required?)

I do not think anyone needs a reminder of how many hundreds of lives can be jeopardized in a split second in this industry. Even more importantly at an airport the size of JFK (but policies must be correctly enforced for all ATS units)

All I am trying to say is that the controller was still in control. He was watching his aircraft, and also maintaining co-ordination and also keeping his vigilant eye on the situation. Now just cause he had a puppet to talk to the aircraft doesnt mean he was not in charge. He was in charge all the time. He was the one who gave up his runway to the aircraft. All he let the kid do was get the aircraft on the runway off his active.

Edited by divemaster08, 03 March 2010 - 11:04 PM.

[Cactus]

divemaster08, on Mar 3 2010, 11:02 PM, said:

Yes they do, but its still equipment that can fail! it can be common to work when it was installed and after 4 uses a flaw actually in the product stops it working. Its just a bad component. It does normally get product tested and quality assured before installation, but sometimes the problems arise after installation due a problem maybe happening elsewhere and can be totally unrelated to it but still can have a "knock on effect".

In any event, I don't think you are making a relevant comparison to this situation. We are talking about human factors here, not mechanical components.

divemaster08, on Mar 3 2010, 11:02 PM, said:

Duke, on Mar 3 2010, 08:12 PM, said:

An OJTI is somebody that provides guidance to a trainee that has already received thorough training. Do you think the FAA allows recruits to jump into the Tower Cab the day after they have had successful job interviews?

And do you not think the controller is telling the kid what to say? isnt that guidance?
Also their are aptitude tests before you begin your training which normally involves a tower session with an instructor telling you exactly what to say to see how well you remember and also your speech.

While it is obvious the Controller is telling the kid what to say, there is a reason why certain process are in place. Otherwise you'd see this happening every day with friends, family, and other random visitor. While I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm saying the FAA has policies and procedures in place that should limit this to TRAINED, QUALIFIED individuals. If the controller didn't realize this, at the very least a senior supervisor should. Is that unreasonable in an aviation environment where certain rules must be observed? FAA, ICAO, and SMS don't exist to simply get shrugged off.

divemaster08, on Mar 3 2010, 11:02 PM, said:

All I am trying to say is that the controller was still in control. He was watching his aircraft, and also maintaining co-ordination and also keeping his vigilant eye on the situation. Now just cause he had a puppet to talk to the aircraft doesnt mean he was not in charge. He was in charge all the time. He was the one who gave up his runway to the aircraft. All he let the kid do was get the aircraft on the runway off his active.

The rules don't exist because somebody woke up one day and thought flying needed more paperwork to deal with. They exist for a reason. The primary purpose of the ATC system is to prevent a collision between aircraft - it's that simple.

[fredrick_thy_grt]

I just re-listened to it.

The controller is clearly in control and aware of the situation, and the kind only says "Contact Departure" "Clear for Takeoff" and "Audios Amigos". The pilots enjoy it and one JetBlue pilot even says "Awesome Job" (obviously only because he realizes it's a kid and he is being nice).

I don't see the big deal in a kid saying three things. Controllers often have short little conversations while on position..if there could be some oh so catastrophic crash when a little 7 year old boy gives actual instructions isn't the risk just as big when a controller stars conversing with a pilot?

Here are examples..joking about a hat...telling a controller he is on youtube...joking about being in the pattern all day. It happens often, I don't see how it is any different or worse than a 7 year old giving a few planes simple instructions as he was told to do so by his father (who is the controller..).

[THBatMan8]

divemaster08, on Mar 3 2010, 11:02 PM, said:

Duke, on Mar 3 2010, 08:12 PM, said:

divemaster08, on Mar 3 2010, 07:34 PM, said:

So a 7 year old being told what to do is bad? I mean you let a brand new aircraft be controlled by a computer and its still able to mess up.

This is a completely ludicrous statement when you consider the thousands of hours that go into development and construction of prototypes, flight tests, and government testing that is undergone prior to introduction of an aircraft into commercial service. Not to mention that Human Factors are the leading cause of accidents, much higher than aircraft malfunctions.

Yes they do, but its still equipment that can fail! it can be common to work when it was installed and after 4 uses a flaw actually in the product stops it working. Its just a bad component. It does normally get product tested and quality assured before installation, but sometimes the problems arise after installation due a problem maybe happening elsewhere and can be totally unrelated to it but still can have a "knock on effect".

There are countermeasures you can deploy during a equipment failure. Even if a ADC fails, you still have the standby instruments that are linked directly to the pitot-static system, which is something that a 7-year-old won't know how to use. The only reason why the ADC is there is to keep the aircraft in adherence with RVSM requirements. The aircraft is still flyable without the computers, only the instruments won't be as accurate at higher altitudes. Crew reaction time is everything when it comes to responding to failures, a 7-year-old would just be in the way making things worse.

Flying a airplane =/= giving them clearances.

Edited by THBatMan8, 04 March 2010 - 02:52 AM.

[Cactus]

flynryan692, on Mar 3 2010, 11:57 PM, said:

I just re-listened to it.

The controller is clearly in control and aware of the situation, and the kind only says "Contact Departure" "Clear for Takeoff" and "Audios Amigos". The pilots enjoy it and one JetBlue pilot even says "Awesome Job" (obviously only because he realizes it's a kid and he is being nice).

I don't see the big deal in a kid saying three things. Controllers often have short little conversations while on position..if there could be some oh so catastrophic crash when a little 7 year old boy gives actual instructions isn't the risk just as big when a controller stars conversing with a pilot?

Here are examples..joking about a hat...telling a controller he is on youtube...joking about being in the pattern all day. It happens often, I don't see how it is any different or worse than a 7 year old giving a few planes simple instructions as he was told to do so by his father (who is the controller..).

While these pilots may have taken the situation lightly... Can you imagine how a fatigued, 14 hour duty day crew might react? Not everybody thinks the same, dude. If any one of those airline pilots didn't find it amusing, the controller might have been in !@#$ even sooner than he was.

[tropicalfish]

Duke, on Mar 3 2010, 04:11 PM, said:

JET_PILOT, on Mar 3 2010, 04:46 PM, said:

Like we would folow an improper clearance from a 7yo and plunge from the sky like a lawn dart making a flaming hole in the ground.

Would you let a 7 year old fly an airplane with 300 passengers on board? Afterall, there's an FO sitting next to the kid..... right?

But that's different. The child in the tower was only repeating what his dad had told him. In an airplane, you can't exactly have some sort of a "monkey see, monkey do" type thing. In a cockpit, the two pilots work together. You don't have single-manned cockpits on commercial aircraft.
In the tower, on the other hand, that one man has been at his "area." The child had the simple job of repeating verbal commands. There are several other controllers as well as a supervisor, and the father was always in control of the child. The father's job did not require people to directly help him. The father did not LOSE anything when allowing the child to speak over the radio.

The FAA is overreacting to a simple event of a parent bringing their child in to work. And if you look at it from the father's point of view... the child was off from school. He's 7. He cannot stay home alone. Additionally, at 7 years old, the child will be BORED. The father was simply letting the child see what the father does at work and allowed him to repeat (not give, not "create," not plan... REPEAT) a few commands over the radio.

Alex - MetroAir, on Mar 3 2010, 07:29 PM, said:

No, but nowadays this industry is built off of professionalism and a serious image to the public.  They don't want to know that a 7 year old was directing their plane.  The general public would be freaking out.

An accurate public image does not exist with the media.

[George Bush]

The reason the FAA are angry is because it does not portray a picture of competence and extreme care for safety factors that is what 'drives the aviation world forward'. So they say.