84 replies to this topic

[Cactus]

tropicalfish, on Mar 4 2010, 02:22 AM, said:

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 child would have provided an unnecessary distraction at the very least. Would it be suitable to have a child speak or become otherwise involved with the operations in an IFR environment at an ARTCC?

tropicalfish, on Mar 4 2010, 02:22 AM, said:

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.

1) I would think an FAA controller at a facility like JFK could afford a baby-sitter.
2) Having the child make an authorized visit to the facility is a LOT different than having the child talk on a frequency.
3) When I was a child, I sat in the jumpseat of an airliner for landing. If I became BORED was it then the flight crew's responsibility to let me talk on the radio? That is poor judgment, plain and simple.

George Bush, on Mar 4 2010, 05:54 AM, said:

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.

Exactly. The aviation industry is based on risk mitigation. If allowing a child to talk on an ATS frequency poses zero risk to any operating crew or the public, there would have been nil action from the FAA.

[Pedro]

Okay I must say that this is ridiculous.
I understand the need for protocol, I understand the need to be serious. But suspend a controller and his supervisor for letting his kid talk a few ''coached'' sentences ? Geez, I personally think the FAA that are in charge of this case are idiots (and I know I'm going to get flamed for that comment) but I really think that they're killing the aviation spirit in that kid.

I can't even possibly imagine how that family is suffering right now just for that small action that didn't cause the slightest problem. I just hope that this issue will be resolved and that the FAA dosen't go even further in cancelling ALL visits to control towers, because god knows other governments will follow.

Just my 10 cents,

Salutations from Mexico City,

Pedro.

[Timmeh]

Alex - MetroAir, on Mar 3 2010, 07:43 PM, said:

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.   

Then there shouldn't be a real problem.

Edited by Towelie, 04 March 2010 - 11:03 AM.

[THBatMan8]

Pedro, on Mar 4 2010, 10:58 AM, said:

Okay I must say that this is ridiculous.
I understand the need for protocol, I understand the need to be serious. But suspend a controller and his supervisor for letting his kid talk a few ''coached'' sentences ? Geez, I personally think the FAA that are in charge of this case are idiots (and I know I'm going to get flamed for that comment) but I really think that they're killing the aviation spirit in that kid.

I can't even possibly imagine how that family is suffering right now just for that small action that didn't cause the slightest problem. I just hope that this issue will be resolved and that the FAA dosen't go even further in cancelling ALL visits to control towers, because god knows other governments will follow.

Just my 10 cents,

Salutations from Mexico City,

Pedro.

My whole issue with this is, what if something were to happen? Then people on the opposing side would be asking why didn't the FAA take any preventative action, if there was a plane crash as a result of this. When you defer from regulations, you increase the chances of a accident.

A simple takeoff clearance can equal disaster if proper separation isn't maintained within the airspace, which has happened at JFK just last year when the controller was on the phone with his GF. A simple distraction in any event can lead to catastrophic consequences, and all it takes is a split second.

Edited by THBatMan8, 04 March 2010 - 11:13 AM.

[Mr. Schutte]

THBatMan8, on Mar 4 2010, 11:06 AM, said:

A simple takeoff clearance can equal disaster if proper separation isn't maintained within the airspace, which has happend at JFK just last year when the controller was on the phone with his GF. A simple distraction in any event can lead to catastrophic consequences, and all it takes is a split second.

That is true, however, if the take off clearance was given by the kid, it is because his father told him to do so. Which would mean that if something did happen it would have happened regardless of who was actually in control, be it the father or son as the father gave the go ahead. From my understanding there was absolutely no "thinking" or "logic" on the child's part, everything was prompted by the father.

Now I see this has come up, seems this controller may be asking for early retirement.

http://www.dailymail...-lets-turn.html

Quote

ANOTHER child directs planes from JFK control tower after her father lets her have a turn

An air traffic controller who allowed his young son to direct planes at one of the world's busiest airports let his daughter have her turn the very next day, it has emerged.

The controller, named as Glenn Duffy, 48, allowed his daughter to direct two pilots at New York's John F Kennedy International Airport on February 17 this year.

The girl can be heard being prompted by an adult, believed to be her father, as she hesitantly cleared a Comair flight for takeoff.

[THBatMan8]

Mr. Schutte, on Mar 4 2010, 11:17 AM, said:

THBatMan8, on Mar 4 2010, 11:06 AM, said:

A simple takeoff clearance can equal disaster if proper separation isn't maintained within the airspace, which has happend at JFK just last year when the controller was on the phone with his GF. A simple distraction in any event can lead to catastrophic consequences, and all it takes is a split second.

That is true, however, if the take off clearance was given by the kid, it is because his father told him to do so. Which would mean that if something did happen it would have happened regardless of who was actually in control, be it the father or son as the father gave the go ahead. From my understanding there was absolutely no "thinking" or "logic" on the child's part, everything was prompted by the father.

True, but it's still a delay in reaction time. I also think this is cute, but I'm looking at this from the FAA's prospective.

[TheBearJew]

The FAA has to take action becasue rules were broken. Hopefully it will jsut be a slap on the wrist and nothing more. I hope they don't try to make an example out of these guys and keep this in perspective. JFK tower and NY TRACON controllers are on par with the best in the world.

[Timmeh]

Haha another one? I must listen to JFK's feed now haha

[Cactus]

THBatMan8, on Mar 4 2010, 11:06 AM, said:

My whole issue with this is, what if something were to happen? Then people on the opposing side would be asking why didn't the FAA take any preventative action, if there was a plane crash as a result of this. When you defer from regulations, you increase the chances of a accident.

A simple takeoff clearance can equal disaster if proper separation isn't maintained within the airspace, which has happened at JFK just last year when the controller was on the phone with his GF. A simple distraction in any event can lead to catastrophic consequences, and all it takes is a split second.

Exactly. Everybody would be calling for his head if there was an incident or accident because of this. Hence why SOP compliance is important.

In itself, while it doesn't appear to be a risk or hazard, it will cause a hole big enough in the 'Swiss Cheese' model to fill an entire A380.

[FL050]

THBatMan8, on Mar 4 2010, 12:06 PM, said:

Pedro, on Mar 4 2010, 10:58 AM, said:

Okay I must say that this is ridiculous.
I understand the need for protocol, I understand the need to be serious. But suspend a controller and his supervisor for letting his kid talk a few ''coached'' sentences ? Geez, I personally think the FAA that are in charge of this case are idiots (and I know I'm going to get flamed for that comment) but I really think that they're killing the aviation spirit in that kid.

I can't even possibly imagine how that family is suffering right now just for that small action that didn't cause the slightest problem. I just hope that this issue will be resolved and that the FAA dosen't go even further in cancelling ALL visits to control towers, because god knows other governments will follow.

Just my 10 cents,

Salutations from Mexico City,

Pedro.

My whole issue with this is, what if something were to happen? Then people on the opposing side would be asking why didn't the FAA take any preventative action, if there was a plane crash as a result of this. When you defer from regulations, you increase the chances of a accident.

A simple takeoff clearance can equal disaster if proper separation isn't maintained within the airspace, which has happened at JFK just last year when the controller was on the phone with his GF. A simple distraction in any event can lead to catastrophic consequences, and all it takes is a split second.

Nothing would be changed, even in the situation the controller and superviser are in now - they would still be getting blamed for it.

All the kid was doing was issuing take-off and hand-off clearances, which the controller was telling him to say.  Hardly dangerous in any way.

[TheBigTurkey]

LOL,When I heard the passenger women saying he should be fired I wanted to stab her in the face....

[TheBearJew]

What's far more dangerous than a kid reiterating clearances his father tells him is all the controllers and pilots around who's native language is not english and are barely comprehensible over the radio and often screw up givign and receiving clearances.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, the FAA did their job. They don't want their image to be one that says anyone can do whatever they want. If they had let this slide, this would now be happening all over the country. So in the end,  I can understand their overreaction. Everyone got home safe and sound, and the kid only repeated dad's instructions. This is safe, and is fine IMO. This is the equivalent to bringing your son to work and telling him what you do everyday, giving him a little hands-on experience. It's not like this child worked a full shift. He did a couple, then dad took over.

Edited by anonymous, 04 March 2010 - 08:42 PM.

[LA_PHX]

tropicalfish, on Mar 4 2010, 02:22 AM, said:

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.

1) Oh jeez, well why didn't the dad say so?  If he was bored then that makes it okay.   If a justification for something like this is boredom, the world would be an interesting place.  In fact, E-Trade would actually be run by those funny babies.

2) It doesn't matter if they have an accurate image of the industry or not...their image won't change.  The FAA has to conform to their image or else you've got a system under fire from the public.

George Bush, on Mar 4 2010, 05:54 AM, said:

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.

And they say it correctly.  Policies are in place for specific reasons...they wouldn't be there if they didn't care if you broke them.

Pedro, on Mar 4 2010, 10:58 AM, said:

Okay I must say that this is ridiculous.
I understand the need for protocol, I understand the need to be serious. But suspend a controller and his supervisor for letting his kid talk a few ''coached'' sentences ? Geez, I personally think the FAA that are in charge of this case are idiots (and I know I'm going to get flamed for that comment) but I really think that they're killing the aviation spirit in that kid.

I can't even possibly imagine how that family is suffering right now just for that small action that didn't cause the slightest problem. I just hope that this issue will be resolved and that the FAA dosen't go even further in cancelling ALL visits to control towers, because god knows other governments will follow.

Just my 10 cents,

Salutations from Mexico City,

Pedro.

Poor kid. What a stupid FAA.  Why do they care about policy, professionalism and safety when they could be caring about fostering aviation spirit in a young 8 year old?

(Just in case.../sarcasm)

Family suffering?  He was making enough money to be out of work for a while...I do feel bad for the spotlight they are probably getting but you can blame the father for that one.  Lack of common sense and good judgment will do this to ya'.

Towelie, on Mar 4 2010, 11:02 AM, said:

Alex - MetroAir, on Mar 3 2010, 07:43 PM, said:

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.   

Then there shouldn't be a real problem.

I guess we will agree to disagree then.

Rileyturkey, on Mar 4 2010, 03:22 PM, said:

LOL,When I heard the passenger women saying he should be fired I wanted to stab her in the face....

I thought everyone here knew by now that the general public knows crap about aviation.  It is just the way it is.  Much like they know crap about government, law, and a whole host of other topics.  But is it necessary to say you want to stab them in the face?  My goodness...

anonymous, on Mar 4 2010, 08:42 PM, said:

Yeah, the FAA did their job. They don't want their image to be one that says anyone can do whatever they want. If they had let this slide, this would now be happening all over the country. So in the end,  I can understand their overreaction. Everyone got home safe and sound, and the kid only repeated dad's instructions. This is safe, and is fine IMO. This is the equivalent to bringing your son to work and telling him what you do everyday, giving him a little hands-on experience. It's not like this child worked a full shift. He did a couple, then dad took over.

I'd argue that there aren't any other jobs out there like this.  I guess you could compare law enforcement to it due to the stress of the job and the impact on countless lives.  But to reinforce my point...many law enforcement agencies won't allow ride alongs anymore, especially when it involves a minor.

[Cactus]

JET_PILOT, on Mar 4 2010, 05:12 PM, said:

What's far more dangerous than a kid reiterating clearances his father tells him is all the controllers and pilots around who's native language is not english and are barely comprehensible over the radio and often screw up givign and receiving clearances.

If I flew to Mexico City and heard a 7 year old on the R/T I wouldn't exactly be impressed... but this was exactly the case with Aeromexico flight departing to JFK.

[TheBearJew]

Going into Bogata I had a controller give me a clearance to start my descent before the intersection that we usually stepped down at. The altitude I was cleared to would have put me into the side of the volcano had I not checked the enroute chart and been experienced on flying that route. Point being pilots don't have to comply with a clearance the controller issues. We do have brains and do recognize an improper clearance. We aren't robots doing what the controller tells us to do unless it makes sense. There are far more aggregious situations happening every day in our aviation system to worry about a kid talking on the radio who did fine job I might add.

[LA_PHX]

JET_PILOT, on Mar 5 2010, 12:35 AM, said:

Going into Bogata I had a controller give me a clearance to start my descent before the intersection that we usually stepped down at. The altitude I was cleared to would have put me into the side of the volcano had I not checked the enroute chart and been experienced on flying that route. Point being pilots don't have to comply with a clearance the controller issues. We do have brains and do recognize an improper clearance. We aren't robots doing what the controller tells us to do unless it makes sense. There are far more aggregious situations happening every day in our aviation system to worry about a kid talking on the radio who did fine job I might add.

I can certainly agree that there are multiple problems with the United States aviation industry that are worse than this but that doesn't mean this isn't a problem.  No matter what your job is, you break a strict policy, you are going to be punished accordingly.

Edited by Alex - MetroAir, 05 March 2010 - 01:09 AM.

[trekalized]

JET_PILOT, on Mar 4 2010, 05:12 PM, said:

What's far more dangerous than a kid reiterating clearances his father tells him is all the controllers and pilots around who's native language is not english and are barely comprehensible over the radio and often screw up givign and receiving clearances.

I see you've flown in Southern Georgia     I've heard some of the most incomprehensible stuff come out of pilot's mouths for whom English IS their primary language. You wanna hear some good stuff? Go listen in on frequency at an uncontrolled field down there. You hear calls from guys that sound like Mater the tow truck telling you they're on left final or making their crosswind to base turn. Scary!

JET_PILOT, on Mar 5 2010, 12:35 AM, said:

Going into Bogata I had a controller give me a clearance to start my descent before the intersection that we usually stepped down at. The altitude I was cleared to would have put me into the side of the volcano had I not checked the enroute chart and been experienced on flying that route. Point being pilots don't have to comply with a clearance the controller issues. We do have brains and do recognize an improper clearance. We aren't robots doing what the controller tells us to do unless it makes sense. There are far more aggregious situations happening every day in our aviation system to worry about a kid talking on the radio who did fine job I might add.

Had similar experiences flying into some remote spots in Mexico. Sounds like the controllers are talking into an empty soup can. They'll clear you for the glideslope 100 miles out with a mountain in front of you. It's up to the PIC to make the final decision. Clearances are not orders. Regardless, my two cents says the controller didn't do anything dangerous. He just exercised extremely poor judgement.

[TheBearJew]

Quote

Had similar experiences flying into some remote spots in Mexico. Sounds like the controllers are talking into an empty soup can. They'll clear you for the glideslope 100 miles out with a mountain in front of you. It's up to the PIC to make the final decision. Clearances are not orders. Regardless, my two cents says the controller didn't do anything dangerous. He just exercised extremely poor judgement

That's funny! Going into Mexico City I was cleared to land about 130mi out and we were at about 18,000'.  I was thinking he must be ready to take a siesta and just didn't want to be bothered with us. It was about 2AM. ATC Mexican style!

Edited by JET_PILOT, 05 March 2010 - 01:27 AM.

[trekalized]

JET_PILOT, on Mar 5 2010, 01:26 AM, said:

Quote

Had similar experiences flying into some remote spots in Mexico. Sounds like the controllers are talking into an empty soup can. They'll clear you for the glideslope 100 miles out with a mountain in front of you. It's up to the PIC to make the final decision. Clearances are not orders. Regardless, my two cents says the controller didn't do anything dangerous. He just exercised extremely poor judgement

That's funny! Going into Mexico City I was cleared to land about 130mi out and we were at about 18,000'.  I was thinking he must be ready to take a siesta and just didn't want to be bothered with us. It was about 2AM. ATC Mexican style!

All I could ever imagine when we'd fly down there was a big map of Mexico, with a guy pushing little airplanes around on it with a big stick. I never had complete confidence that any of those controllers knew exactly where I was. We'd get traffic advisories for aircraft 30 miles away, just because they weren't REAL sure we were actually only 30 miles separated.