Kindergarten Controllers

[Dummy Pilot]

There's a part of me that thinks that there was no harm done and it was just a funny little episode......then there's a part of me that wonders what the hell they were thinking. If you go to the USA TODAY LINK there is a tape of the (very young) tyke on the radio.

FAA investigating JFK air traffic controllers allowing child to direct pilots


The FAA is investigating air-traffic tower employees at New York's Kennedy airport where a school-age child was briefly allowed to transmit directions to pilots.

The FAA says the incident occurred on Feb. 17 when a controller brought the child to the tower and supervised his conversations with the planes.

"Pending the outcome of our investigation the employees involved in this incident are not controlling traffic," the FAA said in a statement. "This behavior is not acceptable and does not demonstrate the kind of professionalism expected from all FAA employees."

The controller and the controller's supervisor have been relieved of their duties, MSNBC reports.

According to recordings from LiveATC.net, MSNBC says, the child was involved in five radio transmissions.

Here's one:

JFK TOWER: JetBlue 171 contact departure.

PILOT: Over to departure JetBlue 171, awesome job.

JFK TOWER: That's what you get, guys, when the kids are out of school.

In another exchange, the child bantered with the pilot of Aeromexico flight 403, ending the conversation by saying "Adios amigos."

[flyboy2548m]

I don't see what the big deal is.

[PurduePilot]

Neither do I--I'm sure that brand-new controller trainees have done far worse.

[Giles]

Yeah. I don't see the big deal. The kid wasnt making decisions on directing traffic.

WTOP news radio here interviewed some former FAA official who said that while controllers are allowed to bring guests it is illegal for the guests to "direct" traffic and then referenced what happened when the kid of a russian pilot was allowed to fly the plane.

However, I question how wise it was of the controller to let it happen in the days of liveatc.net which is probably where the recordings came from.

[Peter_K]

I can understand Apple using child labourers, but the FAA?

[rattler]

all my thoughts summed up very well, any source on the leak?

Rattler

[Giles]

all my thoughts summed up very well, any source on the leak?

Rattler

liveatc.net

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/03/03/ai ... tml?hpt=T2

However, Dave Pascoe, owner of liveatc.net, the Web site where the recording of the air traffic communications is posted, told CNN he believes the attention the incident has drawn is "ridiculous" and it has been "blown out of proportion."

[Verbal]

ok

[Dummy Pilot]

So if can sum up everyone's opinions on the matter, it appears that the new Gold standard in aviation professionalism and safety is: "As long as nobody gets hurt, what's the big deal?"

[Giles]

So if can sum up everyone's opinions on the matter, it appears that the new Gold standard in aviation professionalism and safety is: "As long as nobody gets hurt, what's the big deal?"

No, not mine.

[Digger]

So if can sum up everyone's opinions on the matter, it appears that the new Gold standard in aviation professionalism and safety is: "As long as nobody gets hurt, what's the big deal?"

I think to anybody that understands the nuts and bolts of an airport tower operation, from a safety standpoint, this wasn't/isn't a big deal. The kid made five transmissions, and all of them were routine, simple, and exactly what and when the aircrews would have expected. Daddy was no doubt looking right over junior's shoulder, whispering in his ear exactly what to say, and no doubt being even more vigilant than usual about everything else, because he was doing something un-usual, and probably the rest of the people in the cab were being extra vigilant too. From a safety standpoint, it's a non-issue. At least that's what Mrs. Digger tells me, and nothing in my experience leads me to disagree.

Certainly though, you have a valid point, because all too often we hear the FAA spokesmodels quoted saying, "safety was never compromised", based on just that standard--nobody got hurt, nobody traded paint with another aircraft, regardless of how much potential may have existed for some unfortunate outcome.

I think the most egregious error here was the controller's total failure to consider the potential consequences of letting junior make transmissions that might be heard and recorded, and how those recordings might be presented to the world by a news media that's in the business of attracting viewers and readers, and who's Gold Standard is "never let the facts get in the way of a good story". To the flying public, this can be made to look really bad. Really sensationally bad. That's makes it good TV. Further, he failed to take into account that there still exists plenty of acrimony between the ATC workforce and FAA management, and that if a controller excercises faulty judgement in this way, the FAA will throw him under the bus, rather than repeat the mantra.

It's a shame, but even though the reality is that safety really never was compromised, this controller may have made a career ending boo-boo.

[AndyToop]

So if can sum up everyone's opinions on the matter, it appears that the new Gold standard in aviation professionalism and safety is: "As long as nobody gets hurt, what's the big deal?"

Not everyone's opinion.

[3WE]

I don't see what the big deal is.

Let's see- when planes are spaced out by 20 miles flying from waypoint to way point with nothing in the way of potential traffic, Giles objects to frequency clutter when folks say "with you"

In contrast, we have Junior on local control at a busy airport "bantering", speaking Spanish and saying "the kids are out of school".

Yeah, no harm, but then again, I'm thinking it's one of those things you just don't do.

Now they are subject to crucifiction by the press, general public, some passengers and lawyers claiming mental duress after they heard about it.

And in another thread Mrs. Digger is bitching about phantom snow plows and Mister Digger doesn't like the PR-dude saying "it's working just the way it's supposed to".

We can't let the facts get in the way of this.

[Digger]

3WE, do you think safety was compromised?

If so, how?

If not, then what makes this worthy of the incredible attention it's getting?

[3WE]

It doesn't matter what I think.

I'm not an FAA administrator and I'm only one vote in the court of public opinion.

And do not take my references to the Diggers and their opinions of modern, ground-radar systems wrong.

It just makes for an interesting contrast in what the FAA is dealing with- especially in the realm of public relations.

[Verbal]

It doesn't matter what I think.

Concur.

[Gabriel]

Maybe not dangerous, but what the daddy did was stupid.

I don't want to see this guy fired. But I'd understand the FAA if that's what they do. Stupidity is a good excuse to fire someone.
So if he does get fired, he won it. Sort of Darwin prize.

[J]

Uncle Sam does not like to be embarrassed.

[Giles]

Let's see- when planes are spaced out by 20 miles flying from waypoint to way point with nothing in the way of potential traffic, Giles objects to frequency clutter when folks say "with you"

This is not only irrelevant it is also logically flawed.

[Digger]

It doesn't matter what I think.

That's a cop out.

I'm not an FAA administrator and I'm only one vote in the court of public opinion.

You're bothering to discuss the topic, as a respected member of this highly respected aviation safety forum on http://WWW.Internet.com, thus helping to shape aforementioned public opinion.

(It's left to the reader's imagination whether the above statement should have been placed within [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] tags...)

[Ancient Mariner]

So if can sum up everyone's opinions on the matter, it appears that the new Gold standard in aviation professionalism and safety is: "As long as nobody gets hurt, what's the big deal?"

If you frequent Pprune, yes. Most pilots there seems to believe that if it is not a total hull loss and half the population of Africa perished in the crash, it is a non-event. Then again, what do I know, a simple SFL.
Per

[Sir Gallivant]

In my view, this was a funny and different day at the airport for both controllers and pilots, nothing went wrong, it was likely done at less than peak traffic flow, and those in the tower were likely extra vigilant and paid attention to all the little details of the the transmissions.

That said, we also have to realise that we live in a highly regulated world, every little thing we do is regulated in some way. Like speed. We have speed limits, and some seem fair enough, others seem ridiculous, and from time to time we think that it is OK to go 60 in a 40 zone, after all, we have never seen anyone come out from the driveway in that blind curve. Just too bad when a truck emerges on the day that you are really fed up with going 40 on that stretch of road.

There are also rules about sterile cockpits, no idle talk that is not essential to the task at hand at certain portions of a flight, and a segment of the flight where this is the case is indeed when talking to the tower. Isn't it the case that the tower must also be sterile when dealing with arriving, departing and taxiing aircraft? And isn't it a sensible rule?

There has been remarks about idle chatting in cockpits in cases where the crew ended up later in a position of not being able to defend themselves, so which is it? Is it OK to have a little fun and distraction from boredom from time to time, as long as nothing happens, or do we want 110% sterile, professional conduct from all parties involved at all time? And where do we draw the line?

Personally, I hope that the involved parties in this case get off with a slap of the wrist, as long as this is an isolated incident. It was bad judgement, it can happen to all of us (except of course ITS), but we have to live and learn and get on with life.

[Digger]

There are also rules about sterile cockpits, no idle talk that is not essential to the task at hand at certain portions of a flight, and a segment of the flight where this is the case is indeed when talking to the tower. Isn't it the case that the tower must also be sterile when dealing with arriving, departing and taxiing aircraft? And isn't it a sensible rule?

To address that specifically, one of Mrs. Digger's points about the 'possible distraction' aspect of this is that controllers are bombarded with distractions, and dealing with them comes with the territory. The tower is far, far from "sterile".

[3WE]

So- do you think the media attention, public response, and the controllers' future employment would be different if it had been take your daughter to work day (and it wasn't a boy)?

[flyboy2548m]

So- do you think the media attention, public response, and the controllers' future employment would be different if it had been take your daughter to work day (and it wasn't a boy)?

Yes.