global warrior writes:
I would suggest that FOX news go to some of the places on the planet where safety is compromised daily by inept controllers that are actually licenced by their countries regulating authority...
Exactly. This issue under discussion is really a non-event, but it's perfect for getting folks (especially couch-taters who like to view things which make them feel outrage) all up-in-arms.
Dad should have thought-through things, but even so, he conducted things well.
sdflyer writes:
And an Aeroflot pilot once let his daughter, and then his son, sit in left seat of an Airbus in cruise flight over Siberia once. The consequence of this piece of irresponsible and unprofessional behavior is aviation history.
Again, no comparison whatsoever.
Apples to beluga.
Well-behaved and well-articulated kids under the direction of their doting dad, repeating what he tells them to, speaking to aircraft on the ground, after the situation has been explained to pilots involved.
Versus letting a child sit at the controls of a revenue flight without adequate supervision and a lack of attention paid to the flight of the aircraft.
IIRC, the flight crew didn't notice that the A/P had been kicked off-line by pressure put against the controls.
Not the children's fault at all - and nothing would have happened if the crew had been ahead of the airplane instead of behind it.
Not comparable at all. In no way. Completely unspinnable. Joe Sixpack won't buy the comparison, neither will working pros.
So stop peddling it. Or, become a FOX news aviation consultant.
And really, aren't there more appropriate examples to use?
Can someone dig up a relevant comparison in which a "guest controller" actually caused some REAL issue?
Big kudos to ei-flyer for this:
A lot of you are forgetting one important fact - you ATCers do not control the aircraft, we do.
Worded perhaps a little aggressively, but true.
I certainly hope any flight I board is controlled through a good pilot / ATC relationship - but if I had to pick one or the other, I'll always go with the dudes / dudettes up in the pointy end. Yoke/stick and thrust levers in hand, their lives in the balance as well, windscreens to see out of, yadda-yadda.
MPN11 writes:
New thread ... "Sandefjord in the News"
"Stray moose issues landing clearance ... " http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...lies/smile.gif
Much needed levity, thanks. This won't happen in Alaska, as all the moose are too busy running through little towns scaring people. Another source of fine yellow-journalism fodder.
Valuable:
boguing writes:
I'm going to contribute to this thread in the hope that the Authorities read it before taking any action vis the controller.
At the age of 8 I had the nous to arrange a school wide collection for the Aberfan disaster. We raised more than any other school. Didn't occur to the adults.
At 11 I was driving the winch, towing gliders into the air - unattended.
At 12 driving Dad's car around the airfield and towing to/from the hangar.
I read pretty well too.
I would suggest (as a parent) that a child knows what's what after about 6. And because they are soaked in the local discipline (one that I remember is to look around the field before crossing. If I see an approaching glider - Stand Still).
I flew launch to landing at 14. Dad in the back.
Any bright child (an atco's child will be at least 50% bright) will know when to say "Daddy, what do I do now?"
I'd certainly trust my youngest to clear me for t/o over anybody else.
I certainly hope the FAA reviews with this point of view.
It seems that the controller under fire is A) good at his job, and B) can trust his kids to do exactly what he tells them to do. This is refreshing, so many parents can't (or don't) have much influence over their children.
Could some of the "heat" in this issue be because of that? Are some of the "roll the heads" posters perhaps a bit jealous of the dad / kid relationship demonstrated here?
married a canadian writes:
To all you other valid atcos out there who think safety was compromised.
What actions could the child have done that would have caused a DIRECT danger to any flight. No far fetched scenarios either given that the father was plugged in next to him and can overide any transmission. What if- what if -what if -doesn't work when you consider the few facts we know.
Thank you very, very much. A much needed dose of sanity here.
So far, we've compared this to handing scalpels to kids in an operating room. We've compared it to letting kids sit unattended at the controls of a revenue flight. We've mentioned how some n'er-do-wells will "spoof" ATC comms with flights.
Frankly, FOX news was very successful in dragging this porkchop-on-a-string of a story past a pack of hungry dogs.
When I put my big butt on one of your planes, here is what concerns me:
-- Dead-tired pilots
-- Totally distracted ATC
-- "Unreasonably" stretched maintenance issues, like MD tailplane jackscrews
-- Unknown issues, like 777/RR thrust rollbacks, pitot icing across all makes, and issues like the 737 rudder PCU
-- Lunatics willing to light their happy parts afire for Allah
-- The general "snap factor" induced by the stressful environments surrounding commercial air transit, which causes people to try to access the co*ckpit, open doors, or assault cabin crew
-- The general lack of knowledge which sees a flight with an orthodox Jew as a security threat
Really, honestly, worrying about the issue at hand is pointless, as there are so many *real* issues to pursue and fix.
But it is fascinating to read all the different perspectives and try to understand them.
I'll ask this again - so far, it hasn't been answered.
What can be done to turn this into a "positive" for the industry?
Can we shake-off the urge to bicker long enough to be constructive?
RR
