Source Absolutely idiotic. Of course the child was not in control, but nevertheless, it was bound to get out... it was only going to end it tears... But nevertheless, I wouldn't mind having a go myself...
ah dads bring their kids to work.. this stuff happens =] long as it wasn't a safety issue remember my pops taking me to an underground complex at&t built with my cousin.. it was one of the deep underground ones where the top was designed to blow off in a nuclear war and comms would be able to go on as normal for a select group of peeps.. anyways my cousin was a prankster and took pictures of the security guard watching the cameras up top asleep at his post then my dads boss was posing by his desk for a picture.. my cousin whipped around and took a picture of games loaded on one of the computers.. needless to say it was the end of the tour- my dad exposed all the film to light and his boss told him it was ok for me to come back.. but my cousin no
They've got to have a bit of fun though haven't they. Don't air traffic controllers have the highest stress levels and suicide rate or something?
Ok, this has been blown way out of proportion. I am a licensed pilot and this is not that serious in my opinion. Yes the son said things over the radio with dad listening right behind him. SO ****ING WHAT? If there was any error in the broadcast it is the responsibility of the PILOT to ask for clarification or an amendment. And with dad right behind keeping a close eye on what was going on would be able to correct the transmission. Hell, this kid was better than some of the ATC people I have had. Pilots, NOT ATC, have the final say in what happens when they are in control of the aircraft. There have been times where I have told ATC "no" because I did not feel comfortable doing it or because it put me in a dangerous position. If any of the pilots felt uncomfortable they would have said "no" and request a broadcast from Dad. ATC is a supplement to the pilot, not the other way around. [/rant] (please note that this rant is not pointed at BT forum members but just the people who are talking like this is some deadly sin in the flying world when they have no clue about it)
My question is how did this get out? Oh ya them ham radio spotting cocks who have nothing better to do with their time. a) It wasn't a issue (see above) b) It wasn't a ****ing issue c) Computers fly the ****ing planes now anyway lol
hm i have very mixed feelings over this, not that bad since his dad was right behind him .... we would expect and holy f**king sh*t my step son left JFK to fly back to England on that day!!!!!
I'm pretty much with C-Sniper on this one, a kid on Daddy's knee has the time of his life, in a situation where even if he got it completely wrong there were plenty of folks to correct it. Not particularly professional maybe, but there we go.
For anyone who thinks that air traffic control is an easy job that computers can do without people paying much attention, try the Überlingen mid-air collision (71 killed, 52 of whom were schoolchildren, after a controller became distracted) and last year's Hudson River collision (9 killed whilst ATC chatted to his girlfriend) amongst many others. Controller failure is a contributory factor in a number of other fatal crashes - try Comair Flight 191 (49 dead whilst an understaffed ATC failed to notice the plane had lined up for the wrong runway) for size, or GTA Flight 1907 (154 dead after two ATCs sent two planes in opposing directions at the same height). ATC is a difficult and demanding job - just look at the soaring near-miss rate to see how crowded the airspace around a big international hub like JFK is; the examples I've given are all since the new millennium if you needed further evidence that this situation will only get worse as air traffic increases. I agree that with Daddy allegedly paying complete attention to the planes, the level of risk isn't as bad as it might be, but loose talk in the cockpit has been ruled a contributing factor in a number of commercial aircraft since 2000 alone, and it's no less dangerous in ATC. I couldn't agree less with C-Sniper - almost every air accident ever has been the result of a chain of mistakes and broken rules - whether it's inadequate maintenance leading to failure or taking off prematurely leading to collision - because the safety measures today are so strict that otherwise the accident-in-waiting is caught and stopped. Having a kid answering the radios is the first of those broken rules and in other situations where there have been "plenty of folks to correct it" people have still gotten killed, the Hudson collision above being a recent example. I find the whole concept of other folks unconvincing as well; if the other ATCs are looking over Dad and the kid's shoulders too, they're neglecting their own duties. It's lose-lose. Until the aircraft is in straight and level flight at cruising altitude, ATC might as well be flying it given the nature and effect of their instructions and the fact that pilots trust them to assess their information correctly; i.e., not to fly them into other planes. Sure, pilots can request information or repeats of information, but they need to be able to trust ATC because they don't have a considerable amount of the information ATC does - no radar, for example, and TCAS though better than nothing didn't save the Gol flight above. In general ATC is supposed to be watching you all the time and knowing what's going on and what to do if something goes wrong. This kid can't do that, and he's a distraction to other controllers upon whom large numbers of lives depend. What if a plane had declared a problem? In the time it takes to kick the kid out of the chair and reacquaint himself with the planes he was supposed to be watching, someone on Dad's watch could be hurtling into someone else. So - you'd trust this guy's kid to tell your pilot how to fly his plane and where; in effect, flying it by proxy - but would you trust him to actually fly it? For anyone who doubts the destructive power of a son with his father supposedly watching over him, try Aeroflot Flight 593, where there were 75 people who would disagree with your assessment of the risks involved, if they hadn't been UFIT'd into Siberia at 350mph. Dad shoulda been doing his job, not conducting take-your-child-to-work-day.
There was pretty much no evidence that the kid was directing any planes in a tense situation, it was literally the stuff the ATCs say as a formality. I don't think it was that bad. Heck, when I was 9 I was put at the helm of P&O's biggest cruise ferry just because I was a 9 yr old on the bridge and it was COOOOOOOOOL! And I bet that's exactly what that kid was thinking too. Lucky sod
Yeah I also agree, his dad must have been right behind him telling him every word to say, still guess it's a little different from giving a couple dirrections at a taxi rank or pizza delivery.
Puresliver, The examples you gave do not show failure on the part of the ATC in the first it could of been avoided if the pilot had listened to his TCAS. The second he was flying VFR it was the responsibility of the pilot to avoid other pilots, also as stated in the report attempts we made to contact him and he did not respond. The third the NTSB stated it was the flight crews fault. The fourth - the link doesn't work. And the one where the boy disengaged the auto pilot... ouch. But its a duel seat aircraft it you had a novice sitting in one of the seats the captain should be sat in the other, hands on and checking. They were warned that the auto-pilot had dropped out which would of properly been a caution indication which you have to acknowledge. Anyway that wasn't my point. I work in the industry and i get to read these reports day in day out. The ones which were prevented, the ones where we were lucky and unfortunately the ones where we were not. And 90 if not 99% can be avoided but due to cost cutting etc etc flight safety doesn't always come first and i know as I've quit jobs because of this people life's ain't a budget item. Anyway my point was how did this get out i don't think anyone in the industry would leak it... why so you look bad. No.And if was a issue it would of been dealt with inturnaly. My point was it would of been one of the spotters with a ham radio tuned into the ATC frequency who thought he could make a quick buck. I know how tough ATC have it like the rest of the ground crew. As for the pilots...... well don't get me started. It just drives me mad how the media love to make a mountain out of a mole hill
Uh, nuh-huh. The planes were flying at the same flight level; the ATC, who was manning two desks at the time, failed to notice they were on a collision course until less than 60 seconds remained until impact. At that point he then instructed one pilot to descend; seconds later the other pilot was ordered by his TCAS to descend and the first was likewise ordered to ascend. The other pilot obeyed his TCAS, and the other ignored his TCAS and did what ATC told him, holding until the end the mistaken belief that ATC, with many resources he didn't have (like radar) was on top of the situation and knew what was best for him. In that deeply unfortunate case, ATC's instructions literally led to a collision. If the ATC hadn't been brutally overstretched, this wouldn't have happened, but the facts remain that he wasn't on top of the situation and people - lots of children, actually - died as a result. Uh, that's certainly true. But it's also true that the ATCs missed a radar collision warning that occurred in both Teterboro and Newark towers (in fact, neither recalled it) and that the ATC who was supposed to be contacting him as that warning went off was on the phone to his girlfriend discussing how to get rid of a dead cat. I'm not saying in either of these cases that ATC was to blame for the deaths, what I'm saying is that in this situation two trained and experienced controllers made mistakes that contributed to two fatal accidents. Now, I'm asking you to envision how much less safe this situation is when instead of trained ATCs, it's a ten-year-old child doing the talking. Absolutely true. However, ATC, who were sitting at the top of a frickin' great tower looking out over the airport, failed to notice a plane under their control turning onto a dark, short, and closed runway, and attempting a takeoff. Again, I'm not saying it was their fault; but if they didn't notice, what chance does a distracted father or his ignorant son have? And this was a smaller airport at night when there was less traffic. Fixed. Here two planes were sent on a collision course by two ATCs not talking to each other; an accidental TCAS disengagement then allowed a collision. For the third time, it's not necessarily their fault that people died, but they were just the first vital break in the safety rules than enabled an accident. In all the cases, but for the ATC's action or omission, no accident would have occurred. That doesn't make them necessarily blameworthy but it does mean I'd feel a hell of a lot more comfortable if I knew that ATCs were doing a difficult job undistracted by small children. As you say; Some were prevented thanks to the timely intervention of a highly trained ATC who was fully focused and situationally aware. For example, not a man with a ten year old on his lap. As reluctant as I am to know about the hazards of things I do regularly - like fly in commercial aviation - frankly I'm glad this made the headlines. It won't stop people flying, but it might remind people that hurtling through the troposphere held up by nothing but a pressure differential is not something that kids can do, even if they're backed up by a huge safety net. Bringing your kid to work is picking holes in the safety blanket.
Yep on the first agreed, i was skip reading again it was a man and machine working in perfect opposites. You think there bad check this one out http://www.secret-tenerife.com/2004/03/on-this-day-1977-runway-collision.shtml This one is infamous ATC said one thing and pilot thought he said another. Examples like this just go on and on. But as with the links you posted it isn't just one its a group of events. I know when i'm sitting in the co-pilots seat, all the time i'm expecting the worse looking checking, group of birds, power lines, we can land here or there, cross check TCAS to visual etc etc.
PureSilver's got a very strong point, the very high possibily of a situation demanding close attention and the fatal outcome should no attention be given makes this a terrible bring your son to work day. His third link is a perfect example: a father distracted with telling his son what to say is a very large risk, even if the orders themselves are accurate and safe. The pilot may reserve the right to ignore commands as a fail-safe, but on the flipside the ATC must also digilently watch the planes as a fail-safe for ill-informed pilots. That's not to say there aren't some great father-son experiences to be had, but there is a time and a place. As a rule of thumb, if your job controls lives or is inherently dangerous... don't bring your kid! Though for a little story time, back when I was 5 and before my grandpa retired as a judge I got to sit on his lap while the court was in session. Of course I just had to wear my bright red coat to stand out even more. At the end he had me yell "innocent!", though for legal purposes he officially claimed the man as innocent after me. It was a lot of fun and no one's put in danger by it.
Yep had a read of the fixed link, Read this one instead http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20061002X01435&ntsbno=DCA06RA076A&akey=1
Having talked to a bunch of airline pilots at the time, they were unanimous that no matter what the air traffic control are telling you, you ALWAYS do what TCAS says. Apparently the Russian co-pilot tried to do this, but his (Soviet-trained) captain who wasn't used to flying with it followed the ATC instead.
Hit the nail on the head. The Pilot has the command of the aircraft not ATC. This is what many people do not realize, ATC is only a supplement.
