Error Puts 3 Planes on Same Path at LAX

[Larry Dighera]

Are controllers given medical substance abuse tests after an incident
like this?

With an attitude like this:

"We're human beings and we do make mistakes," said Bob Marks, vice
president for the regional office of the National Air Traffic
Controllers Assn.

Is it time Air Traffic Controllers be made to suffer some physical
consequence (like those of the people aboard the aircraft) if their
errors result in an accident?

Pilots have their lives on the line; why shouldn't controllers tasked
with similar responsibility have the same Sward Of Damocles hanging
over their heads?

Would you be comfortable flying with a _pilot_ who was that nonchalant
about errors?

What sort of consequences are ATC personnel subject to as a result of
an operational error? Retraining? Suspension? Loss of certificate?
Loss of pay? Dismissal? Incarceration? Restitution?


-----------------------------------
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-runway23feb23,1,7875836.story?coll=la-headlines-california
Error Puts 3 Planes on Same Path at LAX

An arriving jet passes within 275 feet of one flight as another
aircraft crosses the runway.
By Amanda Covarrubias, Times Staff Writer

Two planes flew dangerously close to each other at Los Angeles
International Airport on Friday after an air traffic controller
directed three aircraft to use the same runway at the same time,
officials said Wednesday.

Federal aviation officials will investigate the incident, and then the
FAA will classify it as to severity. Officials attributed the incident
to human error on the part of the controller.

"We're human beings and we do make mistakes," said Bob Marks, vice
president for the regional office of the National Air Traffic
Controllers Assn., who added that the incident involved a veteran
controller who is set to retire this year.

....

Friday's incident began a few minutes before 11:30 p.m. when a
Southwest Airlines jet that was about to land on the airport's
northernmost runway was diverted by an air traffic controller to a
nearby runway.

Moments later, the controller told a regional SkyWest plane that it
could cross the same runway as it taxied to the terminal. He also told
an arriving Air Canada jet that it could cross the far end of the
runway in the Southwest flight's path.

The SkyWest aircraft was making its way toward the runway and stopped
short when its pilot saw the Southwest jet approaching. The Southwest
aircraft flew within about 275 feet of the SkyWest plane, according to
the initial investigative report, FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said.

As the Southwest jet touched down, the Air Canada plane crossed its
path at the far end of the runway on its way to the terminal. Seeing
the Air Canada plane, the Southwest pilot slowed and turned onto a
taxiway, never getting closer than 5,600 feet to the other aircraft,
Brown said.

The FAA has not determined what led the controller to switch the
Southwest aircraft to the other runway as it prepared to land.

But typically, Marks said, controllers make such decisions in order to
use runways more efficiently.

The incident marked the first such near miss of 2006. Officials said
it pointed to the need to rework the runway configurations at LAX,
which has had one of the worst records for runway safety violations in
the nation in recent years.

Last year, the airport had five near-miss incidents. It had seven in
2004, nine in 2003, six in 2002 and nine in 2001.

"We've worked very closely with the city to identify what we can do to
improve runway safety at LAX," Brown said. "Our primary focus is on
reducing all runway incursions. We take them all seriously because we
see them as precursors to accidents, and our main goal is to prevent
runway collisions."

Although the controllers' union has complained in the past that
understaffing can lead overworked controllers to make more mistakes,
Marks said staffing did not appear to be a contributing factor on
Friday. He estimated that four controllers were on duty in the control
tower, the usual number for that hour of the night.
....

[Garner Miller]

In article >, Larry Dighera
> wrote:

> What sort of consequences are ATC personnel subject to as a result of
> an operational error?

Well....

http://www.idsnews.com/news/story.php?id=21651

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 16:41:17 GMT, Garner Miller >
wrote in >::

>In article >, Larry Dighera
> wrote:
>
>> What sort of consequences are ATC personnel subject to as a result of
>> an operational error?
>
>Well....
>
>http://www.idsnews.com/news/story.php?id=21651

ZURICH, Switzerland -- An air traffic controller who ordered a
passenger plane into the path of another aircraft over Germany --
a crash killing dozens of Russian children -- was stabbed to death
Wednesday in front of his wife ...

Unfortunately we're all subject to the acts of the lawless, but I was
referring to authorized consequences, enforced by the FAA and state
and local judiciary, as a result of ATC errors.

[RST Engineering]

You know the old maxim as well as I do:

Pilot screws up, pilot gets killed.

Controller screws up, pilot gets killed.


Jim

[Dave Stadt]

Seems the controller should be yanked from active duty until the
investigation is complete.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Are controllers given medical substance abuse tests after an incident
> like this?
>
> With an attitude like this:
>
> "We're human beings and we do make mistakes," said Bob Marks, vice
> president for the regional office of the National Air Traffic
> Controllers Assn.
>

[Newps]

Dave Stadt wrote:
> Seems the controller should be yanked from active duty until the
> investigation is complete.

That's automatic.


>
>>Are controllers given medical substance abuse tests after an incident
>>like this?

They may be.


>>
>>With an attitude like this:
>>
>> "We're human beings and we do make mistakes," said Bob Marks, vice
>> president for the regional office of the National Air Traffic
>> Controllers Assn.

That's NATCA. They generally say stupid things. They can't help it,
they're a union.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 09:30:11 -0800, "RST Engineering"
> wrote in
>::

>You know the old maxim as well as I do:
>
>Pilot screws up, pilot gets killed.
>
>Controller screws up, pilot gets killed.


In light of the Administrator's determination to implement user fees
for ATC services, wouldn't now be the time to make the consequences
for ATC errors commensurate with the consequences to those aboard the
flights subject to those errors?

It's one thing for the FAA to insulate ATC personnel from litigation
and responsibility for their errors, and it's quite another thing for
a NonGovernmental Organization's personnel to escape accountability
for the errors they may commit.

It seems to me, that the most equitable policy would be for individual
ATC personnel responsible for operational errors to have the added
personnel responsibility to make monetary restitution to the estates
and survivors subjected errors they committed.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 17:43:55 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
wrote in >::

>
>Seems the controller should be yanked from active duty until the
>investigation is complete.

That would be the very least action to be expected.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 11:31:06 -0700, Newps > wrote
in >::

>
>>>Are controllers given medical substance abuse tests after an incident
>>>like this?
>
>They may be.
>

Do you have any idea what criteria are used to determine if such
medical tests will be required?

>
>>>
>>>With an attitude like this:
>>>
>>> "We're human beings and we do make mistakes," said Bob Marks, vice
>>> president for the regional office of the National Air Traffic
>>> Controllers Assn.
>
>That's NATCA. They generally say stupid things. They can't help it,
>they're a union.

Does Mr. Marks represent you?

[Newps]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 11:31:06 -0700, Newps > wrote
> in >::
>
>
>>>>Are controllers given medical substance abuse tests after an incident
>>>>like this?
>>
>>They may be.
>>
>
>
> Do you have any idea what criteria are used to determine if such
> medical tests will be required?

Anytime there's an accident there will be a determination made as to
whether drug testing will be done, regardless of the controllers
actions. And I mean that literally. If you suddenly come up on my
frequency and announce you are going down because you are on fire I may
be drug tested to remove all doubt. Management has discretion for drug
testing if they feel it's needed. There's also random testing of course.

>
>
>>>>With an attitude like this:
>>>>
>>>> "We're human beings and we do make mistakes," said Bob Marks, vice
>>>> president for the regional office of the National Air Traffic
>>>> Controllers Assn.
>>
>>That's NATCA. They generally say stupid things. They can't help it,
>>they're a union.
>
>
> Does Mr. Marks represent you?
>

He has to as I am by definition in the bargaining unit. I am not,
however, in the union. Of the 18 controllers here there will be 5 left
in the union as of March. The more they open their mouth the more they
lose at facilities like mine.

[LWG]

I'll bet in Canada if their ATC kills you, NavCanada would cheerfully refund
your $15.00.

> In light of the Administrator's determination to implement user fees
> for ATC services, wouldn't now be the time to make the consequences
> for ATC errors commensurate with the consequences to those aboard the
> flights subject to those errors?
>

[Doug]

It is true that controllers make mistakes. Pilots make mistakes. Still,
you are safer flying "in the system" (flight following or IFR flight
plan), than just VFR. If you have an activity, you are going to have
accidents. We've all had some near misses (or will if we accumulate any
hours at all). Good to read about others mistakes so I don't make the
same ones, though.

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>It seems to me, that the most equitable policy would be for individual
>ATC personnel responsible for operational errors to have the added
>personnel responsibility to make monetary restitution to the estates
>and survivors subjected errors they committed.

That giant sucking sound you would hear would be every traffic
controller immediately retiring, quiting, or otherwise exiting.
Furthermore, there would be no job applicants under those conditions.

NOW, who ya gonna call?

Besides, no one ELSE in this country is held responsible for their
mistakes (it sometimes seems like that, anyway...)

I know we treat ATCs like gods, and we do everything they tell us to,
and we pray to them to save our souls when we are stupid sometimes....
but after all, doggone it, they are human. Which means that if they
make a mistake and someone gets hurt, they'll feel real bad for a long
time. I used to know a former ATC guy. His lunch was pepto-bismol,
which he claimed he needed for ATC stress.
I don't like their union much, but all the controllers I've talked to
have been real nice and helpful, even when I was in the middle of a
mistake.

I also observed a tower controller make a couple mistakes in a very
busy pattern. It was still up to us pilots to see the problem and take
proper action.

[sfb]

Other than lawyers getting paid to put the house, cars, and kid's
college money in the wife's name, nothing would change as the US
taxpayers would still be paying damages after the controller sold his
1984 Yugo and declared bankruptcy.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>
> It seems to me, that the most equitable policy would be for individual
> ATC personnel responsible for operational errors to have the added
> personnel responsibility to make monetary restitution to the estates
> and survivors subjected errors they committed.
>

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 17:43:55 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
> wrote in >::
>
> >
> >Seems the controller should be yanked from active duty until the
> >investigation is complete.
>
> That would be the very least action to be expected.

Just thinking about *most* busy fields... would not: a ground controller
be controlling taxiway traffic? (ie not the rwy controller).

--
Duncan

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dave Doe" > wrote in message
z...
>
> Just thinking about *most* busy fields... would not: a ground controller
> be controlling taxiway traffic? (ie not the rwy controller).
>

Yes, but the local controller (rwy controller) would have to authorize the
crossing of any active runway.

[B a r r y]

wrote:

> I don't like their union much, but all the controllers I've talked to
> have been real nice and helpful, even when I was in the middle of a
> mistake.

Same here.

I've also met some in person during tours and noted that many of them
are also pilots, some are CFI's and CFII's. So in the long run, many of
them fly in the same system they work on.

They're still people.

Nothing that involves human intervention is infallible, but humans
cross-checking other humans can drive the chance of an error becoming
more serious higher than Powerball odds.

[Capt.Doug]

>"sfb" wrote in message > Other than lawyers getting paid to put the house,
cars, and kid's
> college money in the wife's name, nothing would change as the US
> taxpayers would still be paying damages after the controller sold his
> 1984 Yugo and declared bankruptcy.

A Yugo? Maybe an ops inspector, but not a controller. They are the prime
donnas of the FAA. Administrator Blakey made sure of that.

D.

[Newps]

She didn't have much to do with it. It was the union and the Clinton
administration in the mid 90's.



Capt.Doug wrote:

>>"sfb" wrote in message > Other than lawyers getting paid to put the house,
>
> cars, and kid's
>
>>college money in the wife's name, nothing would change as the US
>>taxpayers would still be paying damages after the controller sold his
>>1984 Yugo and declared bankruptcy.
>
>
> A Yugo? Maybe an ops inspector, but not a controller. They are the prime
> donnas of the FAA. Administrator Blakey made sure of that.
>
> D.
>
>

[sfb]

Is there an Usenet icon for tongue in cheek? When your personal wealth
is at stake, the only auto in your own name is a clunker.

"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
...
> >"sfb" wrote in message > Other than lawyers getting paid to put the
> >house,
> cars, and kid's
>> college money in the wife's name, nothing would change as the US
>> taxpayers would still be paying damages after the controller sold his
>> 1984 Yugo and declared bankruptcy.
>
> A Yugo? Maybe an ops inspector, but not a controller. They are the
> prime
> donnas of the FAA. Administrator Blakey made sure of that.
>
> D.
>
>

[Larry Dighera]

On 23 Feb 2006 12:51:27 -0800, wrote in
om>::

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>It seems to me, that the most equitable policy would be for individual
>>ATC personnel responsible for operational errors to have the added
>>personnel responsibility to make monetary restitution to the estates
>>and survivors subjected errors they committed.
>
>That giant sucking sound you would hear would be every traffic
>controller immediately retiring, quiting, or otherwise exiting.
>Furthermore, there would be no job applicants under those conditions.
>
>NOW, who ya gonna call?

Of course your opinion regarding the dearth of ATC applicants is not
backed by any credible supporting facts. So with the same underlng
evidence, I'll contend that there will still be an adiquate supply of
responsible talant to fulfill ATC positions.

>Besides, no one ELSE in this country is held responsible for their
>mistakes (it sometimes seems like that, anyway...)

Have you ever received a traffic citation? Did you pay the fine?

>I know we treat ATCs like gods, and we do everything they tell us to,

When you're on an instrument approach in IMC heading toward Saddleback
Peak (KSNA, runway 19R), you are relying on ATC to turn you before you
reach the granite directly in your path. Your safety is almost
totally in ATC's hands. There are times that the PIC must trust his
life and those of his passengers to ATC. At these times we must do
what ATC instructs us to do to remain safe, but relying on _another_
for my wellbeing is completely counter to my desire for safety. So
ATC responsibility is crusial, but they do not face the same
consequences as those whom they control. That doesn't seem equitable.

>and we pray to them to save our souls when we are stupid sometimes....

Fortunately I haven't had that experience.

>but after all, doggone it, they are human. Which means that if they
>make a mistake and someone gets hurt, they'll feel real bad for a long
>time.

Unfortunately, feeling real bad for a long time doesn't provide the
same level of motivation that paying for their mistake would.

>I used to know a former ATC guy. His lunch was pepto-bismol,
>which he claimed he needed for ATC stress.

That's one of the reasons ATC personnel are so well compensated.

>I don't like their union much,

NATCA seems to be primarily focused on increasing ATC employment
numbers and wages to the exclusion of providing additional training
and assuring professional behavior among their ranks.

>but all the controllers I've talked to
>have been real nice and helpful, even when I was in the middle of a
>mistake.

Ummm..

>I also observed a tower controller make a couple mistakes in a very
>busy pattern. It was still up to us pilots to see the problem and take
>proper action.

Or at least request clearification from ATC.

[Newps]

Larry Dighera wrote:

>
> Of course your opinion regarding the dearth of ATC applicants is not
> backed by any credible supporting facts.

Because in this country no controller can be sued. No way I do this job
if I am exposed to the legal system for any minor perceived injustice,
not to mention an actual accident.

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera wrote:

>websurf1 wrote:
>>That giant sucking sound you would hear would be every traffic
>>controller immediately retiring, quiting, or otherwise exiting.
>>Furthermore, there would be no job applicants under those conditions.
>>NOW, who ya gonna call?

>Of course your opinion regarding the dearth of ATC applicants is not
>backed by any credible supporting facts. So with the same underlng
>evidence, I'll contend that there will still be an adiquate supply of
>responsible talant to fulfill ATC positions.

There isn't a dearth now. But I will prognosticate that dearth if the
controllers were to be held _personally_ liable for their mistakes.
Currently, controllers can be fired or otherwise disciplined through
their job structure. Any controllers reading this will correct that
statement if it is incorrect. That's a far cry different from
personal liability for something. Especially in today's litigious USA,
virtually any mistake {regardless of who makes it :<( } would
result in a lawsuit. We all have responsibilities and consequences in
our jobs, but legal liability like this would dry up the applicant pool
to a trivial mud puddle.

Actually, this experiment is already being run. In many areas it is
getting harder to find an ob-gyn doctor. The malpractice insurance,
even if the doctor hasn't had a lawsuit, is prohibitively high.
Doctors hate this situation, patients don't benefit from it (If you
don't have a doctor, who ya gonna sue?). The only group benefitting is
the insurance companies.

>>Besides, no one ELSE in this country is held responsible for their
>>mistakes (it sometimes seems like that, anyway...)
>Have you ever received a traffic citation? Did you pay the fine?
That method of law enforcement is a far cry different from personal
liability for mistakes.
First, _I_ am only in trouble to the limit of the fine, set by statute.
More to the point, the cop isn't liable at all, even if the ticket is
a boo-boo (unless I could demonstrate that he broke a law of some sort,
like a Rodney King beating thing.)

I also had a cop stop me once by mistake. He was not personally
financially liable for that mistake. If he were, he likely would not
accept the job. Who would need the headache? (There's enough people
out there who think cops are the bad guys anyway. Once in a while they
are of course, but it is rare.)

BTW, see the post by "Newps". Sounds like he is a controller. Sounds
like he just gave you his answer. He is probably credible since it is
his decision.


>>Unfortunately, feeling real bad for a long time doesn't provide the
>>same level of motivation that paying for their mistake would.
Who sank your rubber ducky? Methinks you are way too high on wanting
to make people pay.

>>I also observed a tower controller make a couple mistakes in a very
>>busy pattern. It was still up to us pilots to see the problem and take
>>proper action.
>Or at least request clearification from ATC.
The situation did not need clarification. It needed some alertness and
some proper, though not immediate, action. No big deal. I left the
pattern a bit later to allow some traffic to decrease.

[Matt Barrow]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Actually, this experiment is already being run. In many areas it is
> getting harder to find an ob-gyn doctor. The malpractice insurance,
> even if the doctor hasn't had a lawsuit, is prohibitively high.
> Doctors hate this situation, patients don't benefit from it (If you
> don't have a doctor, who ya gonna sue?). The only group benefitting is
> the insurance companies.

Certainly not the lawyers...nosiree!!!


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[[email protected]]

Matt Barrow wrote:
>Certainly not the lawyers...nosiree!!!

Ok, them too.

Any snow in Montrose?

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:52:25 -0700, Newps > wrote
in >::

>
>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>>
>> Of course your opinion regarding the dearth of ATC applicants is not
>> backed by any credible supporting facts.
>
>Because in this country no controller can be sued. No way I do this job
>if I am exposed to the legal system for any minor perceived injustice,
>not to mention an actual accident.

No way? Why not? Have you ever had situations occur in which you
have had to be defended by the FAA?

[Newps]

Larry Dighera wrote:

>>
>>
>>>Of course your opinion regarding the dearth of ATC applicants is not
>>>backed by any credible supporting facts.
>>
>>Because in this country no controller can be sued. No way I do this job
>>if I am exposed to the legal system for any minor perceived injustice,
>>not to mention an actual accident.
>
>
> No way? Why not? Have you ever had situations occur in which you
> have had to be defended by the FAA?

No because the FAA becomes the defendant. That's the deepest pocket out
there and stops the vast majority of lawsuits. But I have talked to
numerous aircraft that have crashed over the years. Lawsuits are not
about fixing a wrong, they are about squeezing money out of turnips.
Insurance companies don't fight lawsuits, they settle, which then drives
up premiums.

[Jose]

> But I have talked to numerous aircraft that have crashed over the years.

Did the aircraft talk back?

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 04:00:47 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >::

>> But I have talked to numerous aircraft that have crashed over the years.
>
>Did the aircraft talk back?
>

I know. Such a statement seems to depersonalize the occupants of the
aircraft. That is my whole point: ATC personnels' emotional regard
for the soles on board consists of treating them as a phosphor target
on a CRT. Such regard is considerably more personal for the SOB, and
I would feel better if ATC had a personal interest in the flights they
handle as well.

[Jose]

>> Did the aircraft talk back?
> Such a statement seems to depersonalize

Actually, I didn't realize it was Newps (a controller) making the
comment; in that context it makes perfect sense. I however had pictured
somebody walking up to a crashed aircraft and having a conversation with
it (figuring he probably meant to say "talked to pilots of aircraft
after the crash") and shortened it.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 14:58:06 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >::

>(figuring he probably meant to say "talked to pilots of aircraft
>after the crash"

I think he meant that he was controlling the flight before it crashed.
After a crash, he would have had no culpability for its safety.

[Jose]

> I think he meant that he was controlling the flight before it crashed.
> After a crash, he would have had no culpability for its safety.

Yes, I figured that out. The "post" button is a great mind-clearer. :)

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.