I hope the FAA has a very fat wallet

[FUBAR]

I hope the FAA has a very fat wallet

LEXINGTON, Ky. - The lone air traffic controller on duty the
morning Comair Flight 5191 crashed cleared the jet for
takeoff, then turned his back to do some "administrative
duties" as the aircraft veered down the wrong runway, a
federal investigator said Tuesday. Separately, the
Federal Aviation Administration acknowledged violating its
own policies when it assigned only one controller to the
Lexington tower.

But hey people don't worry! The FAA has plenty of Gay and
Black Female controllers and they spend tons of money on
Diversity and "Kissing the black ass"

It's all going to be OK

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: FUBAR ]
....

Isn't it interesting that when someone takes this cretin to task for his
ineloquence and bigotry that he pens a new moniker? We might even begin
to feel pity at his obvious lack of social skills as time passes.

[Sam Spade]

Jim Carter wrote:

>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: FUBAR ]
>
> ...
>
> Isn't it interesting that when someone takes this cretin to task for his
> ineloquence and bigotry that he pens a new moniker? We might even begin
> to feel pity at his obvious lack of social skills as time passes.
>

He is a repressed gay.

[FUBAR]

Sam Spade wrote:
> Jim Carter wrote:
>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: FUBAR ]
>>
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Isn't it interesting that when someone takes this cretin to task for his
>> ineloquence and bigotry that he pens a new moniker? We might even begin
>> to feel pity at his obvious lack of social skills as time passes.
>>
>
> He is a repressed gay.


I may be a troll but I also fly a lot. Yes the pilot should
have checked heading before rolling for takeoff.

But, as the previous gentleman stated, the FAA has deep
pockets and will pay for this because they violated their
own orders on ATCT staffing that night. Also, during the
takeoff roll the lone controller rather than observing the
active field turned around to fill out "administrative
paperwork"

If the controller staffing had been according to FAA
orders(2 controllers), maybe the second controller would
have been keeping an eye on the active field(That's what
controllers do) and the other is filling out some worthless
Government paperwork? Controller screams abort on departure
frequency and maybe an aborted and embarrassed takeoff is
the only result.

In any case, there was 49 deaths with some quasi-VIP people
on board. The FAA will be paying out millions. ALL a lawyer
needs is one hook. The FAA violated their own orders. There
is your hook. Why was the controller staffing short?

The answer is NOT politically correct but here goes. More
money is spent on Diversity programs and social engineering
and "Kissing the black ass" in the "New" FAA than controller
staffing in low use towers.

The FAA has gradually changed(started during Clinton) from
an aviation safety organization to a Government job program
for minorities and welfare to work. Most FAA jobs are filled
now by anything other than a QUALIFIED WHITE MALE.

You don't believe me? Ask around. You will find out.

In the end, controller staffing and **** poor FAA management
and misplaced job and social priorities within our Federal
Government "contributed" to the disaster in Kentucky.

The Emperor(FAA and Government) has no clothes. Write your
representative and demand that the FAA should implement a
"NUMBERED" job bid system and to stop their outdated social
engineering cluster **** before more innocent people are
killed. The morale is in the toilet with the controller and
technician workforce due to a terrible and insulting union
contract. I don't belong to a union but you don't treat the
controllers and technicians like **** in the FAA and expect
a top notch workforce. In addition, all jobs in the FAA
should go to the best and brightest. Not some big ass black
female who was a secretary 2 years ago but attended a
"leadership course"

Now the focus in the FAA is Female and Gay social groups and
accountability boards and Diversity. Bull dikes run the FAA
and it's getting out of control. Look around at the
"Spokespersons" or the "Managers" now in the FAA. Not very
many "White Heterosexual experienced males"

The Feminization and Coloring of our Federal workforce is in
full swing. We are paying the price. Katrina? Guvment
cluster ****. Also, 9/11 deep down was due to unqualified
minorities and women in the FAA and FBI ****ING up.

"Political Correctness is Tyranny with Manners"

[Stubby]

This has nothing to do with "ifr". Please take it to some other
newsgroup. Thanks.


FUBAR wrote:
> Sam Spade wrote:
>> Jim Carter wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: FUBAR ]
>>>
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Isn't it interesting that when someone takes this cretin to task for his
>>> ineloquence and bigotry that he pens a new moniker? We might even begin
>>> to feel pity at his obvious lack of social skills as time passes.
>>>
>>
>> He is a repressed gay.
>
>
> I may be a troll but I also fly a lot. Yes the pilot should have checked
> heading before rolling for takeoff.
>
> But, as the previous gentleman stated, the FAA has deep pockets and will
> pay for this because they violated their own orders on ATCT staffing
> that night. Also, during the takeoff roll the lone controller rather
> than observing the active field turned around to fill out
> "administrative paperwork"
>
> If the controller staffing had been according to FAA orders(2
> controllers), maybe the second controller would have been keeping an eye
> on the active field(That's what controllers do) and the other is filling
> out some worthless Government paperwork? Controller screams abort on
> departure frequency and maybe an aborted and embarrassed takeoff is the
> only result.
>
> In any case, there was 49 deaths with some quasi-VIP people on board.
> The FAA will be paying out millions. ALL a lawyer needs is one hook. The
> FAA violated their own orders. There is your hook. Why was the
> controller staffing short?
>
> The answer is NOT politically correct but here goes. More money is spent
> on Diversity programs and social engineering and "Kissing the black ass"
> in the "New" FAA than controller staffing in low use towers.
>
> The FAA has gradually changed(started during Clinton) from an aviation
> safety organization to a Government job program for minorities and
> welfare to work. Most FAA jobs are filled now by anything other than a
> QUALIFIED WHITE MALE.
>
> You don't believe me? Ask around. You will find out.
>
> In the end, controller staffing and **** poor FAA management and
> misplaced job and social priorities within our Federal Government
> "contributed" to the disaster in Kentucky.
>
> The Emperor(FAA and Government) has no clothes. Write your
> representative and demand that the FAA should implement a "NUMBERED" job
> bid system and to stop their outdated social engineering cluster ****
> before more innocent people are killed. The morale is in the toilet with
> the controller and technician workforce due to a terrible and insulting
> union contract. I don't belong to a union but you don't treat the
> controllers and technicians like **** in the FAA and expect a top notch
> workforce. In addition, all jobs in the FAA should go to the best and
> brightest. Not some big ass black female who was a secretary 2 years ago
> but attended a "leadership course"
>
> Now the focus in the FAA is Female and Gay social groups and
> accountability boards and Diversity. Bull dikes run the FAA and it's
> getting out of control. Look around at the "Spokespersons" or the
> "Managers" now in the FAA. Not very many "White Heterosexual experienced
> males"
>
> The Feminization and Coloring of our Federal workforce is in full swing.
> We are paying the price. Katrina? Guvment cluster ****. Also, 9/11 deep
> down was due to unqualified minorities and women in the FAA and FBI
> ****ING up.
>
> "Political Correctness is Tyranny with Manners"

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"FUBAR" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> If the controller staffing had been according to FAA orders(2
> controllers), maybe the second controller would have been keeping an eye
> on the active field(That's what controllers do) and the other is filling
> out some worthless Government paperwork? Controller screams abort on
> departure frequency and maybe an aborted and embarrassed takeoff is the
> only result.
>

Maybe. Maybe a second controller wouldn't have noticed anything amiss.
After, two well-qualified, experienced professional pilots didn't catch the
error.

[Ron Lee]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
>"FUBAR" > wrote in message
.. .
>>
>> If the controller staffing had been according to FAA orders(2
>> controllers), maybe the second controller would have been keeping an eye
>> on the active field(That's what controllers do) and the other is filling
>> out some worthless Government paperwork? Controller screams abort on
>> departure frequency and maybe an aborted and embarrassed takeoff is the
>> only result.
>>
>
>Maybe. Maybe a second controller wouldn't have noticed anything amiss.
>After, two well-qualified, experienced professional pilots didn't catch the
>error.
>
I read a report that the FAA also questioned the utility of two
controllers in preventing this accident. Of course that could be
driven by legal issues but ultimately the pilots were responsible
(hence pilot in command).

Ron Lee

[FUBAR]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "FUBAR" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>>If the controller staffing had been according to FAA orders(2
>>controllers), maybe the second controller would have been keeping an eye
>>on the active field(That's what controllers do) and the other is filling
>>out some worthless Government paperwork? Controller screams abort on
>>departure frequency and maybe an aborted and embarrassed takeoff is the
>>only result.
>>
>
>
> Maybe. Maybe a second controller wouldn't have noticed anything amiss.
> After, two well-qualified, experienced professional pilots didn't catch the
> error.
>
>

It's all about math and odds. IF? just one more controller
had been on duty the "Number" may not have come up. Sure
both pilots screwed up. The odds two controllers and two
pilots would have screwed up or been looking the other way
is much less than 2 pilots and 1 controller.

The "odds" are with two controllers in the cab 49 people
would still be alive today.

But the FAA(Tombstone agency)loves playing the odds
and building Diversity and "Civil Rights" staff empires on
the backs of reduced controller staffing, reduced technician
staffing, reduced overtime and a ****ed off badly managed
work force.

This time they lost

But "Weez gotz Diversity in the FAA" who cares about aviation???

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"FUBAR" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> It's all about math and odds. IF? just one more controller had been on
> duty the "Number" may not have come up. Sure both pilots screwed up. The
> odds two controllers and two pilots would have screwed up or been looking
> the other way is much less than 2 pilots and 1 controller.
>
> The "odds" are with two controllers in the cab 49 people would still be
> alive today.
>

How did you make that determination?

For this accident to occur two pilots had to make several identical errors,
there's no evidence the controller made any error at all.


>
> But the FAA(Tombstone agency)loves playing the odds
> and building Diversity and "Civil Rights" staff empires on the backs of
> reduced controller staffing, reduced technician staffing, reduced overtime
> and a ****ed off badly managed work force.
>
> This time they lost
>

Was staffing reduced? What level of staffing is needed at LEX on an early
weekend morning?

[FUBAR]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "FUBAR" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>>It's all about math and odds. IF? just one more controller had been on
>>duty the "Number" may not have come up. Sure both pilots screwed up. The
>>odds two controllers and two pilots would have screwed up or been looking
>>the other way is much less than 2 pilots and 1 controller.
>>
>>The "odds" are with two controllers in the cab 49 people would still be
>>alive today.
>>
>
>
> How did you make that determination?
>
> For this accident to occur two pilots had to make several identical errors,
> there's no evidence the controller made any error at all.
>
>
>
>>But the FAA(Tombstone agency)loves playing the odds
>>and building Diversity and "Civil Rights" staff empires on the backs of
>>reduced controller staffing, reduced technician staffing, reduced overtime
>>and a ****ed off badly managed work force.
>>
>>This time they lost
>>
>
>
> Was staffing reduced? What level of staffing is needed at LEX on an early
> weekend morning?
>
>

Did you see the original post? The FAA order REQUIRES 2
controllers. I have been in ATCT cabs hundreds of times. I
have never seen ALL the controllers with an aircraft active
with their backs to the runway.

The "Administrative" duty the controller turned to do could
have waited. With 2 controllers, the odds are way less 4
eyeballs would have been off the active that long.

I stand by my opinion. IF? the FAA HAD FOLLOWED THEIR OWN
ORDERS THAT REQUIRED 2 controllers people would be alive
today. Why write or publish an official order if you are
going to VIOLATE it???

Unless you are incompetent, poorly trained or don't give a
****??

[Ron Natalie]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
> Maybe. Maybe a second controller wouldn't have noticed anything amiss.
> After, two well-qualified, experienced professional pilots didn't catch the
> error.
>
Yes, especially since the aircraft had to be crossing (and turning while
crossing) 26 to get to 22, even given the fact that the aircraft was
stopped on 26 might not have registered that they were intending to
depart on commence a takeoff from there until the aircraft moved
substantially down the runway, at which time it might have been
too late for a controller to say anything effective.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"FUBAR" > wrote in message
...
>
> Did you see the original post?

Yes.


>
> The FAA order REQUIRES 2 controllers.

What FAA Order contains that requirement? Why does the FAA require two
controllers even when only one is needed?


>
> I have been in ATCT cabs hundreds of times. I have never seen ALL the
> controllers with an aircraft active with their backs to the runway.
>

Then you haven't been in enough tower cabs yet.


>
> The "Administrative" duty the controller turned to do could have waited.

Was there any reason for it to wait?


>
> With 2 controllers, the odds are way less 4 eyeballs would have been off
> the active that long.
>

Nonsense. With two controllers you increase the odds there are four eyes
trained on a checkerboard.

How long do the controllers eyeballs need to be on the active? Should the
controllers eyeballs remain on the aircraft as long as they are on
frequency? If that's the case, you need one controller per aircraft.


>
> I stand by my opinion. IF? the FAA HAD FOLLOWED THEIR OWN ORDERS THAT
> REQUIRED 2 controllers people would be alive today.
>

Prove it.


>
> Why write or publish an official order if you are going to VIOLATE it???
>

Agreed. It shouldn't have been published.


>
> Unless you are incompetent, poorly trained or don't give a ****??
>


There's no indication of that in this case.

[Ron Lee]

FUBAR > wrote:

>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> "FUBAR" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>
>>>If the controller staffing had been according to FAA orders(2
>>>controllers), maybe the second controller would have been keeping an eye
>>>on the active field(That's what controllers do) and the other is filling
>>>out some worthless Government paperwork? Controller screams abort on
>>>departure frequency and maybe an aborted and embarrassed takeoff is the
>>>only result.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe. Maybe a second controller wouldn't have noticed anything amiss.
>> After, two well-qualified, experienced professional pilots didn't catch the
>> error.
>>
>>
>
>It's all about math and odds. IF? just one more controller
>had been on duty the "Number" may not have come up. Sure
>both pilots screwed up. The odds two controllers and two
>pilots would have screwed up or been looking the other way
>is much less than 2 pilots and 1 controller.
>
>The "odds" are with two controllers in the cab 49 people
>would still be alive today.

I don't believe that. If two pilots can't determine that they are on
the correct runway then you are out of luck unless you have a person
hold their hands out to the runway, have double, triple and quadruple
checks, sign all sorts of paperwork, etc.

A second controller is not relevant to this accident.

Ron Lee

[Ron Natalie]

FUBAR wrote:

> Did you see the original post? The FAA order REQUIRES 2 controllers. I
> have been in ATCT cabs hundreds of times. I have never seen ALL the
> controllers with an aircraft active with their backs to the runway.

I've been in ATCT cabs hundreds of times and there have been time,
time when aircraft should have been departing, where none of the
several controllers were looking at the end of the runway. Why
would they. The cleared the aircraft to take off and expect him
to. I specifically recall a controller looking back at the runway
getting ready to clear the next plane to land and finding the
previous flight still parked there doing is god awful I'm too
stupid to set all my instruments, turn on the lights and transponder
and whatever in less than two minutes.
>
> I stand by my opinion. IF? the FAA HAD FOLLOWED THEIR OWN ORDERS THAT
> REQUIRED 2 controllers people would be alive today. Why write or publish
> an official order if you are going to VIOLATE it???
>
Did it occur to you that the second controllers job isn't there to
provide redundancy to the first, but to handle additional responsibility
and provide coverage where one controller must leave the duty station
temporarily?

[Robert M. Gary]

> In any case, there was 49 deaths with some quasi-VIP people
> on board. The FAA will be paying out millions. ALL a lawyer
> needs is one hook. The FAA violated their own orders. There
> is your hook. Why was the controller staffing short?

Actually the gov't isn't required to accept the suite. You need
permission from the gov't to sue it for damages.

In any case, I don't think this was very odd. I've been in lots of
towers where only one person was on duty. Now the FAA said that the two
controller rule only applies when the controllers are ALSO working
approach. I know that in MRY its very common for delivery, ground,
tower, and approach to be worked by one controller. I can't swear that
there isn't another person in the tower but I've never heard two voices
at night.

-Robert

[Ron Natalie]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> In any case, I don't think this was very odd. I've been in lots of
> towers where only one person was on duty. Now the FAA said that the two
> controller rule only applies when the controllers are ALSO working
> approach. I know that in MRY its very common for delivery, ground,
> tower, and approach to be worked by one controller. I can't swear that
> there isn't another person in the tower but I've never heard two voices
> at night.
>
I've run into situations where I could swear that there are zero
controllers in the tower :-)

[Robert Chambers]

We have a tower where sometimes you WISH there were zero controllers in it.

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
>> In any case, I don't think this was very odd. I've been in lots of
>> towers where only one person was on duty. Now the FAA said that the two
>> controller rule only applies when the controllers are ALSO working
>> approach. I know that in MRY its very common for delivery, ground,
>> tower, and approach to be worked by one controller. I can't swear that
>> there isn't another person in the tower but I've never heard two voices
>> at night.
>>
> I've run into situations where I could swear that there are zero
> controllers in the tower :-)

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

Not having flown an EFIS or EFMS myself, I'm not sure of the "into
position checklist items". For example, in a standard steam-gauge panel
one of the last things we check is to align the directional gyro with
the runway heading and compass. With an EFIS or EFMS, is there any such
last minute check, or is the heading assumed to be correct because it
was aligned by the GPS when the bird came out of the chocks?

If there is no requirement to manually align and verify runway heading,
compass, and EFIS/EFMS then our technological advances have
inadvertently removed one of our heretofore unrecognized safety checks.

I heard some retired commuter pilot on the news last weekend suggesting
that the only way to prevent this in the future is to put traffic lights
(stop / go) on the end of every runway. I absolutely got the impression
that he was there to convince the public that it is almost impossible
for the pilots to get it right and the lack of the traffic signal was
the whole cause of the problem. Sort of the typical "not my fault"
attitude.

[JPH]

Yep, when only one is on duty and they have to make a potty run. Been
there, done that!

JPH

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
>>
> I've run into situations where I could swear that there are zero
> controllers in the tower :-)

[Allan9]

Ron that requirement which was issued on Nov 5, 2005 applied to towers that
ran their approach/departure radar from the cab. AFAIK the rationale was
one controller couldn't watch the radar and the airfield at eh same time.
Al

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
> FUBAR wrote:
>
>> Did you see the original post? The FAA order REQUIRES 2 controllers. I
>> have been in ATCT cabs hundreds of times. I have never seen ALL the
>> controllers with an aircraft active with their backs to the runway.
>
> I've been in ATCT cabs hundreds of times and there have been time,
> time when aircraft should have been departing, where none of the
> several controllers were looking at the end of the runway. Why
> would they. The cleared the aircraft to take off and expect him
> to. I specifically recall a controller looking back at the runway
> getting ready to clear the next plane to land and finding the
> previous flight still parked there doing is god awful I'm too
> stupid to set all my instruments, turn on the lights and transponder
> and whatever in less than two minutes.
>>
>> I stand by my opinion. IF? the FAA HAD FOLLOWED THEIR OWN ORDERS THAT
>> REQUIRED 2 controllers people would be alive today. Why write or publish
>> an official order if you are going to VIOLATE it???
>>
> Did it occur to you that the second controllers job isn't there to
> provide redundancy to the first, but to handle additional responsibility
> and provide coverage where one controller must leave the duty station
> temporarily?
>
>
>

[Allan9]

It's my understanding that the second controller would be staffing the radar
position and not a tower position. Not defending only one controller on
duty but if two were on duty what their assigned duties would accomplish.
Al

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"FUBAR" > wrote in message
.. .
>>>
>>> If the controller staffing had been according to FAA orders(2
>>> controllers), maybe the second controller would have been keeping an eye
>>> on the active field(That's what controllers do) and the other is filling
>>> out some worthless Government paperwork? Controller screams abort on
>>> departure frequency and maybe an aborted and embarrassed takeoff is the
>>> only result.
>>>
>>
>>Maybe. Maybe a second controller wouldn't have noticed anything amiss.
>>After, two well-qualified, experienced professional pilots didn't catch
>>the
>>error.
>>
> I read a report that the FAA also questioned the utility of two
> controllers in preventing this accident. Of course that could be
> driven by legal issues but ultimately the pilots were responsible
> (hence pilot in command).
>
> Ron Lee

[Allan9]

Two-Controller Policy

The FAA in November 2005 clarified that at least two controllers are
required in towers that use radar to direct planes at and near airports.
Planes that violated separation standards in the Raleigh-Durham area of
North Carolina prompted the FAA staffing change, said Laura Brown, an agency
spokeswoman.

FAA officials learned after the accident that the policy hadn't been
followed in Lexington and ``directed the facility manager to ensure that a
minimum of two controllers are on duty at all times,'' Brown said in an
interview.

Lexington has a radar room in the same tower from which controllers can look
out windows to direct traffic on the ground. FAA workers there can monitor
the radar from the radar room or from the top of the tower. The controller
on the overnight shift the morning of the Comair crash was doing both of
those functions.

Weekend traffic levels at Lexington average about six aircraft per night
between midnight and 6 a.m., Brown said.


"