DFW ATC identifying Operational Errors As Pilot Errors?

It's one thing for ATC to issue instructions for the safe operation of
aircraft without suffering exposure to the risk of any lethal
consequences for misdirecting air traffic, but to then blame pilots
for ATC operational errors reveals a cavalier hubris beyond belief:


DFW FUDGING ATC OPERATIONAL ERROR RATES?
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#195619)
The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) late last week directed
DOT Secretary Mary Peters to investigate allegations by air
traffic controllers at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport
that management has covered up ATC operational errors at the
facility. According to the OSC, air traffic controller Anne
Whiteman told the special counsel in 2004 that managers at the DFW
TRACON routinely covered up operational errors by not properly
investigating and reporting them as required by FAA policy. Making
it even worse, Whiteman said she was reprimanded by her managers
and harassed by coworkers because of the disclosure. In February
2005, the DOT Inspector General reported that her whistleblowing
had resulted in the exposure of a seven-year management practice
of underreporting operational errors. The report noted that FAA
officials considered the underreporting to be very serious and had
begun corrective actions. In recent disclosures made by Whiteman
and an unidentified whistleblower alleged that FAA personnel at
DFW are routinely identifying operational errors as pilot
errors. The FAA maintains that all controller errors are being
correctly reported and said its inspectors recently visited the
airport. In some cases, the whistleblowers say that managers have
improperly interpreted FAA orders and directives to cover up
operational errors.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#195619

Larry Dighera wrote:

It's one thing for ATC to issue instructions for the safe operation of
aircraft without suffering exposure to the risk of any lethal
consequences for misdirecting air traffic, but to then blame pilots
for ATC operational errors reveals a cavalier hubris beyond belief:


This comes up from time to time. No pilot has ever even known he was
involved. It's not as if they all get sent to FSDO. It's a convenient
excuse that allows you to make the matter disappear.

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:59:18 -0600, Newps wrote
in :



Larry Dighera wrote:

It's one thing for ATC to issue instructions for the safe operation of
aircraft without suffering exposure to the risk of any lethal
consequences for misdirecting air traffic, but to then blame pilots
for ATC operational errors reveals a cavalier hubris beyond belief:


This comes up from time to time. No pilot has ever even known he was
involved. It's not as if they all get sent to FSDO. It's a convenient
excuse that allows you to make the matter disappear.

I understand your reasoning, but there are a few ramifications of that
"policy" that you failed to mention:

1. Statistically pilots' error rate is artificially inflated to
unjustly accommodate ATC chicanery. To the extent that such
statistics are used for planning and policy modification, they
provide erroneous information, thus degrading the result.

2. ATC personnel who commit operational errors are not caught, so
that they can be re-trained, or made aware of how to correct their
thinking that caused the errors they made.

No matter how one attempts to whitewash it, deceit is still a lie.

Larry Dighera wrote:



I understand your reasoning, but there are a few ramifications of that
"policy" that you failed to mention:

1. Statistically pilots' error rate is artificially inflated to
unjustly accommodate ATC chicanery. To the extent that such
statistics are used for planning and policy modification, they
provide erroneous information, thus degrading the result.


They don't get reported outside the facility therefore they don't skew
any numbers. Management says..."Yup, pilot error," Matter dropped.
Nobody else knows the pilot got blamed for an ATC error.



2. ATC personnel who commit operational errors are not caught, so
that they can be re-trained, or made aware of how to correct their
thinking that caused the errors they made.


The vast majority of the errors will be compression errors on final.
Separation falls to 2.9 miles as leading aircraft is just about to cross
the numbers. You need three. Big deal, 582 feet short of the required
15,700 horizontal feet.

"Newps" wrote in message
...

The vast majority of the errors will be compression errors on final.
Separation falls to 2.9 miles as leading aircraft is just about to cross
the numbers. You need three. Big deal, 582 feet short of the required
15,700 horizontal feet.


Where is a mile 5820 feet sometimes and 5233 1/3 feet at other times?

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:25:52 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Newps" wrote in message
...

The vast majority of the errors will be compression errors on final.
Separation falls to 2.9 miles as leading aircraft is just about to cross
the numbers. You need three. Big deal, 582 feet short of the required
15,700 horizontal feet.


Where is a mile 5820 feet sometimes and 5233 1/3 feet at other times?

The same places where pi=3. :-)
--
Jay.
(remove dashes for legal email address)

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:31:11 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:

The report
noted that FAA officials considered the underreporting to be very
serious and had begun corrective actions.
[...]
The FAA maintains that all
controller errors are being correctly reported and said its
inspectors recently visited the airport.

Eh? It's a serious problem, corrective action has begin, and there was no
problem?

- Andrew