Federal Aviation Administration to cut more air traffic controllers

Newps wrote:


Sam Spade wrote:



There was only one airplane. The controller had no obligation to
continue to watch this, the only aircraft, once takeoff clearance had
been issued.


He most certainly does. Using your logic with only one aircraft the
controller doesn't even have to be in the tower.

That is not my logic at all. Note my words, "The controller had no
obligation to continue to watch...once takeoff clearance had been
issued." Doesn't that imply there was an obligation to watch to some
point? That hardly could be done if the controller were not in the tower.

What if the weather had been thick ground fog with RVR at takeoff
minimums? Would the controller deny takeoff clearance in that case
since he couldn't see the aircraft at any time?

John Mazor wrote:




For a Part 121 flight crew to takeoff during nighttime on a runway without
operating runway edge lights rises to the level of criminal negligence.
At that point ambiguous or even misleading airport signage became
irrelevant.


Oh, really? Irrelevant? I'll be surprised if the NTSB agrees with that
sweeping conclusion.

The NTSB is not the district attorney.

Had the signs caused them to end up on a dead-end taxiway, well, ok, shame
on the signs. But, for them to take an unlighted runway, and diregard
their heading bug or FMS runway display, well, gee..."Honest officer, I
wouldn't have driven 90 the wrong way on this one way street and collided
with the school bus, had only the one-way signs had been more visible."


An overly simplistic analogy, to say the least. Rather than deconstruct
it - which wouldn't convince you anyway - suppose we wait and see what the
NTSB report says after the investigation is completed.

Overly simplistic to you,perhaps because you seem to think a Part 121
crew taking off at night on an unlighted runway is no big deal.

Judah wrote:


What's your mission?

We is a public relations person for the pilots' union.

TheNPC wrote:



Read the NTSB report on the Guam accident by Korean Air. Direct Cause is
not required. Only "Contributing" cause by a responsible entity. At
Guam, the FAA was held liable by the "Failure to follow their orders and
failure to provide adequate management of the NAS"

Guam was quite different. An FAA employee had purposefully disabled the
MSAW system contrary to FAA safety requirements. That, indeed, became a
contributing factor to the accident.

Sam Spade wrote:

Judah wrote:


What's your mission?


We is a public relations person for the pilots' union.

HE, not WE. ;-)

John Mazor wrote:


I'm not a controller, but I suspect that monitoring the progress of ground
traffic is one of those "do as workload permits" chores.

No, it's required.

You're trying to make an argument that the controller has no
responsibility to monitor what goes on on the airfield. He must to the
extent possible.

Sam Spade wrote:

Newps wrote:



Sam Spade wrote:



There was only one airplane. The controller had no obligation to
continue to watch this, the only aircraft, once takeoff clearance had
been issued.



He most certainly does. Using your logic with only one aircraft the
controller doesn't even have to be in the tower.


That is not my logic at all. Note my words, "The controller had no
obligation to continue to watch...once takeoff clearance had been
issued." Doesn't that imply there was an obligation to watch to some
point? That hardly could be done if the controller were not in the tower.

What if the weather had been thick ground fog with RVR at takeoff
minimums? Would the controller deny takeoff clearance in that case
since he couldn't see the aircraft at any time?

If only this thread could be mooted...


In rec.aviation.ifr TheNPC wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
TheNPC writes:


The FAA violated their ATCT staffing orders
They will be cutting a big check after all the Civil suits
You can take that too the bank


Normally any lawsuit would have to demonstrate that the FAA's actions
directly caused or contributed to the accident. That won't be
possible here, although a simple emotional appeal to the jury might
work.



Read the NTSB report on the Guam accident by Korean Air.
Direct Cause is not required. Only "Contributing" cause by a
responsible entity. At Guam, the FAA was held liable by the
"Failure to follow their orders and failure to provide
adequate management of the NAS"

Since they violated their AT staffing orders at LEX and
failed to adequately manage the NAS that tragic Sunday
morning the FAA is liable at LEX. The point is mute if two
controllers would have saved the lives of 49 people. Because
the FAA violated their AT staffing orders at LEX we will
never know. The question is not if but how much will the FAA
pay out?

A good lawyer will eat the FAA and the City of Lexington
alive. Most Government lawyers suck anyway.

--
Don Poitras

TheNPC wrote in
:

The FAA violated their ATCT staffing orders
They will be cutting a big check after all the Civil suits
You can take that too the bank

The failures of the US Court System have no bearing on the cause of the
accident.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Jose writes:


Well, he has to be there to ensure that there really =is= only
one aircraft.


Why? How do people survive at uncontrolled airports, then?


They usually survive quite nicely, provided the traffic level isn't too
high (doen't ask me when that threshold is reached ;-)

But, when it is an operating control tower with Class D airspace the
requirements imposed on pilots change from non-towered and the
controller has duties and responsibilities he obviouslly does not have
at a non-towered airport.