Not sure how you jumped to that conclusion, but it demonstrates a point; one of which is there’s plenty of operations that don’t require ADSB to begin with. Next, for those that do (and don’t have a waiver) out is all that’s required.So all of us “civilians” can turn ours off and fly around low level and ATC/FAA/et al is cool with it?
I reckon even the slow kids in class are getting a little tired of the governments double standards
If required by ATC, yes. Ref. 91.225(f).
Sometimes left to the (old) 71-series, SP4 in Ops to fill out and file days after the mission.
Not to mention, I don’t think ADS-B out would have made a difference in the accident. TCAS works fine with mode S. Also, the radar tapes don’t show a completely “fused target.” Meaning DCA operating the STARs in Fusion Mode. That could be around 1 sec refresh vs 4.5 sec refresh. Now perhaps DCA was operating in a limited mode of Fusion, or wasn’t selected for whatever reason. Perhaps in pulling the tapes it only records a single site so I don’t know. I wouldn’t automatically assume that DCA was operating in the highest refresh though. And if they weren’t, who cares? They still had two valid tracks with “CA CA” going off.
I'm not sure I'd explain it like that. The most favorable runway is the longest that can be landed on legally. Never heard of the longest runway being "too rough".
Not just ATC, but whoever decided the route at 200’ maximum would still somehow be altitude deconflicted with traffic landing runway 33 as an ultimate failsafe in case the other holes in the Swiss cheese model up to that point lined up (i.e., ~100 feet separation is no margin at all).
Maybe this way is better? Say the single runway has a displaced threshold in one direction resulting in less available landing distance, but nevertheless it's the favorable direction to land. The operator wouldn't be allowed to use the longer length of the reciprocal runway to arrive with more payload. That's how I read it, but then I'm not looking for loopholes to sneak through.
If a runway has a displaced threshold resulting in less landing distance in one direction, then the most favorable runway would be the reciprocal runway.
I said it wasn't, so it isn't.
There could be an airspace issue for instance.
I don't think airspace issues count, just the physical properties of the approach path and runway and whether it is open or closed -- but I'm not a dispatcher. I'm not even sure the dispatchers go that deep into it or if they just let the 3rd party flight planning software figure it out.I said it wasn't, so it isn't.
A company-oriented dispatcher could rationalize landing on 60% of DCA runway 1 and then the crew could accept landing on 33 with barely any buffer factor at all unless the 60% is also incorporated into the landing distance the crew uses for reference. If that were the case, though, then I don't see why (b)(1) & (b)(2) would need to exist.
It is incorporated. I don't think it's a part 121 regulation but rather part of the SOPs in company manuals which the FAA does regulate. Emergencies and abnormal procedures do not have to follow the 60% rule but rather have their own calculations.
justthenews.com
This should be pretty easy to figure out for someone with access to ATC related incident history - do we have an increase in the number or severity of incidents or not?Interesting article about systemic issues at the FAA…my experience has been the same…but thought I might be an outsider with a beef, although most likely legitimate.
Air traffic controllers say FAA hiring practices, ‘immunity program,’ led to DC plane crash
Air traffic controllers say an FAA “immunity program” fails to hold people accountable for their mistakes, even with deadly consequences.
The FAA published a press release in Dec 2024 that said they met their goal of hiring 1800 new controllers in 2024. The actual number was 1811.
I think the instruction was to "pass behind" not under. That would mean maneuver as necessary so as to pass behind.
Factored landing distance is a 121 reg (121.195) and it's for planning purposes only. A flight crew will not accept a landing runway that is illegal. That's what the 20 second delay was for before accepting the runway.
How long between hiring and actually acting as a controller? I honestly don’t know.
I think that's where the DEI factor comes in. In the long past, if one didn't qualify on position after a fixed period of time, they were let go. Now it's train until the trainee can meet minimum standards, no time limit. Need an active ATC'er to weigh in on that.
The 14,000 reflects the total number of ATCSs in the system and not only certified ATCSs. And that number has been pretty consistent for many years. What's been leading to the shortage is the higher failure rate of trainees during the OJT portion of the process and the higher number of early retirements over the past years. So even though they hired 1800 applicants, historically only about 800-900 will make it to the certified level, and if 300 people retire in that same time frame you have a net of only 500 people to fill 1000+ openings. There was a FAA SRT report released in 2023 that got into more details.
The last I was told its 3-6 years before they become a certified controller.
Really ? I hope that includes working under supervision ( similar to medical residency ) ….
Yeah, but of course that means that the have to have a trainer overseeing them, so the net gain is zero until they're certified. Academy is like 6 months, i think there's a few months between hiring and going there. I've heard like a year to get certified, so that would be 18-24 months at minimum to be at a position on their own, more for the slow learners in the back...
Really? This is your question?
The Class of 81 is gone. The hires that replaced them are the ones we’re talking about now.
The staffing model assumes everyone is trained? Not very realistic . . . someone needs to answer questions if that's the case.
Start with the JO7110.65AA and associated notices. The pdf is 794 pages.
Please cite the "staffing model" are you referring to?
This profession will be a prime candidate for AI taking over … practically tailor made for this sort of repetitive but “ never have a bad day and never make a mistake” workflow.
The FAA slightly exceeded their hiring goal IN 2024... Did you look up what the overall hiring needs are? You need to know that before asking the question and implying they exceeded their overall hiring goals by just the 2024 numbers.
Acting as a controller can vary a lot depending on previous experience and complexity of facility. I have never seen it, and I’ve seen a lot, be more than a year. Now becoming an FPL, full performance level, can be long time, like more than 3 years at Centers.