Cutest ATC clip of all time

Ron Levy said:
Safety rules prohibit this. The controller broke those safety rules. The controller is facing consequences. Why is that a problem? Remember that if you don't enforce a rule, it becomes unenforceable, and the next case might be more egregious.
Click to expand...


+1.

I read somewhere in '94 there was a 767 where the pilot let his 15 year old kid fly for awhile. Kid accidentally flipped off the autopilot, and before anyone noticed the plane was in an unrecoverable dive. I think this info is accurate.
 
Last edited:
I have a question.

Since the pilots knew this kid could not possibly be an FAA licensed controller did they break any FAA rules by listening to and complying with the instructions?

Should not they be fired?
 
Geico266 said:
I have a question.

Since the pilots knew this kid could not possibly be an FAA licensed controller did they break any FAA rules by listening to and complying with the instructions?

Should not they be fired?
Click to expand...

Have you read anything in 14 CFR part 91 that says you can't follow ATC instructions if you believe they were spoken by a kid? I haven't:no:
 
mantakos said:
But by that logic you can't say just how bad of an idea it was until after we find out how it turns out. By my way of thinking, we can judge the action based on the decision to take the risk, without needing to know what the dice showed at the end.

We apply sanctions for two reasons. One is to provide a disincentive for undesirable behavior, in the hopes of reducing its occurrence, and the other is to weed out those who demonstrate that they are too great a risk to allow to continue to serve.

In neither of these cases is there any relevance to how that roll of the dice turns out. If somebody is doing something they shouldn't be doing, then we apply a sanction to discourage a re-occurrence of such behavior, and that goal is the same regardless of how it turned out, because whether an undesirable action had an undesirable result or not is simply a matter of luck.

If a pair of drunk drivers lose control of their respective cars and crash in separate incidents, but only one of them was unlucky enough to encounter an oncoming car, killing its occupant, then that drunk driver will be penalized more harshly, though both were guilty of the same transgression and in the same measure. I understand that people "this this way", that the drunk driver who killed somebody did something worse than the guy who lucked out, but it's illogical.
-harry
Click to expand...

If I understand you correctly, then by your reasoning any security
infraction without compromise of classified information is a bad
as an actual violation where classified info was compromised.
But that's not what actually happens. I guess you'll consider
the infraction/violation stuff illogical.
 
Geico266 said:
+1.

I read somewhere in '94 there was a 767 where the pilot let his 15 year old kid fly for awhile. Kid accidentally flipped off the autopilot, and before anyone noticed the plane was in an unrecoverable dive. I think this info is accurate.
Click to expand...

Really? Where was that? I just looked through the NTSB reports for 1994 and there were no 767 fatal accidents that I could find
 
Geico266 said:
+1.

I read somewhere in '94 there was a 767 where the pilot let his 15 year old kid fly for awhile. Kid accidentally flipped off the autopilot, and before anyone noticed the plane was in an unrecoverable dive. I think this info is accurate.
Click to expand...
Are you thinking of the Aeroflot plane that crashed when the two pilots let their kids at the controls? If so that was not a 767, I am unaware of any 767 crashes such as you are describing.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMetzinger
If I were the head of the FAA, I'd announce:

Upon investigating this incident, we found that the child did nothing more than speak into a microphone as directed by his parent. He was not making decisions, planning any operations, or in any other sense of the word "controlling" the traffic. We find that there was adequate supervision exercised during the time in question. Finally, we find that there was no reduction in safety, and in fact the warmth and good will between ATC and the pilots in this case probably improved everyone's outlook and possibly increased safety.

While we don't have a policy of encouraging this sort of thing, neither do we have a policy of punishing people when they exercise reasonable and prudent judgment in doing something new or different. We also do not take into account the opinions of others who may be uninformed or misinformed on the subject, regardless of if they've appeared on TV or on the Internet. Accordingly, no disciplinary action has been taken against the ATC personnel in this case.


This is why I will never be nominated for a political appointee position....
rsleeds said:
Excellent Tim!
Click to expand...

+2 !!!!!
 
ScottM said:
Are you thinking of the Aeroflot plane that crashed when the two pilots let their kids at the controls? If so that was not a 767, I am unaware of any 767 crashes such as you are describing.
Click to expand...


That must be the crash. Is that how it happened? He turned the AP off?


I heard the description on the radio and got the planes mixed up.
 
Last edited:
gismo said:
Have you read anything in 14 CFR part 91 that says you can't follow ATC instructions if you believe they were spoken by a kid? I haven't:no:
Click to expand...


All ATC personal must be certified and be "current" to be in the control tower. Obviously, the kid was not licensed, not approved, nor current.

If you are flying into Chicago space and a kid tell you to turn left into the Sears tower are you going to comply? Of course not, if a kid tell you "cleared for take off" are you going to go? I would not. IMHO the PIC should be reprimanded, at a min. Any kid can pick up a handheld and give instructions, clearly not as good as that kid did, but the facts are, and the rules are, you should not be listening to, and taking instruction from a kid.

The flying public does not understand it was a "cute thing" they see it as a HUGE, life threatening mistake.

IMHO the controller and the pilot should be repremanded, not fired.
 
Last edited:
N801BH said:
If a contractor came out to repair my home, with a kid, and made the statement the little one (won't) be going up on the roof I would have no problem with that at all. When the kid piped up about being up there then it is apparent the contractor lied to you. That is a no no in my book.. Suppose he claimed he was insured, and lied about that too, and the kid fell off and was killed,,, Who do you think will own your home next year ???

Three guesses.... It would be a high probability it will not be you.:mad::mad:
Click to expand...
I'll take my chances...
 
Geico266 said:
All ATC personal must be certified and be "current" to be in the control tower. Obviously, the kid was not licensed, not approved, nor current.
Click to expand...
I have been in control towers and I have never been certified or current in the control tower. Do you have a reference for such a requirement?
 
ScottM said:
I have been in control towers and I have never been certified or current in the control tower. Do you have a reference for such a requirement?
Click to expand...
Same here, and in the past I have arranged for kids in their teens to visit a tower.
 
ScottM said:
I have been in control towers and I have never been certified or current in the control tower. Do you have a reference for such a requirement?
Click to expand...

The "unauthorized" part of this thing is crap. The kid was authorized to be there.

Unless his dad snuck him into the tower in his lunchbox, someone (probably the supervisor) opened the door and let him in. That is de facto authorization. The supervisor is empowered to let people in at his or her discretion.

-Rich
 
Geico266 said:
That must be the crash. Is that how it happened? He turned the AP off?


I heard the description on the radio and got the planes mixed up.
Click to expand...
And in this case the frigging pilots LEFT the cockpit. That's a wholly different scenario.
 
Ron Levy said:
OK, Dan -- where would you draw the line on unauthorized personnel doing the talking on ATC radios? Remember, this has to be a rule which can be consistently, objectively, and impartially applied, and does not compromise safety to a degree unacceptable in "common carriage" operations (which require "the highest degree of safety and foresight humanly possible"). Unless you can produce such a rule, your point is pointless.
Click to expand...

Easy...you pull the controller aside, tell them that while no REAL safety was compromised it was not the "best" thing to do and explain why. Then put a little blurb in his file, put his ass back in the seat and move on.

What you do NOT do is overblow crap, make examples, puff up chests in fake outrage all because of our PC-ridden world.

NO ONE WAS IN ANY DANGER AT ALL DURING THIS EVENT.

Again...not saying they condone it...but this overreaction is ridiculous.
 
Geico266 said:
All ATC personal must be certified and be "current" to be in the control tower. Obviously, the kid was not licensed, not approved, nor current.

If you are flying into Chicago space and a kid tell you to turn left into the Sears tower are you going to comply? Of course not, if a kid tell you "cleared for take off" are you going to go? I would not. IMHO the PIC should be reprimanded, at a min. Any kid can pick up a handheld and give instructions, clearly not as good as that kid did, but the facts are, and the rules are, you should not be listening to, and taking instruction from a kid.

The flying public does not understand it was a "cute thing" they see it as a HUGE, life threatening mistake.

IMHO the controller and the pilot should be repremanded, not fired.
Click to expand...

The question is when you speak to a controller at any time how do you know he/she is qualified to be issuing you instructions at any point in time? Do we need some kind of secret code that we exchange first to know if we should follow the instruction we're being given :D
 
EppyGA said:
The question is when you speak to a controller at any time how do you know he/she is qualified to be issuing you instructions at any point in time? Do we need some kind of secret code that we exchange first to know if we should follow the instruction we're being given :D
Click to expand...
Good idea! Just like the airlines that fly into DCA need to give a handshake code when they switch over from center to approach or from approach to tower, ATC should have a "valid" code.

<yes, I'm joking>
 
tdager said:
NO ONE WAS IN ANY DANGER AT ALL DURING THIS EVENT.
Click to expand...
Devil's advocate: Can we really say that? JFK air traffic is the big leagues of ATC. Is the controller having to split their attention between that traffic and supervising the child? Could that lack or less than full attention cause and event to happen? Could it lead to a situation that might have been missed had the controller not been fooling around with the kid?

I don't think we will ever know. But I am sure that the argument that is being brought forward is similar to what I wrote above. While I am still waiting for someone to actually post the full rule with a reference that this controller broke. I also agree that the situation is being over blown.
 
It's refreshing to hear that many of you feel the same way I did about this incident. Too bad the FAA is going to fry this guy; I guess the public would be outraged if he wasn't.
 
fastair5 said:
It's refreshing to hear that many of you feel the same way I did about this incident. Too bad the FAA is going to fry this guy; I guess the public would be outraged if he wasn't.
Click to expand...
I think the pubic could care less. But there are news outlets whipping their followers up into a frenzy. So the pitch forks and tar will be coming out.
 
fastair5 said:
It's refreshing to hear that many of you feel the same way I did about this incident. Too bad the FAA is going to fry this guy; I guess the public would be outraged if he wasn't.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this guy will probably be shown the door, meanwhile, there are still numbskulls like the crew of Continental Express 3407 tooling around in the sky while FAA looks the other way...


Trapper John
 
tdager said:
What you do NOT do is overblow crap, make examples, puff up chests in fake outrage all because of our PC-ridden world.
Click to expand...
So who is guilty of this? Did the FAA make this into a big deal? Or did the press and the public make this a big deal?
-harry
 
RJM62 said:
Unless his dad snuck him into the tower in his lunchbox, someone (probably the supervisor) opened the door and let him in. That is de facto authorization. The supervisor is empowered to let people in at his or her discretion.
Click to expand...
Both the controller and his supervisor have been suspended.
-harry
 
mantakos said:
So who is guilty of this? Did the FAA make this into a big deal? Or did the press and the public make this a big deal?
-harry
Click to expand...

The press with their collective OMG!!!! :mad2:

Local news last night had it as kid controlling the air traffic. That is sensationalist not factual.
 
RMCN172RG said:
The press with their collective OMG!!!! :mad2:

Local news last night had it as kid controlling the air traffic. That is sensationalist not factual.
Click to expand...

Same thing on TV in Seattle. Not at all true. If it was, why would controllers make the big bucks? :devil:
 
ScottM said:
Devil's advocate: Can we really say that? JFK air traffic is the big leagues of ATC. Is the controller having to split their attention between that traffic and supervising the child? Could that lack or less than full attention cause and event to happen? Could it lead to a situation that might have been missed had the controller not been fooling around with the kid?

I don't think we will ever know. But I am sure that the argument that is being brought forward is similar to what I wrote above. While I am still waiting for someone to actually post the full rule with a reference that this controller broke. I also agree that the situation is being over blown.
Click to expand...

As I understand it - the controller is qualified as a trainer - so he's used to supervising someone, and a kid who does exactly what you tell him is easier than a trainee who is supposed to be exercising independent judgement and making mistakes.
 
Ron Levy said:
where would you draw the line on unauthorized personnel doing the talking on ATC radios? Remember, this has to be a rule which can be consistently, objectively, and impartially applied, and does not compromise safety to a degree unacceptable in "common carriage" operations (which require "the highest degree of safety and foresight humanly possible"). Unless you can produce such a rule, your point is pointless.
Click to expand...

So that being said, the same would/should apply to pilots whom allow their passengers/kids/dogs/cats/etc reply back to ATC. We are 'compromising saftey' by allowing the person sitting next to us to chat with ATC. Unless we have never (and of course we never have) attempted to get or allowed our spouse/GF/BF/BFF to talk on the radio, then we all are just as guilty as the ATC person involved.


But more seriousness, let's look at the pilots of those 'paying passenger' planes that took a order from a child. "Cleared for Take-Off..", and "Contact Departure.." so if the FAA should take action with the controller, then those pilots who acted upon those orders (from a kid!) should be reprimanded too! Seriouslly, if we just decided to take off from an active controlled tower; we (pilots) would have our necks in a noose, aka 'compromising saftey'.


Remember it's the PIC's responsibility for the safety of their passengers.
 
write-stuff said:
Yeah, what a cool story and what an overreaction by the FAA. Like John said, no flights were impacted, no safety was compromised. No harm was done - find something more worthy of our tax dollars to investigate.

Controllers let me record the ATIS a couple of times at LZU. Glad no one got in trouble for that!
Click to expand...



write-stuff, why do you have Dave Grohl as your avatar? ;) :yesnod:
 
tdager said:
Easy...you pull the controller aside, tell them that while no REAL safety was compromised it was not the "best" thing to do and explain why. Then put a little blurb in his file, put his ass back in the seat and move on.

What you do NOT do is overblow crap, make examples, puff up chests in fake outrage all because of our PC-ridden world.

NO ONE WAS IN ANY DANGER AT ALL DURING THIS EVENT.

Again...not saying they condone it...but this overreaction is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

But in this media driven society, the reaction - and the firing - was IMHO inevitable. The real mistake is putting the tape on YouTube or wherever. Now the media gets it and ... game over. :(

-Skip
 
mantakos said:
Last I heard, the controller and his supervisor were suspended, but I've seen no talk of anybody getting fired.
-harry
Click to expand...
Yep, I overspoke. Typing too quickly, I guess. But it will be a black mark on his personnel record for a while.... never a good thing in gubmint employment.

-Skip
 
Last edited:
http://www.eaa.org/news/2010/audio/NEWS-ATCBoy_TAG.mp3

I think the guy at the end had a good point about being able to introduce young whippersnappers to the world of aviation.

I think if you ever handed the controls over to a young person/child while flying you are just as guilty as this guy at JFK tower. Guilty as in taking a minuscule risk for the gain of creating a memory that will last as long as the person lives....which I think is a good trade.
 
drizzt76 said:
I think if you ever handed the controls over to a young person/child while flying you are just as guilty as this guy at JFK tower.
Click to expand...
Um ... no.

In one case, you have an amateur pilot flying a tiny aircraft in sparse uncontrolled airspace with one or two passengers.

In the other, you have a professional controller running a large and busy airliner airport, and at any moment there are a few thousand passengers in the planes which it is his responsibility to keep safe.

And for those who, for some inexplicable reason, are unable to do the math, taking a kid for a ride in a skyhawk is a great way to introduce him to aviation. Letting him man the tower frequency at JFK ... not such a great way.

When I was a kid, I learned about money from playing Monopoly, not by being given an opportunity to head up the Federal Reserve.
-harry
 
mantakos said:
When I was a kid, I learned about money from playing Monopoly, not by being given an opportunity to head up the Federal Reserve.
-harry
Click to expand...
Hmmm, I wonder if you just unwittingly uncovered why the economy went into the crapper. Ben Bernanke must have handed over the reigns of command on 'take your kid to work day' :rofl:
 
The people who are in charge of looking out for those of us who are too stupid to look out for ourselves, see this as a crime even worse than riding a bicycle without a helmet. All those unsuspecting folk in those airliners who did not hear a child say "Delta xxx cleared for takeoff," had no idea that their very lives were endangered by this incredibly foolish act. The horror of it all. Here we have an expected and routine instruction, issued by ATC in a small voice that was clearly NOT routine. Nobody was the least bit confused, not a word was out of place, and the airliner departed as instructed by the small voice, with a chuckle in his acknowledgment. For shame. Never shall a child be allowed to see what Daddy does for a living. I had a seventh-grader shadowing me Friday at the airport. Wow, I am SO relieved we had such a foul day that nobody was flying, because I surely would have written out a script for him to say on the Unicom as an airport advisory, had we seen any traffic that gusty day. And I don't suppose they can fire a volunteer, but they, my intellectual betters who are so concerned for my own good, could have sure made my life miserable, eh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top