NATCA removed from Hudson investigation

TMetzinger

Final Approach
Joined
Mar 6, 2006
Messages
9,660
Location
Northern Virginia
Display Name

Display name:
Tim
This just in.
************************************************************
NTSB PRESS RELEASE
************************************************************

National Transportation Safety Board
Washington, DC 20594

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 17, 2009
SB-09-44

************************************************************

NTSB RELIEVES AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS GROUP OF PARTY
STATUS IN HUDSON RIVER MIDAIR COLLISION INVESTIGATION

************************************************************

The National Transportation Safety Board today removed the
National Air Traffic Controllers Association as a party to
its investigation into the August 8 midair collision of two
aircraft over the Hudson River that killed all 9 persons
aboard.

Under the Safety Board's procedures, organizations and
agencies are invited to participate in NTSB investigations
if they can provide technical expertise. At the outset of
the investigation, the organizations sign an agreement to
abide by NTSB party rules. Among the rules parties agree to
is that they will not reveal investigative information being
learned through that process, nor publicly comment on it.
Parties agree that only the NTSB will release factual
information on the progress of the investigation and discuss
the progress of the investigation with the public, including
the news media.

On Friday, August 14, NATCA convened a press conference to
discuss information released earlier that day by the NTSB.
The organization was subsequently reminded of its
responsibilities as a party to the investigation. This
morning, NATCA issued a press release again discussing the
information released, and conducted another press conference
this afternoon.

Patrick Forrey, NATCA President, was informed today that his
organization has been removed as a party to the
investigation.

In light of conflicting interpretations of factual
information released by the NTSB on Friday, the Board takes
this opportunity to address the issue of the Teterboro
controller's interaction with the accident airplane in the
minutes before the collision:

According to preliminary data provided to the Safety Board
by the Federal Aviation Administration, the controller
cleared the accident airplane for departure at 11:48:30.
The first radar target for the airplane was detected at
11:49:55, at about 300 feet. The controller initiated a
non-business-related telephone conversation at 11:50:31.
Prior to the Teterboro controller instructing the pilot to
contact Newark Tower at 1152:20, there were several aircraft
in the Hudson River Class B Exclusion Area in the vicinity
of the airplane, some of which were potential traffic
conflicts. These were detected by radar and displayed on
the controller's scope in Teterboro tower. The Teterboro
controller did not alert the airplane pilot to this traffic
prior to instructing him to change his radio frequency and
contact Newark. The accident helicopter was not visible on
the Teterboro controller's radar scope at 1152:20; it did
appear on radar 7 seconds later - at approximately 400 feet.

At 1152:54, 20 seconds prior to the collision, the radar
data processing system detected a conflict between the
accident airplane and the accident helicopter, which set off
aural alarms and caused a "conflict alert" indication to
appear on the radar displays at both Teterboro and Newark
towers. The controller terminated his non-business-related
telephone call at 11:53:13. The collision occurred at
11:53:14.

As the Safety Board stated in its media release on Friday,
the role that air traffic control might have played in this
accident will be determined by the NTSB as the investigation
progresses. The Board is waiting for more detailed air
traffic control-related data from the Federal Aviation
Administration. Any opinions rendered at this time are
speculative and premature.

"Although we appreciate the technical expertise our parties
provide during the course of an investigation," NTSB
Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman said, "it is counterproductive
when an organization breaches the party agreement and
publicly interprets or comments on factual information
generated by that investigation. Our rules are set up
precisely to avoid the prospect of each party offering their
slant on the information. I regret that we have had to
remove NATCA from the investigation."

I expect NATCA knew this would be the result, but felt that their charter (and purpose in life) demanded they take the actions they did. It also means that they can't really participate in ANY investigation where ATC is getting a hard look. I don't know if ALPA behaves the same way, but I wouldn't be surprised.

On the one hand, I expect a union to stick up for it's members. On the other hand, discovering the truth is in the best interest of the profession.
 
Apparently they were right as the NTSB just changed a key element in a report that being that the Helicopeter didn't show on the TEB controllers screen until 7 seconds after he handed the Lance off to EWR tower.
 
This just in.


I expect NATCA knew this would be the result, but felt that their charter (and purpose in life) demanded they take the actions they did. It also means that they can't really participate in ANY investigation where ATC is getting a hard look. I don't know if ALPA behaves the same way, but I wouldn't be surprised.

On the one hand, I expect a union to stick up for it's members. On the other hand, discovering the truth is in the best interest of the profession.

I think it is - is ironic the right word? - that the NTSB can release press releases and media statements based on preliminary data to the detriment of the eventual investigatory findings, but NATCA are slobs for allegedly doing so.

NTSB is a "party" to the investigation too :mad2:
 
I think it is - is ironic the right word? - that the NTSB can release press releases and media statements based on preliminary data to the detriment of the eventual investigatory findings, but NATCA are slobs for allegedly doing so.

NTSB is a "party" to the investigation too :mad2:
Some pigs are apparently more equal Richard.

It is ok for the NTSB to impugn a couple of controllers in the media with no evidence, just supposition, but NATCA defending them puts "truth" at risk :rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
Some pigs are apparently more equal Richard.

It is ok for the NTSB to impugn a couple of controllers in the media with no evidence, just supposition, but NATCA defending them puts "truth" at risk :rolleyes::rolleyes:
Sorta like some inhabitants of Spin Zone, isn't it?
 
If the people involved in the investigation didn't give out any information and the NATCA was using the INFO that the NTSB released...............


What really happened Who said what When??????????????

The NTSB has been getting some big pants lately. They are not the Regulatory Agency.
 
I think it is - is ironic the right word? - that the NTSB can release press releases and media statements based on preliminary data to the detriment of the eventual investigatory findings, but NATCA are slobs for allegedly doing so.

NTSB is a "party" to the investigation too :mad2:

In my opinion, NTSB's releases are, like Sgt. Friday says "Just the facts". I don't see opinions or speculations as to the causes of those facts in their media releases.
 
In my opinion, NTSB's releases are, like Sgt. Friday says "Just the facts". I don't see opinions or speculations as to the causes of those facts in their media releases.
From what you posted:
"As the Safety Board stated in its media release on Friday,
the role that air traffic control might have played in this
accident will be determined by the NTSB as the investigation
progresses"

Note the weasel words?
"...role that air traffic control might have played..."

They released no evidence. They have a working idea. This should not have been released to the public. It is like having the police say, "We have not yet determined the role that Tim Metzinger has had in the role of Micheal Jackson death investigation" It sure make you sound guilty without actually having any facts associated with the statement to support the accusation.
 
I read that differently - to me that says "Even though the evidence shows that the controller was on a non-business call when targets were popping up in front of the aircraft, we aren't assuming that's the cause of the collision".
 
In the past, the NTSB refused to comment on accidents until a preliminary report was available; usually after a couple of weeks. What I see here is a contest between the FAA and the NTSB where the latter is using this to push their interests.
It is also a highly charged political incident.
The NTSB shouldn't be releasing "factual data" which is obviously wrapped in speculation until ALL the data is available. Worse, they SHOULD expect rebuttal, especially when they imply somone was doing something wrong.
Did the FAA suspend the controller for breaking the rules or was that a direct result of the NTSB "facts"?
 
The NTSB has, for at least the past five years, released factual information they've gathered as soon as it's been verified. Generally this doesn't make the mainstream media, but it happens nonetheless. You can subscribe to their release feed and receive it via e-mail the same way I do.

The FAA suspending the controllers happened before the NTSB's first factual release.

I agree that all the facts aren't known yet. That doesn't alter the veracity of the facts that are known. It does mean that blaming anyone is premature.

Was the Teterboro controller doing something he shouldn't have been doing? It appears the answer to that is yes. It may have no bearing on the accident. Was the sup out of the building when he wasn't supposed to have been? Again, it appears so, and again, it may have no bearing on the accident.

From another source:
"We learned that the controller handling the Piper flight was involved in apparently inappropriate conversations on the telephone at the time of the accident," FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt said.
"We also learned that the supervisor was not present in the [tower] building as required."
Babbitt said, "We have no reason to believe at this time that these actions contributed to the accident" but he called the laxness unacceptable.

The basic facts (controller doing something he wasn't supposed to be doing, sup out of the building) don't appear to be in dispute between the NTSB and FAA. Even NATCA in their release don't dispute that the controller was on the phone or the sup was away.

They (like other posters in this thread) claim that the NTSB infers in their statement that the controller could have averted this accident. I' ve read the NTSB factual report 10 times now and don't see that anywhere - in fact, I read the NTSB's disclaimer as explicitly saying "don't blame ATC for the accident based on this evidence" . But I'm an engineer, not a politician, and so I generally don't read "into" things. It's either there or it isn't.
 
...

Was the Teterboro controller doing something he shouldn't have been doing? It appears the answer to that is yes. It may have no bearing on the accident. Was the sup out of the building when he wasn't supposed to have been? Again, it appears so, and again, it may have no bearing on the accident.

....

That's a good and important distinction to make. Unfortunately, a lot of people probably won't (for whatever reason, I don't mean to imply anything nefarious, although that's always an issue) make it. We all know how it works.
 
Hey guys, the NTSB kind of said something that could possible be twisted to be somehow bad towards unions. Lets dis 'em.

Or, lets be adults and realize that the NTSB has only released factual data (the word Might is not a toxic word in written form), and realize that NATCA violated part of their contract in their haste to deny culpability.
 
Agreed

Which is why they were excused from party status and now will only be able to access information as its released.

They will continue to be able to comment with their slant as they have previously chosen to do.

I wonder if the union felt the overwhelming need to "do something" because of what I perceived as media slant demonizing the controllers for being on the phone without giving (or explaining in plain English) the context - that the aircraft was handed off and no longer his to manage.
 
Last edited:
Agreed

Which is why they were excused from party status and now will only be able to access information as its released.

They will continue to be able to comment with their slant as they have previously chosen to do.

I wonder if the union felt the overwhelming need to "do something" because of what I perceived as media slant demonizing the controllers for being on the phone without giving (or explaining in plain English) the context - that the aircraft was handed off and no longer his to manage.
Whoops - read the factual report - as I read the chronology, the controller was on the phone BEFORE handing off the airplane to Newark. And it's not clear that the controller was done with the phone when he did the handoff. I didn't catch this until about the fifth read-through. Again - it may have had no bearing on the accident.
 
Whoops - read the factual report - as I read the chronology, the controller was on the phone BEFORE handing off the airplane to Newark. And it's not clear that the controller was done with the phone when he did the handoff. I didn't catch this until about the fifth read-through. Again - it may have had no bearing on the accident.

According to the cronology posted, the helicopter wasn't on the controllers scope at the time of the handoff, so assuming this is true I don't see how it possibly could have had any bearing. But naturally once a lawyer presents it in front of a jury that probably doesn't know much about aviation, it will.
 
According to the cronology posted, the helicopter wasn't on the controllers scope at the time of the handoff, so assuming this is true I don't see how it possibly could have had any bearing. But naturally once a lawyer presents it in front of a jury that probably doesn't know much about aviation, it will.

Parker-Hanafin better put its hand on the wallet again.
 
Let's see if I have this straight...

1. Bad Accident
2. NTSB publicly makes comment about controller.
3. Controller's Union Comes out in support of their member.
4. NTSB kicks Union out of investigation because they released information in response to the NTSB's release of information.
 
Let's see if I have this straight...

1. Bad Accident
2. NTSB publicly makes comment about controller.
3. Controller's Union Comes out in support of their member.
4. NTSB kicks Union out of investigation because they released information in response to the NTSB's release of information.

No. You have it wrong.

1. Bad Accident
2. NTSB Releases factual data without interpretation or opinion
3. Controller's Union goes on defense and releases information that is not public yet
4. NTSB kicks Union out of the investigation because the information was not publicly released.
 
I am on the side of the NTSB in this one. (Not always the case).
The controllers union agreed to abide by the NTSB rules to be a party to the investigation.
They broke the rules they agreed to abide by and now the NTSB is basically telling them so in a very public manner.
The NTSB has not said they banned the union forever, just from anything with THIS investigation as far as I can see.

Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Mark B.
 
Let's see if I have this straight...

1. Bad Accident
2. NTSB publicly makes comment about controller.
3. Controller's Union Comes out in support of their member.
4. NTSB kicks Union out of investigation because they released information in response to the NTSB's release of information.

What "comment" did the NTSB make?
 
If the events transpiring at the time weren't so tragic, this would be kind of funny....mostly the way the reporter titled the article....

Transcript: Controller wanted to barbecue a cat
By JOAN LOWY (AP) – 11 minutes ago
WASHINGTON — Transcripts obtained by The Associated Press show an air traffic controller was joking on the phone about barbecuing a dead cat moments before a small plane collided with a tour helicopter over the Hudson River.
Nine people died in the accident.
The transcripts show the controller at Teterboro Airport in New Jersey was talking to someone who works at the airport's operations center at the time of the Aug. 8 accident even while he was guiding the single-engine Piper and other aircraft.
"We got plenty of gas in the grill?" the controller asked. "Fire up the cat."
Seconds before the accident, the controller uttered a curse word and ended the call.
 
Last edited:
Let's see if I have this straight...

1. Bad Accident
2. NTSB publicly makes comment about controller.
3. Controller's Union Comes out in support of their member.
4. NTSB kicks Union out of investigation because they released information in response to the NTSB's release of information.

The way I see it is.....

1- Bad accident with humans killed
2- NTSB publicly makes some facts known. . Like the controller was making a personal phone call while on duty.
3- Controllers union comes out in support of their member who was not focused on his/her duties. !!!! :loco:
4- and finally. About any person would realize the depth of this mistake and the union, in their attempt to shield their member from additional scrutiny tries to spin the phone call as " not a factor" .

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't ,,but next time I call center for flight following and am told. " not available due to heavy workload" I am going to ask myself,, are they really working other traffic or setting up a dinner date on the phone.:dunno: :confused:

I am betting that when the complete transcript of that call is made public the tide will turn completely against the controller and union.
 
I am going to ask myself,, are they really working other traffic or setting up a dinner date on the phone.

Just don't reply with: "The answer is yes, there's more than enough propane to grill any roadkill you find on the way home. Now can I get my clearance?"
 
Let's see if I have this straight...

1. Bad Accident
2. NTSB publicly makes comment about controller in the form of a release of factual (not interpretative) data.
3. Controller's Union Comes out in support of their member in violation of a nondisclosure agreement that they signed as a condition of their party status to the investigation.
4. NTSB kicks Union out of investigation because they released information in response to the NTSB's release of information in violation of their agreement.

There.. fixed it for ya.
 
Back
Top