Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boy Talks To Pilots At JFK - Part 3  
User currently offlineSA7700 From South Africa, joined Dec 2003, 3431 posts, RR: 26
Posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4670 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Boy Talks To Pilots From JFK Airport Tower

Boy Talks To Pilots At JFK - Part 2



Please continue your discussion on this topic here:


Rgds

SA7700


When you are doing stuff that nobody has done before, there is no manual – Kevin McCloud (Grand Designs)
66 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFX1816 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1400 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4649 times:

Quoting rafaelyyz (Reply 311):
Quoting FX1816 (Reply 309):
"for use by PERSONS providing air traffic control services." Where does it say AUTHORIZED???

Probably right next to where it says you have to be at least 18 years old, with at least a high school education and adequate training.

Well since I'm somewhat familiar with the 7110.65 being a controller, it DOESN'T say that. Unless YOU know where it does and you can show me.

Quoting rafaelyyz (Reply 311):
Not just PR. Even if no one noticed, one would hope this sort of thing would be frowned upon. No need to set precedents.

You believe this was the first and only time??? Please don't be so naive.

Quoting rafaelyyz (Reply 311):
And maybe when I'm flying I wouldn't want kids or anyone else but the people hired for the job to be involved in any part of the process.

And how exactly would you ever know if a child was talking to pilots of an aircraft you were flying on??

FX1816


User currently offlinerafaelyyz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 4602 times:

Quoting FX1816 (Reply 1):
Well since I'm somewhat familiar with the 7110.65 being a controller, it DOESN'T say that.

Lol, no kidding. Do you know why it doesn't say that?

Quoting FX1816 (Reply 1):
You believe this was the first and only time???

My point exactly.

Quoting FX1816 (Reply 1):
And how exactly would you ever know if a child was talking to pilots of an aircraft you were flying on??

I would assume a level of common sense and self control on the part of the people in this business. That should be enough.

Quoting FX1816 (Reply 1):
...being a controller...

I'm beginning to doubt that.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4543 times:

Quoting FX1816 (Reply 1):
And how exactly would you ever know if a child was talking to pilots of an aircraft you were flying on??

FX1816

Seeing some of the increasingly childish responses, arguments, and hair-splitting about whether FAA Order 7110 applies only to authorized ATC or to the general public including 9 year old children, I think this is a very good question.

This thread has convinced me finally that at least in the ATC profession, you do not have to be a child to act and sound childish.

Scary.

[Edited 2010-03-13 00:40:50]

User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 4, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4399 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 3):
you do not have to be a child to act and sound childish.

Certainly not, see below.

Quoting rafaelyyz,reply290:
and that this should be a written rule on page one of The Complete Idiot's Guide to ATC

It is comments such as above and others from Part 2 of this thread which drive folks from the forums.

To compare the thread subject to having a child performing dental work on a patient, or a child performing surgery on a patient, now those did not come from any controllers on this site I assure you.

A question for sankaps and rafaelyyz, either of you ever graced the door of an air traffic control facility? If so did you get inside the control room or tower and get a chance to visit with the controllers? If so what did you come away from the place thinking?



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4384 times:

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 4):
It is comments such as above and others from Part 2 of this thread which drive folks from the forums.

To compare the thread subject to having a child performing dental work on a patient, or a child performing surgery on a patient, now those did not come from any controllers on this site I assure you.

No they did not, but equally astounding gems did come from various controllers, such as FAA Order 7110 does not explicitly state that it is not permissable nor poor judgment to have 9-year old kids issue live ATC instructions at one of the world's busiest airports (wilfully splitting hairs on the pretty unambiguous wording on clause 1.1.1 -- ie the very first clause -- of the Order!).

Union mentality attitudes that always point to the rule book and say "show me where it says I am not allowed" rather than applying simple and unemotional common sense is what causes one to lose respect for what one would otherwise consider to be well-trained' level-headed professionals,

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 4):
A question for sankaps and rafaelyyz, either of you ever graced the door of an air traffic control facility? If so did you get inside the control room or tower and get a chance to visit with the controllers? If so what did you come away from the place thinking?

Completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.


User currently offlinerafaelyyz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4342 times:

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 4):
It is comments such as above and others from Part 2 of this thread which drive folks from the forums.

It's interesting that you cherry picked comments from our side of this 'debate' only. I could've done the same by choosing several statements from your side only, and claim the same thing regarding driving people from this forum. That threshold was crossed long ago but you are only now complaining. Guess what, respect is a two way street generally.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 5):
If so what did you come away from the place thinking?

Many here claim to be in the business. I can tell you what I think coming away from this place.

Just for posterity I'll throw in my own analogy: I claim that safety was never an issue when I rolled through a red light when no one was around at 3am in my part of a rural town. Yet if the cops saw this, they might have something to say about it. Would I have a defense? Only in my mind.

[Edited 2010-03-13 07:29:21]

User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4289 times:

Quoting rafaelyyz (Reply 6):
Quoting sankaps (Reply 5):
If so what did you come away from the place thinking?

Many here claim to be in the business. I can tell you what I think coming away from this place.

Rafaelyyz, the editor gremlin strikes again... the quote "What did you come away thinking" is from IAHFLYR, not me.

Cheers,
Sankaps.


User currently offlinerafaelyyz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4271 times:

Sorry about that. Not sure how that happened. Will be more careful. Thanks.

User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 9, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4261 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

Hmmm...several hundred replies later, and my earlier observation seems to have remained accurate:

Quoting 2H4:
From what I can see, the vast, vast majority of ATC professionals and pilots here...the individuals most familiar with the environment in question and most qualified to assess the situation...have stated that, in fact, there was nothing unsafe about having a 'parrot' repeat the instructions that were given during the incident.

And from what I can see, the most vocal individuals refuting this are neither ATC professionals or pilots. In the context of this thread, they are the individuals least familiar with the environment in question and least qualified to assess the situation.



Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4229 times:

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 9):
Hmmm...several hundred replies later, and my earlier observation seems to have remained accurate:

See reply 280 in Part 2 of this thread. To summazire: we are only getting a one-sided view from the ATCs and pilots in the a.net discussions, their views are certainly not universally shared by their colleagues.


User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 11, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4226 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

Quoting sankaps (Reply 10):
we are only getting a one-sided view from the ATCs and pilots in the a.net discussions

If, by "one-sided", you mean "informed", "qualified", or "educated", then I wholeheartedly agree!   

Quoting sankaps (Reply 10):
their views are certainly not universally shared by their colleagues

Of course there will be some qualified individuals who claim the incident placed people in danger. A careful reexamination of my post will reveal that I have never said otherwise. I maintain that the vast majority of pilots and controllers (people that are able to form qualified opinions on the matter) understand that there was nothing unsafe about what happened.

In short, sankaps, I believe you are not qualified and not knowledgeable enough about ATC operations to form an accurate opinion on the matter. And I further believe the FAA-certified pilots and controllers are.

So by all means, state your opinions all you want. But do not present them as fact in the face of actual industry professionals who know better. Doing so erodes the quality of the forum.



Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineFX1816 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1400 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4211 times:

Quoting rafaelyyz (Reply 2):
Quoting FX1816 (Reply 1):
...being a controller...

I'm beginning to doubt that.

How do you figure there sports fan???

Quoting sankaps (Reply 3):
This thread has convinced me finally that at least in the ATC profession, you do not have to be a child to act and sound childish.

Ah so without being able to defend your point you have turned to name calling, very mature and professional. We only asked you to prove where it says that ONLY AUTHORIZED people can talk over the airwaves since you seemed to KNOW that there was a rule stating that.

FX1816


User currently offlinerafaelyyz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4179 times:

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 11):
In short, sankaps, I believe you are not qualified and not knowledgeable enough about ATC operations to form an accurate opinion on the matter. And I further believe the FAA-certified pilots and controllers are.

Oh what nonsense. You don't need any specialized knowledge to suggest that only the persons hired for the job should actually perform it. Your assertion would have some merit only if we did not have any involvement in the business, but as it turns out every passenger is very much involved in the process, if only as mere 'clients' so to speak, and as such we deserve to have an opinion on the subject.

I wouldn't be talking in absolutes either, if I were you, because it's one thing to spew garbage on the internet, and another to make a case out there in the real world. I'd love to see any one of the ATC employees here defend their 'right' to invite family members to speak over the frequency in front of a panel of experts, because afterall "safety is not an issue". Yeah that'll go well.

Organize an FAA sanctioned family day for this sort of stuff, if you're that adamant about it.


User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2248 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4132 times:

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 4):
Quoting sankaps (Reply 3):
you do not have to be a child to act and sound childish.

Certainly not, see below.

Quoting rafaelyyz,reply290:
and that this should be a written rule on page one of The Complete Idiot's Guide to ATC

Ooh, that left a mark. High Five Houston!

Quoting sankaps (Reply 5):
Union mentality

You are certain the controller involved was a union member? Irrelevant as well.

Quoting rafaelyyz (Reply 6):
Just for posterity I'll throw in my own analogy: I claim that safety was never an issue when I rolled through a red light when no one was around at 3am in my part of a rural town. Yet if the cops saw this, they might have something to say about it. Would I have a defense? Only in my mind.

Your red light run violated a law that clearly states you cannot do that. Poor analogy. Next.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 10):
See reply 280

Man, you sure are proud of posting # 280. Yawn.



I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently offlinealwaysontherun From Netherlands Antilles, joined Jan 2010, 464 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4127 times:

Quoting rafaelyyz (Reply 13):
You don't need any specialized knowledge to suggest that only the persons hired for the job should actually perform it.
Quoting rafaelyyz (Reply 13):
I'd love to see any one of the ATC employees here defend their 'right' to invite family members to speak over the frequency in front of a panel of experts, because afterall "safety is not an issue".

You may be on to something here, the fact that he got suspended suggests he wasn´t exactly carrying out the job in the manner he was supposed to, whatever way you look at it.

As I have written before…….having read the whole thread and listening to the people that actually do the job, I don´t think this particular incident jeopardized anything or anyone, but by downplaying it too much to a so-called "non event", things may lead to complacency and nothing good can ever come from that.
This doesn´t go for just ATC, in any industry really; when things become more relaxed in a safe way, this gives room for it to become over-relaxed perhaps, and I think we all know unfavorable scenarios in our line of business that were caused by complacency. I know I have seen some, good professionals getting caught out by being just a tad to laid back about it all.

I am not suggesting that ATC is about to do this, please don´t jump on me because of that, ATC-ers!
I know this thread has become a bit tense and I´m not interested in some mud-throwing match!
But I think it is important to realize that we are pretty much border line here and therefore this ought to be prevented in the future. I think we basically all agree on that, where certain people clash on this thread is when the 1 camp calls it a minor event while the other camp suggests this incident was more serious than that. Either way, I think the exaggerated media-hype may lead to stricter laws on this.
As was suggested in this thread, the handbook may be revised to legally cover this subject of controversy.
It seems to be common sense in the 1st place anyway, but perhaps an addition like stated below will clear the air for everybody:

"No minors, or untrained people on the air at any time".

Cheers,

### "I am always on the Run"###



"Failure is not an option, it comes standard in any Windows product" - an anonymous MAC owner.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21701 posts, RR: 55
Reply 16, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4114 times:

Quoting alwaysontherun (Reply 15):
This doesn´t go for just ATC, in any industry really; when things become more relaxed in a safe way, this gives room for it to become over-relaxed perhaps, and I think we all know unfavorable scenarios in our line of business that were caused by complacency. I know I have seen some, good professionals getting caught out by being just a tad to laid back about it all.

But by the same token, you don't want to go too far in the other direction either, so that you have people burning out because they're more focused on following procedure than they are on doing their jobs (yes, there is a difference).

Quoting alwaysontherun (Reply 15):
But I think it is important to realize that we are pretty much border line here and therefore this ought to be prevented in the future.

I'm not convinced that this was borderline. There are so many variables that we don't know about that would say a lot about how well-safeguarded this was.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4102 times:

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 11):
If, by "one-sided", you mean "informed", "qualified", or "educated", then I wholeheartedly agree!

I mean one-sided as in emotional, biased, blinded, in denial, and not representative of what other industry professionals including pilots and controllers who differ with your opinions (leave alone the general public or a court of law) think.

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 11):
Of course there will be some qualified individuals who claim the incident placed people in danger. A careful reexamination of my post will reveal that I have never said otherwise. I maintain that the vast majority of pilots and controllers (people that are able to form qualified opinions on the matter) understand that there was nothing unsafe about what happened.

Your opinion that the opinions of "some qualified professionals who claim the incident placed people in danger" is a minority view is simply a speculative assertion. All we can tell with certainty is that opinions expressed by you and other controllers and pilots on this forum do not necessarily represent the view of all controllers and pilots.

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 11):
In short, sankaps, I believe you are not qualified and not knowledgeable enough about ATC operations to form an accurate opinion on the matter. And I further believe the FAA-certified pilots and controllers are.

Yes, including the FAA-certified pilots and controllers who actually agree with my opinion and disagree with you.

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 11):
So by all means, state your opinions all you want. But do not present them as fact in the face of actual industry professionals who know better. Doing so erodes the quality of the forum.

See above. Stating your opinions as the only ones representative of industry professionals while completely disregarding the opinion of the industry professionals who disagree with you does nothing the enhance the quality of discussion on this forum either.

Quoting FX1816 (Reply 12):
Ah so without being able to defend your point you have turned to name calling, very mature and professional. We only asked you to prove where it says that ONLY AUTHORIZED people can talk over the airwaves since you seemed to KNOW that there was a rule stating that.

I think I have made my point several times without resorting to any name calling, other than calling the argument "show me where it explicitly says 9-year olds are not allowed to make ATC announcements" childish. You guys have been constantly changing your defense and moving the goal posts, as in the sequence of arguments below:

1. This incident was not safety-related, though it clearly was not good judgment
2. FAA Order 7110 does not say allowing 9-year olds to make live ATC transmissions to airliners carrying public, fare-paying passengers is disallowed
3. Clause 1.1.1 says good judgment must be used at all times to cover situations not explicitly covered in the Order, but that is very subjective
4. It is not at all clear or proven that there was indeed bad judgment (contradicting position #1 above)
5. Controller and pilot opinions are what that matter, not uninformed outsiders
6. Only opinions of controllers and pilots that are the same as ours matter, not of those who disagree with us

Bottom-line: in the real world or court of law, the jury is not made of like-minded people who only agree with the defendent. And there is no way your various defenses of the incident would stand in a court of law. That is my opinion, the only way to prove or disprove it would be if the matter was indeed taken to a court of law.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4100 times:

Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 14):
Man, you sure are proud of posting # 280. Yawn.

Dude, you guys really don't have any reasonable response to post 280, other than just ignoring the points made in it (along with ignoring the views of contollers and pilots who disagree with your views).


User currently offlinealwaysontherun From Netherlands Antilles, joined Jan 2010, 464 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4052 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 16):
I'm not convinced that this was borderline.

Without knowing all the details in this particular case, I´d still be interested to hear what your borderline would be without jeopardizing the safety at all at any time.
A busier airport at a busier hour, longer conversations by a kid on the radio, having a few kids on the radio talking to several aircraft etc etc. How far do you go?

I am not being sarcastic, but if you don´t consider this borderline (though this was still on the safe side of the line), I wonder how far things can go in your opinion without taking any serious risks.
I know there are many factors to be considered here and you can´t necessarily compare Situation A with situation B at all times, but how relaxed can it get in the tower before something is considered an unacceptable (and unnecessary) risk, I wonder.

Would love to visit an ATC one day……..I guess it will be different from the movies.

### "I am always on the Run"###



"Failure is not an option, it comes standard in any Windows product" - an anonymous MAC owner.
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4049 times:

Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 14):
You are certain the controller involved was a union member? Irrelevant as well.


Not referring to the controller in question, am referring to the defense of his actions as in the throwing of the stale "show me where it says in the rule book this is disallowed" argument.


User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2248 posts, RR: 9
Reply 21, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4048 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 17):
I mean one-sided as in emotional, biased, blinded, in denial, and not representative of what other industry professionals including pilots and controllers who differ with your opinions (leave alone the general public or a court of law) think.

Wow. I'll seek professional help. -Emotional? Ah, no. It's just a job. - Biased? Yes toward the truth and facts. -Blinded? To what? We know what was asserted, then evaluated it based on Knowledge and Experience. -Denial. LMAO. Not on this side of the camp. -Not representative of other blah blah blah..... Of course not. They support your position. I guess, cause I haven't read many.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 17):
All we can tell with certainty is that opinions expressed by you and other controllers and pilots on this forum do not necessarily represent the view of all controllers and pilots.

Wow, the Obvious, stated to make what point? Who here has claimed all others agree?

Quoting sankaps (Reply 17):
Yes, including the FAA-certified pilots and controllers who actually agree with my opinion and disagree with you.

What a bunch of nice guys. You can play in their sandbox.

BTW, pilots are "certificated", not "certified". Well, at least according to FAA Orders and Regs. Oooh, sorry, I keep referring back to these silly documents.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 18):
Dude, you guys really don't have any reasonable response to post 280, other than just ignoring the points made in it

Ah, ya, right.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 306):
Any comments on post #280, by any chance?

Read post #288.



I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently offlineherc4ever From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 54 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4028 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 20):

No union for me, but if people try to call me out, I definately ask to see where it is in the rules. Who wouldn't?



GTF PDX EUG DEN SLC SFO SEA SAT DFW ORD MSP ATL PHL JFK CLT BWI ADD CGN FRA HHN PMI GSE RMS FRF AVB IUD KIK KWI BGW HBE
User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2248 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4027 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 20):
Not referring to the controller in question, am referring to the defense of his actions as in the throwing of the stale "show me where it says in the rule book this is disallowed" argument.

Why was the comment interjected at all if it was not germane to the above. Was it a distractor? Hoping I was a sympathizer and would get emotional?
I just realized I need to stop, or you'll throw the a.net editor flag defense.


Sankaps post # 286 "What to do, even the a.net editor is gunning for you! "



I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 24, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3987 times:

Quoting rafaelyyz (Reply 6):
It's interesting that you cherry picked comments from our side of this 'debate' only

No cherry picking was done, those statements and comparisions to the events this thread is debating where standing out waiting to be mentioned, I'm only sorry I took so long to bring them out.


Quoting sankaps (Reply 5):
Union mentality attitudes that always point to the rule book and say "show me where it says I am not allowed" rather than applying simple and unemotional common sense is what causes one to lose respect for what one would otherwise consider to be well-trained' level-headed professionals,

I don't find that to be the case one bit in my dealings with co-workers, all of which happen to be a union member.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 5):
Completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

I disagree and was simply curious as to any time spent around controllers seeing what their craft is all about, and certainly much more relevant than those posts about doctors and dentists.

Quoting rafaelyyz (Reply 13):
and as such we deserve to have an opinion on the subject.

You certainly are able to have an opinion, I don't believe anyone has written otherwise. But your opinion is simply that, your opinion. If your basic knowledge of a situation is less than those who you are debating with, why not simply believe what those who might have slightly knowledge and insight into what constitutes a safe operation or not, or whether it was over blown my the media frenzy which knows even less in most cases that some a.netters?

Quoting sankaps (Reply 17):
I mean one-sided as in emotional, biased, blinded, in denial, and not representative of what other industry professionals including pilots and controllers who differ with your opinions (leave alone the general public or a court of law) think.

As much as I would like to just once find something to agree with you on, I can't. From the many co-workers I've talked to regarding this lack of good judgement by allowing the controllers child to be on the radio, to the pilots I know personally and professionally (airline, corporate, GA, and military) there is not one of them that has indicated anything close to being a safety risk at the level you and others indicate. These folks use the system daily and not one thought it to be a safety concern. Ah, but then maybe ATC has brainwashed them!

Reply 280....I'm not going to search for that reply at this moment, but if it is the response that a controllers says something like the kid issued a clearance buy telling the pilot to contact departure, then that fella lost me right there. Telling an aircraft to contact departure is not a clearance, a clearance will have the word "cleared" contained within the phrase such as "cleared to land" or "cleared for take-off", or an often used "cleared to JFK airport"!



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
25 rafaelyyz : I'm not debating the safety aspect of this, even though my belief is that more complexity was added where it was not necessary. The message being put
26 FX1816 : And you know that others in ATC and pilots disagree with us??? Can I see your evidence of this??? Everyone I have spoken with completely agrees that
27 Post contains images PC12Fan : Unfreakin' real - I've been away from A.net a few days and this debate is still going on?!?!? I myself was actually in the exact same scenario. Obviou
28 Post contains images IAHFLYR : Very well worded and thought out however, I do not agree with"this was totally safe, so it's okay" statement. It was totally safe in my opinion yet i
29 AAEXP : You don't have to prove anything. Most probably this goes on every day somewhere in the US and nothing happens. The question this poses however, is w
30 PC12Fan : And I shouldn't have to.
31 Post contains images indolikaa : "Boy Talks to Pilots At JFK - Part 3" It lives! It breathes! It will eat our children! You know what the best part of this thread has been for me? The
32 PeterPuck : I can't believe we are still talking about this NON INCIDENT! The rules are already to tight! ATC no longer has the ability to visit the flight deck.
33 mandala499 : Sentiments shared exactly ! So theirs is speculative assertion and your are not equally involved in speculative assertion? *quick, someone get me my
34 Mir : I don't think there can be any set rule, just because of the variables involved. You know it when you see it, but it's hard to define. Because of tha
35 Post contains images sankaps : Thanks for the grammar lesson. There are two arguments that have been made: 1. This incident was not safety related, and 2. This incident did not vio
36 sankaps : 1. No, but that does not mean it was not a safety-related issue. As stated ad nauseum earlier, you dont get tickets for speeding or running a red lig
37 Post contains images rafaelyyz : Nah, I'd settle for just grounding Airbus And yet we have a suspended ATC employee. What do you suppose was the FAA's reasoning? Why not just say fro
38 FX1816 : Hey sankaps you talk about SPREE avoiding answering your question but yet you have evaded some of my questions to you including the following one.....
39 sankaps : I did not state an opinion on whether your view puts you in the minority or the majority amongst controllers. What I did say was: By the way, I have
40 FX1816 : Ok but again you did a great job avoiding my question again. How do you know that others in the industry, controllers and pilots have different views
41 sankaps : I will answer this for the nth and final time: Because controllers and pilots have posted on other forums (see post 280 in Part 2) stating their view
42 Post contains images FX1816 : Hey how about doing some research and looking up my profile on here, I have my name and my facility right up on there. I believe that spree is retire
43 Post contains links and images sankaps : Excellent. So that makes at least two controllers with names and facilities clearly indicated, but with completely opposing views of the incident. Re
44 alwaysontherun : Good post Sankaps! I think that kind of summarizes the "problem" in this (prolonged) thread. Many people have boycotted this thread or are surprised
45 sankaps : Thanks, always. Yes the link has strong views on both sides; the reason I keep referring to it is that we have controllers and pilots on both sides o
46 alwaysontherun : How true, there is a grey area here. I am glad the moderators kept this discussion going as it deserves to be discussed thoroughly, in my opinion. Th
47 FX1816 : Well that does make a case for why I am wrong I guess, 1 pilot and 2 controllers. So if you want to play that game how about the fact that there are
48 sankaps : This post is so illogical especially after all of the debate than has taken place, that it does not deserve a response other than this comment: I do
49 alwaysontherun : To be fair mate, I clearly remember this argument being made (reply 248) in Part 2 of this discussion: That was when this discussion supposedly went
50 IAHFLYR : The quote from a commercial pilot that appears to be confused about the difference in a tower (JFK) and center? Seems maybe the credibility should be
51 SPREE34 : Buy you a beer? Great post. 1. Negative. 2. Negative You're good! Second beer. That wasn't a grammer lesson. Those are two distinct words with differ
52 sankaps : 1. Not in this instance 2. Clearly, a violation of FAA Order 7110 Clause 1.1.1. (which you and your buddies choose to either ignore or pretend not to
53 Post contains images Kaiarahi : Wow I left this thread almost 2 weeks ago. I can't believe it's still alive, with 400 more replies - and still in the same place Reminds me of the leg
54 Post contains images AAEXP : But since you raised the issue, I just wanted to state that I d Just to put your comment on the legendary Rocky Mountain Goat in perspective, you post
55 IAHFLYR : I have to agree with you and thus I am over the thread! See all of you around the forums.
56 Post contains images cuban8 : According to the annual IATA report, more than 80% of the accident's in 2009 were due to pilot error. Therefore, I think this guy should reconsider h
57 SPREE34 : Ya know, you have a point there. Where's the McDonalds coffee victim when we need her? If you'll take a look at my writing, you'll find I'm not much
58 FX1816 : The problem is that he doesn't have a leg to stand on regarding this and has turned to name calling and ridiculing, pretty mature if you ask me. FX18
59 Post contains images AndyinPIT : can this topic please be locked? This is turning into a pissing match and no one is getting anywhere. Send messages to each other if you want. Oops, b
60 SPREE34 : Pretty good at referring to 1-1-1, yet, without context. Not until the media mind poisoning has been corrected. Nope. It needs to be in the open for
61 andyinpit : Do you really think this will solve that? How often does the media blow things out of context? All they are doing is trying to get ratings. And to wh
62 Post contains images rafaelyyz : She had a good case, leave her alone. Pick on someone your own size
63 Post contains images SPREE34 : Thank you for my evening laugh! Long day here. Good thread closer?
64 rafaelyyz : It's dead, Jim. (Star Trek)
65 westindian425 : Speculations aren't necessarily a bad thing, especially when it's an educated guess. The aviation community is a very close-knit and tight family, so
66 757luver : I wasn't going to post on here, I've done voiced my opinion on the situation. But if they did lock the thread it would just be started up again with
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Boy Talks To Pilots From JFK Airport Tower posted Tue Mar 2 2010 20:21:10 by werdywerd
RJ To Move To T9 At JFK? posted Fri Apr 27 2007 21:33:47 by RJpieces
May 14, 2006 Denied To Land At JFK? posted Sat Dec 16 2006 17:15:15 by AirCanada014
AeroSvit = $100 If You Connect To B6 At JFK posted Wed Dec 6 2006 05:03:19 by UN_B732
Why AA Switching Some T9 Flights To T8 At JFK? posted Mon Jul 24 2006 23:45:02 by RJpieces
How Much Time To Connect At JFK? posted Wed Feb 1 2006 18:49:26 by DL787932ER
DL To Expand At JFK posted Thu Jan 29 2004 13:26:45 by Nycfuturepilot
Approach To 13L At JFK posted Tue Dec 23 2003 08:36:19 by Apollo13
Virgin Atlantic Moving To T4 At JFK posted Tue Jun 3 2003 22:14:46 by Mcmahonsmr
What Happened To American At Jfk? posted Fri Mar 2 2001 02:42:06 by DL3744