Air Safety
By skysuccess
@skysuccess (8857)
Singapore
March 4, 2010 9:00am CST
An air traffic controller in John F Kennedy is being reprimanded with a possible sacking for letting his 9-year-old son direct planes at JFK - and repeating the stunt with the boy's twin sister the next day.
But I just don't get it, when it was merely just a simple command than the whole control command. I felt that there was no ill intent or something grossly irresponsible as compared to another incident where a pilot who was recently being discovered with a fake pilot licence after piloting for 13 years.
Air Control Tower Fiasco
www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/03/03/2010-03-03_jfk_air_traffic_controller_let_not_one_but_two_kids_direct_planes_officials.html
Yes, for the past 13 years this individual who had a commercial pilot licence, which had expired which never qualified him for passenger flights,
had been flying commercial aircrafts where he had logged more than 10,000 hours flight hours for airlines in Britain, Italy and Belgium with his forged licence.
Fake Pilot Licence
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1255352/Fake-pilot-arrested-packed-passenger-plane-flown-13-years-forged-licence.html
I am wondering how in the world can this be happening and not be nipped in the bud 13 years ago as opposed to some kids (controlled) talking at air traffic control with guidance?
This world is getting a little odd somewhere.
5 responses
@pandaeyes (2065)
•
4 Mar 10
well it might have been a health and safety violation I suppose.
If the children must speak over the radio ,the pilot might not understand what they were saying or possibly not believe it was the controllers child and think it was an attack of some kind.
Unlikely but who knows.
I suppose this man didn't ask his bosses first or there wouldn't be this problem.
It might also be that if anything had happened while the kids were there, the insurance held by the company could be void even though it was nothing that they did wrong.
@skysuccess (8857)
• Singapore
4 Mar 10
pandaeyes,
I am sure when you are young you would have remember that occasional visits of our parent's workplace, or now that we are parents, we bring our children.
If you listened to the audio, I am sure that the adult parent was still in control and he just added a little novelty over the announcements which I feel is timely and harmless that does not compromise any security.
As compared to that bogus licenced pilot who has been piloting for the past 13 years, this is just nothing in comparison.
Take care and have a nice day.
1 person likes this
@pandaeyes (2065)
•
5 Mar 10
Yes I see ,it is a normal thing to let a child see where their parent works but maybe if the insurance was compromised ,it could have been a more serious thing that we can tell. Possibly they do have times when they can take their family around and this person did not comply with the rules.
I do agree the bogus pilot was a much, much more serious case but he must have been a good enough operator for noone to discover it for such a long time.
It doesn't excuse his actions or how many people may have been in danger but it just shows how hard it was to tell.
1 person likes this
@cloudwatcher (6861)
• Australia
5 Mar 10
I do not think the two incidents can be compared, as they cover entirely different aspects. To fly a passenger aircraft without a licence is a VERY serious offence, but the control tower offence is still an offence. It is similar to comparing robbing an institution of millions of dollars or stealing one dollar from a person. The two offences are both offences and both deserve punishment.
I am not aware of the security measures in a control tower, but I am sure there are many and that the terms of employment there would have been breached by allowing the children to relay a command.
There is a huge difference between taking your children to your office and allowing them to staple papers together or push a button on a copying machine or some such "help" and doing a task which involves the safety of possibly hundreds of people as well as safety measures, insurance claims and a list of other possibilities.
I can understand the father's actions. I agree that no harm was done. I agree there was no ill intent. However, if the terms of employment were breached, as I am sure they were, then the action was irresponsible to say the least, and he deserves to be held to account for his actions.
1 person likes this
@skysuccess (8857)
• Singapore
7 Mar 10
cloudwatcher,
Thank you for this in depth insight of yours and I do go along the lines of a possible breach of employment contract for letting his child at the controls.
Anyway, IMO the mistake is one of unintentional and hope that he would only be let off with a stern warning than a sack.
Have a nice day.
@jennybianca (12912)
• Australia
5 Mar 10
The story of the child being an air controller was all over our news last night.
The Father was foolish and irresponsible. But he only meant it as harmless fun I gather.
Airport controllers have rules for a very good reason. Their job is very stressful. Concentration is highly important.
Still, I thinmk the Father should only receive a warning about it, not anything extreme.
@skysuccess (8857)
• Singapore
5 Mar 10
jennybianca,
I see, but IMO after hearing the recordings of the commands given out, I felt that there's really no biggie and that it should not amount to a sacking.
Also, I believe the officer in question is not having a heavy or peak schedule - gathering from his recorded instructions and the pilots were welcoming the unique novelty gesture.
Compared to the other incident where the regulators could let an unlicenced pilot in the air for 13 years. I think this is a much severe issue.
@LaurenInLA (2270)
• United States
4 Mar 10
I don't get it either. This man did not put these children in control of the air space, he simply had them repeat a command. Didn't we all go to visit our parents at work when we were children? And didn't our parents allow us to do some simple task? This incident is being blown way out of proportion
1 person likes this
@skysuccess (8857)
• Singapore
4 Mar 10
My exact sentiments here, LaurenInLA.
I felt that the authorities should be attentive on the latter issue about the forged licence pilot, who went about flying commercial passenger aircrafts with various airlines in Europe for 13 long years.
And, you know what made me hit the roof in the article?
The part where it reported that the arrested pilot was relieved at the time of his arrest with his stripes stripped! I just cannot imagine what would have happened if his aircraft actually went down during his tenure and the insurance denying liability for the airline's negligence.
Hard to believe this is happening!
Hard to believe this is happening!
