Nope, if I were kidding, I'd have put a smiley face after my words so there could be no mistake.observer wrote:Your kidding?
Sure it can. I think you're clutching at straws.observer wrote:Firstly I would imagine that air traffic controllers would require to give their job 100% concentration. This can not be done with your child present.
That's calling into question the professionalism of the controller. I'm sure they are more than competent and capable of performing their duties. Heck, someone could sneeze and a vital bit of information gets missed...observer wrote:Something could happen during that moment you are not concentrating on the job, you could miss some small vital piece of information.
No. It wouldn't matter at all.observer wrote:What would happen if the child threw in his own words? What if the child said the wrong thing? Does that really matter?
The controller would immediately take control of the situation.observer wrote:What would happen if an emergency suddenly happened?
Are you asking a question here or making a statement? The child would be looked after and the *PROFESSIONAL* air traffic controller would do his job in managing the emergency, should one happen. That's what they are trained and paid to do.observer wrote:The child would have to be firstly removed from the control position and possibly from the control tower? Who would look after the child if an emergency happened? All of this is time consuming and an unnecessary distraction?
Exactly. No harm has been done, and yet people want to make mountains out of molehills.observer wrote:It is easy and simple to look at this as a once off and say no real harm had been done.
Well, there you are dead wrong. You're presuming what I would and wouldn't think - and that's a tricky path to tread.observer wrote:The issue is what happens if their was an incident? I'm sure you would be looking at it from a different perspective if their had have been a major incident at this time, regardless of if the child was or was not responsible.
First of all, please take care to spell people's names (either real names or forum names) correctly. Mis-spelling someone's name is insulting to that person.observer wrote:Naffen. You are now looking at different scenarios.
What if the plane was over a populated area (as planes often are)? The pilot, in that case is responsible for his life, his passenger's life, the lives of other people in the air around him, and people on the ground below him.observer wrote:The scenario you have posted is the person in control of the child is responsible for one resource (the plane that they are in only), where as the situation been discussed, the person was resonsible for a far greater number of resources and persons. In the situation you have described, the outcome would be totally different if an accident had occured (in terms of potential damaged and potetional lives at risk), so we are not comparing apples with apples.
Of course it's acceptable. It's just insane to think that it isn't, or that the crime of the century has happened. An experienced and professional air traffic controller allowed his children to "do what daddy does" in a fully supervised environment where there was no real chance of anything going wrong. And yet, people seem ready to hang these controllers from the nearest windsock for something that was completely harmless.observer wrote:Is it accpetable to have a child to communicate for an air traffic controller over the radio? If so where does it stop? Who can or can not then talk over the radio?