"Childs play at NY air traffic tower sparks inquiry"

[Zebedee]

Your kidding?

Nope, if I were kidding, I'd have put a smiley face after my words so there could be no mistake.

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.

Sure it can. I think you're clutching at straws.

Something could happen during that moment you are not concentrating on the job, you could miss some small vital piece of information.

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...

What would happen if the child threw in his own words? What if the child said the wrong thing? Does that really matter?

No. It wouldn't matter at all.

What would happen if an emergency suddenly happened?

The controller would immediately take control of the situation.

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?

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.

It is easy and simple to look at this as a once off and say no real harm had been done.

Exactly. No harm has been done, and yet people want to make mountains out of molehills.

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.

Well, there you are dead wrong. You're presuming what I would and wouldn't think - and that's a tricky path to tread.

Naffen. You are now looking at different scenarios.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

[Bonez]

I think you'll find that an aero club and JFK are a little bit different, just a little bit.

I was taken up in a Cessna over Bunbury a few years ago and I did all of the talking on the radio, the pilot said nothing. I don't see a problem with that, if something bad happened he would have taken over immediately and said what needed to be said.

However I don't think that in the old days when you used to be allowed to go into the cockpit of a 747 during a flight between Perth and Singapore for a squiz that they would let you anywhere near ANYTHING - look but don't touch.

There's a massive difference here.

[observer]

Zebedee.

First of all, if I offended Nafenn by mispelling his name then I apologise. However saying that, this is the first I have ever heard of mis-spelling someone's name been an insult. If it is taken to be an insult should that be written in the site guidelines so that ALL users are aware. Also if it is seen to be insulting to mis-spell someones name, where does abreviations of user names fit into it (eg written_ficton abbreviated by users as WF). Next time I'll get my kid to be more careful typing in the words I am saying

Something could happen during that moment you are not concentrating on the job, you could miss some small vital piece of information.

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...

Of course this is questioning the professionalism of the controller. That is what this discussion is all about. How professional is it to have a child in the control tower giving comands over the radio.

It is easy and simple to look at this as a once off and say no real harm had been done.

Exactly. No harm has been done, and yet people want to make mountains out of molehills.

If you are going to quote and reply, please quote the sentence in the context it was written in. Like I said it is easy and simple to look at this as a once off and say that no harm was done. The issue is what happens if their was an incident? Risk management doesn't work by saying "well nothing happened so no harm done". It is all about what the potential risks are (even circumstances that may be impossible), and the consequence of that.

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.

Well, there you are dead wrong. You're presuming what I would and wouldn't think - and that's a tricky path to tread.

Fair enough then. So I'll put this to you. Would you still be looking at this situation in the same light if there was a major incident as a result (either directly or indirectly) of having a child giving commands over the radio?

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.

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.

As I said the potential is totally different between a light aircraft and a jet liner. Lets exclude the number of people that may be involved on the aircraft, but focus on the ground. Say a light aircraft crashed into a surburban area. How many houses would you reasonable expect this aircraft to impact on? I am struggling to recall scenarios where a light aircraft has damaged more that 2 houses, but I would guess there is the odd case where more houses have been damaged, so at worst it is reasonable to expect damage to 4 houses (however it would be most common to impact on 1 house). Now think what would the impact area be if a jet liner crashed into a surburban area? If the impact area was only 4 houses I would suggest the pilot was extremely skilled to keep the impact to such a small area, or God (or what ever religion you wish to insert) was on someones side. And we all know what the potential damage could be if a jet liner impacted into a large building. But as I said this is a different argument. We are discussing the pro-cons of allowing a child to give instructions to aircraft over the radio.

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?

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.

If nothing wrong was done or if it acceptable behaviour, then why was the person suspended from his post? It would seam the authorities at this stage tend to disagree with your thoughts. Also by saying it is insane to think that it isn't, is that calling the people who made this decision insane? And remember the people who made this decision are the ones at the end of the day who would have to anwer the questions as to why a child was in the control tower giving commands. It is easier and safer to remove as many potential causes of errors than answer questions as to why a child was giving command to an aircraft when an incident happened.

[WPXZBP]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1YmS_VD ... re=related

[Zebedee]

Of course this is questioning the professionalism of the controller. That is what this discussion is all about. How professional is it to have a child in the control tower giving comands over the radio.

I don't believe it shows any lack of professionalism. In fact, I believe it to be a GOOD thing overall as it shows that the tower controller is interested in passing on his knowledge to others, perhaps sparking their interest to follow in daddy's footsteps...

It is easy and simple to look at this as a once off and say no real harm had been done.

Exactly. No harm has been done, and yet people want to make mountains out of molehills.

If you are going to quote and reply, please quote the sentence in the context it was written in.

I quoted the part I was interested in replying to, which is the part that dealt with what *is* vs what *might be*. I'm simply not interested at all in all the "oh but what if" scenarios. Hence my comment, which I will now repeat, that the whole thing is all about making mountains out of molehills. No planes fell out of the sky, no planes turned left instead of right, nothing bad at all happened. The controller was in control of his airspace at all time. The only thing that was different was the voice on the radio.

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.

Well, there you are dead wrong. You're presuming what I would and wouldn't think - and that's a tricky path to tread.

Fair enough then. So I'll put this to you. Would you still be looking at this situation in the same light if there was a major incident as a result (either directly or indirectly) of having a child giving commands over the radio?

I don't know, since it's hard to give a definitive answer to a hypothetical situation. My gut instinct tells me that I probably wouldn't look at it any differently, unless it could be proven conclusively, without any shadow of a doubt, that the young voice on the radio was a direct factor in whatever that incident turned out to be. If a plane suddenly called in and said (for example) that they had a medical priority on board and needed to get on the ground quickly, then you would expect that the controller would immediately do what was necessary to make that happen.

If nothing wrong was done or if it acceptable behaviour, then why was the person suspended from his post?

That's the part that has me scratching my head as well.

It would seam the authorities at this stage tend to disagree with your thoughts.

It would certainly seem that way. Wowserism is alive and well.

Also by saying it is insane to think that it isn't, is that calling the people who made this decision insane?

It is not. Please learn to differentiate between a comment on a decision and a comment on a person.

And remember the people who made this decision are the ones at the end of the day who would have to anwer the questions as to why a child was in the control tower giving commands. It is easier and safer to remove as many potential causes of errors than answer questions as to why a child was giving command to an aircraft when an incident happened.

Which leads right back to "wowserism" all over again.

No harm was done.

No pilots, cabin crew, travellers, house owners, sheep, goats, donkeys, bumble-bees or any one or thing was put in jeopardy by this action. Which is why the decision to suspend the controller for showing some enthusiasm about his job is completely and utterly mind-bendingly insane and the people responsible for such a decision should instead be removed from their position of authority forthwith.

[xli]

However I don't think that in the old days when you used to be allowed to go into the cockpit of a 747 during a flight between Perth and Singapore for a squiz that they would let you anywhere near ANYTHING - look but don't touch.

There's a massive difference here.

My apologies - I was referring the the paranoia of today rather than suggesting we could use the controls. Back then, crew usually wouldn't hesitate to let someone who asks to have a look in (I have a stamp book for all of my visits to the cockpit from the pilots from when I was little); these days the Sky Marshall (another indication of the times) and pilot would be alerted of the possible "threat".

But in any case, it would be interesting to see what the final outcome is. Clearly you can be entirely for or against his actions with very valid arguments for each.

[CHEV4EVR]

With you on this one Zebedee =D> . I think the important thing to remember is that you can be professional whilst still having fun. I think we confuse being professional with being serious too much these days. Listening to the transmissions everyone knew what the score was.

Until robots replace us humans will do human things much to the disgust of those in HR management and the media

[Nafenn]

My apologies - I was referring the the paranoia of today rather than suggesting we could use the controls. Back then, crew usually wouldn't hesitate to let someone who asks to have a look in (I have a stamp book for all of my visits to the cockpit from the pilots from when I was little); these days the Sky Marshall (another indication of the times) and pilot would be alerted of the possible "threat".

But in any case, it would be interesting to see what the final outcome is. Clearly you can be entirely for or against his actions with very valid arguments for each.

if you speak with the flight crew, they will usually let you take a look in after they have shut everything down