If there had been an emergency coming up I doubt the kid would be left at the controls.
Frankly this is a Mountain out of a mole hill.
I understand the FAA has a record of incompetence, but really this isn't one of those examples. If anything it's the OPPOSITE.
Where as Mr controller on the phone with his *** buddy instead of doing his job?
Nuff said.
Have you ever told a kid to say something and had that kid completely butcher it? Hell, there's a game kids play called Telephone that showcases exactly that - how easy it is to botch a message when transferring it from the first party to the third. Again, lives were involved. What would all you 'it's no big deal' guys be saying if a couple of planes collided? A risk was taken and the best possible outcome (other than doing it and not getting in trouble) was what happened. That does't change the fact it was still a risk. And it wasn't a personal one, it involved many other people who trust the airport to put the best possible people for the job in that position. That trust was violated. Period.
In which case the dad would have probably stepped in. They don't give last second corrections unless **** has already hit the fan.
Most pilots aren't the lazy incompetent bastards that our news has tried demonizing them out to be recently either. So they'd know something was up if it came out totally wrong.
If something bad had happened actually I'd be far more likely to blame the pilot than air traffic control, for failing to maintain something so basic as situational awareness.
In which case the dad would have probably stepped in. They don't give last second corrections unless **** has already hit the fan.
Most pilots aren't the lazy incompetent bastards that our news has tried demonizing them out to be recently either. So they'd know something was up if it came out totally wrong.
If something bad had happened actually I'd be far more likely to blame the pilot than air traffic control, for failing to maintain something so basic as situational awareness.
Ok. One more question, then. Why take the chance that daddy would have needed to fix something or that the pilot would, hopefully, be able to catch a mistake? That's adding a link to the chain for no reason - and the weakest one, too. There's no way to make this out to be a good thing or even ok. It's bad all around. You're adding a possible point of failure. Not smart. Not responsible.
It's an open and shut case. Why is this controversial?
+1. This is no different from when we were growing up in my dad's electronics shop and he let us do some of the simpler repairs on TVs and radios. That was live current we were working with, and if you want to go worst-case scenarios, we cold have been fried, set the shop on fire, sent that charge through the circuits to the rest of the building we were connected to, fried or burned others, etc. What made it safe was that he was standing right there with us and was ready to step in should something go wrong. How many lives are at stake when you put your kid behind the wheel of a car for the first time? Just because you're in the passenger seat doesn't mean he or she isn't going to make some stupid mistake that sends you both into cross trafficor pedestrians. Yet, when we see a parent with their kid at the wheel maintaining a "deer in the headlights" stare, we're expected to fondly recall our own first times behind the wheel. I say "Not Guilty".
Ok, so you could have died. In this case, hundreds of people could have been killed. See my reply to Micha. This was adding a weak link to the chain for no good reason. 'Daddy could have saved him' is not a valid response. Daddy shouldn't need to save him. Daddy should just do his job. The fact that daddy could have saved him was a possibilty means that daddy created a situation where he could possibly need to save him. That's irresponsible.
When I was taught to drive, I was taught in an empty parking lot. And I was 16. This was the equivalent of allowing your toddler to merge onto the highway during rush hour.
Ok. One more question, then. Why take the chance that daddy would have needed to fix something or that the pilot would, hopefully, be able to catch a mistake? That's adding a link to the chain for no reason - and the weakest one, too. There's no way to make this out to be a good thing or even ok. It's bad all around. You're adding a possible point of failure. Not smart. Not responsible.
if a Flight Crew can't some how catch something like that while moving at slow speeds then they don't deserve their jobs and need their wings revoked. if an entire control tower to be coupled with that can't some how catch a mistake then they too don't deserve their jobs and the situation would have just as likely occurred anyway.
The little kid following his dad's instructions isn't going to make that job anymore dangerous, the above would. There is so much redundancy in Air Traffic that it's crazy.
Zb then your parents are irresponsible too. Someone could have come barreling into the parking lot, as a bunch of rogue shopping carts made their way down the lot blocking off your escape route and causing you to get smashed by the idiot in the other car.
The likely hood of that happening? Stupidly small. Acceptable Risk. (also really, driving in Normal Conditions isn't terribly difficult. Even someone that's never driven before can manage driving at safe speeds. That's why we call em safe. Because almost anyone can drive below 75 mph)
If a Flight Crew can't some how catch something like that while moving at slow speeds then they don't deserve their jobs and need their wings revoked. if an entire control tower to be coupled with that can't some how catch a mistake then they too don't deserve their jobs and the situation would have just as likely occurred anyway.
The little kid following his dad's instructions isn't going to make that job anymore dangerous, the above would. There is so much redundancy in Air Traffic that it's crazy.
Wow. You just don't get it. These people aren't a safety net for junior. Making them one is irresponsible. You're adding complication. That's not safe.
'If they couldn't catch it, then they should lose their jobs' totally misses the point. The point isn't whether they're able, it's that they shouldn't need to.
Zb then your parents are irresponsible too. Someone could have come barreling into the parking lot, as a bunch of rogue shopping carts made their way down the lot blocking off your escape route and causing you to get smashed by the idiot in the other car.
That's not even remotely comparable. My parents put me and the rest of traffic in the safest possible situation. The dad put his kid and the rest of traffic into a potentially dangerous one. Totally opposite. My parents isolated me from those that I could possibly do harm to. This daddy introdiced hos kind into a situation where he had potential to do harm.
That's my point.
The kid's dad was doing his job.
The point of failure would have to be so TOTAL in both the air crew and traffic control that it would have happened anyway kid being there or not.
And they wouldn't need to ZB.
That's my point.
The kid's dad was doing his job.
The point of failure would have to be so TOTAL in both the air crew and traffic control that it would have happened anyway kid being there or not.
No. Daddy added a link to the chain. A weak one. He added a potential point of failure.
or he could have missed the fracture because he got called away to do something else.
The amount of other "weak links" that go on far supersede what this was.
Daddy was RIGHT THERE Zb.
It's not like he went to the damn bathroom.
If there was a Crisis on the ground or in the air, Daddy could just as easily yank the mic away from the kid and give the necessary instructions. It would take no more time than him giving one set of instructions and then seeing the OH SHITFIRE situation and immediately responding.
And the air maintainence guys could have missed a microfracture on the plane's airframe, because he sneezed.
or he could have missed the fracture because he got called away to do something else.
The amount of other "weak links" that go on far supersede what this was.
Daddy was RIGHT THERE Zb.
It's not like he went to the damn bathroom.
If there was a Crisis on the ground or in the air, Daddy could just as easily yank the mic away from the kid and give the necessary instructions. It would take no more time than him giving one set of instructions and then seeing the OH SHITFIRE situation and immediately responding.
You still don't get it. All of those weak links (sneezing, called away to work on something else) are part of the job environment as-is. Daddy brought in a new element. That's the difference. Junior isn't a sneeze or another project, junior is a foreign element that added to the potential problem pool.
The only difference was who was voicing the instructions a half second to the next.
It's not a foreign element. It would be a foreign element if the kid had been completely given the reigns while daddy went to go take a dump, blow his nose etc.
Regardless of whether you think the kid was adding a weak link, Cpt_Micha, you have to admit that daddy was breaking the rules he'd agreed to work by. There's no getting around that.
I'm not disagreeing that part.
I am disagreeing that this was some kind of Major Crisis because this was some how inviting Catastrophe.
Regardless of whether you think the kid was adding a weak link, Cpt_Micha, you have to admit that daddy was breaking the rules he'd agreed to work by. There's no getting around that.
I'm not disagreeing that part.
I am disagreeing that this was some kind of Major Crisis because this was some how inviting Catastrophe.
I don't think anyone (sane) is saying it was a major crisis, but that it (a) was irresponsible (b) against regulations and (c) adding unnecessary risk (however large or small you want to qualify it as) to a delicate system.
It was irresponsible to not follow the regulations yes, but it shouldn't cost the father and his supervisor their jobs. Others (not specifically air traffic controllers) have killed people with their mistakes and sometimes keep their job, while this event didn't have a single casualty. Reprimand them for not following the regulations so they know not to do it again but there is no need to fire them over this.
Wow. I never thought I'd say this, but...ZB is 100% correct.
Umm ... thanks, I guess?
And if an error occurred while everyone that was havin' fun playin' with junior up an' caused a ton of people to die? What then? This was irresponsible, plain and simple. When the stakes are living beings in machines in the sky, irresponsible is unacceptable. This ain't some dood lettin' his kiddo work the fryolater. This is air traffic control.
I understand the concept. I also think that it's a perfectly valid concern. Giving pilots direction from a control tower is not a job for a kid. It's really that simple. And, as it is so simple, it's also incredibly easy not to slip down that slope.
Ok, so you could have died. In this case, hundreds of people could have been killed. See my reply to Micha. This was adding a weak link to the chain for no good reason. 'Daddy could have saved him' is not a valid response. Daddy shouldn't need to save him. Daddy should just do his job. The fact that daddy could have saved him was a possibilty means that daddy created a situation where he could possibly need to save him. That's irresponsible.
Sorry, but this is nonsense. The guy was letting the kid repeat basic non-critical information (cleared for takeoff, cleared for landing, etc.), not issue complex in-air positioning instructions.
This isn't even a case of making a mountian out of a molehill, this is making a supervolcano out of the fact the mole took his kid to work.
When I was taught to drive, I was taught in an empty parking lot. And I was 16. This was the equivalent of allowing your toddler to merge onto the highway during rush hour.
No, it was the equivalent of letting your toddler place your burger order at the drive-thru.
I understand the concept. I also think that it's a perfectly valid concern. Giving pilots direction from a control tower is not a job for a kid.
Lucky the kid wasn't doing the job, then.
It's really that simple. And, as it is so simple, it's also incredibly easy not to slip down that slope.
Except in this case the slope is being manufactured by alarmists specifically to be slipped down.
Sorry, but this is nonsense. The guy was letting the kid repeat basic non-critical information (cleared for takeoff, cleared for landing, etc.), not issue complex in-air positioning instructions.
This isn't even a case of making a mountian out of a molehill, this is making a supervolcano out of the fact the mole took his kid to work.
So it's nonsense to say it was irresponsible? Ok ...
No, it was the equivalent of letting your toddler place your burger order at the drive-thru.
Right. Cuz that burger could have killed hundreds of strangers.
God, I hate having to use extreme situations to try and explain something as simple as the idea that this guy was an irresponsible fool. If that's something we can all agree on, I'll be happily done. See, whenever you use situations like that, people get fixated on the example and totally miss the friggin' point. You'd think I'd've learned that by now. Guess not.
Lucky the kid wasn't doing the job, then.
Funny, the tape says otherwise. And if daddy was doing the job himself (which, of course, he was), why add that extra filter? Why add another link to the chain? Why do I need to repeat myself so many times? See, until you (general) can tell me how it wasn't a stupid, irresponsible and potentially dangerous idea, well hell, you aren't effectively mounting an argument, are you?
Except in this case the slope is being manufactured by alarmists specifically to be slipped down.
Oh? So people are calling for some kind of crackdown on controller distraction? Where can we slip to? Kids shouldn't be allowed to relay instructions to pilots? Damn, what a far fall. I hope we'll survive.
Right. Cuz that burger could have killed hundreds of strangers.
No, but clearing a plane for takeoff can't kill hundreds of stranger either.
God, I hate having to use extreme situations to try and explain something as simple as the idea that this guy was an irresponsible fool.
Explain all you want, it doesn't make you right.
If that's something we can all agree on, I'll be happily done.
Thing is, you are drawing conclusions that do not follow. Is he an irresponsible fool? Perhaps, but these actions do not make him one or show him to be one. Would I have done it? No, but not for safety reasons. What he did was unprofessional, nothing more.
See, whenever you use situations like that, people get fixated on the example and totally miss the friggin' point. You'd think I'd've learned that by now.
In this case the example is the point. You are overreacting because you are leaping immediately to a worst-case scenario and basing your argument on that. This is so far removed, however, from what actually happened or could have happened to be worse the useless.
Guess not.
Sarcasm helps. Thanks.
Thing is, you are drawing conclusions that do not follow. Is he an irresponsible fool? Perhaps, but these actions do not make him one or show him to be one. Would I have done it? No, but not for safety reasons. What he did was unprofessional, nothing more.
Ok. Let's forget all that stuff and stick with this. Just to be clear, you do not think what he did was irresponsible or that this action doesn't paint him as irresponsible?
In this case the example is the point. You are overreacting because you are leaping immediately to a worst-case scenario and basing your argument on that. This is so far removed, however, from what actually happened or could have happened to be worse the useless.
How am I overreacting? I've basically said the guy was irresponsible and his actions could have, in the worst possible case, caused serious harm. I'll readily admit my examples were out there, but that was illustrative. Hell, I haven't even called for the guy's firing (that I can recall, who really knows what I say anymore?).
Sarcasm helps. Thanks.
Wait a sec. You're calling me out for sarcasm? You? Isn't that your bit? I know it wasn't helpful, but I'd figure you of all people would understand it. I never anticipated a pot/kettle situation. Anyhoo, I can certainly stop being a sarcastic ass. Well, I can stop the sarcasm. The ass part is something I continually struggle with - as if I needed to tell you that ...
Funny, the tape says otherwise.
Where?
And if daddy was doing the job himself (which, of course, he was), why add that extra filter? Why add another link to the chain?
To involve the kid, give him a unique experience, show him what daddy does, and brighten up peoples' day, all if which seemed to has worked.
Why do I need to repeat myself so many times?
You don't need to, you just think you're right and assume repeating it will make others think so too.
See, until you (general) can tell me how it wasn't a stupid, irresponsible and potentially dangerous idea, well hell, you aren't effectively mounting an argument, are you?
No one was in danger from the information the controller let the kids give. This was not in-flight positioning instructions, it was simple clearances.
Oh? So people are calling for some kind of crackdown on controller distraction? Where can we slip to? Kids shouldn't be allowed to relay instructions to pilots? Damn, what a far fall. I hope we'll survive.
Separate issues. I do not agree with that the guy did for reasons I gave above, but your alarmist overreaction is just absurd. And the kids were not "relaying instructions", they were giving basic clearnace information which is entirely different. It is less dangerous than a crossing guard letting a kid carry his "stop" sign.
I've basically said the guy was irresponsible and his actions could have, in the worst possible case, caused serious harm.
Simple instructions, on the ground, a handful of times, while his dad was still on the radio.
If he broke rules (which he probably did) he should be in trouble for breaking rules. But his actions could not have caused serious harm.
Where?
You know, each and every time the kid talks.
To involve the kid, give him a unique experience, show him what daddy does, and brighten up peoples' day, all if which seemed to has worked.
And every one of those things is not only a great idea, but can also be accomplished in other ways. What you're citing as reasons for doing this on the job at an air traffic control station are not acceptible reasons to introduce an extra element to the process. Smiles are fun, but this is a job - and an important one. Wanna show junior what you do? Let him watch. Wanna brighten a pilot's day? Make a joke (even though that is also against procedure).
No one was in danger from the information the controller let the kids give. This was not in-flight positioning instructions, it was simple clearances.
And if the wrong clearance was given? If clearance was given to the wrong plane? At the wrong time?
Simple instructions, on the ground, a handful of times, while his dad was still on the radio.
If he broke rules (which he probably did) he should be in trouble for breaking rules. But his actions could not have caused serious harm.
And you know this for certain how?
Simple instructions, on the ground, a handful of times, while his dad was still on the radio.
If he broke rules (which he probably did) he should be in trouble for breaking rules. But his actions could not have caused serious harm.
And you know this for certain how?
I read the article. There's a link there in your OP if you'd like to see it.
He can't give the wrong clearance, because his dad was on the radio and he was talking to pilots on the ground.
He can't give clearance to the wrong plane because he wasn't the one in control, just speaking into the microphone.
He can't give it at the wrong time because he wasn't the one in control, just speaking into the microphone.
I read the article. There's a link there in your OP if you'd like to see it.
He can't give the wrong clearance, because his dad was on the radio and he was talking to pilots on the ground.
He can't give clearance to the wrong plane because he wasn't the one in control, just speaking into the microphone.
He can't give it at the wrong time because he wasn't the one in control, just speaking into the microphone.
So did I, thanks. Here's the deal, he was in control because the interface was between him and the pilot. Daddy being there somewhere doesn't change that. When the process at that point is one human speaking to another, the humans speaking are the ones in control. Unless the only important parts of the process are who and when (this removes the message from the process), there's a possibilty that the wrong information can be given. I'd also consider junior on the lap a distraction. You know, them pesky things that tend to cause people to make mistakes.