[zlopikanikanza]

Why is society being dragged into this?

If a company or organization has rules in place, shouldn't they act if the rules are broken? That seems to be what the FAA is doing.

Many companies, mine included, have zero-tolerance policies in place. When someone crosses the line on one of these issues, they're gone. I've had to deal with this reality, standing by helpless as people lost their jobs.

I'm sure the guidelines for an air-traffic controller are more strict than for me.

I just think it's unfortunate that society is IMO far too what-if driven and overreacts to situations like this. You and NH seem to be driven by what-if, in this case, the absence of such condoning the behavior. I'm saying that what-if has nothing to do with it.

[ljq0AYOV]

I'm not condoning it, as I said. I'm just saying that I think there was an overreaction. And I HATE the way the media causes a frenzy.

Zero-tolerance certainly has its place, but is often misused and misdirected.

[Metalhead]

^

Reactive is better than proactive?

That wasn't the question.

Was this a situation where even an error would have meant anyone was at risk? Was he letting the kid handle a tight situation, or just give clearance to a specific plane for takeoff on a closed channel?

Policy regarding safety standards shouldn't be driven by the result. If there was a collision, we'd all be screaming for criminal indictments. IF is the key word here. Was this a situation that could have caused a collision? It did not sound like it to me. It sounded like a simple "go ahead". Was this kid unsupervised? Did they make this decision? If they called the plane the wrong name would it have mattered?

If you really want to pull the "what if" card, the ONLY argument, which NOBODY has presented so far is that Kids in the control room are a distraction and can impair the controllers ability to do their job.


No, everyone is focusing on Jr saying "adiós" rather than what could have really caused a problem.

"No harm no foul" may work in the NBA, but not places like air traffic control. People are just missing the mark. It ain't the fur on the animal that will do you the most harm, it's the claws and the teeth.

[Zarekylin75]

^
Well, the media always tries to cause a frenzy; that's sort of their job (although I don't see much of it here). In such situations, a public momentum develops that drowns out everything else. Politicians get involved.

But the coverage and reaction have been light. The FAA didn't seem to be forced into taking action, and the union hasn't exactly disagreed with them.

[euylvaygdq]

Many companies, mine included, have zero-tolerance policies in place. When someone crosses the line on one of these issues, they're gone. I've had to deal with this reality, standing by helpless as people lost their jobs.

The way you phrase this makes it sound like this was not something you liked, or possibly even agreed with.

The key is this. Would that act, the way it was done, have put anyone at risk?

The reason this should be discouraged is ONLY because it is easier to draw the line at "absolutely not" than to try and describe individual instances where it is OK.

I think the fact that, even if this was a no tolerance policy, that the FAA seems to be out to gut this guy instead of admitting reluctance for enforcement on a relatively innocuous event is what gets me irked.

No "While this was an innocent enough occurance, we are sorry to say that it is in the contract that this kind of behavior, no matter how innocent it may be, is not allowed in the control tower".

Instead they sound like this guy had the plane full of Nuns, orphans and puppies on the line between life and death and he let this kid risk them all.....




Or maybe that is just how the media is trumping it up.....

[beloveds]

...Kids in the control room are a distraction and can impare the controllers ability to do theior job.

Good point.

...that's sort of their job...

Totally disagree.

In such situations, a public momentum develops that drowns out everything else. A frenzy.


Anyway, it was a lapse in judgement, he broke the rules, nothing went wrong, rap him on the knuckles, move on. I'd be interested to know how long he's been an ATC and what motivated him to do what he's done.

[Dkavtbek]

The way you phrase this makes it sound like this was not something you liked, or possibly even agreed with.

No, realization of the inevitable. One such zero-tolerance policy is workplace violence. I defended someone in a case where no contact was made, but the threat was enough. I tried to minimize the damage, but I knew it was a lost cause. Of course I didn't like it, but I didn't disagree with it.

I think the fact that, even if this was a no tolerance policy, that the FAA seems to be out to gut this guy instead of admitting reluctance for enforcement on a relatively innocuous event is what gets me irked. Speculation on your part. If in fact, the policy is zero-tolerance, then the event isn't innocuous.

Instead they sound like this guy had the plane full of Nuns, orphans and puppies on the line between life and death and he let this kid risk them all.... You are stuck in reactive rules, which are no rules at all.

[M1zdL0hh]

Totally disagree.

Sarcastic of course. It's what they do; what they've always done. Probably worse in the past, judging by historical news items. But the media didn't seem to drive this. Even DQ's title didn't have a

A "slap on the wrist" for an incident (two) in what should be a secure area? Just makes security theater more of a joke.

[attanilifardy]

A "slap on the wrist" for an incident (two) in what should be a secure area? Just makes security theater more of a joke.

You see, I think we are kind of coming to a focus point here.

Most of us agree that it is not right to have kids in the control tower in the first place for various reasons, but we are in disagreement over whether the act committed once IN the tower was as bad as the forthcoming punishment (and FAA reaction) might be.

That should have been the statement, that should have been the focus.

Don't say that a relatively innocuous contact on the radio is the reason for punishment, but allowing children in the control room in the first place.

[bitymnmictada]

What puzzles me is how were those kids able to get past security?

That is a very highly restricted area, and ordinary people are not allowed up there according to the FAA.

[Keyclenef]

the act committed once IN the tower

It seems like twice by the same person.

bad as the forthcoming punishment (and FAA reaction) might be. No punishment was announced; administrative leave during an investigation is common practice.

What exactly in the FAA statement is unacceptable?

------------------------------

Daddy, can I push in the control rods?

What's everyone making such a big deal over? I was watching everything; it wasn't a peak-load period; and there was no core meltdown.

OK, don't do it again.

[24MurinivaMak]

Straw man.

It would be like forbidding the kid to turn on the lights in the lunchroom of the nuclear facility.

As for the punishment, I know nothing was announced yet, that's why I said "might"

[BoomBully]

Straw man.

How is it so different? Both high security facilities, limited access, agency regulated, potential for danger.

It would be like forbidding the kid to turn on the lights in the lunchroom of the nuclear facility. What the kid did in the control tower is the controller's job. Turning on the lights in the lunchroom of a nuclear plant isn't the job.

As for the punishment, I know nothing was announced yet, that's why I said "might" The question was what problem you have with the FAA statement.

[OWDavid]

Talking to pilots and directing flights is akin to allowing "the kid to turn on the lights in the lunchroom of the nuclear facility"

Seems that simply having the kid turn on the lights in the control tower would be a better comparison.

Doubt anyone would be moaning about that. Plus there'd be no recording of it to play on the airwaves.

[HondasMenFox]

Plus there'd be no recording of it to play on the airwaves.

Maybe this is all just nature's way of weeding out dumb people.

[Vcwdldva]

How is it so different? Both high security facilities, limited access, agency regulated, potential for danger.

The difference is the action you described. Like I said, we are in agreeance about the venue, just not on the action itself.

The major infraction was permission to enter in the first place. THAT was what could cause problems if someone did something OTHER than give a plane the OK to take off under the watchful eye of another.

What the kid did in the control tower is the controller's job. Turning on the lights in the lunchroom of a nuclear plant isn't the job. Splitting hairs. What if the kid at the nuke plant simply came in and watched for an alarm to go off? What if he mopped the floor? Isn't that someone's job in there?

Saying riding in a squadcar is the same as pointing a gun at a suspect is not equitable. Not all jobs in any of the three situations listed are equally risky.

The question was what problem you have with the FAA statement. The statement they issued on TV sounded like they caught a terrorist, not that they caught Daddy allowing his son to see what he did for a living and toot the siren on the fire engine.

[sposteTipsKage]

Talking to pilots and directing flights is akin to allowing "the kid to turn on the lights in the lunchroom of the nuclear facility"

It is nearly as harmless. It is not controlling the fuel rods at a nuclear facility, although there are probably safeguards preventing a Simpson-like episode from happening from a simple act such as that anyway....

Seems that simply having the kid turn on the lights in the control tower would be a better comparison.

Doubt anyone would be moaning about that. Plus there'd be no recording of it to play on the airwaves. But he would still be breaking the rules of being in an area he was not allowed. So, strictly according to the rules, if this had happened, the people involved should have been chastized just the same for their breaking of the rules as the YouTube video made its way around the net...

Guys, I am not saying he did nothing wrong, but the acts that were comitted were not any that endangered anyone. The purpose of forbidding unothorized people from coming in is not to specifically prevent an act such as this, but others that may be more life threatening. It is a MUCH simpler rule to enforce than "You can have your kids here, but only during XX hours, only on break, you can allow them to listen to your radio communications, but they can't talk, etc etc etc"


Again, it just seems, as ironic as this "discussion" is getting, that they took it much more seriously than what was warranted. It seems like they were trying to convince a bunch of people that did not really care that they were safe and they (the FAA) was keeping an eye out for them.

[isopsmypovA]

Splitting hairs.

You did that in the first sentence of this post I'm quoting.

What if the kid at the nuke plant simply came in and watched for an alarm to go off? What's with the what-ifs? You're still hung up on rules enforced by results. I gave you simple list of similarities, and you go off in a squad car. Or have janitors mopping floors.

The statement they issued on TV sounded like they caught a terrorist Do you have a video; is there a text copy, and is it different than the posted FAA statement?

It is not controlling the fuel rods at a nuclear facility, Daddy to son: "Just push that button right now."

It's ridiculous that you're trying to set up a hierarchy of dangerous jobs.

[poekfpojoibien]

What's with the what-ifs? You're still hung up on rules enforced by results. I gave you simple list of similarities, and you go off in a squad car. Or have janitors mopping floors.

You made the analogy between this and a nuclear meltdown.

I was trying to find a nice way to sy that was an ill-fitted analogy.

Do you have a video; is there a text copy, and is it different than the posted FAA statement? Do I need one for a post on an internet chat forum?

Daddy to son: "Just push that button right now." And? Your analogy implied that all hell could break loose and another Chernobyl could result. If it was only pressing a "that was easy" button with no ramifications I really do not care who presses it so long as they were instructed to do so by someone in the know AND there could be no harmful ramifications.


Again, we come back to "why were they allowed in in the first place'

NOT

"They never should have done XXX"

It's ridiculous that you're trying to set up a hierarchy of dangerous jobs. Your opinion.

[orbidewa]

Sorry about the delayed reply. It's been a busy week.

I don't understand how taking your job seriously has become dehumanizing.

Seriously, it was about wanting to take his job for acting like a human. I think a reprimand or fine would be more in line.

How does this With all the indignities the FAA and the airlines put their customers through, relate to the procedures in a control tower? It smacks of sour grapes, and when tied with firing the dad, it sounds like revenge. Did someone serve you stale peanuts or something?

Last year, a Delta pilot and co-pilot were "chatting" and flew 100 miles past the Minneapolis approach. They lost their licenses, or should I say, were dehumanized. Those guys missed an airport. The kid (and his dad) missed nothing.
Are you suggesting that pilots not chat during a flight?