FAA Suspends Second Controller In One Week
03-30-2011, 01:48 PM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: Professional Monkey Trainer
Posts: 309
The Twin Cessna was VFR South of BYRDS at 10500 (West Bound) where class B encompassed 12500. We were instructed to deviate as necessary to avoid traffic, without vectoring us off the STAR. He then requested if we could identify the tail number, without deviating from the protocol of the arrival, to let him know.
Hindsight I would have included the details to make my point. To clarify my point, I was asking if it was unreasonable for the controller to ask us to identify the tail number of the Twin Cessna. Of course we could have replied "unable" if we thought it was an unsafe request. I however, am of the opinion that his request was not unsafe, or unreasonable, given the circumstances.
03-30-2011, 02:01 PM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Posts: 350
I was referring to the Ransom and Henson Dash7 ops at DCA. There'll never be another time and place like that. What a hoot!
03-30-2011, 02:52 PM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,839
Having flown a fair amount of formation I can tell those of you asking how close do you need to be in order to see two people in a Cirrus' cockpit - the answer is close. How close to see a registration number? Close. I'd like to actually see more details about this, but I'll say again in my opinion that I think this sounds like a bad idea.
USMCFLYR
USMCFLYR
03-30-2011, 04:12 PM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Window seat
Posts: 5,482
Just measured the length of my street. 600'. I have no problem seeing a driver in a car at the end of the street.
If they maintained 500' or a 1000' vertical seperation the difference between that an a merge between a VFR and IFR aircraft would be.....absolutely normal in the eyes of the FAA.
Details first, then the hanging.
If they maintained 500' or a 1000' vertical seperation the difference between that an a merge between a VFR and IFR aircraft would be.....absolutely normal in the eyes of the FAA.
Details first, then the hanging.
Last edited by Sliceback; 03-30-2011 at 04:21 PM. Reason: spelling
03-30-2011, 04:20 PM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Window seat
Posts: 5,482
Simple stuff -
"cleared to land runway 15/21/33, hold short of runway 18/36".
All about 2400', which was a more than enough for a Dash 7 (Vref 72 or 80 Kts at max wt), reversers, flaps dumped with WOW, spoilers with wheel spin up(of the vice versa)
Captains only landings. Well, at least officially.
"First guy that doesn't stop short will close the program down." Nothing like pressure.
03-30-2011, 04:36 PM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Guppy Capt.
Posts: 1,887
Having flown a fair amount of formation I can tell those of you asking how close do you need to be in order to see two people in a Cirrus' cockpit - the answer is close. How close to see a registration number? Close. I'd like to actually see more details about this, but I'll say again in my opinion that I think this sounds like a bad idea.
USMCFLYR
USMCFLYR
"FAA radar data show, that the Boeing descended down to 10,800 feet and back up to 11,000 feet while checking the Cirrus, that maintained 11,000 feet all time. The radar tracks suggest the minimum separation between the aircraft was less than 1.2nm lateral with 0 feet vertical."
03-30-2011, 04:51 PM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: Self employed
Posts: 3,048
According to The Aviation Herald
"FAA radar data show, that the Boeing descended down to 10,800 feet and back up to 11,000 feet while checking the Cirrus, that maintained 11,000 feet all time. The radar tracks suggest the minimum separation between the aircraft was less than 1.2nm lateral with 0 feet vertical."
"FAA radar data show, that the Boeing descended down to 10,800 feet and back up to 11,000 feet while checking the Cirrus, that maintained 11,000 feet all time. The radar tracks suggest the minimum separation between the aircraft was less than 1.2nm lateral with 0 feet vertical."
I just saw this blurb on a YouTube video:
"FAA Head Hank Krakowski commenting on the abundance of FAA supervisors with little or no ATC experience..."They don't pass the Smell Test"
03-30-2011, 06:56 PM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: KC135 IP
Posts: 398
What probably happened
They probably maneuvered too close in an effort to see, maybe the rate was too large and they received an RA. It was a sporty thing to do with pax on board. I only say that since they did not know why the other aircraft was NORDO. If something went wrong it could have abruptly turned into the SWA jet. Big picture though it is easy to second guess.
I will not criticize without having been there. We do this all the time air refueling, not to mention formation.
Hope it all works out for them
I will not criticize without having been there. We do this all the time air refueling, not to mention formation.
Hope it all works out for them
There's something missing in all this. I don't get the problem. This is NOT a formation with 1,000 feet ATC assigned separation.
First, this was NOT an air traffic controller, but a supervisor, just like in DCA last week. Yes, the agency actually has supervisors who were never controllers, or failed trainees, etc. They typically aren't checked out on all positions in a facility / radar facility area, and most definitely did NOT get to their lofty positions based on being a stellar air traffic controller.
Second, on the surface, I see no loss of separation, and actually I don't see a problem. There is something missing. Every day, aircraft pass each other at 1,000 feet ALL OVER THE WORLD, safely and legally. Having the crew ask to check on another aircraft, regardless of type, or how man pax on board, seems perfectly responsible and reasonable to me with 1,000 feet separation.
Third, it doesn't appear that the Cirrus was VFR. Also, wake turbulence shouldn't be an issue here.
Lastly, visual separation doesn't appear to have been used, or necessary. Also, visual separation is not applicable for enroute operations (not sure if this was terminal or enroute ops). ATC must have communication with both aircraft, or the ABILITY to communicate with both:
b. EN ROUTE. Visual separation may be used up
to but not including FL 180 when the following
conditions are met:
1. Direct communication is maintained with one
of the aircraft involved and there is an ability to
communicate with the other.
a. TERMINAL. Visual separation may be applied
between aircraft under the control of the same facility
within the terminal area up to but not including
FL180, provided:
1. Communication is maintained with at least
one of the aircraft involved or the capability to
communicate immediately as prescribed in
para3-9-3, Departure Control Instructions, subpara
a2 is available, and:
2. The aircraft are visually observed by the
tower and visual separation is maintained between
the aircraft by the tower. The tower shall not provide
visual separation between aircraft when wake
turbulence separation is required or when the lead
aircraft is a B757.
3. A pilot sees another aircraft and is instructed
to maintain visual separation from the aircraft as
follows:
(a) Tell the pilot about the other aircraft
including position, direction and, unless it is obvious,
the other aircraft's intention.
(b) Obtain acknowledgment from the pilot
that the other aircraft is in sight."
First, this was NOT an air traffic controller, but a supervisor, just like in DCA last week. Yes, the agency actually has supervisors who were never controllers, or failed trainees, etc. They typically aren't checked out on all positions in a facility / radar facility area, and most definitely did NOT get to their lofty positions based on being a stellar air traffic controller.
Second, on the surface, I see no loss of separation, and actually I don't see a problem. There is something missing. Every day, aircraft pass each other at 1,000 feet ALL OVER THE WORLD, safely and legally. Having the crew ask to check on another aircraft, regardless of type, or how man pax on board, seems perfectly responsible and reasonable to me with 1,000 feet separation.
Third, it doesn't appear that the Cirrus was VFR. Also, wake turbulence shouldn't be an issue here.
Lastly, visual separation doesn't appear to have been used, or necessary. Also, visual separation is not applicable for enroute operations (not sure if this was terminal or enroute ops). ATC must have communication with both aircraft, or the ABILITY to communicate with both:
b. EN ROUTE. Visual separation may be used up
to but not including FL 180 when the following
conditions are met:
1. Direct communication is maintained with one
of the aircraft involved and there is an ability to
communicate with the other.
a. TERMINAL. Visual separation may be applied
between aircraft under the control of the same facility
within the terminal area up to but not including
FL180, provided:
1. Communication is maintained with at least
one of the aircraft involved or the capability to
communicate immediately as prescribed in
para3-9-3, Departure Control Instructions, subpara
a2 is available, and:
2. The aircraft are visually observed by the
tower and visual separation is maintained between
the aircraft by the tower. The tower shall not provide
visual separation between aircraft when wake
turbulence separation is required or when the lead
aircraft is a B757.
3. A pilot sees another aircraft and is instructed
to maintain visual separation from the aircraft as
follows:
(a) Tell the pilot about the other aircraft
including position, direction and, unless it is obvious,
the other aircraft's intention.
(b) Obtain acknowledgment from the pilot
that the other aircraft is in sight."
03-31-2011, 08:34 AM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Window seat
Posts: 5,482
According to The Aviation Herald
"FAA radar data show, that the Boeing descended down to 10,800 feet and back up to 11,000 feet while checking the Cirrus, that maintained 11,000 feet all time. The radar tracks suggest the minimum separation between the aircraft was less than 1.2nm lateral with 0 feet vertical."
"FAA radar data show, that the Boeing descended down to 10,800 feet and back up to 11,000 feet while checking the Cirrus, that maintained 11,000 feet all time. The radar tracks suggest the minimum separation between the aircraft was less than 1.2nm lateral with 0 feet vertical."
Now for some facts - visual approaches in ORD? 1.0 mile lateral seperation.
JFK 31's? 1.0 mile. JFK 4's? .6 lateral seperation.
MIA 8's? .15
"But, but, but...."
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
