Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 28, 2016, 08:08:05 PM
Home Help Login Register      
News: Check out: FlightSimCon 2016 June 11-12, 2016


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Listener Forum (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  Another controller suspended
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Another controller suspended  (Read 8702 times)
cptbrw
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 161


« on: March 30, 2011, 07:44:27 AM »

A central Florida ATC controller has been suspended for an incident in which a Southwest flight en route to Orlando was requested to check on a non-responsive private plane en route to the nearby Kissimmee airport.  As a result, the aircraft lost separation minimums as the Southwest 737 came close enough to the Cirrus to observe occupants inside the Cirrus.


http://avherald.com/h?article=43a2096f&opt=0
Logged
jmallard
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #1 on: March 30, 2011, 10:57:48 AM »

I read an article that stated that (and I'm paraphrasing here), " although pilots are sometimes asked to fly by and check on other pilots, the rules were not followed in this case."

As long as the pilots accepted responsibility for separation, what's the problem here? Is there any insight as to which rules were broken?
Logged
ogogog
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 120



« Reply #2 on: March 30, 2011, 11:53:38 AM »

may have had less that 1000' or less that 3 miles before SWA reported the traffic in sight.the pilot has to say they will maintain vis sep on the freq before losing standard seperation.
Logged
w0x0f
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 338



« Reply #3 on: March 30, 2011, 12:12:03 PM »

I think the supervisor conducting this operation may get caught with the technicality that the SR22 pilot must also be informed that visual separation is being applied prior to losing standard separation.
Logged
ogogog
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 120



« Reply #4 on: March 30, 2011, 12:22:31 PM »

yea i forgot about that part, best thing is that it was a supervisor, BHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. in the last week its been FFA management 2 controllers 0.
Logged
djmodifyd
Guest
« Reply #5 on: March 30, 2011, 12:22:40 PM »

I think the supervisor conducting this operation may get caught with the technicality that the SR22 pilot must also be informed that visual separation is being applied prior to losing standard separation.

I believe that's only required when the targets are likely to merge, might be wrong there though

I also wouldn't do this with an air carrier, but that's personal preference. If the supe did the operation correctly I dont see the problem, but he might have not done it correctly
Logged
ogogog
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 120



« Reply #6 on: March 30, 2011, 01:05:34 PM »

I think the supervisor conducting this operation may get caught with the technicality that the SR22 pilot must also be informed that visual separation is being applied prior to losing standard separation.

I believe that's only required when the targets are likely to merge, might be wrong there though

I also wouldn't do this with an air carrier, but that's personal preference. If the supe did the operation correctly I dont see the problem, but he might have not done it correctly

they got him on the rule that says you have to be ABLE to communicate to the 2nd aircraft either directly or through another controller, not that you have to.
Logged
sykocus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 349



« Reply #7 on: March 30, 2011, 04:19:38 PM »

I read an article that stated that (and I'm paraphrasing here), " although pilots are sometimes asked to fly by and check on other pilots, the rules were not followed in this case."

As long as the pilots accepted responsibility for separation, what's the problem here? Is there any insight as to which rules were broken?

It's impossible to say without knowing the exact sequence of events. Some people have already brought up good points. Another one is if 737 got the SR22 in sight, was told to maintain visual separation, then passed over the top of it at less then 1000'. Then there is possibly wake turbulence separation to consider and the SR22 is the only one who can accept visual separation since they would be effected by the wake of the 737. There's also the technical problem of a 737 can't see an aircraft operating behind it so it can't really maintain visual separation with an aircraft it can no longer see. But it's all speculation without knowing the specifics.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2011, 04:33:59 PM by sykocus » Logged

Yesterday I couldn't spell air traffic controller. Today I R one.
cptbrw
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 161


« Reply #8 on: March 31, 2011, 07:58:34 AM »

Turns out Southwest has suspended the Captain and First Officer for their actions as well.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/03/29/faa.southwest.incident/
Logged
alltheway
Guest
« Reply #9 on: March 31, 2011, 09:03:21 AM »

Maybe when you look at this from the airline and FAA point of view....

A 737 vs Sirrus is commercial vs general aviation, where there is such a size difference and speed difference...

Where a Sirrus can make a short turn, the 737 can't, hence even fighterjets can't go that slow..... Evasive manouvres would be near impossible....

Big birds chase big birds and smaller birds are difficult to catch.....
Logged
klkm
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


« Reply #10 on: March 31, 2011, 04:49:23 PM »

Pretty sure the military has plenty of helicopters that could come meet up with a cirrus.  They don't send fighters every time, even the sheriff or police department could have sent up a helicopter.  After 5 minutes we have to report a NORDO.  There should be some sort of law enforcement/military aircraft on the NORDO before an hour goes by.  This is the whole reason for the awareness of NORDO aircraft.  Seems like the supervisor got tired of waiting decided to do something on their own and is getting burned for it.  Sounds to me like someone messed up behind the scenes in not coordinating an intercept prior to this. 
Logged
djmodifyd
Guest
« Reply #11 on: March 31, 2011, 05:48:35 PM »

I think the supervisor conducting this operation may get caught with the technicality that the SR22 pilot must also be informed that visual separation is being applied prior to losing standard separation.

I believe that's only required when the targets are likely to merge, might be wrong there though

I also wouldn't do this with an air carrier, but that's personal preference. If the supe did the operation correctly I dont see the problem, but he might have not done it correctly


they got him on the rule that says you have to be ABLE to communicate to the 2nd aircraft either directly or through another controller, not that you have to.

That rule only applies when the controller is providing the visual separation, which a radar controller never does. If the pilot is providing the visual separation the controller needs not be able to talk to the 2nd aircraft.

I don't think SWA was ever instructed to maintain visual separation, and the fact that it was a commercial aircraft is what is making this a bad thing.
Logged
w0x0f
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 338



« Reply #12 on: April 01, 2011, 02:24:41 PM »

I think the supervisor conducting this operation may get caught with the technicality that the SR22 pilot must also be informed that visual separation is being applied prior to losing standard separation.

I believe that's only required when the targets are likely to merge, might be wrong there though

I also wouldn't do this with an air carrier, but that's personal preference. If the supe did the operation correctly I dont see the problem, but he might have not done it correctly


they got him on the rule that says you have to be ABLE to communicate to the 2nd aircraft either directly or through another controller, not that you have to.

That rule only applies when the controller is providing the visual separation, which a radar controller never does. If the pilot is providing the visual separation the controller needs not be able to talk to the 2nd aircraft.

I don't think SWA was ever instructed to maintain visual separation, and the fact that it was a commercial aircraft is what is making this a bad thing.

I interpret the paragraph differently.  Radar controllers need to have the ability to communicate with the second aircraft according to 7-2-1.

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/ATC/atc0702.html#atc0702.html.
Logged
Hollis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 403


« Reply #13 on: April 01, 2011, 07:46:12 PM »

I think the FAA and SWA have gone a little bit overboard on this situation.
9/11 comes to mind.
Logged
RV1
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 104


« Reply #14 on: April 03, 2011, 12:10:33 AM »

Pretty sure the military has plenty of helicopters that could come meet up with a cirrus.   even the sheriff or police department could have sent up a helicopter. 
SR-20 & 22s at 11000' can move along at 170-190kts. F16 fighters can operate below that speed if needed. Lately, we've had them playing tag with a C172, which is much slower than the Cirrius. It would take a while for a helicopter to climb to 11K' AND do 170-190kts forward speed to keep up with the Cirrius.
Aren't we supposed to call the DEN and let them handle situations like this? And yes, 737s can fly the same speed as the Cirrus, when necessary. (They are called fluffs for a reason)
I do see this preventing others from asking/doing things like this in the future!
... If only they had used their TAM.   (Tower to Air Missile)
Logged

Kick butt, take no names, they dont matter anyways
djmodifyd
Guest
« Reply #15 on: April 03, 2011, 12:44:30 AM »

I think the supervisor conducting this operation may get caught with the technicality that the SR22 pilot must also be informed that visual separation is being applied prior to losing standard separation.

I believe that's only required when the targets are likely to merge, might be wrong there though

I also wouldn't do this with an air carrier, but that's personal preference. If the supe did the operation correctly I dont see the problem, but he might have not done it correctly


they got him on the rule that says you have to be ABLE to communicate to the 2nd aircraft either directly or through another controller, not that you have to.

That rule only applies when the controller is providing the visual separation, which a radar controller never does. If the pilot is providing the visual separation the controller needs not be able to talk to the 2nd aircraft.

I don't think SWA was ever instructed to maintain visual separation, and the fact that it was a commercial aircraft is what is making this a bad thing.

I interpret the paragraph differently.  Radar controllers need to have the ability to communicate with the second aircraft according to 7-2-1.

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/ATC/atc0702.html#atc0702.html.

Hmmm....after first glance it looks like you might be right. I'll have to look at all the notes and other related paragraphs, but I might have to change my interpretation!
Logged
alltheway
Guest
« Reply #16 on: April 03, 2011, 04:33:27 AM »

I think the supervisor conducting this operation may get caught with the technicality that the SR22 pilot must also be informed that visual separation is being applied prior to losing standard separation.

I believe that's only required when the targets are likely to merge, might be wrong there though

I also wouldn't do this with an air carrier, but that's personal preference. If the supe did the operation correctly I dont see the problem, but he might have not done it correctly


they got him on the rule that says you have to be ABLE to communicate to the 2nd aircraft either directly or through another controller, not that you have to.

That rule only applies when the controller is providing the visual separation, which a radar controller never does. If the pilot is providing the visual separation the controller needs not be able to talk to the 2nd aircraft.

I don't think SWA was ever instructed to maintain visual separation, and the fact that it was a commercial aircraft is what is making this a bad thing.

I interpret the paragraph differently.  Radar controllers need to have the ability to communicate with the second aircraft according to 7-2-1.

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/ATC/atc0702.html#atc0702.html.

Hmmm....after first glance it looks like you might be right. I'll have to look at all the notes and other related paragraphs, but I might have to change my interpretation!

Reading all of this is perfect for my study, it appears that the rules are difficult to understand and interpretted different by every single person on my planet....


See this comment as a Godwin hehehehe
« Last Edit: April 03, 2011, 04:35:10 AM by alltheway » Logged
jb8622
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 29


« Reply #17 on: April 05, 2011, 09:34:28 AM »

Ok I'm a little lost on y'alls interpretation of 7-2-1...

Are you saying that you need to be able to communicate with BOTH aircraft involved?
Logged
eltors0
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


« Reply #18 on: April 05, 2011, 10:32:20 PM »

Ok I'm a little lost on y'alls interpretation of 7-2-1...

Are you saying that you need to be able to communicate with BOTH aircraft involved?

Not necessarily. You need to be in communications with one of the aircraft and have the capabilities to get in contact with the other aircraft in which visual separation is being applied.  It is not required that you must be in contact with that second aircraft but if said aircraft NORDO, you cannot apply visual separation.
Logged
cessna157
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 708



WWW
« Reply #19 on: April 06, 2011, 05:48:48 PM »

There's one thing you guys are missing out on, and it's the one the FAA can and will get a PIC on every time.  I don't have my regs in front of me, but part 91 says the aircraft must be operated safely and prohibits "wre3ckless operation".  That is entirely subjective, and for the investigators to determine, and there's not really any way to argue it. 

As a part 121 crew, there are certain things that we just cannot do, although it is not specifially prohibited by FARs, this would be an example of one. 
Another example: we cannot just do a low approach/fly by at an airshow with a load of revenue passengers.

Also, I don't recall the exact wording, but formation flight with any revenue passengers is also prohibited, other than some exceptions (which I guess is what was being discussed above?)

If SWA were just a standard part 91 repo flight, then this would be a completely different scenario.  A part 121 flight is held to a much higher standard than a part 91 flight.
Logged

CRJ7/CRJ9 F/O, Travel Agent
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!