...people are starting to get suspended and probably worse is coming because an ATC brought his kid into work at JFK and let him talk to a few flights.



The Taliban could relate to that level of zealotry. :tap:

Saw that this morning. They play the recording. Seemed harmless enough; however, it's a major violation. The kid wasn't even supposed to be in the tower at all, let alone be allowed to give T/O clearance and frequency change approval to the JBU flight.

Saw that this morning. They play the recording. Seemed harmless enough; however, it's a major violation. The kid wasn't even supposed to be in the tower at all, let alone be allowed to give T/O clearance and frequency change approval to the JBU flight.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. For crying out loud, obviously, dad was telling him what to say and was right there. It's not like he said "Son, take over while I go to break..."

Clearly, every single plane understood the kid, just fine and right away. This is not a safety issue or risk, at all. Anyone whose ever head these people talk regularly, geez, this was plain English compared to the usual much mouth, unintelligible verbal hieroglyphics these people are used to! :lol:

Yeah, yeah, yeah. For crying out loud, obviously, dad was telling him what to say and was right there. It's not like he said "Son, take over while I go to break..."

Clearly, every single plane understood the kid, just fine and right away. This is not a safety issue or risk, at all. Anyone whose ever head these people talk regularly, geez, this was plain English compared to the usual much mouth, unintelligible verbal hieroglyphics these people are used to! :lol:

I think the little bugger did a good job. He/she (?) was intelligible and everything. It even sounded like at least one of the pilots was amused.
No harm, no foul......but Dad's still got a very good chance of losing his job cuz of something written in some never-seen "rule book."

I think the little bugger did a good job. He/she (?) was intelligible and everything. It even sounded like at least one of the pilots was amused.
No harm, no foul......but Dad's still got a very good chance of losing his job cuz of something written in some never-seen "rule book."

OK, but, why not a reprimand or, say, a fine of some sort so that everyone doesn't start doing it. Or, better yet, how about 'bring your kid to the tower' day once a month or so? Or, you get to bring your kid as some sort of performance reward?

I swear to God, we are less different than the Taliban every day; we are starting to serve our rules rather than the rules serving us.

Although I may agree that they are making a mountain out of a molehill, someone wasnt thinking too clearly when they allowed this to happen.

The father of the kid isnt the only one in trouble here. His supervisor and anyone in the tower with a smile on their face is in the Dookie.

It wasnt the brightest thing to do. A ten day suspension would be more than adequate punishment in my mind, and I dont equate this in any way with the decapitating Taliban.
That's a bit absurd. You probably wouldnt let a Police Officer loan his kid his gun.

I think the little bugger did a good job. He/she (?) was intelligible and everything. It even sounded like at least one of the pilots was amused.
No harm, no foul......but Dad's still got a very good chance of losing his job cuz of something written in some never-seen "rule book."

This isn't a case of some unknown rule. This is the basics. If you're not a certified controller, you don't control aircraft. In this case it was harmless and it even sounded like the pilots got a kick out it but the dad should've known better. Hopefully, the higher-ups will just give him a warning or a lite reprimand so everyone can move on but it shouldn't just be excused.

BTW, the kid did speak more clearly then most controllers do. Someday, when he's old enough and goes through the training and gets certified, maybe be he'll end up being a great controller.

[/QUOTE]

I swear to God, we are less different than the Taliban every day; we are starting to serve our rules rather than the rules serving us.[/QUOTE]

Exactly.

We need to stop creating solutions in search of a problems.

Although I may agree that they are making a mountain out of a molehill, someone wasnt thinking too clearly when they allowed this to happen.

The father of the kid isnt the only one in trouble here. His supervisor and anyone in the tower with a smile on their face is in the Dookie.

It wasnt the brightest thing to do. A ten day suspension would be more than adequate punishment in my mind, and I dont equate this in any way with the decapitating Taliban.
That's a bit absurd. You probably wouldnt let a Police Officer loan his kid his gun.

This kid wasn't handed a loaded weapon! He wasn't given the controls of a plane! He repeated what what his dad told him to say! Not from memory. Just short, concise statements.

10 suspension is crazy and so is punishing everyone in the tower. Treat mole hills like mole hills.

Although I may agree that they are making a mountain out of a molehill, someone wasnt thinking too clearly when they allowed this to happen.

The father of the kid isnt the only one in trouble here. His supervisor and anyone in the tower with a smile on their face is in the Dookie.

It wasnt the brightest thing to do. A ten day suspension would be more than adequate punishment in my mind, and I dont equate this in any way with the decapitating Taliban.
That's a bit absurd. You probably wouldnt let a Police Officer loan his kid his gun.

I also wonder why the pilots didn't req clearification when they heard a kid's voice on the air.

It wasnt the brightest thing to do. A ten day suspension would be more than adequate punishment in my mind, and I dont equate this in any way with the decapitating Taliban.

FYI: The Taliban doesn't do decapitation. That's al queda. You can be excuse from knowing the difference. Most Americans don't.

I also wonder why the pilots didn't req clearification when they heard a kid's voice on the air.

Because, I think, it was obviously not a big deal to a one of them. :shrug:

This kid wasn't handed a loaded weapon! He wasn't given the controls of a plane! He repeated what what his dad told him to say! Not from memory. Just short, concise statements.

10 suspension is crazy and so is punishing everyone in the tower. Treat mole hills like mole hills.


As it turned out, it was harmless but one little mistake, it might not have been. In that case, it would've been way more dangerous than a loaded weapon. It doesn't matter that the kid repeated what what his dad told him to say. The dad was not supposed to let the kid talk on the air at all, no matter how good the kid was.

A 1-3 day unpaid vacation might be more appropriate.

Larry, its real simple, you don't let unauthorized folks into a tower. And you dont let them talk to aircraft. The rules are there for a reason. I was on an aircraft once where a trainee controller almost sent us into the dirt mound on the side of the runway.

Real easy for a seemingly simple error to lead to disaster. Would you be okay with a crane operator taking his kid up top and letting him work the controls? With hundreds of citizens on the sidewalk below at risk?

Larry, its real simple, you don't let unauthorized folks into a tower. And you dont let them talk to aircraft. The rules are there for a reason. I was on an aircraft once where a trainee controller almost sent us into the dirt mound on the side of the runway.

Real easy for a seemingly simple error to lead to disaster. Would you be okay with a crane operator taking his kid up top and letting him work the controls? With hundreds of citizens on the sidewalk below at risk?


Here's an example of a pilot letting his kid sit in the capt's seat, against regualtions. Seemed harmless enough though. Plane was at criuse with auto-pilot on. The problem is that the kid put pressure on the controls long enough to partially dissengage the AP. Plane crashed. In the aviation world, there are reasons for all those picky rules. There is very little margin for error, even on the ATC side of things.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_593








.

Larry, its real simple, you don't let unauthorized folks into a tower. And you dont let them talk to aircraft. The rules are there for a reason. I was on an aircraft once where a trainee controller almost sent us into the dirt mound on the side of the runway.



Guess you woulda been better off with this kid and his dad at the mic, huh?

:lol:

:buddies:

Here's an example of a pilot letting his kid sit in the capt's seat, against regualtions. Seemed harmless enough though. Plane was at criuse with auto-pilot on. The problem is that the kid put pressure on the controls long enough to partially dissengage the AP. Plane crashed. In the aviation world, there are reasons for all those picky rules. There is very little margin for error, even on the ATC side of things.


Aeroflot Flight 593 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_593)


.


Yes, yes, headset, flying the plane, it's all the same... :tap:

Guess you woulda been better off with this kid and his dad at the mic, huh?

:lol:

:buddies:


Larry, its not about what did happen, its about what could have happened. The person with the headset is effectively flying the aircraft, that the "control" part of ATC.

Larry, its not about what did happen, its about what could have happened. The person with the headset is effectively flying the aircraft, that the "control" part of ATC.

Oh, come on! All he did was give them clearance to take off, right?
How long do you think it would have taken for someone to have said "Correction..." had he even got a syllable wrong?

I think you people are just touchy that there will be some new requirement that non ATC/pilots must be able to understand what you people are saying!

:evil:



:lol:

This isn't a case of some unknown rule. This is the basics. If you're not a certified controller, you don't control aircraft. In this case it was harmless and it even sounded like the pilots got a kick out it but the dad should've known better. Hopefully, the higher-ups will just give him a warning or a lite reprimand so everyone can move on but it shouldn't just be excused.

BTW, the kid did speak more clearly then most controllers do. Someday, when he's old enough and goes through the training and gets certified, maybe be he'll end up being a great controller.

I didn't say anything about an 'unknown rule.'

I said, 'something written in some never-seen "rule book".'
The "rule" is prob'ly in that book but the ATC and super violated the rule. I'm not saying heads shouldn't roll, but COME ON.....Dad F'd up. Dole out the punishments DON'T EVER DO IT AGAIN and move on.

Yes, yes, headset, flying the plane, it's all the same... :tap:

I didn't say they were the same except both are cases where employee lets kid perform duties against regulations. As I've already said, the JFK ATC thing turned out to be harmless. A couple of switches thrown by the kid without dad seeing it happen could've have caused a mishap at best or a collision or crash at worst. Just because it's ATC we're talking about doesn't make it any less critical.

I didn't say they were the same except both are cases where employee lets kid perform duties against regulations. As I've already said, the JFK ATC thing turned out to be harmless. A couple of switches thrown by the kid without dad seeing it happen could've have caused a mishap at best or a collision or crash at worst. Just because it's ATC we're talking about doesn't make it any less critical.

I am not saying it's not critical, at all. I am saying the endless rigid pursuit of absolute total control of human beings in every step and phase of existence is more so serving the rules than it is the rules serving man and that can't possibly be good for us.

As people.

good lord....It just goes to show you that it's not a procedure it's a personality....obviously the pilots didn't have any problem with it....obviously the other people in the tower were good with it....some people just can't leave well enough alone....

forget it's probably happened countless times before...as well as pilots letting their sons steer the plane...or a little kid from the back.....that used to be a rite of passage, getting to come up to the cockpit and sit in the co-pilot seat....for obvious reasons we can't allow access to a cockpit anymore...but man...some of you need to lighten up....

I didn't say anything about an 'unknown rule.'

I said, 'something written in some never-seen "rule book".'
The "rule" is prob'ly in that book but the ATC and super violated the rule. I'm not saying heads shouldn't roll, but COME ON.....Dad F'd up. Dole out the punishments DON'T EVER DO IT AGAIN and move on.

Hum, let's see.... Letting kids at the controls. That's not an unknown rule nor is it in a never seen "rule book". Only certified personnel are to be at the controls. That's basic ATC 101. You can't become a controller without knowing that. Now, the fact that pilots taxing at KCLT are required to squawk Charlie while taxing would be more of an unknown rule to a controller at KDCA where pilots don't squawk Charlie until they're holding short of the runway. Rules like that are less known depending on where one controls. Rules dictating who is allowed to control are know to all ATC.

Hum, let's see.... Letting kids at the controls. That's not an unknown rule nor is it in a never seen "rule book". Only certified personnel are to be at the controls. That's basic ATC 101. You can't become a controller without knowing that. Now, the fact that pilots taxing at KCLT are required to squawk Charlie while taxing would be more of an unknown rule to a controller at KDCA where pilots don't squawk Charlie until they're holding short of the runway. Rules like that are less known depending on where one controls. Rules dictating who is allowed to control are know to all ATC.

Let's just say this, okay.....EVERYBODY in that tower that had knowledge of this act and/or was within earshot or within sight of this act should have to go to "The Principal's Office." <end of file>

Even if we forget about the "what ifs" this is a security violation. No unauthorized personnel. Period. End of question. My wife and kids have never been to my workplace, and it is nowhere near as sensitive as an ATC tower.

Security and safety rules are not something you fudge. If the rule says "shall" or "shall not" it must not be broken. Period. If you do break the rules you deserve to be fired.

If a rule is unreasonable, change the rule. If you want an exception, get permission first.

...or a little kid from the back.....that used to be a rite of passage, getting to come up to the cockpit and sit in the co-pilot seat....for obvious reasons we can't allow access to a cockpit anymore...but man...some of you need to lighten up....

That's still a rite of passage. My boys get to do it on just about every flight we go on but it's done on the ground at the gate.

That's still a rite of passage. My boys get to do it on just about every flight we go on but it's done on the ground at the gate.

I'm not going to argue the letter of the law with you...you are right...plain and simple...the spirit however leaves something to be desired...i'm sure your boys would like it a whole lot more if they were looking through the windows at 35K instead of at the gate...but it's the world we live in..so be it.

I am not saying it's not critical, at all. I am saying the endless rigid pursuit of absolute total control of human beings in every step and phase of existence is more so serving the rules than it is the rules serving man and that can't possibly be good for us.

As people.

I'm not talking about absolute total control of human beings in every step and phase of existence. I'm talking about a certain set of rules in the aviation industry that have helped to make air travel the safest mode of travel. Look back at crashes and mishaps in the airlines and you'll find that some are do to mechanical failures but most are due to human error where there was failure to follow some rule or regulation. So many times, NTSB investigations find that if a certain rule a reg hadn't been overlooked, the accident in question would've never happened. Now, that might sound extreme but it all starts with the basics.

I'm not going to argue the letter of the law with you...you are right...plain and simple...the spirit however leaves something to be desired...i'm sure your boys would like it a whole lot more if they were looking through the windows at 35K instead of at the gate...but it's the world we live in..so be it.

Yep. They sure would like it better looking out at FL350 but their choice is to either look out the window at their seat or plan on working toward a pilot's license in a few years.

I'm not going to argue the letter of the law with you...you are right...plain and simple...the spirit however leaves something to be desired...i'm sure your boys would like it a whole lot more if they were looking through the windows at 35K instead of at the gate...but it's the world we live in..so be it.

I'd much rather they make them sit in the back than have them fudge the rules, open the cockpit door, and have some raghead turn them into the payload in their guided missile to Allah.

Oh, come on! All he did was give them clearance to take off, right?
How long do you think it would have taken for someone to have said "Correction..." had he even got a syllable wrong?

I think you people are just touchy that there will be some new requirement that non ATC/pilots must be able to understand what you people are saying!

:evil:



:lol:
I think a lot of people here have something to do with the aviation community.

I think a lot of people here have something to do with the aviation community.

I don't see how that could be. :shrug:


:lol:


And damn touchy about it, too, aren't they? :lol:

I'm not talking about absolute total control of human beings in every step and phase of existence. I'm talking about a certain set of rules in the aviation industry that have helped to make air travel the safest mode of travel. Look back at crashes and mishaps in the airlines and you'll find that some are do to mechanical failures but most are due to human error where there was failure to follow some rule or regulation. So many times, NTSB investigations find that if a certain rule a reg hadn't been overlooked, the accident in question would've never happened. Now, that might sound extreme but it all starts with the basics.Have to agree. If there was an aircraft mishap at the time, they would have screened every recording. One wrong word or even a pilot that mistakes one word for another and that's all. People will be brought up on charges, etc. You can sit and say it was only a kid making a few radio calls, but if something had happened during that time, someones azz would have really been had.

I see the logic of "hey, the dad brought his kid in, and it was all fun, nobody got hurt, everybody understood, etc.". This time.

But as policy, they have to enforce their rules in this case. It protects the FAA when the onion is peeled in some future happening, not necessarily just this one. The message to other controllers is loud and clear.

FYI: The Taliban doesn't do decapitation.

:popcorn:

:popcorn:

Thank you! As I say, they don't do be-headings.

Thank you! As I say, they don't do be-headings.


:buddies:


you liked that huh ?

:buddies:


you liked that huh ?

Yes, because we, as stupid Americans, don't really know from Taliban, al queda, Shia, Sunni, Wahhabi, Arab, Persian, etc, so on and so forth.

And we sure as hell don't know from Pashtun or Tajik and the innate conflicts of Afghanistan, the square pegs and round holes, the Hatfield's and McCoy's were have been naively trying to coerce into getting along just because we're Americans, by God!

So, you present a teaching moment, a good thing! :lol:

FYI: The Taliban doesn't do decapitation. That's al queda. You can be excuse from knowing the difference. Most Americans don't.

If you are going to choose to correct someone on their grammar, shouldn't you use grammar properly?

If you are going to choose to correct someone on their grammar, shouldn't you use grammar properly?
Not to mention that the Taliban does lop off peoples heads (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hyWmuEDEun5EzMAsSuPnDp22prxA).
but, We cant expect everyone to know this, many Americans have pushed it aside for reasons of political correctness.

Not to mention that the Taliban does lop off peoples heads (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hyWmuEDEun5EzMAsSuPnDp22prxA).
but, We cant expect everyone to know this, many Americans have pushed it aside for reasons of political correctness.

My bad. I'd be interested if this was actually Pashtun Taliban or if this was al queda and lazy reporting?

If you are going to choose to correct someone on their grammar, shouldn't you use grammar properly?

When I correct someone, it's to tease them. I am a mess grammatically.

So, who(m?) did I correct that caught your ever diligent attention?

My bad. I'd be interested if this was actually Pashtun Taliban or if this was al queda and lazy reporting?
I have no clue.
I just had to search to make sure what I thought I had heard was correct.
Without the luxery of google, I would have been going out on a limb to correct you on it.

I have no clue.
I just had to search to make sure what I thought I had heard was correct.
Without the luxery of google, I would have been going out on a limb to correct you on it.

I hear that. :lol:

I'd still be interested. As I understand it, beheading is more a Wahhabi Sunni thing and not something the Pashtun's have been noted for over the years.

My bad. I'd be interested if this was actually Pashtun Taliban or if this was al queda and lazy reporting?

I can't remember, but this post here made me laugh. :buddies:

...people are starting to get suspended and probably worse is coming because an ATC brought his kid into work at JFK and let him talk to a few flights.



The Taliban could relate to that level of zealotry. :tap:

I haven't read this thread except for your opening..I absolutely disagree with your point of view. There is no way in hell that kids belong in a control tower, whether with their mom/dad or not. They are a distraction to not only the parent, but to every one in the tower. They are not controlling buses that are earthbound with hundreds of people, they are controlling airplanes where even a minor screwup can cost hundreds of lives. Attention to their job is paramount for an ATC and having cute or bratty kids in a control tower is a distraction to everyone.

I haven't read this thread except for your opening..I absolutely disagree with your point of view. There is no way in hell that kids belong in a control tower, whether with their mom/dad or not. They are a distraction to not only the parent, but to every one in the tower. They are not controlling buses that are earthbound with hundreds of people, they are controlling airplanes where even a minor screwup can cost hundreds of lives. Attention to their job is paramount for an ATC and having cute or bratty kids in a control tower is a distraction to everyone.

That seems to be the consensus.

...

BTW, the kid did speak more clearly then most controllers do. Someday, when he's old enough and goes through the training and gets certified, maybe be he'll end up being a great controller.

That was probably dad's hope, but now the kid will have a bad taste about the FAA and say take your controller job and keep it. I wouldn't blame the kid for thinking that way.

Some of the clearances I have received could have been given by a 5 year old.

That was probably dad's hope, but now the kid will have a bad taste about the FAA and say take your controller job and keep it. I wouldn't blame the kid for thinking that way.

Some of the clearances I have received could have been given by a 5 year old.

Prepare to defend yourself. :lol:

Larry, its real simple, you don't let unauthorized folks into a tower. And you dont let them talk to aircraft. The rules are there for a reason. I was on an aircraft once where a trainee controller almost sent us into the dirt mound on the side of the runway.

Real easy for a seemingly simple error to lead to disaster. Would you be okay with a crane operator taking his kid up top and letting him work the controls? With hundreds of citizens on the sidewalk below at risk?

If you followed the controller's instruction that would have put the aircraft into a dirt mound, the PIC would be dumber than a brick.

PIC -> Pilot In Command

A PIC can refuse any ATC command. I have when talking to JFK when they tried to let me down into known icing in an aircraft that was not "known icing" equipped.

Larry, its not about what did happen, its about what could have happened. The person with the headset is effectively flying the aircraft, that the "control" part of ATC.
NO!


The PIC is flying the airplane. Too many PICs forget that. For that matter, too many ATCs think they are flying the airplane.

If you followed the controller's instruction that would have put the aircraft into a dirt mound, the PIC would be dumber than a brick.

PIC -> Pilot In Command

A PIC can refuse any ATC command. I have when talking to JFK when they tried to let me down into known icing in an aircraft that was not "known icing" equipped.

Yep, if the PIC has the visibility to know the mound is out there. This was Adak Alaska, and vis was not very good. And the pilot did refuse the command, he firewalled the throttles and climbed up out of the goo. We ended up diverting to Anchorage.

And yes, the PIC is flying the aircraft, but in crowded airspace, flying an aircraft where you dont have eyeballs all around, you are at ATCs mercy for traffic clearance. So you dont will-nilly just ignore ATC without a damned good reason.

Flying and parking, basically the same.

If you dont think it will fit, give it more gas.