Air Traffic Controller On Phone During Hudson Crash
Wow! I thought I’ve had some pretty crappy days at work, but these guys have taken the cake. I guess this makes me feel a whole lot better about my job… Generally, when I screw up, planes don’t crash and people don’t die (I think).
The article indicates that one of the controllers was on the phone during the crash. I really hope he wasn’t texting.
As an air traffic controller I can say that this is just another instance in which the controller becomes the scapegoat. These controllers had absolutely nothing to do with this crash. A tower controller has no separation responsibility over these aircraft, especially after he has already issued a frequency change. How could he possibly separate aircraft that he isn’t talking to? Only an idiot would blame the controller!
The guy was on the phone with his girlfriend and no telling what the supervisor was doing when he was out of the building.
JOE MAMA: Thanks for the inside perspective – I’m willing to bet you’re right. From what I know about the job, it ain’t easy, and human beings no matter who they are, are fallible. That’s a heavy burden to lay on anyone…
Joe Mama,
That attitude is part of the problem. You guys ALWAYS claim no responsibility even when there was a chance to have made a difference. Although you are right in that there is no legal responsibility, per se, you guys always forget about any sort of moral responsibility. ALWAYS!!! In every accident where ATC had any part at all, the cry goes out “ATC was not responsible. The pilots had the option of not accepting the clearance…blah., blah blah…whatever….piss off!”
I offer you an opportunity to find one time where the controllers do not completely absolve themselves of any and all blame whatsoever in any air accident. If you happen to find that one incident, please post the details here.
Won’t disagree that controllers…or any one else for the matter…try to shed blame. But as a pilot, flight instructor and someone that has flown this corridor a number of times, they are correct. The controllers had nothing to do with this accident…nothing. They were not controlling either of the aircraft, didn’t have any radar showing the aircrafts’ positions and the pilots were not even on their voice frequency. The fact of the matter is that these pilots were both in airspace where ATC control or flight following are not even available if you wanted it. Kinda hard to separate targets you can’t see.
Everyone is looking for a scapegoat, but the hard reality is that the only people that can really be blamed here paid with their lives. Sure you can say that the procedures need to be tightened up, but these pilots knew that traffic was in the area and generally where to look for it. They just failed to see it.
The problems here were flight path procedures are too loose allowing crossing traffic at different speeds and providing very little room to maneuver. Pilots are very capable of separating themselves when they know precisely where to expect other traffic. There are probably 100s of thousands of small aircraft operations every day in which pilots separate themselves and although accidents do happen, I suspect their safety record is better than ATCs when looking at the number of accidents against the number of operations.
Although I’m not attempting to lay blame, I don’t understand why the tour helicopter was at 1,100′. Airplanes are not as maneuverable as helicopters and the regulations require airplanes to be at least 1,000′ feet above congested areas…which clearly include the adjacent land masses in the corridor and arguably the automobile traffic on the bridges. Helicopters don’t have this altitude restriction due to their maneuverability and vertical take-off/landing capabilities. So airplanes are pretty much sandwiched between 1,000′ and the overlying (1,101′) & adjacent NY terminal airspace with very little room to maneuver in this corridor. Flying a slow helicopter into those airplane “lanes”…especially from below where no pilot can see…is asking for trouble. The FAA just needs to refine those procedures to separate conflicting flying lanes/routes and make those procedures mandatory. Raising the terminal airspace floor in the corridor a little would help.
New technology known as ADS-B will also help. It is a much more cost effective means for pilots to see each other. Current anti-collision avionics cost at least as much as a new car and can exceed the value of the aircraft itself. A rule for ADS-B is pending at the FAA and will likely be published before the end of the year.