Just checked out the follow up on this story. Apparently both the controller in question, and the shift supervisor have been suspended, pending a FAA investigation. Moreover, the union have come down on the side of condemning their actions, stating they were 'unprofessional', which it's hard to refute, so it's not looking too rosy for those concerned. I wouldn't want to wish ill upon them, but you have to admit that if they lose their jobs, it will be of their own making.Al

What is it with American airspace!!! If that were to happen in the UK the controllers would be criminally charged! And so they should. It is absolutely appalling that a controller should even allow it to cross his mind to let a child "control" a/c. There is no excuse nor can there be any argument made in defence of the controller.Vololiberista

Wrong

I love the outrage some people are feigning about this "incident".How do you think that new CTO's who have never controlled live traffic before are certified in a position? They're supervised by a trained and qualified controller. Would you be a afraid to learn that you or your wife was on an airplane getting ATC direction from a controller who wasn't certified to do so? I hope not, because it happens thousands of times a day. What's the big deal?The kid said "cleared for takeoff" and "contact departure". Do either of those things require any tactical or operational knowledge of ATC procedures and standards? Dad, a certified controller told his kid to say "cleared for takeoff", just like he would tell a new CTO trainee. There's nothing that kid said or did to negatively impact the safety of anyone there, nor was his presence any more of a "distraction" to the trained professionals who work there than anyone who visits the tower.Why such zeal to hold people "accountable" for something?If you want to hear some REAL boneheaded ATC stuff, just tune into Potomac TRACON, or Dulles Ground and prepare to be entertained.

I love the outrage some people are feigning about this "incident".How do you think that new CTO's who have never controlled live traffic before are certified in a position?

I'm not feigning outrage, I'm not outraged by it, merely pointing out the stupidity of it and highlighting the fact that any controller who cannot see this would attract controversy, if nothing else, has demonstrated they have questionable judgement, and if someone has questionable judgement about one thing, you have to wonder about their ability to judge other things. That much is obvious.With regard to how we think controllers are trained, what does not happen, is plonking them in a chair five minutes after they've been shown around the tower, telling them to parrot what others say, potentially cause problems. The selection process for controllers is certainly rigorous in the UK, that I do know. There is a massive rejection rate, as it requires a very special kind of temperament and ability to do it. I've known military pilots and navigators who could not manage it. There is a good deal of study and selection processing involved before potential candidates ever get near a microphone. Yes, new controllers do have to 'have a go' at it at some point, but it should be safe to assume that they'll not be fifteen years old and with no previous study experience before they get their chance, nor that they'll always find themselves at JFK on day one.Al

This used to be a fairly regular practice at KGYY up until about a year ago. Once a month for years kids in the Young Eagles program would receive a tour of the tower, and at some point those who were interested could "have a turn at the mic." The chief differences being that KGYY is -despite the grandiose name "Gary-Chicago International"- a very small field with zero commercial traffic, and that the tower is staffed with "contract controllers" who of course are FAA trained and certified, but are employed by KGYY, not the FAA.Similarly, groups of Boy Scouts would also receive tours of the tower and be treated to a similar experience. The tower staff were always very receptive to "drop in visitors," often inviting GA pilots to taxi up the access road and park their aircraft in the parking area while visiting!Sadly, directives from Homeland Security about a year ago forced an end to any of the above, and access to the tower is now permanently restricted from any visitors at all.For over ten years I was invited to a picnic held at the base of the tower during the annual Gary Airshow, as well as the Chicago Airshow. It was a terrific experience, since it provided the best view of the a/c during ground operations, and a totally unobstructed view of the airshow held on Friday evenings during the "private show" given at the airport. Saturday's and Sunday's public shows are held above either Miller Beach for the Gary Airshow, or the Chicago shoreline in the case of the Chicago Airshow.

Al wrote,"I actually thought about that too, and here's my conclusion: It's all very well caring for your kid, but the controller in question is going to have a hard time caring for him if he loses his job over it and then can't pay for an education of a standard for the kid to become a controller if that should be his wish. How caring would his kid think he was then?As heartwarming as caring about your kid is, the controllers were in fact being paid to care about the hundreds of air passengers who'd placed their lives in their care, and not to be awarded 'dad of the year'. The cold reality is, if I'm either a passenger or a pilot being directed by a controller, I want to know he cares about me and my aircraft's safety, and not that he's a great dad, which is going to be no consolation to me at all as I plummet to the ground following a mid air collision. And at the end of the day, that is what the controllers in question took a chance on."You are quite right in your assessment and the possible dire consequences. A warm fuzzy feeling moment does not overrule the regulations that must be adhered to, for the good (safety) of everyone.Best regards,Mel

Al wrote,"I actually thought about that too, and here's my conclusion: It's all very well caring for your kid, but the controller in question is going to have a hard time caring for him if he loses his job over it and then can't pay for an education of a standard for the kid to become a controller if that should be his wish. How caring would his kid think he was then?As heartwarming as caring about your kid is, the controllers were in fact being paid to care about the hundreds of air passengers who'd placed their lives in their care, and not to be awarded 'dad of the year'. The cold reality is, if I'm either a passenger or a pilot being directed by a controller, I want to know he cares about me and my aircraft's safety, and not that he's a great dad, which is going to be no consolation to me at all as I plummet to the ground following a mid air collision. And at the end of the day, that is what the controllers in question took a chance on."You are quite right in your assessment and the possible dire consequences. A warm fuzzy feeling moment does not overrule the regulations that must be adhered to, for the good (safety) of everyone.Best regards,Mel

Where I fly is a big training area for controllers. The novice controllers issue instructions-often wrong-and then an instructor immediately jumps in if he/she screws something up and takes control. The kid was not working approach/departure so the instructions were very simple, and my understanding is the Dad was an instructor, and of course would have immdediately taken over if something was done wrong.I don't see it as a safety issue-just a stupid issue. In today's environment very foolish..and the media loves blowing it up causing knee jerk reactions.I have given the controls of an airplane to kids when I fly (in Civil Air Patrol that is part of the educational program for cadets) and even coached them what to say on the radio and had them use it, but of course would never let them do/say anything that would put anyone in danger or wrong. I don't think anything different happened here. If I were to assign blame-it would be on the pilots. If I heard a little kid issuing commands on the frequency the first thing I would ask is what is going on-after all a kid nearby with a handheld radio could be doing it to cause mayhem.Interesting that the media hasn't placed any blame there-after all they are PIC-not the controller.

As ill-advised as it was, the safety implications were nil and the amount of attention paid to the story unwarranted.The training/safety argument might hold some water if the controller actually let a child excercise his own judgement to issue instructions, or left him unsupervised in some way. But that's not what happened. The kid only repeated what he was told to say.Further, the arguments about distractions and compromised safety are presented as though controllers are robots who do their jobs in a vaccuum. Have you ever stopped to think about what's going on in the cab or in the radar room when the mic isn't keyed? Have you ever gotten a transmission from ATC with something other than library silence in the background? They're more than able to deal with ordinary distractions and still perform their jobs.Give the controller an LOR, and move on.What's next, getting our collective panties in a twist because the flight attendant raps his safety briefing, or the marshaller does a little dance, or the dispatcher sends the World Series scores via ACARS?

Hi,Perhaps I'm out on a limb here, but this incident spoke volumes to me about an individual and father who does care and, indeed, cares a great deal about his occupation. Clearly the pride in his work was sufficient to compel him to show his child what dad does to ensure the safety of those flying in our skies. Like those pilots who were at the receiving end during this episode, I have not the slightest doubt that anyone was placed at risk.Perhaps it was an ill-considered action in the light of all the official paranoia that we are forced to suffer these days, but for me, at least, it was a light hearted moment which moved me in a nice way. I will feel greatly saddened if the authorities tasked with deciding this dad's future should choose to ignore this incident for what it truly was: a brief and refreshingly touching few minutes which gladdened the hearts of all those involved. Surely common sense will prevail and, for once, we should resist any attempts by the media to dictate an outcome by inflating a story into something it wasn't merely to improve their sales or audience figures.Mike.

If I were to assign blame-it would be on the pilots. If I heard a little kid issuing commands on the frequency the first thing I would ask is what is going on-after all a kid nearby with a handheld radio could be doing it to cause mayhem.

Absolutely agree and this is my biggest concern in this matter.For what its worth, I disagree that this is a minor incident, yes sure no harm came of anyone but what alarms me the most about this is:1) the controller thought that this was acceptable2) the controller was allowed to do this3) the "supervison" in the tower did not prevent/immediately do something about this4) as geofa points out, the pilots accepted the instructions without questionIts not the fact that the kid gave some relatively simple and straightforward instructions that is worrying, its the fact that the culture/attitude from the controller himself, his colleagues, his supervision and the pilots involved is blatantly complacent - it suggests almost as though this is the norm at one of the US's busiest/crowded airports.That controller took a risk, a risk with other peoples lives, and for what??? I'm sorry he's probably gonna lose his job but I for one feel just a little less comfortable flying than I did before reading/hearing this story.RegardsSteve

What risk was taken again?Perhaps the fact that the controller, his supervisor, and the pilots were all ok with it should indicate just how non-important the event was. Why are we pretending to be more knowledgeable than the people who share the responsiblity and bear the consequences? Using the fact that they were suspended as a confirming indicator of wrongdoing isn't correct either. "Management" types are motivated by CYA and public opinion, regardless of merit.

CNN reported the pilots were made aware of the kids presence before he started issuing the takeoff clearances.

The perception is a risk in itself, but not only the perception. Whether we like it or not, the media at large will jump on it, and since we know they will (and in this case have), anyone in a position to affect that should not be indulging in activities which give the hacks a free bucket full of ammunition. I don't like that any more than anyone else, which is in fact why I stopped working as a writer for a daily newspaper some years ago, and decided to write about aeroplanes instead, but that is the way it is at newspapers. If you hand them the ammo, you can be sure they will shoot it at you. It's a crappy soulless job, which is why I quit, but it is their job, and apparently unlike those controllers at JFK, they will do it properly, because that's how they sell papers and get on.Apart from that, to claim there was no risk of danger, is to ignore the fact that Murphy is always lurking around the corner, ready to invoke his law, and in aviation, which is one of the most unforgiving of arenas, it is always dangerous to have the 'what could possibly go wrong?' attitude in your pocket, because you can be sure that sooner rather than later, you will find out just exactly what can go wrong, as Murphy delights in showing you.Let's say for example someone came on frequency, then tied up the frequency with questions about the presence of a child issuing commands (a not unreasonable thing to have done), and in doing so prevented someone from being told to halt their taxi. The real controller could leap to the mike for all he was worth, but if someone was blocking transmission in querying his stupidity, he might just as well try smoke signals for all the good it would do, and whose fault would it have been if someone had done that and prevented a warning going out to prevent a collision?This is not an unlikely possibility either, there have been numerous collisions between aircraft on the ground at airports that have resulted in fatalities over the years (including the worst aviation disaster of all time, at Los Rodeos airport, Tenerife when two 747s collided on the runway thanks to a lapse in radio discipline), and you would like to think an air traffic controller might just possibly have heard about that one. It is well known that you don't have to be in the air to be in danger where aircraft movements are concerned, and anyone who flies aeroplanes will know that is true. To even flirt with the chance of this happening, is enough of a reason to know one should not risk it if one does not have to. And if anyone doesn't think there is any danger of collisions on the ground at JFK, I invite them to do a Google search on: 'ground collision jfk'.That's the problem and here's the equation: great dad + crap decision + poor PR + very poor acceptance of responsibility x journo out to make a name for himself + the opportunity to do so via a chrome-plated gift horse = bad press for aviation and FAA investigationAl

What risk was taken again?Perhaps the fact that the controller, his supervisor, and the pilots were all ok with it should indicate just how non-important the event was. Why are we pretending to be more knowledgeable than the people who share the responsiblity and bear the consequences? Using the fact that they were suspended as a confirming indicator of wrongdoing isn't correct either. "Management" types are motivated by CYA and public opinion, regardless of merit.

A former NTSB investigator was interviewed today, and he pretty much said in this case that at no time was actual safety compromised, as he was only mimicking his fathers instructions, but he also stated, that it did violate the perceived public perception of air safety and in that respect, the FAA, would have to come down hard on them