Air traffic controller 'joke' delays plane's landing

[g_precentralis 191]

Here is the full video/audio

 

[hopskip 253]

Nice catch from the spotter.

[Captain_Barfbag 31]

I've been on 2 go-arounds, both crew initiated.  The first was back in the 1960s.  It was a short shuttle flight from Boston to New York, probably on an old Eastern Electra.  After circling NYC for an hour, we were told it was closed and we were going back to Boston.  BOS was pretty fogged-in, too, and we aborted our first approach.

 

The second was an RJ going into Manchester, NH.  It was the only time I can remember that the descent was so bumpy that I actually looked around and counted the rows back to the exit.  We got down to about 500 feet, then spooled back up and raised the gear.  We flew around for a half hour, and then the crew announced that the airport was closed and we were going to divert to Portland, Maine.  I spoke to the pilot as we were getting off, and he said he got a wind shear indicator.  An hour and a half later we re-boarded and flew to Manchester after the front went through.

[Great Ozzie 101]

That is nothing but pure ignorance.

I think the expression we are looking for is, "oh pish-posh!".   :biggrin:

 

Of course it is dangerous. I was on one go-around on a T7 at EGLL and I am sure it was below minimum. It is really scary when you are waiting for the usual sound of a touchdown and instead you hear the full power of the engines.

Your perception from the cabin has absolutely *zero* to do with the reality of whether or not a Go-Around is dangerous.  It would be nice if the crew would immediately communicate why they are doing what they are doing to the passengers; I'd imagine tho, that would be the last item on any list.  <_<

 

Anyone who's flown for any length of time has performed many of them, in both practice and real-world scenarios.

 

In the course of obtaining one's Instrument ticket, one might be lead to believe that the Go-Around (*not* the Landing) is the normal ending of an Instrument Approach. :P

----------------

“The lack of a go-around decision is the leading risk factor in approach and landing accidents and is the primary cause of runway excursions during landing,” according to speakers at the recent Go-Around Forum in Brussels.

AIN online:

Safety Forum: Too Few Go-arounds Executed

[nam1394 10]

 

Your perception from the cabin has absolutely *zero* to do with the reality of whether or not a Go-Around is dangerous.  It would be nice if the crew would immediately communicate why they are doing what they are doing to the passengers; I'd imagine tho, that would be the last item on any list.  <_<

 

 

----------------

 

 

I was not trying to prove it was dangerous by telling the story. I should have used a separate paragraph.  :smile:

 

The reasons why it is dangerous are stated above by other members.

[Great Ozzie 101]

I was not trying to prove it was dangerous by telling the story. I should have used a separate paragraph. [ :smile:]

Ah ok... apologies then.

 

But the point remains... seems "The reasons why it is dangerous are stated above by other members" has do with the perception of the maneuver instead of having actually performed one or their purpose -- that they are part and parcel of flying, as KevinAu has explained.

[atco 161]

 

 

Any time you take an aircraft out of stable flight attitude (in this case short final, low altitude approach) and transition to another, you are adding "risk/threat/danger" during that transition. You choose the word that works for you.

 

So by that definition Tom, an aircraft climbing or descending from level flight is adding risk/threat/danger and should be avoided?

 

Look, the whole process of flying itself is a risky proposition. There is an element of risk and danger in everything to do with aviation but those risks are heavily outweighed by the measures in place to mitigate them and the benefits from flying.

 

Those who work in aviation know that nothing is ever black and white, each and every situation needs to be looked at upon its circumstances.

A go-around from 1,000ft on a clear VFR day is not even close to anything I would consider dangerous or risky.

The reason that go-arounds are so heavily practiced by pilots is because they are so common.

When I worked at Heathrow we would have 2 go-arounds per shift minimum, simply because the system was so stretched the margin for error was zero. So all it took was for you to just pinch the spacing by a quarter mile or for someone to miss the rapid exit he should have taken and you have a go-around and almost always executed within a mile from touchdown.

 

I've never met a pilot who considers a go-around as anything other than a normal event, so well rehearsed that it can be done from memory without breaking into a sweat.

 

Now as I said each circumstance is different, and a go-around from 150ft in minimum weather in a 747 that is tight on fuel is a different proposition and could certainly be claimed to be a risk inducing event.

Blanket statements just don't work in aviation - to say all go-arounds are dangerous is wrong as is saying all go-arounds are perfectly safe and stress and danger free.

 

Anyone who thinks this guy is getting fired is not living in the real world. Do you have any idea of the cost and time to train a controller, especially at an airport like Atlanta? They might get ten new trainees through the door and none of them have the ability to qualify. The failure rate for ATC trainess runs at anywhere from 40-75% depending on the unit (and apologies for the sweeping generalisation I just made!) and each trainee costs around $100-250,000 to train in overall expenditure from start of training to qualification. Its a hugely expensive process with no guarantees that the trainee can make it at the end.

So no they are not going to can anyone unless that empolyee has committed gross negligence or some kind, and to the poster who said if this guy was in NATS he would be canned, having been a NATS employee for 7 years, you are totally wrong. A very uncomfortable chat with management would follow, likely with a written warning placed on record. If it can't be proved that the action was taken with malice or with intent, then a case for dismissal is going nowhere.

I do not know how the FAA handles its business but I would expect some kind of disciplinary action, probably a few days off without pay and that would be it.

What we are talking about here is an error of judgement and nothing more. Yes it was foolish, probably because the controller did not appreciate the immediate reaction the go-around call would create on the flightdeck - You would be surprised at the number of controllers who have no interest in aviation at all who do the job, and do it very well.

He made a judgement call, as we do thousands of times a day, to use that line then and it backfired badly. An error of judgement that did not take into account the consequences combined with some misfortune in the readback blocking out the rest of the transmission.

No controller is going to be let go for errors of judgement - Where do you draw the line? Every time someone gets the spacing a bit tight on final and that leads to a go-around should we unplug them and tell them don't show up tomorrow? How about a heading that didn't works as planned that leads to a separation loss, get rid of them too?

 

An Air Canada E190 pilot who last year was told to go-around when a vehicle was spotted on the runway at night but ignored the instruction and landed anyway is still flying the line, why should this case be different?

 

Also if any of you don't believe that banter and the occassional outbreak of humour or non-standard phraseology happens then you are in for a surprise as well. It happens often, because after all you are dealing with humans on both ends, but what is different to this case is that you never mess around with critical clearances. I would never consider doing what this guy did, because I just don't believe its appropriate. Things we frequently have banter about - delays, runway in use, shortcuts. Although I was sitting next to someone once when they knew the captain of a flight coming inbound and it was his last flight for retirement and they had a brief discussion and he told him I have a holding clearance for you when ready!

 

I was hesitant to post to this thread because there has been a lot of very entrenched positions posted so far, and thats usually an invitation to get flamed, but I think a bit of real world perspective is due here.

So to sum up, at least in my opinion:

1: Controller excercises poor judgement with an ill timed and ill thought out fake clearance

2: Pilot immediately responds - as he should - and blocks out the explanation

3: At this point its too late, go-around has been started, the horse as they say has bolted

4: This go-around in the circumstances reported was not in the least dangerous, at worst it was a significant inconvenience to the crew and passengers

5: The aircraft re-positions for a safe landing

6: Controller is not getting fired but surely will be disciplined

7: Errors of judgement are an everyday occurrence for both pilots and controllers

8: All go-arounds are not created equally. The level of risk or danger is not the same for each one, it has to be weighed under its own individual circumstances at the time

9: Flying is inherently risky

10: Sometimes controllers and pilots do stupid things. Things they wish they could have back. Its a part of being human

 

That's it, feel free to tear me from limb to limb!

[g_precentralis 191]

@atco, great post. +1

[vololiberista 205]

Anyone who thinks this guy is getting fired is not living in the real world.

 

A pilot is told to go around by a controller he does so immediately.

Telling a pilot to do that for just for a joke is an immediate dismissal in Europe no matter how much it cost to train the imbecile.

[atco 161]

 

 

A pilot is told to go around by a controller he does so immediately.

Telling a pilot to do that for just for a joke is an immediate dismissal in Europe no matter how much it cost to train the imbecile.

 

On what knowledge of the ATC industry are you basing that statement on?

 

As you stated so forcefully and in totality, you must have some evidence to back up that statement, or is it just your opinion?

 

Sorry, but you are completely wrong for all the reasons I listed above. If you don't want to listen then I can't make you, but if this happened in Europe then I can guarantee and I would be willing to put money on it the controller would not be fired.

Remember, this incident made the news, there are many, many more things that happen that don't and you never hear about them ;)

[Don t moderate me this way 882]

(..) Remember, this incident made the news, there are many, many more things that happen that don't and you never hear about them ;)

 

 

That's reassuring. That's disturbing. Reassuring. Disturbing. ...     :unsure:

[WR269 367]

A pilot is told to go around by a controller he does so immediately.

Telling a pilot to do that for just for a joke is an immediate dismissal in Europe no matter how much it cost to train the imbecile.

I agree. it is the same in Oz and NZ. It doesnt matter how poorly staffed you are, Management will see that they are better off without someone who thinks such decisions are acceptable.

 

I know 3 controllers of the "disappearing 737" incident years ago...the crew of a 737 turned off their transponder in mid flight...they realised later but decided to leave it off to see how long it would take ATC to realise.

 

In the meantime they crossed the "rocket" routes out of YSSY full of international traffic.

 

3 controllers were suspended, 2 of them for one year and the third lost his license permanently. It is harsh, but generalising because you know someone who did or didnt get fired doesnt mean the same will happen to this chap.

 

Truth be told, the opinion that this go-around (THIS go-around) is dangerous is because there  is no hint the controller meant to for the aircraft to go around. You wonder what traffic assesment he had performed before ordering the go-around, and the other factors that go with it.

 

Anyway, it is what it is, in ATCO's post it appears the controller would get a talking to and keep going, if it was in other countries he would be gone, no matter how much it costs to train him. The cost of keeping him could be much higher.

[g_precentralis 191]

Anyway, it is what it is, in ATCO's post it appears the controller would get a talking to and keep going, if it was in other countries he would be gone, no matter how much it costs to train him. The cost of keeping him could be much higher.

 

Atco said that would happen in NATS (which is mainly UK), he didn't say what will happen to this guy. So the argument that he would be fired in all other countries except USA is not valid.

[WR269 367]

 

 

6: Controller is not getting fired but surely will be disciplined

7: Errors of judgement are an everyday occurrence for both pilots and controllers

[atco 161]

Oh my goodness

 

Will you are talking about something completely different...........

 

1: The incident you describe (do you have a reference to it somewhere, I have not heard of this one) is talking about an incident that involves negligent action on the part of the control staff. (Was any action taken against the flightcrew? I fail to see how it is responsible to leave a transponder turned off after realising it was off as part of some kind of test or game is in any way professional either!!!!)

 

2: He did not "order" a go-around, he never intended for the aircraft to go-around in the first place, that was never part of his traffic assessment or plan. He made a mistake, a very poor error of judgement and is going to pay a price for it.

 

3: This is not a case where someone has exhibited poor ATC skills in so much as the ability to move airplanes. What is questionable is his lack of judgement in anticipating a go-around would lead to an immediate reaction. As I mentioned I would suggest close to 80% of the controllers I have worked with in my life have absolutely no knowledge of what happens on an aircraft flightdeck and are not the slightest bit interested. The ATC World has very very few aviation geeks in it.

 

It amazes me how people put a new spin on what people are actually saying.

I didn't say a controller gets to keep his job no matter what, you don't keep going and going no matter what you do. Someone who exercises poor judgement once isn't in any danger unless it was done intentionally or negligently, however a controller who continues to exercise poor judgement is not going to keep his or her license in perpetuity.

Also it amazes me how many people can state as fact "if it was in other countries he would be gone" and "Telling a pilot to do that for just for a joke is an immediate dismissal in Europe" when in reality its nothing more than their opinion. If there is factual basis for those comments let me hear them, but don't confuse your belief or opinion with being fact.

I am telling you as someone who has spent 17 years in the industry on different sides of the World and who is subject to the very disciplinary process you are talking about that you are flat out wrong, but as I said and emphasised in my post, EVERY event is taken on the circumstances at the time.

If the controller was bored and told and aircraft to go-around very late and in poor weather and did so for nothing other than fun, I would expect that controller to be fired. In this case, under these circumstances it was a case of a very bad joke that ended up with an un-intended consequence. And like it or not intent plays a big part in all aspects of life.

You shoot someone accidentally, its manslaughter, you plan to shoot someone, its murder.

 

Something tells me I should have known better than to post here. I can't really explain it any better, so I should probably just bow out now.