Air traffic controller 'joke' delays plane's landing

[fluffyflops 1,858]

When I was at virgin atlantic we had ASRs filled in daily as the controllers where idiots mainly in JFK and Miami.  No where else just the USA (in large volumes)

 

Oh and Lagos in Nigeria where they would always forget to have runaway light's on

[vololiberista 205]

As a pilot if I'm told to go around I do it immediately. Why? Simple - The controller may have seen a danger that I have not! I don't wait to see if the controller is playing a joke on me.

 

Reading all the comments here one can easily see why European airspace is much safer than N. America

 

The controller was even stupid enough to say he was joking over the radio. That kind of behaviour is not permissable in Europe. Yes, there's often a lot of banter between ATC and pilots. But this case is clear cut.

The pilot was given a straight instruction to go around and then told it was a joke. (whose going to pay for the uneccessarily used extra fuel). NATS would even look into the possibility of intent to danger the lives of those on board. In which case a criminal action would be brought. And, had an accident resulted the controller would most certainly be facing manslaughter charges.

[atco 161]

 

 

The controller was even stupid enough to say he was joking over the radio. That kind of behaviour is not permissable in Europe. Yes, there's often a lot of banter between ATC and pilots. But this case is clear cut.

The pilot was given a straight instruction to go around and then told it was a joke. (whose going to pay for the uneccessarily used extra fuel). NATS would even look into the possibility of intent to danger the lives of those on board. In which case a criminal action would be brought.

 

Your source for this is what?

I have seen and been subject to NATS code of conduct, have you?

It's quite astounding to me how authoritatively you seem to speak on this, show us some proof, or are you espousing opinion as fact once again?

You seem to be confusing your forthright opinion with reality and I'm telling you, you are so far wide of the mark you are not even in the same postal code.

Your contention that NATS would look into criminal action and intent to danger life is laughable and totally beyond ridiculous.

 

Also read my previous response, last year an Air Canada E190 approaching 24R at YYZ was told to go around on short final, not once but twice after a vehicle went onto the runway and disregarded it and landed anyway. The pilot is still line flying for Air Canada.

 

http://avherald.com/h?article=45f30c80&opt=0

 

The airline pays for the uneccesary cost of the extra fuel, as they do with diversions due to blocked toilets, unruly passengers, ill flight attendents as well as go-arounds caused by improperly flown approaches, ATC errors of spacing, runway incursions, cabin not ready etc etc. Its rather obvious. Its a cost of doing business.

 

So, things do happen. If you are under the impression somehow that everything in aviation is clear cut and goes perfectly all the time then you should probably not fly again. This isn't a black and white world that you seem to live in.

 

The controller made an error of judgement, a rather silly and crass one, which resulted in an unnecessary go-around. All the hand wringing and internet outrage is a bit over the top but sadly typical for today's World, where instant judgements, righteous indignation and moral outrage seem to be the order of the day regardless of the size of the transgression or outcome. Some of you should hear the stories of pilots and controllers from the 60s and 70s, if you are getting all hot under the collar over this, then those stories would make your eyes pop out of your head - Example, a National Airlines DC-10 flightcrew in 1973 were bored on a trans-con flight and wondered about the autothrottle system. They decided to play with some circuit breakers and see how the autothrottle responded - Result, engine three had an uncontained failure, a passenger was killed when he was sucked through the hole in the fuselage and the aircraft had to make an emergency landing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Airlines_Flight_27

 

Nobody who has ever lived into adulthood has never made an error that has had unintended consequences (no matter how big or small).

[vololiberista 205]

Your source for this is what?

I have seen and been subject to NATS code of conduct, have you?

It's quite astounding to me how authoritatively you seem to speak on this, show us some proof, or are you espousing opinion as fact once again?

You seem to be confusing your forthright opinion with reality and I'm telling you, you are so far wide of the mark you are not even in the same postal code.

Your contention that NATS would look into criminal action and intent to danger life is laughable and totally beyond ridiculous.

 

Also read my previous response, last year an Air Canada E190 approaching 24R at YYZ was told to go around on short final, not once but twice after a vehicle went onto the runway and disregarded it and landed anyway. The pilot is still line flying for Air Canada.

 

http://avherald.com/h?article=45f30c80&opt=0

 

The airline pays for the uneccesary cost of the extra fuel, as they do with diversions due to blocked toilets, unruly passengers, ill flight attendents as well as go-arounds caused by improperly flown approaches, ATC errors of spacing, runway incursions, cabin not ready etc etc. Its rather obvious. Its a cost of doing business.

 

So, things do happen. If you are under the impression somehow that everything in aviation is clear cut and goes perfectly all the time then you should probably not fly again. This isn't a black and white world that you seem to live in.

 

The controller made an error of judgement, a rather silly and crass one, which resulted in an unnecessary go-around. All the hand wringing and internet outrage is a bit over the top but sadly typical for today's World, where instant judgements, righteous indignation and moral outrage seem to be the order of the day regardless of the size of the transgression or outcome. Some of you should hear the stories of pilots and controllers from the 60s and 70s, if you are getting all hot under the collar over this, then those stories would make your eyes pop out of your head - Example, a National Airlines DC-10 flightcrew in 1973 were bored on a trans-con flight and wondered about the autothrottle system. They decided to play with some circuit breakers and see how the autothrottle responded - Result, engine three had an uncontained failure, a passenger was killed when he was sucked through the hole in the fuselage and the aircraft had to make an emergency landing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Airlines_Flight_27

 

Nobody who has ever lived into adulthood has never made an error that has had unintended consequences (no matter how big or small).

 

You have your opinion! But you must understand that aviation rules, regulations and even culture  are quite different between N America and the Rest of the World. I live in the rest of the world. You don't.

[atco 161]

 

 

You have your opinion! But you must understand that aviation rules, regulations and even culture are quite different between N America and the Rest of the World. I live in the rest of the world. You don't.

 

Wow, there truly is nothing I can say to that, other than to shake my head and smile. Enjoy the rest of your day.

[Dave Morgan 68]

"How long does it take to become an air traffic controller?

04.11.2012

Students train at the College of Air Traffic Control for up to 12 months and work on high-tech computer simulators which recreate real air traffic situations for practical training. They are taught by instructors who have been controllers themselves. Once trainees graduate from the college, students are posted to a unit – either an area control centre or an airport control tower – and work as a trainee air traffic controller, building up valuable practical training and experience before being accepted and validated as a working controller. The entire process takes, on average, three years."

 

"What is a go around? Are they safe?

16.03.2011

A go-around is a standard safety procedure in which an aircraft approaching an airport breaks off its approach and flies a circuit before landing. It occurs whenever a pilot or air traffic controller believes that it would be safer to ‘go around’ than to continue with the landing.

It can happen for a variety of reasons including adverse weather, or the preceding aircraft being slow to turn off the runway or start its take-off run. It does not pose a threat to safety."

 

 

 

The above quotations are from the horse's mouth - NATS FAQ page. Make of them what you will. I also dropped them a line asking if they could make any non-committing comment regarding what is likely to happen to the controller in question. I left this enquiry, though I doubt it will be appropriate for them to comment.

 

"Dear sir,

 

As an armchair flight-sim gamer (I know...) I've been following a fairly normal argument in this forum, http://forum.avsim.net/topic/444556-air-traffic-controller-joke-delays-planes-landing/page-1 , concerning the disciplinary action a controller is likely to face for issuing a tongue-in-cheek go-around, ostensibly on account of the requested parking space being unavailable.

 

I'm sure you can understand that although the forum does have a number of pilots and a small handful of controllers, most of us have no more than a very hazy idea of the likely outcome. I was wondering if you'd be able to indicate the probable course an investigation would take and the possible outcomes.

 

Kind regards,
Dave Morgan"
 

D

[Jarkko 59]

@atco, great post. +1

 

+1

[mganz121 159]

@ Dave Morgan. Funny stuff. So much truth amongst the humour.

 

@ KevinAu and Atco. Thanks to both of you for your (obviously professional) insights, and clear, concise non emotional explanations.

[hopskip 253]

In Australia, ATC is horrendously understaffed, to the point of High Altitude sectors being totally unmanned for several hours.

 

To fire staff usually requires a replacement.

 

Training a replacement costs money

 

Training a replacement takes on average, 12 months to get a new trainee on the radio supervised, and another 2 years till they are ready to be left alone. Until that time, they are actually not 'replacing' a retired controller, they are being trained.

 

During those 3 years, ATCO's will need to roster, and pay for, overtime of other employees to cover the missing shift... (Or if you are really stretched, occasionally leave High Altitude sectors completely unmanned.)

 

Foreign national carriers fly heavy jet airliners in that airspace, and they are not under the control of anyone.

 

Some of the sectors that have been closed for hours in Australia are larger than entire European countries, and we're not talking Luxembourg here.

 

 

Here is an account of what happens when trainee ATC get left alone due to short-staffing.

http://atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2009/aair/ao-2009-056.aspx

 

Here's a quicker to read, more poignant version:

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2010/11/24/how-airservices-australia-nearly-killed-443-people/

 

So what happens when a trainee stuffs up big time and has 2 aircraft lose separation, which is by definition a reportable incident. An incident where a collision is possible and the aircraft in danger haven't even been told?

 

 

 

When someone does something stupid (not malicious), you discipline them. Meetings, pay cuts, monitoring, re-training.

You don't suddenly decide to burn hundreds of thousands of dollars and close airspace.

 

If they do something illegal intentionally, then you refer the matter to police or law enforcement agencies as appropriate.

 

Of course repeat offenders become "Performance managed", an agreement is set up that they cease a certain behaviour, and then they are monitored closely. If repeat behaviour surfaces, then Human Resources get notified. After that it depends on the workplace agreements what happens next.

 

Remember, these are Government contractors (or contractors to Government sub-contractors more to the point). There are hugely important and independently imposed workplace agreements in place. There are no hot-head CEO boss managers out there firing people like a referee with a yellow-card for first offences.

If the manager fires someone for a first instance lack of judgement, then the sub-contractor will remove that manager, and the union will either have the employee reinstated (with recurrent training etc) or ensure that the former employee can buy a large luxury house with his severance pay.

 

I of course talk about western nations like the USA, Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Japan etc. Other locations may have less employee-oriented contract conditions... and ATC that is open less often. like Central Africa, where HF radio is used for pilots to establish separation with other pilots because Air Traffic Control just closed for the day.

[WR269 367]

 

 

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!!!!)

I am just trying to make a point AGAINST generalisation, and it keeps getting missed. The incident I described happened in 1994/1995 and involved 3 ATC sectors. One of the controllers who returned (BC) went on to control at Shannon for a few years and has returned. He lives 2 minutes away from my house. I will try to get details of the incident, as for the flight crew, no, nothing was done to them, in fact, the CEO of the Airline went on to mock ATC at an Aviation Gala Night and praise his crew because they were always "in complete control"....see?  don't generalise.

 

 

 

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.

 

Yes he did ORDER a go around....he clearly said "DALXXX, Go Around"...in my books (when I was there) and in ANY ATC format, this constitues a clear, precise and definite command for the aircraft to perform a maneuvre, which the pilot did. If he did or did not intend is irrelevant, he is supposed to be the CONTROLLER, ie in CONTROL of his airspace. The whole point here, is that no, it was not part of his traffic asessment plan, hence he put the traffic in potential jeopardy. You said it yourself.

 

 

 

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.

 

Please tell me you are not serious....one of the first things drummed into you is lack of judgement=poor ATC skills, you are contradicting yourself. Whether an ATC knows or doesnt know what happens in an aircraft is totally irrelevant....(but I do agree with you 100%...I know controllers who have no clue how many engines a B737 has!)

 

 

 

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.

 

Well, you ALLUDED to that. The issue here is that people stated what would happen in certain countries and you generalised what the world would do based on your experiences on either side of the ditch. I would argue that the sticking points here are that this controller excercised extremely poor judgement and it was done intentionally and/or negligently (yes, that is my opinion, but what the investigation finds and how it will be dealt with is something else).

 

 

 

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 are again guilty of the same thing. You generalised what would happen elsewhere based on your local knowledge. I agree, every event is taken on circumstances at the time, but every country has different guidelines, all based on ICAO, but enforced as they see fit. As for being bored and telling the aircraft to go around, how do you know this isnt what happened? 

 

We really are discussing semantics here, but the bones of the issue are the same, this controller put on a horrible moment in his career, he ordered an aircraft to go around when he shouldnt have, but also for non-operational reasons, and this is the sticking point.

 

Now some people have speculated what would happen in their country and you have speculated what would happen in THEIR country based on your knowledge elsewhere.

 

Who is right? nobody. Let's discuss what people know and leave it at that, we may never know the result of the investigation here, so continuing bashing this to death is fruitless.

[Aramis 0]

Completely agree with WR269 (last post).

Summed it up nicely IMHO.

 

And before you ask..... I have  35+ years as an ATC.

 

chris from oz

[Tushka 0]

What is the big deal with a joke? "Professionalism" is boring and not human, and i personally witnessed a lot of jokes including dirty ones in cockpits and even over frequencies when i was on training and it made your day much better. everything in west is way too serious and far from what life really is about - to be enjoyed. in fact many pilots of the time were surprised by how rude and bashing the western pilots were if ever encountered in a bar at foreign country, not to mention the "stereotypes".

 

today? things are different. but at least one controller was brave enough to show variation. a good pilot won't let that affect the risk of the passengers.

 

P.S "While the controller quickly told the pilot to disregard his earlier instructions as a joke, the pilot had already called off the landing."

 

This example above, shows negligence of the pilot if it was really serious. Seconds later it's clear its joke? And you decide to go by paper, procedures and "checklists" and abort landing in such  short time, not "unpreparing"? How awful. Considering many actions pilots "should" do, is quick decisions and acting.  I'm not speaking lies, this is truly how it is. You fly a plane with your hands and your heart, to feel the controls. Not by slow procedures which as an example was the mistake the pilots of a certain swiss md11 made...

 

Excuse bad english, it is not my native language.

[Oracle427 45]

This example above, shows negligence of the pilot if it was really serious. Seconds later it's clear its joke? And you decide to go by paper, procedures and "checklists" and abort landing in such short time, not "unpreparing"? How awful. Considering many actions pilots "should" do, is quick decisions and acting.

 

This is absolutely not the pilot's fault under any circumstances. If the tower controller who is responsible for the runway of an airport says to go around, you stop whatever you think you are doing and you immediately execute go around. There may some unseen hazard and the controller has just cancelled your clearance to land with the two words, "Go Around". I don't know what people here think a go around means, but pitching up a few degrees into a climb attitude, applying power for a go around, cleaning up the aircraft and setting up your navigation instruments for a missed approach is really no big deal. You don't go to a checklist when executing the initial steps of a go around.

 

Now in the time that that controller paused and then said it's a joke, that professional pilot more than likely had already pitched up for a climb and applied full power. At that point, the approach is unstable and what would be the point of trying to save the approach and take a greater risk of trying to get back on the approach as you are forced to do so ever lower down to the ground?

 

The rules have been written in blood. There are plenty of reasons why the cockpit and crew and not supposed to be joking or focused on anything other than their flying duties when operating in the terminal environment. There really is no excuse for what the controller did. There are a million other things he could have said in jest without saying "Go Around". He could even have probably said, "Aw shucks such-and-such, but I might have to send you to hold while we sort that out, haw haw haw". We're humans, levity in the workplace can be good, but this was just a bad idea.

[Dave Morgan 68]

@ Dave Morgan. Funny stuff. So much truth amongst the humour.

 

 

 

Sorry, I genuinely don't follow that... what humour?

 

http://www.nats.aero/question/what-is-a-go-around-are-they-safe-2/

 

et c.

 

D

[vololiberista 205]

What is the big deal with a joke? "Professionalism" is boring and not human, and i personally witnessed a lot of jokes including dirty ones in cockpits and even over frequencies when i was on training and it made your day much better. everything in west is way too serious and far from what life really is about - to be enjoyed. in fact many pilots of the time were surprised by how rude and bashing the western pilots were if ever encountered in a bar at foreign country, not to mention the "stereotypes".

 

today? things are different. but at least one controller was brave enough to show variation. a good pilot won't let that affect the risk of the passengers.

 

P.S "While the controller quickly told the pilot to disregard his earlier instructions as a joke, the pilot had already called off the landing."

 

This example above, shows negligence of the pilot if it was really serious. Seconds later it's clear its joke? And you decide to go by paper, procedures and "checklists" and abort landing in such  short time, not "unpreparing"? How awful. Considering many actions pilots "should" do, is quick decisions and acting.  I'm not speaking lies, this is truly how it is. You fly a plane with your hands and your heart, to feel the controls. Not by slow procedures which as an example was the mistake the pilots of a certain swiss md11 made...

 

Excuse bad english, it is not my native language.

I'm glad that you think telling a pilot to go around for a joke is ok!

As has been said numerous times in this thread. A pilot hearing "go around" from a controller immediately, actions it because obviously the controller can see a hazard that the pilot can't.

 

The go around procedure is safe if well practised. But is the airspace ahead clear? Did the controller check that the airspace was clear for a go around before he joked? The controller unfortunately did not make a mistake. He deliberately gave an instruction that was potentially dangerous. It's no different to giving a pilot a late clearance to land whilst the rwy is still occupied. "You're cleared to land. ............Sorry that was a joke. Go Around". Pilot: "What was that we just hit on the rwy?"

You see, there's no difference. Aviation RT language is very precise. A pilot would see no reason to question a "go around" instruction and would expedite it immediately. In N America it seems it's ok to to give an instruction of this nature as a joke but in Europe 'it most certainly is not!'