14 hours ago, Patco Lch said:

The contract we worked under at the time had stipulations of two hour position rotation, break frequencies , meal breaks to name a few rules the agency agreed to. More often then not I spent an entire eight hour shift on the same position with no break and ate my packed lunch on position due to lack of fully rated journeymen controllers and management unwilling to pay overtime. And not unusual to be working combined positions. 

Air Traffic Controllers should be well paid, have ample vacation time, and get regular breaks, every 2 hours seems reasonable, during their shifts due to the stressful and critical nature of the job.

However, you can't have thousands of controllers go on strike and cripple commercial aviation because they're not getting what they want.  The same goes for any industry that is critical to the functioning of the country.  The controllers should have continued to negotiate and even filed lawsuits, but not strike.  In the case of the recent longshoreman's threat to strike, which would have had a great negative impact on the entire economy, if they had gone on strike I would have fired all of them as well.  I would not stand for threats which were made by the union boss to "cripple" the economy if he didn't get his way.  I'd shut him down and put him in his place so fast he wouldn't know what hit him.

Govt. employees should not be allowed to have unions and should not be allowed to go on strike.  Period. 

If you don't like your job, then quit and find another one.

Dave

13 hours ago, LHookins said:

This latest incident shows just how much sway the media has over pubic opinion.

My opinion has nothing to do with "the media".

DCA's runways are all relatively short at 5,000, 5200, and 7169ft.  The 7,169ft runway is fine for most airliners, but the 5,000ft rwys don't leave much room for error.

The approach to Rwy 33 is particularly harrowing because the plane has to swing out to the right over land and be at only 500ft 1.4 miles from the runway.  Moreover, there's no ILS on this runway, making it a visual approach.

Dave

Edited January 31, 20251 yr by dave2013

2 hours ago, dave2013 said:

Govt. employees should not be allowed to have unions and should not be allowed to go on strike.  Period. 

 

I wholeheartedly disagree with that statement. Goverment employees have the same rights as anyone, meaning they should be able to get the support of a union and strike whenever they deem it is warranted. Of course if a strike causes a safety risk it should be forbidden.
In most countries unions will take safety and other factors into account so it should rarely be necessary to forbid a strike though.

2 hours ago, dave2013 said:

However, you can't have thousands of controllers go on strike and cripple commercial aviation because they're not getting what they want.  The same goes for any industry that is critical to the functioning of the country.  The controllers should have continued to negotiate and even filed lawsuits, but not strike.  In the case of the recent longshoreman's threat to strike, which would have had a great negative impact on the entire economy, if they had gone on strike I would have fired all of them as well.  I would not stand for threats which were made by the union boss to "cripple" the economy if he didn't get his way.  I'd shut him down and put him in his place so fast he wouldn't know what hit him.

Govt. employees should not be allowed to have unions and should not be allowed to go on strike.  Period. 

If you don't like your job, then quit and find another one.

Very well said and a respected point of view.

Allow me to point out that PATCO did indeed over twenty years file lawsuits, negotiate and have public awareness drives. There were several conservative politicians and well known lawyers who participated in these endeavors.  To bring attention to controller plight there were slow downs which was nothing less than merely going back to the FAA by the book separation criteria. The FAA called this a job action and disciplined controllers for not sticking their neck out as usual to expedite traffic.

Anyone has a right to withhold their services individually or collectively without being imprisoned as some controllers were. To say otherwise is a violation of the Constitution and freedom from involuntary servitude. 
The flip side is no has a right to a job and the employer has a right to replace those that abandon their job. That may not be the best outcome but no one is has less rights as a citizen because they serve the government in any capacity other than military and in some situations I wonder about that.

Anyway it’s ancient history and I was afraid to throw this thread down a rabbit trail. 
On a side bar an interesting book about the rise of PATCO leading to the strike is

”Collision Course “ by Joseph Mccartin.

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=collision+course+book&adgrpid=1332608664110738&hvadid=83288280063540&hvbmt=be&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=81808&hvnetw=o&hvqmt=e&hvtargid=kwd-83288399180745%3Aloc-190&hydadcr=22561_13494451&msclkid=761da9d087f61aa1f4e1ce4d988cf7ed&tag=mh0b-20&ref=pd_sl_11ntc38nde_e

6 hours ago, dave2013 said:

Air Traffic Controllers should be well paid, have ample vacation time, and get regular breaks, every 2 hours seems reasonable, during their shifts due to the stressful and critical nature of the job.

However, you can't have thousands of controllers go on strike and cripple commercial aviation because they're not getting what they want.  The same goes for any industry that is critical to the functioning of the country.  The controllers should have continued to negotiate and even filed lawsuits, but not strike.  In the case of the recent longshoreman's threat to strike, which would have had a great negative impact on the entire economy, if they had gone on strike I would have fired all of them as well.  I would not stand for threats which were made by the union boss to "cripple" the economy if he didn't get his way.  I'd shut him down and put him in his place so fast he wouldn't know what hit him.

Govt. employees should not be allowed to have unions and should not be allowed to go on strike.  Period. 

If you don't like your job, then quit and find another one.

Dave

For U.S. postal workers, way back in Pres. Nixon's time. USPS went on strike. Nixon had congress put in place a law that said the union would stay, but the workers could not go on strike. Instead of strikes there were arbitration panels set up to happen every time the union contract expired (every so many years). So the showdowns still occurred at the end of each contract, but nobody was not working, and the service still functioned as normal while it happened.

Freedom of association, freedom of assembly, freedom from involuntary servitude, freedom of speech are all hallmarks of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. All these are restraints the founders placed on the Federal Government and they can’t isolate a certain group for convenience or economic reasons. 
Ronald Reagan once said the strike was the most fundamental element of free speech. When he was Governor of California he took no action against an illegal strike by city workers. 
I am not a union radical by any means indeed never belonged to another and had no desire to go through that again. I don’t like many of their strong arm tactics and many other ways of bullying. I do believe peoples rights can’t be diminished for convenience or even economics. 
Another point of interest is that Reagan while serving as president of the Screen Actors Guild was turning some of his colleagues into the FBI for suspected Communist affiliation. I personally loathe Communism but should Federal law enforcement be pointed to someone because of their beliefs and association if they hurt nobody else or interfere with others rights. This gives insight to the thinking of the man who made the city on a hill speech. 
Rights for me but not for thee.

OK, folks, let's not go down the union politics rabbit hole.  There are a number of possible factors that might have caused this tragedy, and it's far too early to throw stones.

25 years ago, I was the commander of the USAF unit that operates the Andrews AFB airport just east of Washington DC.  Together with Washington Reagan National, Washington Dulles Intl, Baltimore-Washington Intl, and a number of smaller fields hosting military and other government flight operations with high-priority national security missions, we were party to the coordination of air traffic procedures in the region, and it presented an intensely complex high-density mix of disparate aircraft types packed into a small airspace, further constrained by multiple prohibited and restricted areas situated around various high-value government facilities.  There were rumblings even back then about closing Washington Reagan National due to the increasing risk of operating so much traffic in close proximity--to each other as well as to so many sensitive government sites.  I'm honestly surprised it took this long for two aircraft to attempt occupying the same piece of sky there.  Whatever the cause(s) of this accident turn out to be, that crowded airspace is the proverbial ten pounds of doo-doo in a five pound bag.

Washington Reagan National is very popular because of it's easy accessibility...when I was later assigned to the Pentagon, I marvelled at how I could leave my office, walk downstairs to a metro train, and be at the airport going through security in less than 20 minutes.  It certainly was convenient.  But after seeing the video of that midair and considering the awful cost of this accident, I find myself asking, once again, if that convenience is truly worth the risk.  Certainly, with two established major international airports within 30 miles, and the possibility of adding a third runway and a commercial terminal at Andrews, all of the current and future air travel needs for the capital could be dispersed and accomodated without the concentrated risk posed by the furious pace of operations at/near KDCA.

There's an old saying..."the superior pilot uses his superior judgement to avoid having to use his superior skills."  Operating so much traffic in such close proximity puts every participant into situations where they can't avoid the elevated risk and have to regularly depend on being at the top of their game to succeed, whether they be pilots, ATC controllers or airfield workers.  The fact that they make it look easy and get it done without incident most of the time doesn't negate the fact that they're operating with reduced safety margins much closer to a bad outcome than is normal--or really even necessary.

 

9 hours ago, Fielder said:

 

Sounds like a reasonable explanation of what happened.

21 hours ago, Allard said:

I wholeheartedly disagree with that statement. Goverment employees have the same rights as anyone

Yes, govt. employees have the right to quit their job if they're not happy with any aspect of it, just like anyone else.

The major difference between govt. and the private sector is that govt. employees are paid with money forcibly taken from taxpayers.  Moreover, they are hired to serve the public - not themselves, and not a business owner or corporate board like private sector employees.  Lastly, most govt. employees get retirement pension and healthcare benefits that very few private employees get. 

For these reasons alone, they should not be allowed to form unions and use their considerable clout to force taxpayers to shell out even more money that only benefits themselves.  Private companies, on the other hand, must deal with the consequences of having to pay their employees more which means raising prices, cutting back staff, or cutting other salaries and benefits, all things the govt. never does. 

Dave

What on Earth is a military helicopter doing anywhere near the approach paths of civilian airliners? Putting aside any runway changes, why take the risk of flying it so close to the airport, and on a trajectory virtually opposite to that of the landing planes? Let me guess........restricted airspace over the capital limits the options.

This tragedy really makes me angry

14 hours ago, Patco Lch said:

Freedom of association, freedom of assembly, freedom from involuntary servitude, freedom of speech are all hallmarks of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. All these are restraints the founders placed on the Federal Government and they can’t isolate a certain group for convenience or economic reasons. 

You're conflating the individual act of quitting a job with an organized union collectively going on strike and causing harm to potentially millions of other people.  No group has the right to do this without consequences.

No one lives in a society where they have the right to do whatever they want regardless of the consequences to others.  I am a huge believer in individual rights, but there must be consequences when exercising any of those rights harms someone else.

Despite the fact that we Americans continually shout that we are the "land of the free", in reality we all live under a set of rules that limit our freedom.  We are all ruled over by someone whether we like it or not.  The difference with us is that we have more individual freedom relative to most other countries.

Another negative aspect of unions is that in some States employees in certain sectors are forced to join a union and pay dues - if this is not a violation of individual freedom then I don't know what is.  Unions are also part of the reason why the USA has lost millions of good-paying manufacturing jobs.  Unions demanded so much from companies that the companies had no choice but  to close their plants and move them to other countries if they wanted to survive.  I won't even go into the corruption where unions are involved, which is well-documented.

Dave

16 hours ago, Bob Scott said:

OK, folks, let's not go down the union politics rabbit hole. 

@dave2013 we've already been warned by the head admin. Please drop it. Thanks.

Hook

If asked before, sorry.  If the helicopter was on the east side of the river bank at 200' and the jet was on perfectly on the glideslope,  if the

helicopter passed directly below the jet, how much distance would be between them?

Thanks

Jim

CYWG

Edited February 1, 20251 yr by jagabom

3 minutes ago, jagabom said:

If asked before, sorry.  If the helicopter was on the east side of the river bank at 200' and the jet was on perfectly on the glideslope,  if the

helicopters passed directly below the jet, how much distance would be between them?

Thanks

Jim

CYWG

as low as 100 feet seperation if the helicopter was on course and the aircraft was 300 feet and descending