|
FAA Suspends Second Controller In One Week
Press Release – FAA Statement on March 27 Incident in Florida
For Immediate Release March 29, 2011 Contact: Sasha Johnson/Laura Brown/Kathleen Bergen Phone: Sasha 202-267-3883, Kathleen 404-305-5100 The FAA is investigating an incident that occurred on Sunday March 27, 2011 when an air traffic controller in the Central Florida Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) requested assistance from a passenger aircraft in checking on a Cirrus SR22 aircraft that had been out of radio contact for over one hour. The Cirrus was on course for Kissimmee, FL and maintaining altitude at 11,000 feet. Air traffic controllers at Jacksonville Center (ZJX) repeatedly tried to reach the aircraft without success. Southwest 821 (SWA821), a Boeing 737, was ten miles in trail of the Cirrus at 12,000 feet and heading for Orlando International Airport (MCO). The controller asked the Southwest crew if they could check the cockpit of the Cirrus. The Southwest crew agreed, was directed towards the Cirrus and reported the aircraft in sight. The Southwest pilots reported seeing two people in the cockpit. The Southwest flight turned away and the air traffic controller then vectored the aircraft for its arrival at Orlando International Airport. Approximately thirty seconds later the Cirrus contacted Jacksonville Center who gave them the current frequency. Both aircraft landed safely at their destinations. Preliminary information indicates that there was a loss of required separation between the two aircraft. The FAA has suspended the air traffic controller, who is a supervisor. “By placing this passenger aircraft in close proximity to another plane, the air traffic controller compromised the safety of everyone involved. This incident was totally inappropriate,” said FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt. “We are reviewing the air traffic procedures used here and making sure everyone understands the protocols for contacting unresponsive aircraft.” ### Press Release – FAA Statement on March 27 Incident in Florida |
Originally Posted by vagabond
(Post 972691)
Press Release – FAA Statement on March 27 Incident in Florida
For Immediate Release March 29, 2011 Contact: Sasha Johnson/Laura Brown/Kathleen Bergen Phone: Sasha 202-267-3883, Kathleen 404-305-5100 The FAA is investigating an incident that occurred on Sunday March 27, 2011 when an air traffic controller in the Central Florida Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) requested assistance from a passenger aircraft in checking on a Cirrus SR22 aircraft that had been out of radio contact for over one hour. The Cirrus was on course for Kissimmee, FL and maintaining altitude at 11,000 feet. Air traffic controllers at Jacksonville Center (ZJX) repeatedly tried to reach the aircraft without success. Southwest 821 (SWA821), a Boeing 737, was ten miles in trail of the Cirrus at 12,000 feet and heading for Orlando International Airport (MCO). The controller asked the Southwest crew if they could check the cockpit of the Cirrus. The Southwest crew agreed, was directed towards the Cirrus and reported the aircraft in sight. The Southwest pilots reported seeing two people in the cockpit. The Southwest flight turned away and the air traffic controller then vectored the aircraft for its arrival at Orlando International Airport. Approximately thirty seconds later the Cirrus contacted Jacksonville Center who gave them the current frequency. Both aircraft landed safely at their destinations. Preliminary information indicates that there was a loss of required separation between the two aircraft. The FAA has suspended the air traffic controller, who is a supervisor. “By placing this passenger aircraft in close proximity to another plane, the air traffic controller compromised the safety of everyone involved. This incident was totally inappropriate,” said FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt. “We are reviewing the air traffic procedures used here and making sure everyone understands the protocols for contacting unresponsive aircraft.” ### Press Release – FAA Statement on March 27 Incident in Florida ^^ Hey look, they have their masks on, I thought you flew with those just dangling from your helmet?? Pretty flat too for a negative 4G dive? Really? Suspension? Geeish. I was flying back down the east coast once from Europe, I was finally not as bored as I was from coast in til Maine, and while listening to guard I got to hear a Cessna get intercepted by fighters for going into a presidential TFR. It started with them just trying to get a hold of the plane on guard but no response, 30 minutes later the fighters got involved and the guy was on guard asap, AND THEN HE ARGUED WITH THE FIGHTER THAT IT WAS NOT A TFR. I'd just say "thanks, I'll be moving on..." |
Is this for real???? Sasha needs to ask her boss to check her work before releasing it next time...
|
The SWA Captain agreed to take a look at this plane with his plane being full of pax?! Huh?
|
Originally Posted by Tuck
(Post 972754)
The SWA Captain agreed to take a look at this plane with his plane being full of pax?! Huh?
|
This does not sound like a good idea.
USMCFLYR |
With every decision you make you have to ask yourself, "Is this good for the company?"'
- Bill Lumbergh - |
I don't see the problem here. The Cirrus is at 11,000 feet, and Southwest is at 12,000.
|
Originally Posted by DustyRoads
(Post 972786)
I don't see the problem here. The Cirrus is at 11,000 feet, and Southwest is at 12,000.
Second, The press release said, "Preliminary information indicates that there was a loss of required separation between the two aircraft. " which means they got closer than 1,000 ft. I think everyone's got some 'xplaining to do. |
If they are VFR and the captain agrees to take a look, where is the violation of seperation? Doesnt seperation below RSVM in VFR the responsibility of the PIC even on an IFR flight plan? I dont get what the big deal is. And lets face it, there is no way that cirrus is going to move fast enough where SW wont be able to get out of the way.
|
Originally Posted by Group W Bench
(Post 972810)
If they are VFR and the captain agrees to take a look, where is the violation of seperation? Doesnt seperation below RSVM in VFR the responsibility of the PIC even on an IFR flight plan? I dont get what the big deal is. And lets face it, there is no way that cirrus is going to move fast enough where SW wont be able to get out of the way.
|
Originally Posted by BlueMoon
(Post 972814)
RVSM doesn't have anything to do with it, but outside of Class A. if you report traffic the control can tell you to "maintain visual separation with traffic" and then separation responsibility falls onto the pilot.
This +1. Now if the loss of separation occurred before the WN flight called the cirrus in sight it's a different matter. |
Originally Posted by Group W Bench
(Post 972810)
If they are VFR and the captain agrees to take a look, where is the violation of seperation? Doesnt seperation below RSVM in VFR the responsibility of the PIC even on an IFR flight plan? I dont get what the big deal is. And lets face it, there is no way that cirrus is going to move fast enough where SW wont be able to get out of the way.
However, please don't tell me that you believe it's OK to perform a little unbriefed formation flight in dissimilar aircraft types when one of them has a cabin full of paying pasengers just because it's VFR, because that's just poor judgement and we've got plenty of ANG pilots who get paid to do it and have far more practice at it than you. And if you don't like my opinion, you might take a peek at FAR 91.111 which specifically prohibits unbriefed form flight and further prohibits any type of formation flight with paying PAX onboard |
Well this will go the way that the landings in DCA did. The controller has been suspended. Lots of news and internet talk about it. Questions then start being asked about what the pilots were thinking. The FAA deciding a closer look needs to be taken at everything and whether or not the pilots did the safest thing. Another incident where the outcome is going to be "the pilots' failure to....."
|
Originally Posted by DelDah Capt
(Post 972850)
First, I don't know what the SWA crew did or didn't agree to do, so it's too early to pass judgement on them
However, please don't tell me that you believe it's OK to perform a little unbriefed formation flight in dissimilar aircraft types when one of them has a cabin full of paying pasengers just because it's VFR, because that's just poor judgement and we've got plenty of ANG pilots who get paid to do it and have far more practice at it than you. And if you don't like my opinion, you might take a peek at FAR 91.111 which specifically prohibits unbriefed form flight and further prohibits any type of formation flight with paying PAX onboard |
Originally Posted by BlueMoon
(Post 972814)
RVSM doesn't have anything to do with it, but outside of Class A. if you report traffic the control can tell you to "maintain visual separation with traffic" and then separation responsibility falls onto the pilot.
|
Originally Posted by Group W Bench
(Post 972810)
If they are VFR and the captain agrees to take a look, where is the violation of seperation? Doesnt seperation below RSVM in VFR the responsibility of the PIC even on an IFR flight plan? I dont get what the big deal is. And lets face it, there is no way that cirrus is going to move fast enough where SW wont be able to get out of the way.
|
Controller, airline crew suspended over incident in Florida skies - CNN.com
The FAA suspended the air traffic controller, and Southwest Airlines has suspended the captain and first officer on Flight 821, pending the outcome of the investigation. |
Originally Posted by DelDah Capt
(Post 972850)
First, I don't know what the SWA crew did or didn't agree to do, so it's too early to pass judgement on them
However, please don't tell me that you believe it's OK to perform a little unbriefed formation flight in dissimilar aircraft types when one of them has a cabin full of paying pasengers just because it's VFR, because that's just poor judgement and we've got plenty of ANG pilots who get paid to do it and have far more practice at it than you. And if you don't like my opinion, you might take a peek at FAR 91.111 which specifically prohibits unbriefed form flight and further prohibits any type of formation flight with paying PAX onboard Even if they were both under IFR flight plans, in VMC conditions the pilot can elect to maintain visual separation from traffic that waives the separation standards for IMC flight. Was this a good idea on behalf of the controller and SWA crew? I would say no. Does this warrant a suspension? IMO, no. I remember being in Atlanta's airspace on an arrival and there was a twin Cessna that had broken bravo and wasn't talking to anybody. The controller asked us to visually identify the aircraft, maintain separation while maintaining the integrity of the STAR, and to get the tail # if we could. Do you think it was unsafe for the controller to ask us to identify the make, model and tail number if we could? IMO this was an example of the controller utilizing CRM without scrambling fighters that would have cost the taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars. The safest idea? No, but there was nothing devious or malicious in this act. Just my 2c. |
Originally Posted by maddogmax
(Post 972759)
Must have been ex-military. Thought he could declare MARSA.
"we'll teach you to do 320kts below 10 so you can beat Delta to the marker" In the spirit of what I quoted, and how I responded, don't anybody get too spun up. I'm NOT picking on SW in ANY way, shape, or form. It's SIMPLY satire.
Originally Posted by Fins Up
(Post 972783)
With every decision you make you have to ask yourself, "Is this good for the company?"'
- Bill Lumbergh - |
Originally Posted by Group W Bench
(Post 972810)
If they are VFR and the captain agrees to take a look, where is the violation of seperation? Doesnt seperation below RSVM in VFR the responsibility of the PIC even on an IFR flight plan? I dont get what the big deal is. And lets face it, there is no way that cirrus is going to move fast enough where SW wont be able to get out of the way.
However, please don't tell me that you believe it's OK to perform a little unbriefed formation flight in dissimilar aircraft types when one of them has a cabin full of paying pasengers just because it's VFR, because that's just poor judgement and we've got plenty of ANG pilots who get paid to do it and have far more practice at it than you. And if you don't like my opinion, you might take a peek at FAR 91.111 which specifically prohibits unbriefed form flight and further prohibits any type of formation flight with paying PAX onboard |
There's something missing in all this. I don't get the problem. This is NOT a formation with 1,000 feet ATC assigned separation.
First, this was NOT an air traffic controller, but a supervisor, just like in DCA last week. Yes, the agency actually has supervisors who were never controllers, or failed trainees, etc. They typically aren't checked out on all positions in a facility / radar facility area, and most definitely did NOT get to their lofty positions based on being a stellar air traffic controller. Second, on the surface, I see no loss of separation, and actually I don't see a problem. There is something missing. Every day, aircraft pass each other at 1,000 feet ALL OVER THE WORLD, safely and legally. Having the crew ask to check on another aircraft, regardless of type, or how man pax on board, seems perfectly responsible and reasonable to me with 1,000 feet separation. Third, it doesn't appear that the Cirrus was VFR. Also, wake turbulence shouldn't be an issue here. Lastly, visual separation doesn't appear to have been used, or necessary. Also, visual separation is not applicable for enroute operations (not sure if this was terminal or enroute ops). ATC must have communication with both aircraft, or the ABILITY to communicate with both: b. EN ROUTE. Visual separation may be used up to but not including FL 180 when the following conditions are met: 1. Direct communication is maintained with one of the aircraft involved and there is an ability to communicate with the other. a. TERMINAL. Visual separation may be applied between aircraft under the control of the same facility within the terminal area up to but not including FL180, provided: 1. Communication is maintained with at least one of the aircraft involved or the capability to communicate immediately as prescribed in para3-9-3, Departure Control Instructions, subpara a2 is available, and: 2. The aircraft are visually observed by the tower and visual separation is maintained between the aircraft by the tower. The tower shall not provide visual separation between aircraft when wake turbulence separation is required or when the lead aircraft is a B757. 3. A pilot sees another aircraft and is instructed to maintain visual separation from the aircraft as follows: (a) Tell the pilot about the other aircraft including position, direction and, unless it is obvious, the other aircraft's intention. (b) Obtain acknowledgment from the pilot that the other aircraft is in sight." |
Originally Posted by RU4692
(Post 972876)
Even if they were both under IFR flight plans, in VMC conditions the pilot can elect to maintain visual separation from traffic that waives the separation standards for IMC flight.
I think your wording needs a little clean up. The controller will ASSIGN visual separation when certain conditions are met. The pilot may either comply, or like virtually any clearance, turn it down based on safety. |
All technicalities aside, I think the biggest point is, as a pilot, why put yourself in a position you would have to explain later on? Sadly, we live in a litigious society where it pays to try to think like an attorney would – in what context are my actions going to be framed on?
Sometimes good intentions can come back and bite us in the butt. Be careful out there. |
As to the "definition" of Formation flying....you won't find one. As far as the FAA is concerned, it's contained in 91.111 where it says that no airplane shall fly close enough to another to create a 'hazard'. To me, that's a loose enough phrase for any FAA lawyer to drive a 737 through so I don't want to test the boundaries.
If ATC asks me to be a comms relay for a lost jet...hey, glad to help. If he asks me during the normal course of my route from departure to destination airport to look out the window for somebody, I'll do my darndest. The problem comes when he starts actively vectoring me or asking me to climb/descend for the sole purpose of getting me closer to another jet when I'm full of paying pax who didn't sign up for that. All the articles I've seen (including the FAA's own press release) say that there was a loss of normal separation standards. That to me says that either the controller purposely vectored/descended the 737 into a closer position for no other reason than a 'look see' or the 737 crew voluntarily maneuvered their jet towards another aircraft...either way it just doesn't pass the sniff test to me But hey, last week I had no problem with the crews landing at DCA once they declared it an uncontrolled field and set up the approach that way. I guess that's what these boards are for, to debate different viewpoints of what we would have done from our comfy armchairs. |
I just read the article on CNN among other sources. At first I heard the controller was suspended...
After reading that the crew was suspended as well is just outrageous! In fact, it's infuriating. This type of thing de-incentivizes moral behavior that can help save lives! Controller, airline crew suspended over incident in Florida skies - CNN.com |
It's hard to make an informed judgement if we don't know how close the aircraft came.
Now, how close are aircraft flying into SNA? Are they closer than the SW jet was to the Cirrus? If yes, is the FAA, and D.S. Babbitt, going to go back and take thousands of pilots, and controllers, licenses that have operated into SNA? How about parallel visuals? Is that seperation unsafe? Let's find out what the seperation actually was. How about the old STOL operations in DCA with Dash 7's? :D What was that seperation???? :eek: |
Originally Posted by RU4692
(Post 972876)
I remember being in Atlanta's airspace on an arrival and there was a twin Cessna that had broken bravo and wasn't talking to anybody. The controller asked us to visually identify the aircraft, maintain separation while maintaining the integrity of the STAR, and to get the tail # if we could. Do you think it was unsafe for the controller to ask us to identify the make, model and tail number if we could?
Originally Posted by Sliceback
(Post 972945)
How about the old STOL operations in DCA with Dash 7's? :D
What was that seperation???? :eek: |
Originally Posted by EasternATC
(Post 972988)
Makes me pine for the good old days! Which actually were quite good. The good old days always seem to look better in retrospect. The last 4 years have had a single air carrier fatality. I think in terms of safety, these are the good old days. |
The Southwest pilots reported seeing two people in the cockpit |
Originally Posted by EasternATC
(Post 972988)
It was not only unsafe, it was, at best, foolhardy. How close do you think you'd have to get to read the registration number?
The Twin Cessna was VFR South of BYRDS at 10500 (West Bound) where class B encompassed 12500. We were instructed to deviate as necessary to avoid traffic, without vectoring us off the STAR. He then requested if we could identify the tail number, without deviating from the protocol of the arrival, to let him know. Hindsight I would have included the details to make my point. To clarify my point, I was asking if it was unreasonable for the controller to ask us to identify the tail number of the Twin Cessna. Of course we could have replied "unable" if we thought it was an unsafe request. I however, am of the opinion that his request was not unsafe, or unreasonable, given the circumstances. |
Originally Posted by TonyWilliams
(Post 973025)
The good old days always seem to look better in retrospect. The last 4 years have had a single air carrier fatality. I think in terms of safety, these are the good old days.
|
Originally Posted by RU4692
(Post 973049)
...I was asking if it was unreasonable for the controller to ask us to identify the tail number of the Twin Cessna...
|
Having flown a fair amount of formation I can tell those of you asking how close do you need to be in order to see two people in a Cirrus' cockpit - the answer is close. How close to see a registration number? Close. I'd like to actually see more details about this, but I'll say again in my opinion that I think this sounds like a bad idea.
USMCFLYR |
Just measured the length of my street. 600'. I have no problem seeing a driver in a car at the end of the street.
If they maintained 500' or a 1000' vertical seperation the difference between that an a merge between a VFR and IFR aircraft would be.....absolutely normal in the eyes of the FAA. Details first, then the hanging. :mad: |
Originally Posted by EasternATC
(Post 973056)
I was referring to the Ransom and Henson Dash7 ops at DCA. There'll never be another time and place like that. What a hoot!
Simple stuff - "cleared to land runway 15/21/33, hold short of runway 18/36". :eek: All about 2400', which was a more than enough for a Dash 7 (Vref 72 or 80 Kts at max wt), reversers, flaps dumped with WOW, spoilers with wheel spin up(of the vice versa) Captains only landings. Well, at least officially. :D "First guy that doesn't stop short will close the program down." Nothing like pressure. :) |
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
(Post 973088)
Having flown a fair amount of formation I can tell those of you asking how close do you need to be in order to see two people in a Cirrus' cockpit - the answer is close. How close to see a registration number? Close. I'd like to actually see more details about this, but I'll say again in my opinion that I think this sounds like a bad idea.
USMCFLYR "FAA radar data show, that the Boeing descended down to 10,800 feet and back up to 11,000 feet while checking the Cirrus, that maintained 11,000 feet all time. The radar tracks suggest the minimum separation between the aircraft was less than 1.2nm lateral with 0 feet vertical." |
Originally Posted by Short Bus Drive
(Post 973144)
According to The Aviation Herald
"FAA radar data show, that the Boeing descended down to 10,800 feet and back up to 11,000 feet while checking the Cirrus, that maintained 11,000 feet all time. The radar tracks suggest the minimum separation between the aircraft was less than 1.2nm lateral with 0 feet vertical." I just saw this blurb on a YouTube video: "FAA Head Hank Krakowski commenting on the abundance of FAA supervisors with little or no ATC experience..."They don't pass the Smell Test" |
What probably happened
They probably maneuvered too close in an effort to see, maybe the rate was too large and they received an RA. It was a sporty thing to do with pax on board. I only say that since they did not know why the other aircraft was NORDO. If something went wrong it could have abruptly turned into the SWA jet. Big picture though it is easy to second guess.
I will not criticize without having been there. We do this all the time air refueling, not to mention formation. Hope it all works out for them
Originally Posted by TonyWilliams
(Post 972886)
There's something missing in all this. I don't get the problem. This is NOT a formation with 1,000 feet ATC assigned separation.
First, this was NOT an air traffic controller, but a supervisor, just like in DCA last week. Yes, the agency actually has supervisors who were never controllers, or failed trainees, etc. They typically aren't checked out on all positions in a facility / radar facility area, and most definitely did NOT get to their lofty positions based on being a stellar air traffic controller. Second, on the surface, I see no loss of separation, and actually I don't see a problem. There is something missing. Every day, aircraft pass each other at 1,000 feet ALL OVER THE WORLD, safely and legally. Having the crew ask to check on another aircraft, regardless of type, or how man pax on board, seems perfectly responsible and reasonable to me with 1,000 feet separation. Third, it doesn't appear that the Cirrus was VFR. Also, wake turbulence shouldn't be an issue here. Lastly, visual separation doesn't appear to have been used, or necessary. Also, visual separation is not applicable for enroute operations (not sure if this was terminal or enroute ops). ATC must have communication with both aircraft, or the ABILITY to communicate with both: b. EN ROUTE. Visual separation may be used up to but not including FL 180 when the following conditions are met: 1. Direct communication is maintained with one of the aircraft involved and there is an ability to communicate with the other. a. TERMINAL. Visual separation may be applied between aircraft under the control of the same facility within the terminal area up to but not including FL180, provided: 1. Communication is maintained with at least one of the aircraft involved or the capability to communicate immediately as prescribed in para3-9-3, Departure Control Instructions, subpara a2 is available, and: 2. The aircraft are visually observed by the tower and visual separation is maintained between the aircraft by the tower. The tower shall not provide visual separation between aircraft when wake turbulence separation is required or when the lead aircraft is a B757. 3. A pilot sees another aircraft and is instructed to maintain visual separation from the aircraft as follows: (a) Tell the pilot about the other aircraft including position, direction and, unless it is obvious, the other aircraft's intention. (b) Obtain acknowledgment from the pilot that the other aircraft is in sight." |
Originally Posted by Short Bus Drive
(Post 973144)
According to The Aviation Herald
"FAA radar data show, that the Boeing descended down to 10,800 feet and back up to 11,000 feet while checking the Cirrus, that maintained 11,000 feet all time. The radar tracks suggest the minimum separation between the aircraft was less than 1.2nm lateral with 0 feet vertical." Now for some facts - visual approaches in ORD? 1.0 mile lateral seperation. JFK 31's? 1.0 mile. JFK 4's? .6 lateral seperation. MIA 8's? .15 "But, but, but...." :mad: |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:06 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands