JFK Control Tower - let the little kid direct traffic for a while day
Mar 2, 2010, 9:38 pm
#1
In Memoriam
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Easton, CT, USA
Programs: ua prem exec, Former hilton diamond
Posts: 31,801
JFK Control Tower - let the little kid direct traffic for a while day
http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/traffic/t...tower-20100302
Yeah, imagine if you were listening on Channel 9 when this was going on
Boy Talks to Pilots from JFK Airport Tower
By MYFOX BOSTON
MYFOXNY.COM - The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating an air traffic controller who apparently let a child speak to pilots over the radio from the control tower at John F. Kennedy Airport.
The child made five transmissions, and the pilots actually enthusiastically responded to him. The child appeared to be supervised.
But aviation experts, including a retired Delta pilot, say that having a child on the radio is a bad idea because lives hang on every radio transmission.
In fact, only FAA-licensed controllers are supposed to communicate with airplanes.
Yeah, imagine if you were listening on Channel 9 when this was going on
Boy Talks to Pilots from JFK Airport Tower
By MYFOX BOSTON
MYFOXNY.COM - The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating an air traffic controller who apparently let a child speak to pilots over the radio from the control tower at John F. Kennedy Airport.
The child made five transmissions, and the pilots actually enthusiastically responded to him. The child appeared to be supervised.
But aviation experts, including a retired Delta pilot, say that having a child on the radio is a bad idea because lives hang on every radio transmission.
In fact, only FAA-licensed controllers are supposed to communicate with airplanes.
Last edited by Cholula; Mar 3, 2010 at 6:10 am Reason: Corrected broken link
Mar 2, 2010, 9:51 pm
#2
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 15,788
I know it doesn't directly apply, but there is precedent in Amateur Radio. I'm surprised I remembered this from 20 years ago 
http://www.w5yi.org/page.php?id=122
Is there, in fact, a FAR governing who can use an aviation band radio?
Here we go. . .
FCC 87.89 Minimum operator requirements.
Don't know what the PEP of JFK tower radios might be, so this may not apply.
http://www.w5yi.org/page.php?id=122
Part 97 : Sec. 97.115 Third party communications
(a) An amateur station may transmit messages for a third party to:
(1) Any station within the jurisdiction of the United States.
(2) Any station within the jurisdiction of any foreign government whose administration has made arrangements with the United States to allow amateur stations to be used for transmitting international communications on behalf of third parties. No station shall transmit messages for a third party to any station within the jurisdiction of any foreign government whose administration has not made such an arrangement. This prohibition does not apply to a message for any third party who is eligible to be a control operator of the station.
(b) The third party may participate in stating the message where:
(1) The control operator is present at the control point and is continuously monitoring and supervising the third party's participation; and
(2) The third party is not a prior amateur service licensee whose license was revoked; suspended for less than the balance of the license term and the suspension is still in effect; suspended for the balance of the license term and relicensing has not taken place; or surrendered for cancellation following notice of revocation, suspension or monetary forfeiture proceedings. The third party may not be the subject of a cease and desist order which relates to amateur service operation and which is still in effect.
(c) At the end of an exchange of international third party communications, the station must also transmit in the station identification procedure the call sign of the station with which a third party message was exchanged.
(d) No station may be automatically controlled while transmitting third party communications, except a station transmitting a RTTY or data emission. All messages that are retransmitted must originate at a station that is being locally or remotely controlled.
[54 FR 25857, June 20, 1989; 54 FR 39535, Sept. 27, 1989]
(a) An amateur station may transmit messages for a third party to:
(1) Any station within the jurisdiction of the United States.
(2) Any station within the jurisdiction of any foreign government whose administration has made arrangements with the United States to allow amateur stations to be used for transmitting international communications on behalf of third parties. No station shall transmit messages for a third party to any station within the jurisdiction of any foreign government whose administration has not made such an arrangement. This prohibition does not apply to a message for any third party who is eligible to be a control operator of the station.
(b) The third party may participate in stating the message where:
(1) The control operator is present at the control point and is continuously monitoring and supervising the third party's participation; and
(2) The third party is not a prior amateur service licensee whose license was revoked; suspended for less than the balance of the license term and the suspension is still in effect; suspended for the balance of the license term and relicensing has not taken place; or surrendered for cancellation following notice of revocation, suspension or monetary forfeiture proceedings. The third party may not be the subject of a cease and desist order which relates to amateur service operation and which is still in effect.
(c) At the end of an exchange of international third party communications, the station must also transmit in the station identification procedure the call sign of the station with which a third party message was exchanged.
(d) No station may be automatically controlled while transmitting third party communications, except a station transmitting a RTTY or data emission. All messages that are retransmitted must originate at a station that is being locally or remotely controlled.
[54 FR 25857, June 20, 1989; 54 FR 39535, Sept. 27, 1989]
Here we go. . .
FCC 87.89 Minimum operator requirements.
87.89 Minimum operator requirements.
top
(a) A station operator must hold a commercial radio operator license or permit, except as listed in paragraph (d).
(b) The minimum operator license or permit required for operation of each specific classification is:
Minimum Operator License or Permit
Land stations, all classes
—All frequencies except VHF telephony transmitters providing domestic serviceRP
Aircraft stations, all classes
—Frequencies below 30 MHz allocated exclusively to aeronautical mobile servicesRP—Frequencies below 30 MHz not allocated exclusively to aeronautical mobile servicesMP or higher—Frequencies above 30 MHz not allocated exclusively to aeronautical mobile services and assigned for international useMP or higher—Frequencies above 30 MHz not assigned for international usenone—Frequencies not used solely for telephone or exceeding 250 watts carrier power or 1000 watts peak envelope powerG or higher
(c) The operator of a telephony station must directly supervise and be responsible for any other person who transmits from the station, and must ensure that such communications are in accordance with the station license.
(d) No operator license is required to:
(1) Operate an aircraft radar set, radio altimeter, transponder or other aircraft automatic radionavigation transmitter by flight personnel;
(2) Test an emergency locator transmitter or a survival craft station used solely for survival purposes;
(3) Operate an aeronautical enroute station which automatically transmits digital communications to aircraft stations;
(4) Operate a VHF telephony transmitter providing domestic service or used on domestic flights.
top
(a) A station operator must hold a commercial radio operator license or permit, except as listed in paragraph (d).
(b) The minimum operator license or permit required for operation of each specific classification is:
Minimum Operator License or Permit
Land stations, all classes
—All frequencies except VHF telephony transmitters providing domestic serviceRP
Aircraft stations, all classes
—Frequencies below 30 MHz allocated exclusively to aeronautical mobile servicesRP—Frequencies below 30 MHz not allocated exclusively to aeronautical mobile servicesMP or higher—Frequencies above 30 MHz not allocated exclusively to aeronautical mobile services and assigned for international useMP or higher—Frequencies above 30 MHz not assigned for international usenone—Frequencies not used solely for telephone or exceeding 250 watts carrier power or 1000 watts peak envelope powerG or higher
(c) The operator of a telephony station must directly supervise and be responsible for any other person who transmits from the station, and must ensure that such communications are in accordance with the station license.
(d) No operator license is required to:
(1) Operate an aircraft radar set, radio altimeter, transponder or other aircraft automatic radionavigation transmitter by flight personnel;
(2) Test an emergency locator transmitter or a survival craft station used solely for survival purposes;
(3) Operate an aeronautical enroute station which automatically transmits digital communications to aircraft stations;
(4) Operate a VHF telephony transmitter providing domestic service or used on domestic flights.
Last edited by birdstrike; Mar 2, 2010 at 10:15 pm
Mar 2, 2010, 10:37 pm
#3
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: SFO/SJC/SQL
Posts: 1,412
A friend sent me this link last week:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4s2irdJpEk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4s2irdJpEk
Mar 2, 2010, 10:52 pm
#4
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 15,788
A friend sent me this link last week:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4s2irdJpEk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4s2irdJpEk
Mar 2, 2010, 11:02 pm
#5
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northeast Kansas | Colorado Native
Programs: Amex Gold/Plat, UA *G, Hyatt Globalist, Marriott LT Gold, NEXUS, TSA Disparager Unobtanium
Posts: 21,603
A friend sent me this link last week:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4s2irdJpEk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4s2irdJpEk
^I'll see you later, dude!
Mar 2, 2010, 11:20 pm
#6
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,691
It's hardly that dramatic...Yes, horseplay and silliness has no place on any FAA designated frequency. However, this guy shouldn't lose his job over this.
... and you wonder why some pilots don't like to have channel 9 on UA on?
Mar 3, 2010, 12:33 am
#8
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 15,788
If there is administrative action against the controller it will be under one of the catch-all, subjective, regulations covering "interfering with the security of air operations". I predict it would be upheld by an administrative law judge and overturned by the entire board. If it gets that far.
There is no harm, no foul in this case. Management would be covering their @ss while waning Controllers to not get caught by FAUX news in the future.
Mar 3, 2010, 1:02 am
#9
Join Date: May 2006
Location: MYF/CMA/SAN/YYZ/YKF
Programs: COdbaUA 1K MM, AA EXP, Bonbon Gold, GHA Titanium, Hertz PC, NEXUS and GE
Posts: 5,837
This is not at all a new thing and I see nothing wrong with it as long as the field isn't busy and the kid is well supervised and not doing any sort of vectoring. Indeed, a trained parrot could probably run LAX local 99.5% of the time given the lack of vectoring involved there.
Mar 3, 2010, 3:25 am
#10
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: back to my roots in Scotland!
Programs: Tamsin - what else is there to say?
Posts: 47,843
Hey, I've done air traffic control. Was working someplace, at sometime and the senior air traffic control person, upon learning I wasn't an air traffic controller but was very interested in it put me on a head set and had me issuing clearances to land.
I was terrified. Even though I knew I was on a trainees head set where the senior person could override me at any time, they were qualified as an instructor, it was exceptionally quiet, they were actually doing the ATC and that really I was just a speaking parrot. Breathed a huge sigh of relief when they took over again as a couple more planes became active. The problem with working in aviation safety is that all the bad stuff about what could happen immediately floats to the surface!
OTOH, now it's over and we all survived, I've done something that few FTers have done
I was terrified. Even though I knew I was on a trainees head set where the senior person could override me at any time, they were qualified as an instructor, it was exceptionally quiet, they were actually doing the ATC and that really I was just a speaking parrot. Breathed a huge sigh of relief when they took over again as a couple more planes became active. The problem with working in aviation safety is that all the bad stuff about what could happen immediately floats to the surface!
OTOH, now it's over and we all survived, I've done something that few FTers have done
Mar 3, 2010, 4:17 am
#11
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: DCA / WAS
Programs: DL 2+ million/PM, YX, Marriott Plt, *wood gold, HHonors, CO Plt, UA, AA EXP, WN, AGR
Posts: 9,388
This is not at all a new thing and I see nothing wrong with it as long as the field isn't busy and the kid is well supervised and not doing any sort of vectoring. Indeed, a trained parrot could probably run LAX local 99.5% of the time given the lack of vectoring involved there.
Mar 3, 2010, 4:21 am
#12
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East Midlands, United Kingdom
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 331
As a pilot (albeit not on big-jets), when I fly and talk with ATC, I want to be sure that the guy or gal on the other end of the RT is competent. Whilst the pilot ALWAYS has the ultimate rsponsibility for safety, if I'm meant to be following ATC instructions I want to know that they are considered istructions issued by someone appropriately trained, qualified, licenced and in current practice.
Next time you fly, think about a child giving instructions to the aeroplane you're sat in. Think about what'd happen if, despite being told what to say, the child said the wrong thing, and then before it was corrected there was an r/t failure - such chains of individually inconsequential failures, linked together, can easily end up in disasters. If you ever listen to ATC, think about listening to pilots in training who, having been told what to say by their instructor, still hesitant and mix things up. Can a child really do it properly. And consider the spurious ATC transmissions from unauthorised sources that have happened in the past - how does a pilot tell that this child is genuinely passing on instructions from a real controller?
This is potentially lives at stake, and millions of dollars worth of equipment in the firing line. It absolutely horrifies me that anyone would allow such a thing to happen. Why is it any different to the Aeroflot A310 incident some years ago when the pilot allowed his child into the pilot seat when the airplane was in the cruise? (that resulted in a crash, for which the pilots were very rightly blamed) What was that guy thinking putting a kid on the mike? I don't care if the kid was "supervised". Anyone in ATC who did that, I would very seriously question their judgement and competence to be an air traffic controller, and I'd certainly have a significantly reduced confidence in the reliability of any instructions that the guy gave to me himself, let alone those from the child.
IMHO the guy(s) who allowed this to happen should be fired, and potentially brought up on a charge of willfully endangering aeroplanes too.
Andy
Next time you fly, think about a child giving instructions to the aeroplane you're sat in. Think about what'd happen if, despite being told what to say, the child said the wrong thing, and then before it was corrected there was an r/t failure - such chains of individually inconsequential failures, linked together, can easily end up in disasters. If you ever listen to ATC, think about listening to pilots in training who, having been told what to say by their instructor, still hesitant and mix things up. Can a child really do it properly. And consider the spurious ATC transmissions from unauthorised sources that have happened in the past - how does a pilot tell that this child is genuinely passing on instructions from a real controller?
This is potentially lives at stake, and millions of dollars worth of equipment in the firing line. It absolutely horrifies me that anyone would allow such a thing to happen. Why is it any different to the Aeroflot A310 incident some years ago when the pilot allowed his child into the pilot seat when the airplane was in the cruise? (that resulted in a crash, for which the pilots were very rightly blamed) What was that guy thinking putting a kid on the mike? I don't care if the kid was "supervised". Anyone in ATC who did that, I would very seriously question their judgement and competence to be an air traffic controller, and I'd certainly have a significantly reduced confidence in the reliability of any instructions that the guy gave to me himself, let alone those from the child.
IMHO the guy(s) who allowed this to happen should be fired, and potentially brought up on a charge of willfully endangering aeroplanes too.
Andy
Mar 3, 2010, 7:08 am
#13
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1
Captlegs
From a commercial pilot, instructor/examiner (of 40 years):
This is much ado about nothing! The child was clearly under DIRECT COMPETENT SUPERVISION.
Notice NOT ONE pilot objected nor asked for a repeat. They were even supportive!
Sure, let's punish the encouraging parent and psychologically screw up this eager kid for even attempting WHAT HE DID WELL! Bravo for this parent for allowing his kid to experience how real people earn a living.
Under no circumstance would I have objected to this communication had I been a participating pilot. Little fella, you've got a great possible future ahead!
FAA, lighten up for God's sake! Go dad, YOU ROCK! News media, how about going in search of a truly worthy story? Please don't try to distort reality to the more sane and intelligent folks.
The next time I'm flying there I will inquire what happened to the great young controller in training.
B. Y.
This is much ado about nothing! The child was clearly under DIRECT COMPETENT SUPERVISION.
Notice NOT ONE pilot objected nor asked for a repeat. They were even supportive!
Sure, let's punish the encouraging parent and psychologically screw up this eager kid for even attempting WHAT HE DID WELL! Bravo for this parent for allowing his kid to experience how real people earn a living.
Under no circumstance would I have objected to this communication had I been a participating pilot. Little fella, you've got a great possible future ahead!
FAA, lighten up for God's sake! Go dad, YOU ROCK! News media, how about going in search of a truly worthy story? Please don't try to distort reality to the more sane and intelligent folks.
The next time I'm flying there I will inquire what happened to the great young controller in training.
B. Y.
Mar 3, 2010, 7:25 am
#14
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: MCO
Programs: DL-DM/1MM, HILTON-DIA, .HYATT-DIA/GLOB , IHG-PLT,HERTZ 5*, NATIONAL ES
Posts: 8,691
From a commercial pilot, instructor/examiner (of 40 years):
This is much ado about nothing! The child was clearly under DIRECT COMPETENT SUPERVISION.
Notice NOT ONE pilot objected nor asked for a repeat. They were even supportive!
Sure, let's punish the encouraging parent and psychologically screw up this eager kid for even attempting WHAT HE DID WELL! Bravo for this parent for allowing his kid to experience how real people earn a living.
Under no circumstance would I have objected to this communication had I been a participating pilot. Little fella, you've got a great possible future ahead!
FAA, lighten up for God's sake! Go dad, YOU ROCK! News media, how about going in search of a truly worthy story? Please don't try to distort reality to the more sane and intelligent folks.
The next time I'm flying there I will inquire what happened to the great young controller in training.
B. Y.
This is much ado about nothing! The child was clearly under DIRECT COMPETENT SUPERVISION.
Notice NOT ONE pilot objected nor asked for a repeat. They were even supportive!
Sure, let's punish the encouraging parent and psychologically screw up this eager kid for even attempting WHAT HE DID WELL! Bravo for this parent for allowing his kid to experience how real people earn a living.
Under no circumstance would I have objected to this communication had I been a participating pilot. Little fella, you've got a great possible future ahead!
FAA, lighten up for God's sake! Go dad, YOU ROCK! News media, how about going in search of a truly worthy story? Please don't try to distort reality to the more sane and intelligent folks.
The next time I'm flying there I will inquire what happened to the great young controller in training.
B. Y.