PTravel

Okay, so you think the only thing he did wrong, and for which he should be reprimanded, is not considering the PR aspects of his actions?

RockoHorse

You can put me down for - no big deal, no kids

I think people are getting overly paranoid.

In addition to that it takes only one person to make everyone's life more difficult. You just need to browse the papers to see events/traditions that have been going on for 10, 20 30 years spoiled by one person that decides that it's not appropriate.

I got to go into the cockpit of an aircraft when I was a kid. The plane was in the air. The pilots took some time to explain stuff to me. No one freaked out and we landed safely.

As for the pat down, I think that would be a horrible job to give a kid, searching bags would be much more interesting
If you had a few kids hanging out in the security area I bet security would be better..."hey dad, why is that guy sneaking around that barrier...". Maybe newark should do bring-your-kid-to-work day...

videomaker

They didn't?

birdstrike

It is extremely unlikely that the child's broadcast would be the proximate cause of an accident or incident. (PTravel, please correct me if I use the term "proximate cause" incorrectly in this situation)

The only valid argument here against the kid's supervised participation in ATC activities is that his/her presence might become a link in an Accident Chain.

So, given enough guests over enough time at a communications control point, their presence will eventually become part of an accident chain resulting in an accident or incident.

Like everything else in life, this comes down to a risk vs. reward evaluation.

Thousands of children and adults tour active ATC facilities every year though few, admittedly, man the radios. All of them are a distraction and potential contributor to an accident chain. On the other hand, so would be a controllers argument with his wife in the minutes before he left for work. Should controllers be unmarried and celibate? Should the police be forbidden to issue tickets to ATC controllers for fear of upsetting their concentration?

Where do you draw the line? I argue that it is not whether children should transmit ATC instructions, or perform initial incisions during surgery, or answer the phone at law offices, but rather whether you hire people you can trust to handle not only the specifics of the task at hand, but, appropriately, any contingencies that may occur. For a lawyer, it may be simply the reaction of their co workers. For the surgeon, it might be that the emergency is part and parcel of the initial incision. For an ATC controller it is simply the operating conditions at the moment.

Sykes

Apparently the fact that many experienced aviation technicians (but not necessarily 'professionals' or 'leaders') support the controller in question is starting to make the news as well:

Pilots show support for controller Glenn Duffy, who let his 2 kids direct traffic at Kennedy Airport (nydailynews.com)

birdstrike

They are the aviation Professionals and Leaders.

What are your definitions for "Professional", "Technician", or "Leader" since they are not mentioned in the article you quote?

How do they relate to my corresponding definitions of "Professional", "Cowardly", and <edit to say credulous press"?

Still, appreciate your publishing the correct view of the story.

Sykes

My apologies ... that was a reference to Self_Loading_Ballast's post above. In retrospect, my sarcasm isn't as apparent as I hoped it would be. I'm very much on your side here.

birdstrike

Sorry to mis-interpret,

Troy B

It is actually illegal. But IMO, the act is measured and considerably not harmful. Neverthless, we have laws... just too bad on the controller's part.

My wife even considered it cute. hehehe

kokonutz

That, and he failed to realize how namby-pamby and paranoid some percentage of people have become over anything air travel related.

Generally, that they (the ATC and the super) failed to anticipate the emotional over-reaction.

Jenbel

Well, you've just fired my father then

He was a journalist before he retired. From the age I was judged old enough to answer the home phone, I had to get used to the fact that he was frequently on call, and our evenings/weekends/days would be interupted by people calling, asking for him and leaving messages. It wasn't unprofessional of him to have his phone answered by his children, and we were perfectly capable of taking those messages. And it was a very, very regular occurrence, since if he wasn't in, and my mother was occupied, either my sister or me had to get the phone - which was connected to the wall by a cord. Way before the days of mobiles or wireless.

I suspect that this is more common in family homes than you, as a childless guy and now working in an age when we all carry our own phones, ever realised. And if you'd hung up on me (as you said you would in a later post), the only time you'd have wasted would have been your own. The fact that you have little understanding of a child's capabilities doesn't give you the right to waste your client's time when faced with a situation outside your ken. Roll with it and adapt.

As for the parent having no control? Of course he did, the kiddie was on an overridable mic - the parent would have stepped in if the kiddie started to go off piste - just as in the situation I described up thread, my ATC supervisor would (and did) for me - he had to when I hesitated on giving a wind direction.

Cute, but not that good, particularly if any international flights use the airport, where pilots might not have english as a first language and be more in tune to ICAO phraseology. FAA already uses non-standard language, ignoring international convention, which has led to incidents.

Although, you could argue that because FAA has decided to ignore ICAO terminology, they've already set the precendent that it's ok to vary from standard terminology.

I can also see why the local pilots, who were aware of the custom, liked it. But concern would be someone who was unfamiliar with it, would it impede their ability to be able to follow directions?

Self_Loading_Ballast

A technician knows what he can get away with. A professional doesn't try to "get away with" anything. And leaders understand the importance of instilling that attitude in their people.

I understand cynicism with respect to media coverage. But even if the media were reporting this as the cutest, cuddliest, most favorable story ever, the controllers would still be wrong.

kokonutz

You mean like posting to an IBB in the middle of the work day!?!?

[ducking]

PTravel

Jenbel, that's hardly the same thing. If he got calls at home, it's natural that the phone could and would be answered by any family member. I'm speaking strictly of business lines. If I call opposing counsel's office and his kid answers, I hang up.

I have no question that it was common and, as I indicated, I have absolutely no problem with it. When I call my childed friends at thomeand their kids answer, I chat with the kids and then ask for their parents, even if it's a business related call. I'm speaking strictly of office calls -- I don't often have occasion to make a business call to someone's home (and on those rare occasions when I do, I certainly don't have a problem if their kid answers).

If I called opposing counsel's office and the phone was answered by a child, I'd hang up. And, if later in court, I'd have no problem telling that judge that I tried to reach opposing counsel but his phones were manned by children.

Kids are, by definition, immature and unpredictable. I stand by my opinion: it was unprofessional and called into serious question this controller's professional judgment.

RockoHorse

I have a friend who has a high pitched voice, if you called her you could think you are talking to a child. When she calls I know it's her but apparently more than one pizza place has had issues with her voice.

So, my question, how would you know that it is a child on the end of the phone? What if you hung up on an adult?