Rerouting aircraft


#1

check this out from fox :open_mouth:

foxnews.com/story/0,2933,438085,00.html


#2

it would be great to see that flight track. it should still be on the server.


#3

Here’s the Virgin Flight
I don’t see where he got stacked and had to hold.

Here’s one of the Southwest Flights
Again, no indication of holding anywhere.


#4

If you look at the flight path of Southwests flight on Oct 4th, Ralegh to MCO, you will see a different flight path. The flight on OCt 11th, took them to the west more. If you lok at the difference in flight paths, this is maybe what the article is alleging. See previous post for Southwest’s flight paths. I dont think they were holding, just stacked on a different flight path than the usual that added time and miles to their flights.


#5

Here is a link to the FAA Follies, a blog written by a Center Controller in Seattle. He has complete coverage of this fiasco, including discussions by other Air Traffic Controllers.

Also, it appears the Stupervisor who set up this clusterf… has been placed on leave.

This was wrong. WRONG.

faafollies.com/?p=729#comments

The link to the Jacksonville local story:

firstcoastnews.com/news/loca … 56&catid=3


#6

One thing wrong in the slant of the article that I can see is that I seriously doubt flight safety was compromised due to thunderstorms. Showing the weather images wrongly implies that safety was compromised due to weather. Fuel being wasted is a big difference then flight safety issues (which is not right either).

I would believe that safety of any flight resides on the shoulders of the pilot in command (PIC). If the PIC felt he was too close to thunderstorms based on radar coverage in the cockpit OR what he sees from his own eyes, the ultimate safety responsibilities fall on his shoulders to say “unable due to weather / buildups”.

ATC has no say in this matter.


#7

The danger isn’t in the actual rerouting.

The danger is that that supervisor believed he could deviate from established procedures for an unnecessary reason.

That kind of belief is a slippery slope and unwarranted deviation from procedures by controllers must be dealt with.


#8

Discounting the reasons for ATC rerouting (that part is not right from what I have read) what dangers are there if all airplanes are under the control of the controller??? In other words, no safety issues arose from this “training excercise” other then maybe wasting some fuel. I don’t condone the ATC actions in this case from what I have read, but I don’t see any danger imposed on any of the flights.

They were at very high altitudes (SWA at FL40), so leaving published flight paths wouldn’t put them in terrain’s harms way or other aircraft’s way since all aircraft were under the control of the controller and appeared to have maintained proper separation. (no NMAC was indicated).

As I posted earlier if a vector points the nose of the plane to a level 5 T’storm, it’s the PICS responsibility for safety of flight, not ATC.


#9

As I said, it’s a slippery slope. If Center controllers deviate from procedures at altitude, why can’t an approach controller? Why can’t a tower controller? They’re still “under the control of the controller”, right?

Procedures are there for a reason. If people are allowed to ignore them at will then you might as well not have procedures and the system decays into even more chaos.


#10

There really is “no sliippery slope” It’s a team effort to keep the skies safe.

I see no reason why ATC cannot have flexibility to “work the system” to make it that much better (and safer). Published procedures are for guidance, nothing is “set in stone”.

In this particular thread only thing wasted was fuel, no safety issues arose from this incident that I can tell. The only beef I have with this incident is that airliners should NOT be paying (cost of fuel) for ATC training.

Everything else seemed to have “just worked” and nobody shared the same airspace simultaneously which is a good thing. From what I gathered in my reading, pilots probably didn’t even know there may have been an issue or been involved with an issue.

If you want to talk procedures and approaches with approach controllers, it’s the pilots responsibility to know all MEA’s all OROCA, and all minimums as part of my preflight preparation.

If ATC instructs me to go below a published number on the approach chart,** it’s my responsibility as PIC** to say “unable” and give the reason why.

ATC’s whether it be center, approach or tower responsibility is to ensure two airplanes don’t “meet and greet” involuntarily.

Instrument approach procedures and terrain avoidance adherence falls on the shoulders of the pilot.

ATC doesn’t pilot the plane, the PIC does and part of that begins before the pilot even leaves his home (or work or whateva)