NTSB boots controller's union from Hudson investigation.

[TripSix]

Agreed. They know better or should have known better. Not only was it unprofessional for them to run their own program outside of the NTSB's, but they've undoubtedly harmed their own people by being tossed as a party to the investigation.

And yet, six paragraphs into this release, the NTSB recanted the exact piece of "factual" information they refused to recant initially - which resulted in the union holding the press conference to begin with.

The transcripts of the telephone call should be hitting the wire(s) shortly. Will be interesting to see how that is spun as well...

 

[Rosstafari]

Agreed. They know better or should have known better. Not only was it unprofessional for them to run their own program outside of the NTSB's, but they've undoubtedly harmed their own people by being tossed as a party to the investigation.

What? They weren't "running their own program", they were protecting one of their own from a media witch hunt. The guy was being scapegoated before the investigation was complete. Even the NTSB admitted that any determinations were speculative -- and then buried it in the middle of the report, letting the media have a field day on the person who "could've prevented a tragedy".

The controller was getting torn to pieces for a traffic advisory made after a hand-off in a VFR corridor... geez. I'm glad the union stood up for him, myself. Good to know somebody'll have my back if the FAA puts a bullseye on me.

 

[jynxyjoe]

What? They weren't "running their own program", they were protecting one of their own from a media witch hunt. The guy was being scapegoated before the investigation was complete. Even the NTSB admitted that any determinations were speculative -- and then buried it in the middle of the report, letting the media have a field day on the person who "could've prevented a tragedy".

The controller was getting torn to pieces for a traffic advisory made after a hand-off in a VFR corridor... geez. I'm glad the union stood up for him, myself. Good to know somebody'll have my back if the FAA puts a bullseye on me.

:clap::clap:

 

[mklatval]

Gotta speak up here. The controller was on the phone to airport ops to get a dead animal (a cat I believe) off of the movement area. During the conversation he made a joke about barbecuing the cat or something like that, a good natured joke. This is a mandatory call, the is part of the controllers job, many times it is required that these phone calls be made while working traffic. The union was in the right here, the NTSB was on a witch hunt and someone there should be fired for what was said about this guy.

 

[jynxyjoe]

Sounds like the NATCA guys are doing what the have to. You think the NTSB was on a witch hunt or the FAA?

 

[cmill]

Sounds like the NATCA guys are doing what the have to. You think the NTSB was on a witch hunt or the FAA?

Not trying to makes jokes or anything. And I would say that its hard to blame dead people for an accident, but the NTSB does it all the time. As far as witch hunts go, would it be easier for the FAA and NTSB to come out and say hey, these guys were supposed to see eachother and didnt, or say hey, an air traffic controller effed up.

As far as the public is concerned, all planes are controlled by ATC. I dont think that they can comprehend the fact that planes are flying along up there without anyone to guide them. Does it make it right? No. But its the government, would you expect them to do anything else?

 

[mklatval]

Sounds like the NATCA guys are doing what the have to. You think the NTSB was on a witch hunt or the FAA?

The NTSB the FAA actually defended the controller, just put him on leave because he was under scrutiny.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

I suspect that NATCA knew they would be removed from party status to the investigation if they did this, and weighing the pros and cons, decided that it was more important to protect their controller right away rather than letting it go and trying to clean his record later. I can't imagine that their attorneys didn't warn them ahead of time that they would certainly be removed from the investigation. Sometimes you just have no good choices, and you take the one that is least distasteful.

 

[surreal1221]

It's not over with.

NATCA made a calculated decision. I'm sure they feel it was the correct one to make as well.

 

[Divine Wind]

I suspect that NATCA knew they would be removed from party status to the investigation if they did this, and weighing the pros and cons, decided that it was more important to protect their controller right away rather than letting it go and trying to clean his record later.

If true, then IMHO, they're idiots. No offense meant.

Getting tossed from an investigation is the worst thing they could do for both the safety of the system and the controller himself. I'm not sure how NATCA is set up, but at ALPA Safety and the political side (affectionately known as "the dark side") are separate. The members of ALPA who are party to the investigation have a loyalty to the NTSB first and ALPA second. The ALPA lawyers have a loyalty to their clients, the pilots. The key to this separation is that information is not regularly shared between the two groups until the IIC clears it. They certainly don't share it with the press until authorized.

http://www.ntsb.gov/info/inv_guides.htm

 

[boondr]

No the NTSB screwed the pooch on this one. They released a statement inferring that the TEB controller failed to warn the pilot about the helicopter implying that it was one of the targets depicted on the radar. However they said later in the same statement that the helicopter was not depicted on radar until a full 7 seconds after the frequency change to EWR. NATCA asked them to revise the statemnet because the media was running full tilt with the story that "the controller could have prevented the tragedy but was on the phone". NTSB refused to revise it and NATCA saw it for what it was a witch hunt to blame someone alive and went public with their defense of the controller. Tell me how is a controller supposed to give an advisory about a plane not depicted on radar until 7 seconds after the plane receiving advisories changes frequencies? Both aircraft were outside any airspace where VFR separation standards exist. Like it has been said before it was the duty of both pilots to "see and avoid". We can "if" it to death but the controller being on the phone talking/joking/BSing about a dead cat had nothing to do with both pilots failure to do that.

 

[Rosstafari]

If true, then IMHO, they're idiots. No offense meant.

None taken. I'm not even eligible to join NATCA... yet.

Getting tossed from an investigation is the worst thing they could do for both the safety of the system and the controller himself.
...

Not really. The NTSB compiles the report, there really isn't a ton that NATCA is going to contribute. In terms of the controller's conduct, it's about the easiest part of the investigation to conduct -- everything is logged, including the phone call's time and when the radar contact came up -- and everything that the controller should have done (and what he's not responsible for) is in the wonderful black and white parlance of the .65 and FARs.

In other words, evaluating whether he was correct or wrong is a pretty cut and dry process. Either his phone call was work related or it wasn't. Either he was legally supposed to issue and advisory or he wasn't. Either the radar contact appeared in time or it didn't. Either the airspace was VFR or it isn't. You don't need NATCA's help to interpret any of that.

Like another poster said, what NATCA did was recognize that one of their own was being scapegoated. They weighed the consequences of speaking up and being quiet. They saw that they didn't have a ton to lose by being removed from the investigation, because they understood that it was not a controller-related failure. And they spoke up for their own to protect them, like a good union does.