• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

JFK tower allowed a kid to direct air traffic

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
100,424
Reaction score
53,133
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
NEW YORK - An air traffic controller at New York's Kennedy Airport was suspended for allowing his young son to radio instructions to several pilots.

The few quick exchanges between the elementary-school-aged child and jets waiting to take off from JFK, one of the nation's busiest airports, appeared to delight pilots at the time.

"I wish I could bring my kid to work," one said, wistfully.

But the Federal Aviation Administration suspended the controller and a supervisor Wednesday after recordings of the calls were posted on the Internet, then reported on by a Boston television station.

The media is freaking out. Nobody was placed in danger. Listening to the complete audio, the father even clicks in and makes several of the more complicated calls. An ATC position has more than one mic jack, usually used for training. The "instructor" jack can override the "student" jack at any time. The planes the kid was talking to already had their instructions for departure, so no actual clearances were issued besides the takeoff, which obviously occurred at the time coordinated by the Tower Dad and the departure control.

God damn I hate the media.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The media is making too big of a deal of this, but that was a pretty damn stupid thing for the guy to do. Mostly because he should have known how people would react when they heard about it.
 
The media is making too big of a deal of this, but that was a pretty damn stupid thing for the guy to do. Mostly because he should have known how people would react when they heard about it.

Dumb, yes. Worthy of dismissal, no.
 
The article i read stated that the supervisor was there as well as the father. The pilots of the jets were actually quite complimentary. And from the audio...it sounded like the kid was rockin the mic.

Some of the comments I saw from traffic controllers were "at least the KID was sober" and "at least the kid was THERE and not on a smoke break" and "damn...I dont know if I have ever actually HEARD what was SAID before..."

Much ado about nothing...
 
Yeah, sounds like the kid ws doing a great job. He was even funny and the pilots seemed to like him.
 
This is the kind of stuff I like to think back in the 80's and early 90's would've been a human interest story that people go "awww" as the guy lets his kid get on and do this, all without causing any harm, inspiring perhaps the love of the job that the father has into the kid.

Maybe I'm romanticizing the time of my youth though.

Stupid in terms of todays culture, but beyond that I wouldn't say it. He was there, he was listening, he could speak up at any time, if any pilot seemed bothered by it it seems the guy could've and would've just stepped in and taken over. This is a non issue in my mind. Bad if it was a repeated thing but as a lone incident, eh.
 
I agree with the call. The kid needs to be at home playing video games and sexting with other kids his age.

:roll:
 
Did anybody crash?

No?

Not a story worthy of national news time.
 
Did anybody crash?

No?

Not a story worthy of national news time.

It involves airline travel. People freak out over everything.

If people had a clue how the regional carriers operated they'd never get on an airplane.
 
Did anybody crash?

No?

Not a story worthy of national news time.

International news, actually. I read it on the BBC.

The media is making a mountain out of a molehill here. I agree that there should be strict rules for air traffic controllers, but nothing happened, it's not a big deal.
 
The only thing I don't get is why on earth was the child with him at his work?

I consider that unacceptable and, as a manager in the past, would have sent an employee home if they brought their child with them.

That, actually, is why they gave him the boot - it's against policy and hes in direct violation of that policy and that's what happens.

It's, also, against policy to allow family and friends to visit as well.
 
The only thing I don't get is why on earth was the child with him at his work?

I consider that unacceptable and, as a manager in the past, would have sent an employee home if they brought their child with them.

That, actually, is why they gave him the boot - it's against policy and hes in direct violation of that policy and that's what happens.

It's, also, against policy to allow family and friends to visit as well.

I visit air traffic control towers all the time. You don't know what you're talking about.
 
I visit air traffic control towers all the time. You don't know what you're talking about.

I read this quote from the article and misinterpreted it to mean it was a pre-existing policy that he violated.
My fault!

The FAA said it has also barred unofficial visits by friends or relatives to FAA air traffic operational areas while it reviews its policies.

None the less - I can't imagine why someone would bring a child to work. Children can be nothing but distractions. What if the child (now up to two on record, not just the one initially reported) but what if the child threw a mega temper tantrum or decided to run amuck pushing all sorts of buttons?

I have 4 children and while they're very well behaved most of the time I know very damn well what children do if their mood suddenly changes.

I wouldn't bring my children anywhere near someplace that serves an important function - let alone allow them to do my job for me while there.

To add, this posed a very dire safety concern - what made the pilot feel ok with an unfamiliar and unidentified voice over the air? What if the tower was taken over in some bizarre terrorist attack and some idiot was streaming out commands or something?
 
Jeez, what a mountain out of a silly little molehill. :roll: I think it's great that he brought his kids to work and let them give minor instructions to the pilots. All the planes they talked to were on the ground getting ready for take off, it's not like they were actually directing airborne traffic fer chrissakes.

I don't even see any reason to suspend anyone. Just give him an official warning not to do it again.
 
It involves airline travel. People freak out over everything.

If people had a clue how the regional carriers operated they'd never get on an airplane.

Ain't that the truth. Not just the regional carriers either. I've seen some pretty freaky **** in my almost two decades in the industry.
 
I support the suspension. I don't care that the kid was merely repeating words his father told him--having the kid there was a distraction to the father and other employees. It's one thing if these people worked in an office job; it's another thing when they are doing air traffic control. Who thinks that is appropriate? :confused:
 
None the less - I can't imagine why someone would bring a child to work. Children can be nothing but distractions. What if the child (now up to two on record, not just the one initially reported) but what if the child threw a mega temper tantrum or decided to run amuck pushing all sorts of buttons?

I used to take my daughter to legislative committee meetings at the state capital on a regular basis. She'd sit there quietly and read a book or color. The state legislators thought she was charming as hell. She also used to come to my office in the police department on a regular basis and hang out at my desk. She never caused any problems and it delighted the guys in my unit, who teased the crap out of her. I've taken her on numerous work trips where I was scheduled to do training. When she was little, she'd sit in the back of the room while I taught the class and read a book. Then we'd go sightseeing.

FWIW, I used to take gang members home to my house for dinner on a regular basis, as well. Of course, those were the good old days, back in the 90s, when people were slightly less uptight than they are now.
 
Last edited:
I used to take my daughter to legislative committee meetings at the state capital on a regular basis. She'd sit there quietly and read a book or color. The state legislators thought she was charming as hell. She also used to come to my office in the police department on a regular basis and hang out at my desk. She never caused any problems and it delighted the guys in my unit, who teased the crap out of her.

FWIW, I used to take gang members home to my house for dinner on a regular basis, as well. Of course, those were the good old days, back in the 90s, when people were slightly less uptight than they are now.

I don't think the issue relates at all to the fact that a child was brought to work. The issue is that a child was brought to you a job that entails traffic control and traffic safety. People where I work bring their kids to work on a regular basis. It's not a problem. Our job doesn't entail safety issues.
 
I don't think the issue relates at all to the fact that a child was brought to work. The issue is that a child was brought to you a job that entails traffic control and traffic safety. People where I work bring their kids to work on a regular basis. It's not a problem. Our job doesn't entail safety issues.

I brought my daughter to the gang unit office where guys were investigating cases and planning search warrants. And, I brought my work home to my house (I felt like there was minimal risk, but there was still some risk). These days, that would be forbidden as it would be called a lawsuit waiting to happen. But allowing my clients to interact with my kids, cooking for them, having them eat with my family--that was seen by my clients as a huge act of trust and a privilege.

Personally, I think the concerns are overblown. I guess there are so many badly behaved children out there that people have forgotten that this used to be rather commonplace for many of us.
 
I brought my daughter to the gang unit office where guys were investigating cases and planning search warrants. And, I brought my work home to my house (I felt like there was minimal risk, but there was still some risk). These days, that would be forbidden as it would be called a lawsuit waiting to happen. But allowing my clients to interact with my kids, cooking for them, having them eat with my family--that was seen by my clients as a huge act of trust and a privilege.

Personally, I think the concerns are overblown. I guess there are so many badly behaved children out there that people have forgotten that this used to be rather commonplace for many of us.

Any risk was to your daughter. I don't see the correlation with the situation at hand.

I don't see how people think that children going to work with their parents is appropriate for every job. It depends on the specifics of the job. In this circumstance, the safety of planes and their passengers was at issue. Children have no business being there. I don't care how quiet they are. They are a distraction, whether a positive one or a negative one.
 
To add, this posed a very dire safety concern - what made the pilot feel ok with an unfamiliar and unidentified voice over the air? What if the tower was taken over in some bizarre terrorist attack and some idiot was streaming out commands or something?

It's hard to explain in less than six pages about how the air traffic control system works, but the short of it is there are no circumstances in which this could have put anybody in danger.

The father issued the "position and hold" instructions, which direct the plane to taxi out onto the runway and get ready, but not take off just yet. The following instruction will be "clear for takeoff," which the kid issued. After takeoff, the plane's initial actions are pre-determined. There aren't any control instructions to issue because the departure is standard. The tower doesn't have anything to do but relay any changes the departure controller has issued or, lacking that, just hand off the departing aircraft to the departure controller.

I'm not saying this was a good idea, I agree a (short) suspension might be in order just to satisfy the public, and a stern warning issued department-wide saying "HEY DONT DO THAT," but that's it.
 
Last edited:
Any risk was to your daughter. I don't see the correlation with the situation at hand.

I don't see how people think that children going to work with their parents is appropriate for every job. It depends on the specifics of the job. In this circumstance, the safety of planes and their passengers was at issue. Children have no business being there. I don't care how quiet they are. They are a distraction, whether a positive one or a negative one.

But staying with THIS instance...the employee was there...the supervisor was there. its OBVIOUS the kid had been given lines to relay to the pilots and he did it VERY welll. The pilots obviously werent upset that they were given on-ground instructions by a minor, in fact they sounded enthusiastic and supportive.

I think sometimes people get a burr in their underwear and instead of changing drawers they get pissy about any and everything they read, hear, or come in contact with.
 
I think this whole fiasco is the result of two things:

1. The ignorance of people regarding how air traffic control works and the mysticism surrounding flying. People subconsciously think that flying is incredibly risky, even if they personally believe it's safe, and so anything regarding messing with air flight is very sensitive.

2. The "blanket solution" that society applies to problems ends up transforming normal acts into wrongdoing and blanket condemnation. I think that the whole security culture that has spawned since 9/11 has significantly contributed to this.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom