Airspace

According to the following AP article:

WASHINGTON — An air traffic supervisor has been suspended as the result of an incident in central Florida over the weekend in which a Southwest Airlines Co. jet and a small plane came too close together, putting both planes in danger, the Federal Aviation Administration said Tuesday.

It is the second suspension in less than a week of an air traffic supervisor working as a controller. In the previous case, a supervisor — the lone controller on duty overnight — acknowledged falling asleep while two airliners landed without assistance at Reagan National Airport.

In the latest incident, a supervisor at the agency’s radar facility in central Florida that handles airport approaches on Sunday asked the pilots of a Southwest Airlines flight for help determining the status of a private plane that had been out of radio contact for over an hour, FAA said in a statement.

A private airplane had been out of radio contact for over an hour before an ATC operator requested a Southwest airlines commercial aircraft to do a fly-by investigation. Now, if I recall correctly, the truth movement arguments would have us believe that the US military would have immeadiatley scrambled all sorts of fighter aircraft to do an intercept in order to protect "the most gaurded airspace" in the world. Also note that there are a number of TM believers who dismiss the idea that an air traffic controller would request a pilot to investigate a situation as was done on 9/11 near Shanksville, Pa.

What am I missing?

post the article please

reply to post by audio assasin


WASHINGTON — An air traffic supervisor has been suspended as the result of an incident in central Florida over the weekend in which a Southwest Airlines Co. jet and a small plane came too close together, putting both planes in danger, the Federal Aviation Administration said Tuesday.

It is the second suspension in less than a week of an air traffic supervisor working as a controller. In the previous case, a supervisor — the lone controller on duty overnight — acknowledged falling asleep while two airliners landed without assistance at Reagan National Airport.

In the latest incident, a supervisor at the agency’s radar facility in central Florida that handles airport approaches on Sunday asked the pilots of a Southwest Airlines flight for help determining the status of a private plane that had been out of radio contact for over an hour, FAA said in a statement.

The single-engine, four-seat Cirrus SR22 was on course for Kissimmee, Fla., and maintaining altitude at 11,000 feet, but had not responded to repeated contact attempts from controllers, the agency said.

Southwest Flight 821, a Boeing 737, was 10 miles behind the Cirrus at about 12,000 feet and heading for Orlando International Airport, the FAA said. The supervisor asked the Southwest crew whether they could visually check the cockpit of the Cirrus. The Southwest crew agreed, was directed toward the Cirrus and reported the aircraft in sight, the agency said.

The Southwest pilots reported seeing two people in the cockpit, and then turned away, the FAA said. About 30 seconds later the Cirrus contacted controllers at a radar center in Jacksonville. Both planes landed safely at their destinations.

However, a preliminary investigation of the incident shows the planes came too close together in violation of FAA regulations, the agency said. FAA officials declined to say how close the planes were.

“By placing this passenger aircraft in close proximity to another plane, the air traffic controller compromised the safety of everyone involved. This incident was totally inappropriate,” FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt said. “We are reviewing the air traffic procedures used here and making sure everyone understands the protocols for contacting unresponsive aircraft.”

The Southwest plane, which originated in Phoenix, was carrying 137 passengers and five crew members, said Whitney Eichinger, a spokeswoman for the airline.

The National Transportation Safety Board has opened an investigation into the incident, board spokesman Terry Williams said.

Last week, the NTSB sent the FAA a letter recommending against assigning supervisors to work as controllers at the same time they are supposed to be supervising controllers.

The two incidents indicate “the FAA needs to do a major self-assessment of how they’re managing the air traffic control work force,” said John Goglia, a former NTSB board member.

Under no circumstances would it be reasonable to bring a passenger airline close enough to a small plane that airline pilots could see into the cockpit, he said. The larger plane could have disrupted the air flow around the smaller, causing an accident, he said.

The incidents “do call into question the training that’s given to supervisors and their thought processes,” Goglia said.

Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Yes and you can see why, they both almost collided. Isnt the air traffic controller over his radar kind of the eye in the sky? How can something be done about something nobody is seeing? Intercepts of aircraft that stray off course by fighter jets are routine and occour frequently. I deduct from this that for it to happen, the airtraffic controll has to do his job.

reply to post by Cassius666


The central point is there was an aircraft out of radio contact for almost an hour and according to truther legend squadrons of heavily armed fighters should have been scrambled immeadiatley to protect "the most gaurded airspace in the world"!

In other words, the fantasy that none of the four flights would have reached their targets because our military would have knocked them down in short order is pure bunk. This article proves that even after 9/11 we still don't scramble to intercept every errant flight.

reply to post by hooper


Very good OP , hooper . Point well taken . I agree with you 100% . Can't wait to see how the TM will attempt to explain this one away or justify the absence of a fighter intercept . Chances are , they will avoid your thread like the bubonic plague .

The central point is there was an aircraft out of radio contact for almost an hour and according to truther legend squadrons of heavily armed fighters should have been scrambled immeadiatley to protect "the most gaurded airspace in the world"! In other words, the fantasy that none of the four flights would have reached their targets because our military would have knocked them down in short order is pure bunk. This article proves that even after 9/11 we still don't scramble to intercept every errant flight.

Your analogy is quite a curious one, since prior to the 9/11 Pentagon attack, there had ALLEGEDLY been two separate airliner attacks on two of the most famous skyscrapers in the world on US soil. Hey, the second WTC attack was even caught on CGI created delayed video....errr....I mean live TV newscasts.

After two such attacks back to back, one would think that a country that spends trillions of dollars on defense would be able to protect at a moment's notice the seat of their government from some boxcutter wielding cave dwelling Top Gun Turbans. If the country's officials are unable protect their people from a couple a dozen of unarmed and disorganized clowns, why even spend all this money on national defense?

Anyway, good luck with the thread.

Originally posted by ReRun
reply to post by hooper

 

Very good OP , hooper . Point well taken . I agree with you 100% . Can't wait to see how the TM will attempt to explain this one away or justify the absence of a fighter intercept . Chances are , they will avoid your thread like the bubonic plague .

Yes, I think one of the cornerstones of the "truth movement" is the myth of the uber-government. Its a catch-all myth that one can fall back on whenever a reasonable challenge is presented to any conspiracy fantasy. The government is capable of anything that can be concieved but simultaneously so inept as to leave a legion of "clues" for the special observers in the conspiracy culture.

Chances are , they will avoid your thread like the bubonic plague .

I too was going to avoid this thread (like I avoid most idiotic bandwidth wasting threads on ATS), but the opportunity to point out such a moronic analogy was too tempting.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


Can you , or can you not , explain why no fighter jets were scrambled to intercept this flight which had been out of radio contact for over an hour ?

According to the truthers , this is standard-operating-procedure , and should have taken place within minutes .

Was the government in on this too ?

reply to post by SphinxMontreal

Your analogy is quite a curious one, since prior to the 9/11 Pentagon attack, there had ALLEGEDLY been two separate airliner attacks on two of the most famous skyscrapers in the world on US soil. Hey, the second WTC attack was even caught on CGI created delayed video....errr....I mean live TV newscasts.

Well, first, its not an analogy. This is an actual event. A plane was out of radio contact for an hour and there was no super scramble to intercept. I do notice that you fail to mention the time span between the second airplane impact at the WTC and the plane impact at the Pentagon. To a casual reader one may get the impression that the two incidents were weeks, not minutes, apart. As for the CGI comment, ask the witnesses on the ground, or does your fantasy government have the capability to project CGI directly into the human mind?

After two such attacks back to back, one would think that a country that spends trillions of dollars on defense would be able to protect at a moment's notice the seat of their government from some boxcutter wielding cave dwelling Top Gun Turbans. If the country's officials are unable protect their people from a couple a dozen of unarmed and disorganized clowns, why even spend all this money on national defense?

Thank you for reinforcing the uber-government myth. You obviously either have no clue as to what the purpose and goal of our military is, or refuse to acknoweldge it. Hint: the purpose is not to construct an impentreable blanket of security about the physical limits of the USA.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Cassius666

 

The central point is there was an aircraft out of radio contact for almost an hour and according to truther legend squadrons of heavily armed fighters should have been scrambled immeadiatley to protect "the most gaurded airspace in the world"!

In other words, the fantasy that none of the four flights would have reached their targets because our military would have knocked them down in short order is pure bunk. This article proves that even after 9/11 we still don't scramble to intercept every errant flight.

Yes nobody knew about the errand plane and the airtraffic controller who should have alerted somebody over it, got suspended because of it. Also if anything that no interceptions take place, as you say, is making a case FOR the truth movement. Why should the perpetrators worry about an false flag attack on US soil if they are not currently carrying out one. With that said, had the air traffic controller done his job, authorities would have done something about the stray plane.

reply to post by Cassius666

Yes nobody knew about the errand plane and the airtraffic controller who should have alerted somebody over it, got suspended because of it.

Please, read the article again, plus there are a number of other sources for this news. The controller was suspended not because he did not know about the plane that was failing to respond to his attempted radio contacts but because in requesting the Southwest flight to investigate he allowed the two planes to get too close to each other.

Also if anything that no interceptions take place, as you say, is making a case FOR the truth movement. Why should the perpetrators worry about an false flag attack on US soil if they are not currently carrying out one.

But the basis for that argument is that the US security apparatus is capable of, and protocol requires, an immeadiate intercept of any flight of any aircraft that is errant in any fashion (off course, not responding to radio contact attempts, transponder failure, etc.)

With that said, had the air traffic controller done his job, authorities would have done something about the stray plane.

The idea is he did do his job - he attempted to resolve a sitaution in a reasonable manner without casuing panic, unfortunately they have, as of this writing, deemed his resolution to be inappropriate because of the perceieved risk to the passengers of the commercial aircraft.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Cassius666

 

Yes nobody knew about the errand plane and the airtraffic controller who should have alerted somebody over it, got suspended because of it.

Please, read the article again, plus there are a number of other sources for this news. The controller was suspended not because he did not know about the plane that was failing to respond to his attempted radio contacts but because in requesting the Southwest flight to investigate he allowed the two planes to get too close to each other.

Also if anything that no interceptions take place, as you say, is making a case FOR the truth movement. Why should the perpetrators worry about an false flag attack on US soil if they are not currently carrying out one.

But the basis for that argument is that the US security apparatus is capable of, and protocol requires, an immeadiate intercept of any flight of any aircraft that is errant in any fashion (off course, not responding to radio contact attempts, transponder failure, etc.)

With that said, had the air traffic controller done his job, authorities would have done something about the stray plane.

The idea is he did do his job - he attempted to resolve a sitaution in a reasonable manner without casuing panic, unfortunately they have, as of this writing, deemed his resolution to be inappropriate because of the perceieved risk to the passengers of the commercial aircraft.

You are taking a case over which an air traffic controller got suspended for. Hardly a good case for whats normal. Without knowing what the standard procedure in this case is, the discussion is mood. Intercepts happen and have happened many times, as far north as Alaska. You would get better results getting in toutch with somebody who knows how that sort of thing is handled and at what point fighterjets are dispatched. Anyway if I were you I would try to explain the exploding twin towers away.

Originally posted by Cassius666You are taking a case over which an air traffic controller got suspended for. Hardly a good case for whats normal. Without knowing what the standard procedure in this case is, the discussion is mood. Intercepts happen and have happened many times, as far north as Alaska. You would get better results getting in toutch with somebody who knows how that sort of thing is handled and at what point fighterjets are dispatched. Anyway if I were you I would try to explain the exploding twin towers away.

edit on 30-3-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

There is no mystery here. You are attempting to make the case of common truther myth that AD Fighters are launched "willy nilly" in the case of off course, loss of radio contact, and/or loss of transponder. They are not. It is fairly common for aircraft to lose radio contact with Air Traffic Control for short periods. It happens every day. ATC follows a logical pattern to attempt to contact the errant aircraft. They try the last frequency, the next frequency or in the case of a Commercial Airliner another Company aircraft attempt on a Company frequency. Eventually, they will go to GUARD frequency. This is the sequence that happened in the case of AA 77.

Now, if this loss of contact occurred in the ADIZ, it would be a more urgent matter with the flow of attempts occurring more rapidly and escalating at a faster rate. In fact, off course or no transponder simultaneously with the loss of radio contact that occurs in the ADIZ might prompt ATC to request the launch of AD Fighters or it could even be initiated by NORAD. Outside of the ADIZ any one of the above would not necessarily prompt a Fighter request. In the case where all three anomalies occurred simultaneously, it could result in a request for support from the Military, perhaps a request for AD Fighters, perhaps not. It's a judgment call by the Controller and his supervisors.

Outside of the ADIZ, when any of these problems occur controllers will routinely ask for assistance from compatible Military Aircraft in the vicinity. This is not a formal procedure but it does occur. For example, a military training aircraft or fighter in a nearby Military Operating Area (MOA) might be requested to rejoin (intercept) the aircraft to try to determine the problem. In this specific case the Controller involved used very poor judgment in requesting the SW flight to assist and the Captain of the SW Flight also exercised very poor judgment in executing the request. It is highly likely the SW Captain was also disciplined for exercising poor judgment.

Originally posted by Cassius666

Anyway if I were you I would try to explain the exploding twin towers away.

edit on 30-3-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

Classic piece of Truther whatabouttery.

Debunk point A. Yeah, but whatabout point B? Debunk point B. Whatabout point C? Debunk point C. Yeah, but whatabout point A? Hang on...

The unresponsive plane wasnt off course tho and two other planes hadnt just hit the two most iconic buildings in new york

Wow you think you have cracked 9/11 with this little piece of info try again! You deniers aint fooling no one. You aint changing no ones mind regarding this blatant false flag op

You continue to try and degrade any one who doesnt lap up your corrupt governments lies and it just makes you look silly

Still havnt explained why wtc 7 collapsed with no plane impact and MINIMAL fires blah blah blah

Get a life let us believe what we want doesnt affect ur life does it?

reply to post by kaya82

The unresponsive plane wasnt off course tho and two other planes hadnt just hit the two most iconic buildings in new york

Yes they had, this was after 9/11. Still don't go chasing after every errant flight. Never did. So the myth that there was a stand down is heretofore busted.

Wow you think you have cracked 9/11 with this little piece of info try again! You deniers aint fooling no one. You aint changing no ones mind regarding this blatant false flag op

Actually there isn't anything to "crack". Except for a few forums like this the subject is complete. 10 years now.

You continue to try and degrade any one who doesnt lap up your corrupt governments lies and it just makes you look silly

If you think I look silly, well, I just consider the source.

Still havnt explained why wtc 7 collapsed with no plane impact and MINIMAL fires blah blah blah

Yeah, they have. Its over. Can't force it into your cranium though.

Get a life let us believe what we want doesnt affect ur life does it?

Well, that's a nice sentiment if I thought it would just all go gently into that good night. However, young people, too young on 9/11 may go on the internet to find out about so I don't like the idea that this stuff just stands alone unchallenged. Don't want anyone to think that there are just "differing opinions" about what happened on 9/11.

reply to post by hooper


FAIL.

How is anyone supposed to respond to an emergency if they are NOT contacted?

C'mon Hooper....youre smarter than that.....aren't you?

Originally posted by DIDtm
reply to post by hooper

 

FAIL.

How is anyone supposed to respond to an emergency if they are NOT contacted?

C'mon Hooper....youre smarter than that.....aren't you?

Huh? The idea is that even AFTER 9/11 controllers aren't screaming for fighters to scramble the moment a plane flies off course, loses radio contact, etc. The whole notion that there was some kind of stand down is therefore debunked. The idea that the USA has a blanket of security over the skies of the USA is debunked.