Controller/Southwest Crew suspended . . .

[bizjets101]

CNN News

FAA Press Release

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/SWA8 ... /KPHX/KMCO

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N148 ... /KMJD/KISM

An air traffic control supervisor and the crew of a Southwest Airlines jet have been suspended after the controller asked the Southwest Boeing 737 to fly in the vicinity of a small Cirrus aircraft in an effort to check on the welfare of the pilot, authorities said.

The pilot of the Cirrus SR22, a four-seat, single-engine aircraft, was flying at 11,000 feet toward Kissimmee but had been out of radio contact with controllers for more than an hour, the FAA said.

A controller at a regional FAA radar facility, concerned about the pilot's welfare, contacted the crew of Southwest flight 821, which was flying 10 miles behind the Cirrus, and asked if they could check the cockpit of the Cirrus, the FAA said. The Southwest crew agreed and the controller directed the jetliner toward the Cirrus, the FAA said.

After reporting the Cirrus was in sight, the Southwest crew reported seeing two people in the cockpit. The Southwest flight turned away and the controller directed the plane to its destination, Orlando International Airport.

[LegoMan]

This immediately comes to mind....quote from Top Gun.

Stinger: "Maverick, you just did an incredibly brave thing. What you should have done was land your plane! You don't own that plane, the taxpayers do!"

[C-FABH]

"The FAA declined to say how close the two planes came"

No shit!!! If it's anywhere as close as I can imagine it was, I would be too embarassed to release these details too.

[Joe Blow Schmo]

"The FAA declined to say how close the two planes came"

No shit!!! If it's anywhere as close as I can imagine it was, I would be too embarassed to release these details too.

Seriously? Looks like the nanny state at it again. 1 qualified and professional ATC'er asked 2 qualified and professional pilots if they could check on the welfare of another pilot. The 2 qualified and professional pilots decided it was safe to do so. A decision I'm sure they didn't take lightly. Yet now the nannies on the ground have decided it was bad? gimme a break. How about trusting the experience and judgment of the very qualified and well trained professionals that were put in charge of that flight to begin with.

The same thing is going on with the pilots of the 2 planes that landed and Reagan the other day when the controller was asleep. They're being criticized for not diverting to their alternates.

[OceansEdge]

There are regulations, if it were a case of 'it is not OK to do this, accept when you think it is" they wouldn't be regulations. And the occasions when they get broken should be few and far between, and should have repercussions, even if the outcome is a non event.

[Beefitarian]

And you're confident the pilot that wasn't in radio contact with anyone listening to tunes on his phone wasn't going to suddenly turn into the side of the plane filled with people along for a ride with "two qualified and professional pilots" sneaking up beside the small plane?

[iflyforpie]

And you're confident the pilot that wasn't in radio contact with anyone listening to tunes on his phone wasn't going to suddenly turn into the side of the plane filled with people along for a ride with "two qualified and professional pilots" sneaking up beside the small plane?

I wonder that every time I'm driving down the freeway.

[Beefitarian]

Ugh the public roads.

I love/hate when I see some genius pull into my blind spot, dissapear there and drive for as long as they can there. Really, you trust me to know you're there and or not just change lanes? You're going the same speed as me. Go in front or behind.

Either they are really lonely or maybe they're really great drivers and will be able to manouver out of the way when I do something stupid.

[Donald]

A Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-700, flight WN-821 from Phoenix,AZ to Orlando International,FL (USA), was on approach to Orlando at 12,000 feet, when the air traffic controller asked the crew to have a look at a Cirrus SR-22 private aircraft enroute to Orlando Kissimmee Airport tracking about 10nm ahead at 11,000 feet, that could not be reached on radio for over an hour. The crew agreed to help and was vectored towards the Cirrus, reported the aircraft in sight and seeing two persons in the cockpit, then turned away from the Cirrus and performed a safe landing into Orlando International about 17 minutes later.

About 30 seconds after the Boeing turned onto a diverging course the Cirrus crew reported on Jacksonville's frequency and was handed to their correct frequency. The aircraft landed safely in Kissimmee about 20 minutes later.

The FAA reported, that preliminary information shows a loss of separation between the two aircraft. The air traffic controller, who is also a supervisor, was suspended. "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," said FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt. "We are reviewing the air traffic procedures used here and making sure everyone understands the protocols for contacting unresponsive aircraft."

The NTSB have opened an investigation.

FAA radar data show, that the Boeing descended down to 10,800 feet and back up to 11,000 feet while checking the Cirrus, that maintained 11,000 feet all time. The radar tracks suggest the minimum separation between the aircraft was less than 1.2nm lateral with 0 feet vertical.

[SAR_YQQ]

What's the big deal? Maybe I can't see through my big picture view of flying as to the issue at hand.

Separation loss? Maybe. Flying 1.2nm away from another aircraft is not close - especially VMC, did the controller cancel IFR and vector the Southwest crew in VFR?

Ah well - another day, another blown out of proportion incident.

[OceansEdge]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but cruise on a B737-700 is what about Mach 0.74? 0.76? ... 1.2nm doesn't seem far at all at that speed

Also the quote reads 'less than 1.2nm", unless someone physically goes into the radar equipment and tweaks on it, 1nm is about the resolution they're gonna have on the en-route radar screen (200nm radius typically), terminal radar, obviously would have better resolution - but that isn't specified in the article posted.

I'm still thinking this was kinda scary close.

BTW - did any of the passengers look out their window and see a Cirrus off the wing tips and crap emselves? That's a bit of a customer service nightmare.

[Joe Blow Schmo]

There are regulations, if it were a case of 'it is not OK to do this, accept when you think it is" they wouldn't be regulations. And the occasions when they get broken should be few and far between, and should have repercussions, even if the outcome is a non event.

The quote: "Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools" come to mind here. There was a case many years ago of an AirNZ DC-10 (I think) that helped to find a lost single engine ferry flight out over the pacific. They even dumped fuel to create a contrail to help the small plane see them. Nobody threatened action against them. They were considered heroes. Even made a cheesy made for tv movie about it. The nanny state has taken over since then.

[Joe Blow Schmo]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but cruise on a B737-700 is what about Mach 0.74? 0.76? ... 1.2nm doesn't seem far at all at that speed

not at 11,000! Not to mention I'm sure they slowed down. 250kts or less.

[L1011]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but cruise on a B737-700 is what about Mach 0.74? 0.76? ... 1.2nm doesn't seem far at all at that speed

not at 11,000! Not to mention I'm sure they slowed down. 250kts or less.

Not only that but they would have passed by that Cirrus pretty quick

[Beefitarian]

Maybe we could get rid of ATC and all these silly rules. Profesional pilots can just look out the window for seperation. They can save money going NORDO.

Joe's right though if they woke up the pilot of the small plane or something they would be heroes.

[Joe Blow Schmo]

Maybe we could get rid of ATC and all these silly rules. Profesional pilots can just look out the window for seperation. They can save money going NORDO.

Joe's right though if they woke up the pilot of the small plane or something they would be heroes.

I'll hazard a guess that a lot of us started our careers "up north" flying uncontrolled IFR. We managed to avoid hitting each other without the help of ATC, radar, or even visual reference. So surely 2 aircraft in beautiful VFR weather, assisted by a controller monitoring them on radar can manage to do the same safely.

[Beefitarian]

Fair enough but in theory both planes are looking out for the other up north.

The issue (true it's slightly moot because nothing happened) is the single had not even made radio contact for an hour. That shouldn't be a big deal but for what ever reason ATC decided it was. The crew of the airliner took a calculated risk but.. What would you be saying now if the single turned into them and tore the tail off?

Regardless if it was a dumb thing or even a malicious attack that made him do it, it would make everything different. It would have only took a minute.

[station60]

Maybe we could get rid of ATC and all these silly rules. Profesional pilots can just look out the window for seperation. They can save money going NORDO.

Joe's right though if they woke up the pilot of the small plane or something they would be heroes.

I'll hazard a guess that a lot of us started our careers "up north" flying uncontrolled IFR. We managed to avoid hitting each other without the help of ATC, radar, or even visual reference. So surely 2 aircraft in beautiful VFR weather, assisted by a controller monitoring them on radar can manage to do the same safely.

+1

[MUSKEG]

We have raised a generation of people who are scared to think for themselves and act accordingly. Arguements like "1.2 miles isn't very far at mach .74 "? well no sir it is not. But let me ask you this oceansedge. If you had been in the Boeing would you not slow down anticipating what you were trying to do? Would you not fly a parallel track with your target? I thought so. Now do you see how silly your reasoning was. Ah crap I am so tired of stupid arguments over comon sense stuff. Think people think. Your head is not just there to hold your ears apart.

[MUSKEG]

Beefitarian. Do you really think that the Boeing crew wasn't alert for a possible direction change? Ya right they would just sit there for 30 seconds and watch as the Cirrus closed the gap. See previous post. I rest my case.

[OceansEdge]

I'm just pointing out that the rules are there for a reason. It's kinda funny (and not in the haha way) that Doc was just bemoaning the other day that the current generation hasn't seemed to learn anything from the past generations losses - most of these rules and regulations that people like joe seem to think are only for the stupid people exist because someone lost their life.

Following some of the logic here - it's a smart rule and a dumb pilot if he breaks regulations and metal gets bent; but it's a dumb rule and a smart pilot if no harm comes of it. No wonder Doc distresses.

To use a really cheesy example the beloved Jean Luc Picard once argued successfully that rules had to be flexible and mitagateable (yes- that is paraphrased) but not once did he contravene the Prime Directive without being held accountable and answerable for his actions (unlike his 'cowboy diplomacy' predecessor) If you apply the same logic here it cannot simply be a case of 'well you broke the rules but that's OK because nothing bad happened' - they should have to answer for it.

Anyway - lots of could have's should have's would have's - presumptions of facts not in evidence here - I think I'll just wait for the NTSB's report.

[Beefitarian]

Beefitarian. Do you really think that the Boeing crew wasn't alert for a possible direction change? Ya right they would just sit there for 30 seconds and watch as the Cirrus closed the gap. See previous post. I rest my case.

I didn't know this was court. I left my documents in my other briefcase.

[FSS002]

"...the minimum separation between the aircraft was less than 1.2nm lateral with 0 feet vertical." Less than 1.2nm. Maybe I'm the only one that wasn't born with binoculars in my skull. How many of us can see 2 persons on board a Cirrus at greater then .5nm? I would think it was more like .25-.5nm at best if they were able to make out 2 people.

[ArcticKat]

"...the minimum separation between the aircraft was less than 1.2nm lateral with 0 feet vertical." Less than 1.2nm. Maybe I'm the only one that wasn't born with binoculars in my skull. How many of us can see 2 persons on board a Cirrus at greater then .5nm? I would think it was more like .25-.5nm at best if they were able to make out 2 people.

Or they had a pair of binoculars on the flight deck?

[ScudRunner]

Kind of Reminds me of the time I mooned a truck from a 205. Coming back from Whitehorse to Haines Junction we spotted a friends truck, there parents where wondering where they where and had informed the other pilot that "they should have been home hours ago" We decided we better check up on them and thought the most appropriate way would be to fly by with my ass pressed against the window. Separation was about 50 feet laterally as we snuck up from behind and passed them, as I glanced over my shoulder I was reminded why they went to YXY. Her friend I had not met yet from Switzerland had just flown in and was glaring back with a look of surprise and aww at my pasty white ass and not to mention a plane. I was happy to report they where ok and had just spent a bit of time checking out YXY before the drive out to YHT.