Holding Controllers Accountable
- Thread starter PointSixty5stalker
- Start date
Idk about that. Yes I agree with you but moreso I think it’s a matter of your specific facility. If the norm of your facility culture is just to not give a fuck because it’s so slow and you’re the only person who cares then you’re gonna be the odd ball, even if you’re right!
Exactly this!
The d is for Development, not deficiency. That’s a poor explanation and exactly what I’m talking about. It can be used simply to show you showing you haven’t seen before, and the while you’re back there throw a 110% probably at you. Like swinging a weighted bat.
32andBelow
Legendary Member
- Messages
- 9,309
All I know is now if you aren’t getting it you can have to take graded labs in the middle of our hours and you can possibly not return to the floor. You can also take non graded labs if they just want to work on something
Read the .4 before you become a trainer. Please. While yes that’s correct as an option, be able to find it quickly and know what the fuck you are talking about.
“all I know…” means you haven’t read shit you only heard shit
Mr.Tickles
Trusted Contributor
- Messages
- 531
While that’s true and it might cause some issues with your coworkers. I’d say leaving a systematic safety issue unchecked for the sake of not being the odd man out isn’t gonna fly if someone were to find themselves being interviewed by the NTSB after a fatal accident.
32andBelow
Legendary Member
- Messages
- 9,309
What your problem I can’t have an opinion. I’ve seen it in action. You literally said “while that’s correct”
Soul_Controller
Trusted Contributor
- Messages
- 313
Fuckin Karens
It’s not an opinion, you are spouting something this is technically true but prob have no idea what it looks like, how you accomplish it, what’s required. In your first post you didn’t even know the name. All you know isn’t good enough when we are specifically talking about the inadequacy of some within the work force, in regards to training. Not knowing how things work isn’t very comforting and is majorly contributing to the problem. While yes, a trainee can be assigned skill development training, simply knowing that it exists isn’t good enough.
32andBelow
Legendary Member
- Messages
- 9,309
How many times do I have to tell you that I’ve seen it happen in action. And I like that the team can make the trainee actually have to perform and pass.
Oh it's more than that. In the AUS scenario theres probably not a worse time to clear SWA to go as far as actually getting the arrival to try and land with the 737 departing than homie chose. Like you couldn't issue a more malicious, dangerous clearance if you tried. He took all indication out of his voice that any urgency was required, never issued a traffic alert, had no idea that both planes ended up in the air. It's way closer to intentionally trying to kill people than it's getting credit for. Dude still won't get fired.
This sort of negligence happens more frequently also. Vgt, there was one at socal last week. You can see it on the safety report or finds examples on mors. this one stands out yes, but close calls do happen regularly
- Messages
- 2,534
- Facility
- Command Center
Having thought long and hard about this, there are a few things I want to say. Holding us accountable for mistakes is a slippery slope because management will use it as a way to have a significant impact on morale and job performance. The high-pressure and fast-paced environment in which we work can make it difficult to avoid mistakes, and the consequences of those mistakes can be severe, including loss of life, injury, or damage to property. When management holds controllers accountable for every mistake, regardless of the circumstances, it can create a culture of fear and mistrust, which can lead to decreased job satisfaction and motivation. As a result, controllers may become more cautious in their decision-making, which can result in decreased efficiency and increased stress levels, making it even more likely that we will make additional mistakes.
Moreover, the complexity of the air traffic control system means that mistakes are often the result of a combination of factors, and it may be difficult to determine the root cause of an error. This can make it challenging to hold a single controller accountable for a mistake, as there may be other contributing factors, such as system failures, communication breakdowns, or staffing shortages. Additionally, the aviation industry is heavily regulated, and there are numerous rules and procedures that we must follow, which can make it difficult to determine if a mistake was due to human error or a procedural violation.
Furthermore, the consequences of holding us accountable for mistakes can extend beyond the individual controllers. The reputation of the entire air traffic control system may be negatively impacted if it appears that controllers are being held responsible for mistakes that are outside of their control. This can erode public confidence in the safety of air travel and make it more difficult to attract and retain qualified controllers, as well as lead to increased scrutiny from regulators, which can result in additional costs and operational restrictions. In conclusion, holding us accountable for mistakes is a complex and challenging issue that requires a nuanced approach that takes into account the many factors that can contribute to errors in the air traffic control system.
Moreover, the complexity of the air traffic control system means that mistakes are often the result of a combination of factors, and it may be difficult to determine the root cause of an error. This can make it challenging to hold a single controller accountable for a mistake, as there may be other contributing factors, such as system failures, communication breakdowns, or staffing shortages. Additionally, the aviation industry is heavily regulated, and there are numerous rules and procedures that we must follow, which can make it difficult to determine if a mistake was due to human error or a procedural violation.
Furthermore, the consequences of holding us accountable for mistakes can extend beyond the individual controllers. The reputation of the entire air traffic control system may be negatively impacted if it appears that controllers are being held responsible for mistakes that are outside of their control. This can erode public confidence in the safety of air travel and make it more difficult to attract and retain qualified controllers, as well as lead to increased scrutiny from regulators, which can result in additional costs and operational restrictions. In conclusion, holding us accountable for mistakes is a complex and challenging issue that requires a nuanced approach that takes into account the many factors that can contribute to errors in the air traffic control system.
Air traffic controllers are held accountable for operational errors through a combination of internal and external mechanisms.
Internally, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and air traffic control organizations have established procedures to review and investigate operational errors. This typically involves analyzing the circumstances surrounding the error, identifying any contributing factors, and determining whether any procedural or training deficiencies were a factor. Based on the findings of the investigation, the FAA and air traffic control organizations may take disciplinary action against the controller responsible for the error, including retraining, suspension, or termination.
Externally, operational errors can be reviewed by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which is an independent U.S. government agency responsible for investigating transportation accidents and incidents. The NTSB can make recommendations to the FAA and air traffic control organizations to help prevent similar errors from occurring in the future.
Overall, air traffic controllers are held accountable for their actions through a combination of internal and external mechanisms designed to ensure safety and maintain the public's trust in the air traffic control system.
Internally, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and air traffic control organizations have established procedures to review and investigate operational errors. This typically involves analyzing the circumstances surrounding the error, identifying any contributing factors, and determining whether any procedural or training deficiencies were a factor. Based on the findings of the investigation, the FAA and air traffic control organizations may take disciplinary action against the controller responsible for the error, including retraining, suspension, or termination.
Externally, operational errors can be reviewed by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which is an independent U.S. government agency responsible for investigating transportation accidents and incidents. The NTSB can make recommendations to the FAA and air traffic control organizations to help prevent similar errors from occurring in the future.
Overall, air traffic controllers are held accountable for their actions through a combination of internal and external mechanisms designed to ensure safety and maintain the public's trust in the air traffic control system.
- Messages
- 2,534
- Facility
- Command Center
While it is true that we are subject to internal and external mechanisms for accountability, it should be noted that these mechanisms are not always effective in preventing deals. Internal reviews and investigations may not always uncover the root cause of an error, and disciplinary action taken against a single controller does not address systemic issues within the air traffic control system.
The disciplinary action taken against controllers for deals can sometimes be harsh and unfair. We often work in high-stress environments and are expected to make split-second decisions with little margin for error. In some cases, deals may be the result of equipment failures or other factors beyond control. In such cases, disciplinary action would not be an appropriate solution.
It should also be noted, with a degree of brevity, that NTSB is not always equipped to fully investigate and understand the complexities of air traffic control operations. The NTSB does not have direct authority over the FAA or air traffic control organizations and can only make recommendations for change. NTSB has no legal power to enforce its recommendations.
The National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) does not necessarily make it difficult for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to maintain a culture of safety and accountability for air traffic controllers. NATCA is a labor union that represents air traffic controllers and works to protect their rights and interests. The organization can play a role in negotiating collective bargaining agreements that outline the terms and conditions of employment for air traffic controllers, including disciplinary procedures.
However, the FAA is ultimately responsible for maintaining a culture of safety and accountability for air traffic controllers, and for upholding standards of performance and conduct. The FAA has the authority to set performance standards and regulations for air traffic controllers, and to take disciplinary action when these standards are not met.
To uphold standards of safety and accountability for air traffic controllers, the FAA needs to have clear policies and procedures in place, and must be proactive in enforcing these policies. This may involve regular training and professional development for air traffic controllers, as well as regular performance evaluations and audits.
The FAA can also work with NATCA and other stakeholders in the aviation industry to promote a culture of safety and accountability for air traffic controllers. This can involve collaboration on initiatives aimed at improving the air traffic control system, such as the development of new technologies and procedures, and the implementation of best practices.
In conclusion, while NATCA can have a role in influencing the terms and conditions of employment for air traffic controllers, the FAA remains responsible for maintaining a culture of safety and accountability, and for upholding standards of performance and conduct. The FAA can work with NATCA and other stakeholders to promote a culture of safety and accountability, and to continuously improve the air traffic control system.
However, the FAA is ultimately responsible for maintaining a culture of safety and accountability for air traffic controllers, and for upholding standards of performance and conduct. The FAA has the authority to set performance standards and regulations for air traffic controllers, and to take disciplinary action when these standards are not met.
To uphold standards of safety and accountability for air traffic controllers, the FAA needs to have clear policies and procedures in place, and must be proactive in enforcing these policies. This may involve regular training and professional development for air traffic controllers, as well as regular performance evaluations and audits.
The FAA can also work with NATCA and other stakeholders in the aviation industry to promote a culture of safety and accountability for air traffic controllers. This can involve collaboration on initiatives aimed at improving the air traffic control system, such as the development of new technologies and procedures, and the implementation of best practices.
In conclusion, while NATCA can have a role in influencing the terms and conditions of employment for air traffic controllers, the FAA remains responsible for maintaining a culture of safety and accountability, and for upholding standards of performance and conduct. The FAA can work with NATCA and other stakeholders to promote a culture of safety and accountability, and to continuously improve the air traffic control system.
GulfBravoPapa
⭐SuperStar
- Messages
- 1,988
Why does it sound like you are quoting a paper you wrote in high school?
- Messages
- 120
- Facility
- DCA Washington National Tower
ChatGPT has a lot of things to say about this topic
DADDYSbabyBIRD
Trusted Contributor
- Messages
- 145
100% chatgpt
