The Rest of the Story

Okay, so it took me a little longer than one day. I told you Monday about an emergency inbound to DFW. The poor handling of this flight made quite a stir in the pilot community. It got a little ugly at a couple of cyber-places I visit.

I must comment on this aspect of human nature. Aviation -- especially air traffic control -- is a highly complicated endeavor and little understood by people outside the industry. While anyone can look up in the sky and see an airplane and most have been in one, almost no outsider has been inside a radar room. Including reporters.

We like to believe we’re getting the news. We want to believe that the reporter has his or her facts straight. But they often don’t. And no, this isn’t intended to beat up on reporters. It can’t be easy trying to explain to the public, complex details about whatever subject pops up today. Reporters can’t be an expert in all fields. And then there is the fact that every public relations person is trying to “spin” the story the way they want it to come out. I’m not trying to disparage them either. I’m just trying to point out some realities.

Anyway, I’m not a reporter but I was once an air traffic controller. I also know a few controllers. Okay, I know a lot of controllers. And I knew something wasn’t quite right about the story.

The official report the FAA initially filed on this incident says, “...OSIC advised FE to use RY31R.” An OSIC is the “Operational Supervisor in Charge” and it means just what is says, “in charge.” “FE” is a radar position called “Feeder East.” There are two things to note there. First, the supervisor made the decision to send the aircraft to runway 31 Right (RY31R). Secondly, the pilot had requested RY17C (runway 17 Center). Much has been made of the fact that the pilot had to “circle” to RY31R. “Feeder East” works the arrivals from the northeast. If you know something about aviation and want to download the BONHAM FIVE STAR (.pdf) you’ll see that using RY31R isn’t as bad as it might sound. That doesn’t make it right, mind you. The pilot should get the runway he wants and shouldn’t have to explain his reasoning. It’s just not as bad as some of the wording you read might lead you to believe.

[For those non-aviation types that might be interested. Runways are named after the magnetic bearing of their alignment. A runway aligned due east and west would be RY09 (heading due east, 090 degrees) and the opposite end would be RY27 (heading due west, 270 degrees.) Runway 17C points almost due south (170 degrees.) If the aircraft was on the arrival (and that’s an if) it would be about a 50 degree left turn to align with the RY17C. To land on RY31R it would be about a 90 degree right turn.]

This certainly turned out longer than I expected. And I still have two points to make.

Again, this emergency was handled poorly. I can’t help but believe part of the blame lies in the poisonous relationship between the FAA and its employees. When you read me complaining about the FAA’s treatment of its employees -- if I sound a little shrill -- incidents like this are the reason why. So much is at stake in ATC. When the chips are down -- when your life is at stake -- we need to operate like a well-oiled machine. Not like adversaries. The FAA’s belligerent personnel policies have (and will continue to have) a negative effect on air safety.

This incident also points out just how divided the FAA’s house really is. Controllers are furious that they are being blamed for a supervisor's decision. The divide in the FAA is so deep, so acrimonious, that controllers can’t see that the general public doesn’t differentiate between controllers and management. They’re both the FAA as far as the public is concerned. That certainly is the way things should be. But they aren’t.

Don Brown
March 2, 2007