Why the sudden flap about sleeping controllers?

For the past few weeks, the US media's been full of frenzied reports of
ATCs working alone at night falling asleep on the job, followed up by
union and government officials demanding that "something" be done, with
that "something" turning out to be more rules ("Don't fall asleep?") and
more controllers.

This is not anything new; it's been happening for as long as there have
been human ATCs.

Why the manufactured crisis? Did someone just call in a political favor?

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

Why the manufactured crisis? Did someone just call in a political favor?

Two scheduled flights landed at DCA early in the morning of 23 March
without ATC help because ATC was asleep. If one's going to sleep in
the tower, it probably shouldn't be a tower with frequent scheduled
flights and a nice view of the Capitol.

R's,
John

In John Levine wrote:

Why the manufactured crisis? Did someone just call in a political
favor?

Two scheduled flights landed at DCA early in the morning of 23 March
without ATC help because ATC was asleep. If one's going to sleep in
the tower, it probably shouldn't be a tower with frequent scheduled
flights and a nice view of the Capitol.

As I said, the problems existed for as long as there have been human
controllers.

The current flap is being presented as if it's a brand new problem that
has to be addressed by swiftly hiring more controllers.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

On Apr 18, 8:24*am, Bert Hyman wrote:
As I said, the problems existed for as long as there have been human
controllers.

The current flap is being presented as if it's a brand new problem that
has to be addressed by swiftly hiring more controllers.
How about giving it a libertarian interpretation? All the planes
landed safely, which can be interpreted as proof that we do not need
any air traffic controllers, and the skies can be freed from this
oppressive government regulation. It would save taxpayer money, and
we can let the market place decide which planes get to use the skies
and the runways. The next obvious step would be to free the airlines
from the tyranny and expense of the required safety and maintenance
schedules.

In

" wrote:

On Apr 18, 8:24*am, Bert Hyman wrote:
As I said, the problems existed for as long as there have been human
controllers.

The current flap is being presented as if it's a brand new problem
that has to be addressed by swiftly hiring more controllers.

How about giving it a libertarian interpretation? All the planes
landed safely, which can be interpreted as proof that we do not need
any air traffic controllers,

Only proof that those few planes were able to land without assistance
from the ground, and only because there was practically no other traffic
at the time.

Attempting to extend these incidents as you suggest would be foolish.

and the skies can be freed from this oppressive government regulation.

Well, there's certainly no reason why the same function couldn't be
performed by a non-government body, paid for by the beneficiaries,
namely the airlines, air cargo compaines and their customers.

It would save taxpayer money,

Most likely.

and we can let the market place decide which planes get to use the
skies and the runways.

Sure.

The next obvious step would be to free the airlines from the tyranny
and expense of the required safety and maintenance schedules.

Unless you think that the airlines would purposely kill their customers,
pilots and crew and destroy their multi-million dollar aircraft, why do
you think that would be a problem?

Of course, that does mean customers would be burdened with actually
knowing something about the procedures and record of the carriers they
choose to use.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

On Apr 18, 12:23*pm, Bert Hyman wrote:

and we can let the market place decide which planes get to use the
skies and the runways. *

Sure.
Better yet, we could extend Second Amendment rights to the airlines
(corporations are people, after all), arm the planes, and let them
engage in dogfights over air space, runways, and gates.

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 12:35:19 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Apr 18, 12:23*pm, Bert Hyman wrote:

and we can let the market place decide which planes get to use the
skies and the runways. *

Sure.
Better yet, we could extend Second Amendment rights to the airlines
(corporations are people, after all), arm the planes, and let them
engage in dogfights over air space, runways, and gates.

Simple solution, make the ATC use one-legged stools,
like the old nitro-glycerine makers used.

hohoho

"Irwell" a écrit dans le message de groupe de discussion :
...

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 12:35:19 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Apr 18, 12:23 pm, Bert Hyman wrote:

and we can let the market place decide which planes get to use the
skies and the runways.

Sure.
Better yet, we could extend Second Amendment rights to the airlines
(corporations are people, after all), arm the planes, and let them
engage in dogfights over air space, runways, and gates.

Simple solution, make the ATC use one-legged stools,
like the old nitro-glycerine makers used.

In

" wrote:

On Apr 18, 12:23*pm, Bert Hyman wrote:

and we can let the market place decide which planes get to use the
skies and the runways. *

Sure.
Better yet, we could extend Second Amendment rights to the airlines
(corporations are people, after all), arm the planes, and let them
engage in dogfights over air space, runways, and gates.

Your idea of competition involves killing your competitors?

I can see why you're troubled and confused.

Or maybe you fly Aeroflot.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

On Apr 18, 1:14*pm, Bert Hyman wrote:
I can see why you're troubled
I never denied that

and confused.
I disagree with this.