jetcareers - View Single Post

flyover · August 23rd, 2004, 07:22

[ QUOTE ]
There was a lot of discussion about ATC and weather after AA1420 in LIT. American actually sued the FAA and the controller over it. The judge ruled you can't sue the controller because he/she is imune as a federal employee. I am not sure of the out come of American vs. FAA

[/ QUOTE ]

This has been tried before. ATC has no responsiblity for weather avoidance. This has been tested in court cases and the FAA has consistently won since Delta 191 at DFW. The controller in LIT was scared to be in the tower, much less have an airplane landing in that storm, but by procedure he couldn't close the airport or deny landing clearance.

In the case of the new weather stuff that center is getting, a word of caution. They are receiving no training in using this equipment. And it is not as simple to interpret as you think. I would not rely on them for weather avoidance if they are unwilling to train their controllers. And when they do make a mistake and somebody gets spit out the bottom of a storm, they will fall back on "we have no responsibility in that area". Which, BTW, is absolutely true, which begs the question of why they install the equipment.

August 23rd, 2004, 07:22	#8
flyover Old Skool Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Georgia Posts: 3,389	Re: ATC and weather avoidance [ QUOTE ] There was a lot of discussion about ATC and weather after AA1420 in LIT. American actually sued the FAA and the controller over it. The judge ruled you can't sue the controller because he/she is imune as a federal employee. I am not sure of the out come of American vs. FAA [/ QUOTE ] This has been tried before. ATC has no responsiblity for weather avoidance. This has been tested in court cases and the FAA has consistently won since Delta 191 at DFW. The controller in LIT was scared to be in the tower, much less have an airplane landing in that storm, but by procedure he couldn't close the airport or deny landing clearance. In the case of the new weather stuff that center is getting, a word of caution. They are receiving no training in using this equipment. And it is not as simple to interpret as you think. I would not rely on them for weather avoidance if they are unwilling to train their controllers. And when they do make a mistake and somebody gets spit out the bottom of a storm, they will fall back on "we have no responsibility in that area". Which, BTW, is absolutely true, which begs the question of why they install the equipment.