Televised Senate meeting

[TFaudree_ERAU]

I generally avoid C-SPAN at all costs, but did anyone else see the Senate appropriations subcommittee meeting on C-SPAN 2 this morning? Robert Sturgell got his butt chewed by Sen. Specter over airline scheduling practices. The highlight of the show was a female senator saying she "felt the fully loaded 777 [she] was flying on struggling to get off the ground, and [she] [doesn't] think that should be allowed to happen."

The topic of runway incursions vs. controller staffing at LAX transpired. Sturgell made a good point that it wasn't necessarily the level of staffing as much as it is airport design.

Is a Congressional bill on the way to limit the number of flights allowed to be scheduled to an airport in an hour, and is it a good idea?

Discuss..

[wheelsup]

Maybe they could put bars down across taxiway/runway crossings like at railroads. Oh and have the sound as well...ding ding....ding ding....ding ding.

[TFaudree_ERAU]

Originally Posted by wheelsup

Maybe they could put bars down across taxiway/runway crossings like at railroads. Oh and have the sound as well...ding ding....ding ding....ding ding.

Having never been to LAX, isn't it not because the flight crews don't know how to read signs and markings, but rather that it sneaks up on them when they're clearing on the high-speed?

[wheelsup]

I have no idea, never been there either.

I personally don't like when long taxiways butt into runways perpendicularly. Seems like a moment of inattention would lead right into crossing a runway.

[moxiepilot]

i watch c span once a year when im drunk or bored

[TFaudree_ERAU]

Originally Posted by moxiepilot

i watch c span once a year when im drunk or bored

I qualify for the latter.

[wheelsup]

I'm proud to say I've never watched it.

[Doug Taylor]

I watch it on rare occasion.

It's hilarious when you watch a hearing, and then you see them do the cable news circuit and give differing accounts of what actually happened.

[Fox Xray]

The FAA really needs a major house cleaning. I know as a controller I'm seen as biased against the FAA but things are the worst I have ever seen. A lot of people need to go and it starts with Sturgell. I have watched Sturgell a few times in front of the Senate and while they chew him out pretty good I give him credit, he handles it well.

The FAA needs the same sort of thing the NYPD got in the early to mid 90's when Bill Bratton was named NYPD Police Commissioner. He cleaned house, got rid of all the dead wood at the top and those that were promoted to those high ranks had to have accountability. There is no accountability in the FAA, the little guy is held to the highest standard but his manager has none ?

[Polar742]

Good post, T.

I find several things you discussed quite interesting. I'll start with what I know about least and progress to what I have some knowledge about.

First, the congressional bill to regulate slots. That was attempted by the FAA in the Northeast back in 99/00 when the RJ buildup was occurring. The Port Authority knew better, then there were 2-3 hour taxi out time from LGA regardless of the wx duing rush hour. Throw in a storm near any arrival or departure gate, and the big money clock was started. We could prolly do a fun thread on LGA stories from that time. It was awesome. There would be CoEx, DL Conx, Eagle and USExp RJs all in a line going to the same place at the same time.

I see your an a.netter, so look at some LGA pics from the 80s, 90s and today. That'll explain why it's so jammed up today.

Also, should a bill like that pass, I'd venture a guess that would be the first step in re-regulation. Also, if that occurs, it'd be a boon for Boeing and EADS as big airplanes will be in demand. Frequency will decrease ('cause we need hourly sevice from LIT-LGA ), thus totally changing today's modeling of ASM distribution.

However, the senator disappointed by a fully loaded 777 "struggling" to take off, is going to be real upset when the US looks like Asia with the light widebodies (767/787/330) being loaded to the gills for short-medium hops, medium wide bodies like the 777/340s for some long feeder routes and transcon light routes, and the return of the whales for trunk routes. (I highly doubt that'd happen, but it's feesible).


Runway incursions. The HOT topic for the last 4 years. I was an ASAP cat and a checkairman in my previous life. Luckily, I hardly ever dealt with a runway incursion. The one I did was, indeed at LAX, and was not our pilot's fault. To limt the topic to LAX is, to say the least, short selling the issues.

There are certain airports that lend themselves, due to design, to incursions. Airports that have closely spaced parallel runways, or Logan down in the corner. If you look at Logan, it's amazing that the issue isn't worse than it is. MKE has a lot of issues.

ATC issues, I know little about. What I do know is from my friends that work towers, and dealing with the same stuff everyone else does. Controller staffing I'm sure plays an issue, but not having budget flexibility in a government agency and beginning recruiting drives 3-9 years too late don't help. At least the ADSE is being tested alot of places. And of course, the typical beaurocracy BS. The new tower in IND is not quite tall enough to see the entire airport. Seriously...not tall enough.

Some issues involve pilot complacency. Not including your expected taxi routes and clearances outbound and inbound. Not planning a turnoff in the approach briefing. Not having your 10-9 in clear view right in front of you. Lazy radio procedures and not clarifying instructons. All these factors contribute to the issue, and we have TOTAL control over our part of it.

A little story from me. I did a linecheck on a crew's last flight of a pairing back to their base. The airport was a former airline hub that was well laid out and had very good controllers. After the crew turned off, they were given taxi instructions that were not quite what they expected (they didn't brief the turnoff or taxi route). It was just enough of a change that they needed the 10-9. Niether pilot had their 10-9 out of the book and available. The CA was taxiing and asking the F/O where Taxiway X was. The F/O was frantically flipping thru the jepp book looking. Luckily there was no runways or cross taxiways to pass. The CA did not ask ATC to stop and take a minute, just kept on keepin' on. Needless to say, we all had a chat at the gate. Had we been at a major busy airport or a poorly designed airport, this had incursion written all over it. It was all due to cockiness, complacency and not following procedures.

In short, I don't care how many times you've been to an airport, or how small the airport is, get the 10-9 out, use it, brief it. Be safe. We're the last line of defense. If you have a question, ask. If you're lost, stop. If it's not completely clear, clarify. Read back all taxi instructions, especially with hold short instructions. If ATC tells me to "Taxi to Rwy 5" I'll read back my expected route "Polar 742 Heavy, taxi runway 5 via Mike Juliet and Lima, cross Runway 14" When I get to 14, "Ground, verify Polar 742 Heavy is cleared to cross 14".

I know you don't wanna torque ATC, but it's your butt on the line. It's your ticket. We all make mistakes, and whether it's us, ATC or another factor, we are the end all to that.

[KLB]

Very good points Polar!

With all of the majors wanting to merge like they are...I was thinking that the regional flying would be cut significantly(why have two different regional carriers, serving the same city that depart at the same time and are going to the same destination when you could just send one large mainline aircraft) and the mainlines will began to handle a lot of those routes. This would mean more hiring and flying done by the mainline and the regionals would go back to the "commuter" role. This would reduce air traffic and airport congestion.

It's only my speculation though. What can I say? I'm only a freight dawg and I don't know crap about that stuff.