NTSB: Controller Didn't Warn Hudson Pilot

Letter Suggests Controller - Joking on Phone about Barbecuing a Cat - Could Have Prevented Crash; New Safety Rules Announced

(CBS/AP)  Federal safety officials say an air traffic controller should have warned the pilot of a small plane that collided with a helicopter over the Hudson River that there were other aircraft in his path.

The accident earlier this month near New York City killed nine people.

The National Transportation Safety Board said in a letter released Thursday that if the controller at Teterboro Airport in New Jersey had been following procedures he would have warned the pilot of the other traffic in his path.

The controller was talking on the phone to a female friend at the time of the crash, joking about barbecuing a dead cat.

In today's letter, the NTSB called for several changes in the procedures for aircraft operating in the uncontrolled airspace below 1,100 feet in the Hudson River corridor, reports CBS News producer Carter Yang.

They include greater separation of helicopters and planes, with helicopters flying at a lower altitude and planes at a higher altitude; and new procedures for coordinating and communication between air traffic controllers at Teterboro and Newark and between controllers and pilots, with controllers providing constant advisories and alerts to pilots while they're in the airspace.

While the NTSB letter today offers no new facts about the crash, it does renew its criticism of the Teterboro controller who was on his cell phone in the moments before the crash and his supervisor, who was out of the building at the time, Yang reports.

The Board says it is "concerned with the complacency and inattention to duty evidenced by" the two, noting again that, "the controller was not fully engaged in his duties."

Officials for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which manages the airport, said that the phone call was to an employee of AvPORTS, a contractor at Teterboro.

During a phone call that ended 12 minutes before the Piper's pilot told the tower that he was ready for takeoff, the transcripts show the controller was bantering with the woman about a dead cat that she apparently had to remove from airport property. Two minutes after the Piper took off, the controller called the woman back.

"We got plenty of gas in the grill?" the controller asked. "Fire up the cat."

"Ooh, disgusting, augh, that thing was disgusting," the woman responded.

They continued to banter about the cat while the controller directed traffic.

One second before the accident, the controller uttered a curse word and ended the call.

The Federal Aviation Administration said that it has placed the controller and his supervisor on administrative leave pending an investigation. The agency said the controller's actions were inappropriate and unacceptable, but did not appear to have contributed to the accident.

That prompted a rebuke from the NTSB, which said it was up to the board to determine what role the controller's actions may have played.

[erasmus111]

by their_watching August 28, 2009 3:24 PM EDT
Nobody on here can tell me they have never goofed on the clock! Im not saying the "controller" was right or wrong! All im saying is these are the "facts" they chose to air?


Yes, most everybody has goofed on the clock, but when people's lives depend on you, you can't afford to screw up.

Now I don't know what altitude they were flying at, but I do know that the media deals more in SPECULATION than facts.

[their_watching]

It seems that sometimes people tend to get more wrapped up in the "Jerry Springer" aspect of things! Nobody on here can tell me they have never goofed on the clock! Im not saying the "controller" was right or wrong! All im saying is these are the "facts" they chose to air? And not a single word on the altitude of the crafts? Maybe thats cause they were below 1100 feet.... But somebody gonna pay! WAKE UP AMERICA! HOW DID THEY OBTAIN THIS INFO? THAT SHOULD BE THE QUESTION!

[their_watching]

Yes it would most certainly count as evidence, I agree! So tell me what altitude these aircraft were at...can you? Cause remember below 1100 feet there is no crime. Or are you telling me that they were below 1100 feet and that doesnt matter? How did they obtain this personal phone call transcript? Was it easier to obtain and print than the altitude of the two aircraft? And what business is it of us to know what the controller was talking about? Besides I thought all the evidence was not supposed to aired before charges or trail? RIGHT? WHAT GIVES!!!

[their_watching]

WOW!!! What is most concerning to me about this story is that somehow this private phone call of a private citizen is public! My understanding is that the controller has not even been charged for anything, and even he had been charged whatever happend to the words "evidence" an "on going investigation". It would seem if your part of the elite class in this country, all stays private under these words until your hearing, but the average private citizen apparently does not have any right to privacy even if he is not charged with any crime.

In fact the first story was the controller wasnt responsible for the crafts in the "Hudson airspace". Then it came out that he may have been on the phone and they are investigating. All this discussion about the controller is mute if these crafts were below 1100 ft according to this article, so before we all jump on this guy lets find out why these facts are being left out of the public airing of the investigation. If the aircrafts in question were under this 1100 ft ceiling (which would seem to me more important than his private phone call) than he did nothing wrong under the law! SO WISE UP AMERICA IT WILL BE YOUR PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS NEXT!

[erasmus111]

You have to have "evidence" before you can charge someone. And seeing as how he made that "PERSONAL" call during WORK hours, then that can be looked at as EVIDENCE.

When you are carrying on a conversation with someone while you are supposed to be doing a job, and there is an accident because of it, I'm thinking it most definitely counts as evidence.

[erasmus111]

by toldyouso29 August 28, 2009 4:57 AM EDT
Overworked? Not too overworked to play around on phones instead of watching the traffic, it would seem....


Sometimes you can be really brain dead. Maybe I should have said, "putting in long hours". They work LONG hours, get little sleep. And I wasn't talking specifically about this person when I said they were sleep deprived.

[erasmus111]

"Sometimes you can be really brain dead."

But then I guess it's only to be expected. Anyone that feels the need to spit out 12 kids has to be missing a few bricks.

[the0racle]

Thank You Ronald Reagan

[alphaa10]

TIME TO CLEAN HOUSE AT THE FAA

CBS/AP reports, "The National Transportation Safety Board said in a letter released Thursday that if the controller at Teterboro Airport in New Jersey had been following procedures he would have warned the pilot of the other traffic in his path."

--- and

"The Federal Aviation Administration said that it has placed the controller and his supervisor on administrative leave pending an investigation. The agency said the controller's actions were inappropriate and unacceptable, but did not appear to have contributed to the accident."

---

"Did not appear to have contributed to the accident"? Such a twisted interpretation of fact comes from an FAA in full denial of its own responsibility.

Only the NTSB seems to have been alert to system failures in this situation-- and in the Hudson crash, a failure of controller discipline was primary in causing the accident.

Yet, the FAA response-- after clear evidence of controller misconduct-- was "investigation pending". Meaning, "Don't call us, we'll call you."


OTHER RECENT FAA NEGLECT

In the February, 2009, Buffalo, NY, crash of a commuter airliner, the NTSB again faulted FAA inattention to serious questions on pilot training and flight readiness monitoring.

The NTSB also pointed out after the Buffalo crash it had issued warnings and recommendations about icing conditions and equipment, which the FAA also had ignored.

Defending the FAA before congress, FAA administrator Randy Babbitt said, "... it has been the agency's position that it's not obligated to implement every one of NTSB's recommendations," but "(the agency has) 'an obligation to explain to the NTSB and the public why... it rejects a recommendation.'"


MORE GOP LESSEZ FAIRE

In the immediate wake of the Bush administration, the problem common to both Hudson and Buffalo crashes is an FAA still dedicated to so-called "free market" policy of minimal regulation-- this in one of the most critical areas for passenger safety.

Obama's appointment of Randy Babbitt as FAA chief appears to have had no affect on this FAA imposture.

Under Bush, the FAA steadfastly had avoided active oversight of the nation's air carriers to such a degree. a great safety discrepancy opened between the national and regional airlines.

A year ago, several regional airlines were found to have gamed the FAA system of inspections in important maintenance areas. Regional airline Southwest Air was fined $10.2 million by the FAA for gross violation of FAA inspection requirements.

Southwest was only typical of the violators who realized the FAA would lapse into its passive, "What-- me worry?" mode, and no FAA inspector was likely to appear. So, they skipped the inspections.


HOSTILE TO ITS OWN MANDATE

So hostile has been the FAA to its mandated responsibility for public air safety, the agency has threatened and browbeat critics within the agency, itself-- warning their careers were finished if they went public.

Two FAA inspectors who testified to congress requested official "whistleblower" status, because they feared retribution from their own agency for damning disclosures about an FAA entirely too "cozy" with the airlines it was supposed to monitor.

The inspectors admitted to a shocked US House hearing audience that FAA managers were fully aware of Southwest violations, but turned a blind eye out of concern that taking "aircraft out of service would have disrupted Southwest Airlines' flight schedule."

Clearly, the American public cannot afford to have only one aviation regulatory agency focused on safety, and the other focused on anything but safety.

Under Bush, the FAA was put out to pasture as a regulator. Under Obama appointee Randy Babbit, a former airline pilot friendly to those he is supposed to monitor, the prospects of FAA reform are dimmer, still.

The FAA has been a retirement home for too long to political appointees.

[mljohns00]

Why do they call it UNCONTROLLED AIRSPACE,and then expect a controller to follow the traffic? Isn't the controller's job to monitor the CONTROLLED airspace?

[puzzler125]

How about this one basic rule: NO PHONE CALLS WHILE ON DUTY FOR ALL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS! DUH!

[puzzler125]

How about this one basic rule: NO PHONE CALLS WHILE ON DUTY FOR ALL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS! DUH!

[bradkt1]

The FAA said what it said about the controller not contributing to the accident before the facts were all in because they smell the inevitable wrongful death lawsuits arising from the crash and didn't want to admit liability. That was pure CYA. However, after investigating the accident, when the NTSB says that if the controller at Teterboro Airport in New Jersey had been following procedures, he would have warned the pilot of the other traffic in his path...well...that pretty much contradicts what the FAA had to say. The fact that he was talking on his cell phone while on duty at a radar scope about nothing that was related to his duties, coupled with the NTSB's conclusion, makes a pretty strong case that the controller's actions did contribute to the accident.

I don't believe that most controllers have this kind of attitude toward their duties. As a general rule, controllers are dedicated professionals who know that they have lives in their hands and act accordingly...but it only takes one to cast the whole profession in a bad light in the eyes of the public.

[erasmus111]

SEE! Whenever I post a comment in the "reply to comment" section, it always repeats.

[erasmus111]

by woeisme1 August 27, 2009 10:32 PM EDT

I wonder how often this sort of behavior goes on in the control towers.


Probably a lot. And it's probably the same with most jobs. People are always slacking off. I knew someone that worked maintaining planes and he was saying that there were many times that things should have been done and they weren't. Like changing the tires, for instance. He said the it was amazing that there weren't more accidents.

As for the air traffic controllers, again, it is REALLY amazing there aren't more accidents. There isn't enough of them and they are over worked. When you have to work too many hours, and you are sleep deprived, accidents are going to happen.

[erasmus111]

And then there is the pilots. Mainly on the big aircraft and probably on the long flights. Again, they are over worked because of not enough pilots. They say that they go into these "micro" sleeps, where there eyes are still open, but they are actually sleeping. Sooooo, between the sleeping pilots, and the air traffic controllers nodding off or yik yakking in the phone, there is even a BIGGER problem. : )

[erasmus111]

"where THERE eyes" should be "where THEIR eyes"

[erasmus111]

And "in the phone" should be "ON the phone.

I'm thinkin' maybe I'm sleep deprived. : )

[toldyouso29]

Overworked? Not too overworked to play around on phones instead of watching the traffic, it would seem....

[erasmus111]

"The agency said the controller's actions were inappropriate and unacceptable, but did not appear to have contributed to the accident."


If him being on the phone stopped him from noticing and informing the plane that there was somthing in it's path, then it contributed to the accident. If he had warned them, it wouldn't have happened.

[woeisme1]

hungry I agree. I hate to sound harsh about this guy. I know it was only an accident and that even though he was certainly negligent, he did'nt plan on killing anyone.

But never-the-less. You are right. Nine lives lost due to his negligence. Just another sad story all the way around.

I wonder how often this sort of behavior goes on in the control towers.

[hungry1968-16]

The controller should not only lose his job, he should be on his way to jail for 9 counts of negligent homicide.

[thesevenveils]

Something not mention is the fact the helicopter was never in radio contact with any air controller. From the moment the helicopter took off it was on its own. And yet collision avoidance services were available to it, all the pilot had to do was call up and ask. As a commercial carrier this helicopter pilot seems to have ignored a valuable life saving asset that should have been mandatory.

[novamba]

can't wait to see what the Union will come up with now?

[thesevenveils]

The NTSB is looking for a fall guy here. The controller had already passed the plane off to another controller, which the pilot never contacted! The controller was in charge of airspace only near the airport and after passing the plane off, was discharged of watching that plane outside of his airspace.

And now the NTSB wants the FAA to set better practices controlling this airspace above the river. All of it should have been implemented years ago. Don't blame the controller when in fact it was the system that failed.

[bradkt1]

If what you say is true, then why didn't the other controller (the one who the traffic had been handed off to) notice the conflict that was developing between the private plane and the helicopter if the traffic had been handed off to him or her? Your explanation doesn't jibe. Somebody has to be responsible for looking at the aircraft on those radar scopes at all times and either one or the other of those controllers wasn't looking when he or she was supposed to be. Rather than blaming the system, your explanation suggests that BOTH controllers weren't paying attention. NTSB says that the controller could have seen what was happening and warned the pilot...so at least one of them should have been able to do so...and didn't.

If talking on your cell phone while you are driving is a safety hazard, then I submit to you that talking on your cell phone when you could and should have been looking at a radar scope is an even greater safety harard.

[toldyouso29]

It does not matter who the controller passed the plane off to. the fact is, that ATC is so dangerous and requires such diligence that NO ATC should be playing or bantering on a phone when he is on duty--it would be tantamount to a surgeon being on the phone or bantering when he was supposed to be doing a surgery. When one is on the phone, one's attention is not fully engaged on any task that is a fact--so the man was wrong no matter what--he does not have the kind of job that allows short respite, playing with phone calls--PERIOD.