Factor
Woodstock, VA
Male, 65
My life in ATC began with 4 years Air Force then another 30 years with the Federal Aviation Admin. working tower & radar at some big international airports. I fought in the 1981 war with PATCO, survived the strike and kept a job that was just too exhilarating to walk away from. While there was nothing better than working airplanes, I did move on through several air traffic supervisory and management positions. It was a long, crazy career but I wouldn't trade a moment of it for love or lucre!
Hello Jim! Thanks for bringing up a very important issue. Whether pilot or controller; thunderstorms are the bane of their workday. All three factors you mentioned can affect the safety of flight. Lightning can be pretty disconcerting but not as dangerous to an airplane as you might imagine. Today’s planes are given extensive lightning certification tests to ensure the safety of their design. That could be why the last commercial plane crash attributed to lightning happened in 1967.
The lack of visibility, although a hazard in some instances, is not a major problem for pilots flying in or near thunderstorms. Rather than looking out the cockpit windows, they’re normally relying on the aircraft’s flight instruments to keep it properly oriented.
By far, the biggest safety hazard relates to the tricky winds found in and around those things! Accident investigation reports are rife with accounts of what can happen when airplanes experience the vertical wind shears and microbursts associated with thunderstorms (See Eastern Airlines Flight 66 landing JFK in 1975 or Delta Flight 191 landing DFW in 1985 as examples). Especially hazardous when planes are operating near the ground (taking off or landing), such winds can cause the aircraft’s wings to lose the lift they need to maintain flight. If this happens to a landing airplane (and it can happen instantly), all the available engine power may not be enough to save it.
When a plane loses the lift needed to maintain flight it becomes more like a brick that someone has thrown. It may still be traveling forward but only due to forward momentum and only for a very short time. I saw this happen from one of the control towers I worked in. An airliner flew through a thunderstorm situated on the final approach course and turned into that “brick” within a mile of the runway. When I finally saw the plane; it was no longer really flying but wallowing left and right as it fell. Fortunately, it fell onto the grass adjacent to the runway and eventually slid to a stop. The aircraft was destroyed but incredibly, there were no fatalities. I’ll tell you though; my shift couldn’t have ended fast enough.
Thank you for writing,
Factor
Share Answer: 
Good hearing from you Aaron. The gear-up landing at Newark was pretty dramatic. Whenever airplane bellies rub runways; sparks will fly! Your question is a good one because videos like the Newark landing show up in the news periodically, yet it’s hard to understand exactly what’s going on. People watch and wonder if a pilot can actually train for such a thing, how does it happen, what are the risks, etc.
First off; pilots obviously never make gear-up landings for practice. That would be kinda like practicing shooting yourself in the foot. The best way to rehearse for such an event is to practice landing WITH the landing gear extended. The trick will be in how the plane approaches the runway, which is going to be pretty much the same as a normal landing. The airplane will be slowed to the normal landing speed, with the nose pointed straight down the runway. Once over the runway, the pilot will ‘flare’ the aircraft; raising the nose to bleed off more speed as the plane descends those final few feet to the surface. Once on the runway, the pilot can use the aircraft’s rudder to try keeping the plane on the runway centerline.
How gear-up landings occur can vary. The most obvious reason is a mechanical malfunction. There is another, fairly common, reason. My flight instructor once told me that there are two kinds of pilots; those who’ve forgotten to put the gear down before landing and those who WILL forget! It’s not quite that extreme but sometimes pilots, especially pilots with low experience levels, can overlook that one important detail in an otherwise perfect landing. If there is an operational control tower at the airport; an alert controller may notice and have the pilot pull up before it’s too late. If the field is uncontrolled, the pilot may not be so lucky!
Risks associated with these landings are pretty much what you’d expect; lots of damage to the plane, a possibility of fire, personal injury and maybe even damage to the runway and associated lighting. No matter what happens – it’s never good and I do not recommend it!
Thanks for writing!
Factor
Share Answer: 
Greetings CollegeGirl! I am happy to see a continuing interest in the ATC profession.
The situation you describe is going to make it difficult for you to land an ATC position with the Federal Aviation Administration unless you can somehow get two to four years of college with an aviation related degree. Other options include gaining ATC experience in the military, which was my pathway in. Or perhaps you might apply for employment with one of the private ATC providers. You should also consider flight training while you are in college. Having your pilot’s license will help you meet the threshold for aviation related experience.
Best of luck and thanks for writing!
Factor
Share Answer: 
Thanks for writing Isaac. The answer to your question is no! There are radar blind spots all over the continental U. S. The good news is that, as a pilot or passenger, you don’t have to worry about it too much. The blind spots are generally at very low altitudes and there are pilot/controller procedures used in the non-radar environment to keep aircraft safe from other airplanes and the terrain. Around airports where most commercial flights operate and at the altitudes they cruise at, radar coverage is continuous – unless one of the radar sites is not working (it happens). In such cases, those pilot and controller procedures I just mentioned come into play.
Even though an aircraft is below radar coverage, the pilot has several options to maintain flight safety. When weather conditions permit; pilots can visually separate themselves from obstructions such as mountains, antennas or power lines. If pilots cannot maintain good flight visibility, there are usually instrument procedure available that keep the airplanes safely above such obstructions and guide them to their destination.
Radar is a wonderful tool for both controllers and pilots but it has its limits. The radar pulses travel outbound from the antenna in ‘line-of-sight’ fashion. If there is an obstruction in the way of the beam (for example; a mountain or cityscape) the beam will go no further in that direction, at and below the height of the obstruction. It will, however, continue to travel in that direction above the obstruction. So...if you had a radar system in your front yard; your house would prevent you from seeing radar targets in the back yard but you would still get a radar image of the plane flying above your house.
I hope this answers your question!
Cheers,
Factor
Share Answer: 
Waitress
Do you get annoyed when people use Groupons?
Bouncer
How often would you find yourself in real danger?
TV Meteorologist
What were your worst on-screen bloopers?
Hey there Frequent Flyer! Thanks for sending a great question. I’m sure you represent the millions of other frequent flyers who’ve had those whimsical daydreams about cutting their way out of a grounded airliner with a can opener. Believe me; their frustration extends all the way up to the control tower.
How do these things happen? The root of most such delays is a reduction in system capacity; either enroute or at the airport. A recent example would be the Asiana Airlines crash on San Francisco Airport. I’m pretty sure that, immediately after the crash, every plane destined for SFO was either held on the ground at its departure point or delayed in the air until a determination could be made that the airport was accepting arrivals. Even when arrivals were resumed, SFO was left with a runway that was closed indefinitely. Closed runways will affect the capacity of any airport, slowing down both arrivals and departures.
Airport capacity refers to the number of landings and takeoffs an airport can handle per hour. Factors that may reduce capacity include such things as aircraft accidents, adverse weather, a reduction in the amount of available runways, equipment failures, controller staffing, workload, etc. There are several more but you get the idea.
Enroute capacity can be affected by many of the same factors that affect airport capacity. If, for instance, there is a large and hazardous storm system affecting the routes from New York to Chicago; the enroute controllers may have their hands full rerouting airborne flights around the bad weather. In such cases, other traffic scheduled to depart New York for Chicago during that time period may be held on the ground for a while. If you’re lucky, your flight might not have boarded yet and you can wait out your delay in the departure lounge. Other planes that have already left the gates may be held on a ramp or taxiway.
Controllers don’t like to see their taxiways blocked by delayed airplanes. If the delays are long enough, some of those planes may have to return to their gate. This can cause additional problems for controllers because flights returning to the gate can complicate the task of getting other departures out to the runways. It’s much like an ‘18 wheeler’ changing its mind half-way up the on-ramp to a busy Interstate highway, then deciding to turn around. A critical mass of congestion can occur. There have been situations where airports became so congested with planes trying to get on or off the ramps while others sat waiting on taxiways that the moment comes when no one could move at all. Total gridlock. When that happens, the last thing needed is more arrivals, so they too are stopped and placed into holding patterns.
Reduced capacity and the resulting delays, especially at the busiest airports, are a major frustration to everyone involved; particularly those who are out in the thick of it, like pilots, passengers and air traffic controllers.
Thanks again for writing!
Factor
Share Answer: 
Hi Emilio. From what I read and hear, the days of being able to keep secrets are gone. But, to your question, the process by which pilots could alert air traffic control to a hijack situation never was a secret. Pilots and controllers alike are trained in notification and response procedures. Whenever there are changes made to hijack response procedures and procedures for handling other special situations, the Federal Aviation Administration has systems in place to alert all concerned parties. Although most of it is unclassified and available to all, you probably wouldn’t see it unless you were involved in either ATC or flying airplanes.
Back in simpler times, when people were hijacking airliners to Cuba or D. B. Cooper was hijacking for the chance to skydive for dollars, the pilot’s response was relatively unknown by all but those in the aviation industry. With a hijacker in the cockpit, it might be a bit awkward for pilots to broadcast the situation to controllers until the hijacker wanted it known. However; a simple change to the aircraft’s transponder (a special radio that transmits a continuous, cryptic broadcast to ATC radar equipment) could surreptitiously alert controllers to the situation without the hijacker’s knowledge. Those days are probably gone as well. The 9/11 hijackers were obviously well schooled in transponder operation and made sure the equipment was either disabled or never set to the appropriate code broadcast.
Thanks for writing!
Factor
Share Answer: 
That’s a very simple, straightforward question! So here I go with another long and convoluted answer. I know, I know. There’s that old adage that says to never give ‘em more information than they asked for. Generally good advice but I don’t think it applies here on Jobstr. If people are interested enough to write; they probably want a response that’ll actually help them understand the subject. And uhh, one day I hope to produce such a response! But for now; just read on and test your attention span.
First off; the optimum time on a control position is different than the time limit defined in FAA’s labor agreement with the controller’s union (National Air Traffic Controllers Association). I’m not sure whether that limit has changed since I left the FAA but it used to be two hours. The time limit for working a control position was established back in the 1970s because controllers were frequently being left bleeding to death on very busy positions with no relief in sight. By the time someone showed up to give them a break, they were beyond exhausted. Depending on conditions; even a 90 minute stint could shred your nerves like confetti. I’ll just say this lead to safety issues.
Defining the optimum time on position isn’t as easy as it sounds. “Optimum” is probably one of the original fifty shades of gray. I had one friend who would awake before dawn and drive 1,100 miles to visit his girlfriend in the Florida Keys. He’d stop only for gas or the men’s room. Sixteen hours at the wheel didn’t bother him at all. But me? Driving more than eight hours would probably get me into a news headline that began with the word “Tragic.” Another friend I worked with would become irritable if he was left on a busy sector for more than 60 minutes. In time, the best ATC Supervisors learned what the “optimum” time on position was for each of their controllers and tried to get them relieved before they burst into flames. We were all different; kind of like the contents of that ‘junk drawer’ in your kitchen. Don’t have a junk drawer? I’ll send you a starter kit.
As to the break time; that depended on factors like who you were working for (Captain Bligh or Captain Kangaroo), how busy the shift was or the individual controller’s work ethic. If a controller had taken a particularly brutal beating on a position; most Supervisors would allow them a little extra break time if they could. Some controllers would either refuse a break altogether or take a very short one if they knew their teammates needed them. Then there were the controllers who’d milk their break until an angry Supervisor came and chased them back to work. The optimum break time was always as subjective as the optimum amount of time on position.
Thanks for writing and for making it to the end of this response!
Cheers,
Factor
Share Answer: 
-OR-
Login with Facebook (max 20 characters - letters, numbers, and underscores only. Note that your username is private, and you have the option to choose an alias when asking questions or hosting a Q&A.)
(A valid e-mail address is required. Your e-mail will not be shared with anyone.)
(min 5 characters)
By checking this box, you acknowledge that you have read and agree to Jobstr.com’s Terms and Privacy Policy.
-OR-
Register with Facebook(Don't worry: you'll be able to choose an alias when asking questions or hosting a Q&A.)
Browse Jobs
Host a Q&A
Search
Submit Your Question
Host a Q&A
Last 7
