Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

LaGuardia did have a fully staffed ATC, and there's zero evidence this controller was overworked. You seem to be prematurely ascribing cause when nothing has been investigated yet.


The evidence that this controller was overworked is that practically all controllers in the US at present are overworked. As such, that should be treated as the null hypothesis, and it would require substantial evidence to show that he isn't overworked.


Couldn’t we just… wait to see what FAA says before coming up with our own (entirely speculative) theories?


NTSB is the relevant institution, not FAA.


Can we trust the FAA's conclusion?

Its previous head had a term that didn't expire until 2028 but he resigned after pressure from Elon Musk (who didn't like that he got fined), now a Trump-friendly head has been installed. What, realistically, would be the consequences if he lied? Likely none. Government officials lying on record is an every day occurrence these days.


True! Assumptions and speculation are always better.

I’m glad we’ve made our conclusions up front before the report has even come out.

That saves me a lot of reading!


Come on, this is silly. The fact that air traffic controllers are overworked is neither an assumption nor speculation. It is very widely documented.


The only thing we know so far is from two minutes of ATC audio.

That’s literally it. Anything else is speculation and extrapolation.

But don’t let that stop you if you already know what caused the tragedy.


It does not at all mean that this controller was overworked when this crash happened; that would be failed reasoning and misuse of evidence. It just raises the question, which should be looked at.

It's scary that so many don't seem to know the difference. This is how misinformation starts and spreads.


You're 100% right, a "Trump-friendly" administrator has been "installed" so we can't trust the FAA's conclusions. The last guy quit so this guy is definitely going to lie.


I'd pay to watch someone say this in a court of law...


https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reasonable_person

The concept most certainly exists.


> LaGuardia did have a fully staffed ATC

According to whom? Management, or controllers?

Certainly does not seem like controllers agree:

https://old.reddit.com/r/ATC/


There's a mountain of evidence. No single controller should ever be running tower and ground at an airport like LGA.


The parent post was unjustly flagged for no other reason than facts make overly emotional people here squirm with anger. Pathetic and lame.

This is worthy of losing flagging privileges IMO.

The Secretary of Transportation said on record at the first press conference that reports this guy was working alone in the tower are INACCURATE. The actual number is the responsibility of the NTSB to disclose.

95% of this discussion is people blowing smoke out of their ass as per usual.


From VAS Aviation, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbm-QJAAzNY, or possibly in the comments, it was noted that there were 2 people on - one in the tower, one elsewhere in charge of approach. So perhaps, it's innacurate because he was working "with" the person on approach, but still accurate to what we would all call "working alone"?


Exactly how many people do the self-appointed experts of HackerNews feel should be working ATC at an airport with only two intersecting runways?

10? 30? One per aircraft?

How do you suppose all these people coordinate their activities?


It used to be that there was always a supervising controller on duty, who kind of rotated around each active controller, acted as backup for breaks, etc. for this class of airport - from my layman reading at least. This still seems to be the paper requirement.

So the minimum here would be 3 controllers given that nights setup. One for approach/ground, one for departure. Obviously you can argue more would be appropriate to segregate duties further, but it was a night shift headed into airport shutdown.

There seems to have been two working. The supervising controller double booked as a primary controller for departure at the time of incident. The fact the incident controller wasn’t immediately relieved of duty and had to spend 30 minutes shutting the airport down himself seems to match this explanation.

From what I’ve read on the matter for this tower not having a supervising controller was rather normalized - which is outside of SOP and something you need to report to management every time it happens. For this incident there was one - but sounds like one in name only. Once normalization of deviance happens, working in a way where two controllers that on paper should be sharing duties - but in practice are splitting them - seems exactly how I’d expect things to go.

But this is all speculation at this point of course. NTSB report will be interesting.

Either way - it has been clear for decades ATC needs both a massive surge in the staffing pipeline as well as a legitimate modernization program competently implemented. It’s certainly not a problem that started or remained in any single administration. Even if one or another had been worse, others sure as hell haven’t done much at all to fix the situation.


Many airports have intersecting runways to account for changing wind directions.

Are you talking about a two strip airfield on a cattle station in the Northern Territory with once a month traffic, or something else?

Your "gotcha" class question isn't especially well formed.


Everyone is stomping their feet saying the answer should be more than the number which has not yet been disclosed, so we don't know, but yet everyone also refuses to provide a definite number.

So tell me, for an airport that only has two runways which intersect, at LGA's volume, what is the correct number of controllers that should be working that field?

This also assumes the FAA hasn't already done this math and the gaming-chair experts know more than the FAA (which they don't).


In my direct 20 year experience working millions of line kilometres of air survey, zero or one controllers works out just fine.

Again, you haven't sufficiently qualified your questions - it's not about the number of runways.

EDIT: I see you updated your response and added in a nod to traffic volume - that's a good start.

Other factors in this non linear multi factor equation are ... ?


If a member of this administration said he wasn’t working alone, that’s solid evidence he was.

The evidence that he was overworked seems pretty damned obvious. He forgot about an entire airplane and put a fire truck in its path. The evidence of overwork is strewn all around LGA.


> If a member of this administration said he wasn’t working alone, that’s solid evidence he was.

This is deranged. Seek help.


What's deranged about treating information from notorious liars as evidence against whatever they say?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: