One of the things that drew me to blogging was the opportunity to critique articles written on aviation-related matters. Unfortunately, I find that with depressing consistency, many aviation articles are misreported, bungling facts and figures, and unfortunately tilted towards spinning a sensationalist, incomplete, and alarmist perspective without fully considering facts or people with appropriate credentials.

With that, KTVU, a news station in San Francisco, has published an article titled, “Is Air Traffic Control Staffing Making The Skies Unsafe?” Let’s check out some of the highlights of this masterpiece, and how it continues the confidence-building trend of disastrously reported aviation articles.

First, the aforementioned title. Even without reading any of the actual content (a term I use loosely in relation to this piece), the article poses an alarmist leading question, one that is so complex, yet poorly asked, but simply services to rile the reader with even a pang of fear of flying, and incite worry and fear.

When you step in an airplane you place your trust in the person behind the controls: the pilot.

Kind of like readers theoretically placing their trust in the writers of articles, that they’ve thoroughly researched and consulted property authorities, to give a fair, balanced, objective , and reasoned analysis? Oops, too late!

“It is like putting together a 3-dimensional jig saw puzzle that’s moving,” said air traffic controller Scott Conde. “And you can’t make a mistake when you do it.”

Those mistakes can be deadly.

Again, an alarmist attempt at a thesis, ramped up with histrionics and sensationalism, without giving the reader any real facts about air traffic control, except what air traffic controllers do on a daily basis. Somehow, the author tries to say, the current state of air traffic control renders our skies deadly. For an extra twist on the article, try reading those two paragraphs in the voice of the guy who narrates movie previews.

A Comair jet crashed during take off from Lexington, Kentucky after the pilot, maneuvering in the dark, departed from the wrong runway.

All right, now, we’re really hitting trouble. The author provides no timeframe, context, or chronology to this “Comair jet crash.” Did it happen today? Yesterday? Surely there will be more details later in the piece, yes? None. In perhaps one of the most stunning failures of journalism and fact reporting, the author fails to provide any identifying details of this Comair crash. Yes, perhaps one remembers the incident, but, most likely, without a little additional research, one does not know that the jet in question was Delta Connection flight 5191, operated by Comair, a Delta Airlines commuter carrier affiliate. Comair 191 crashed shortly after takeoff from Blue Grass Airport near Lexington, Kentucky, on August 27, 2006, killing all but one of the 50 passengers aboard. But, do those identifying details don’t really matter, I suppose. Especially in an article where you are trying to prove the skies are dangerous vortexes of controller mistakes with one isolated incident, that occurred two and a half years ago. I wonder how many Greek philosophers and pioneers of rhetorical strategy just shuddered a bit in their graves.

Furthermore, the article, pins the cause of the crash on “maneuvering in the dark,” and therefore, somehow departing from the incorrect runway. Look, we’ve come a long way from the days when pilots navigated using landmarks of railroad tracks and water towers, when they put their Piper Cubs under the cloud cover, slid open the windows, popped their heads out, and searched for landmarks. Last time I checked, too, we’ve even made the technological advances where planes can not only fly and taxi in the dark. Clearly, the cause of the crash is going to be much more complex than “maneuvering in the dark.”

Investigators said there was one controller handling air traffic, ground traffic and radar coverage all at the same time, which contributed to the crash.

The National Transporatation Safety Board, the NTSB, said there should have been at least two controllers.

Okay, okay, okay. Now, we have the author attempting to pin blame and assign a cause of the crash, with somehow, only one air traffic controller that was handling all of the various air traffic control duties at Blue Grass Airport. Right, I get it. Because Blue Grass Airport had one controller on duty that evening, it somehow provides appropriate background and ammunition for the case that we need more air traffic controller, and everything would’ve been all right, if we had just done as the National “Transporatation” (apparently, copy-editing at KTVU has been cut, along with fact checking – hey, this recession’s hurting everyone!)  had said. Now, be it clear now, I am by no means attempting to undermine the gravity of the incident, and the emotional pain and trauma it caused for family and friends of the victims. But, I think it’s entirely inappropriate for this article to harness one crash, and use it as a justification for dangerous skies, especially when it becomes clear that the author, simply, either has no idea of the facts, or, simply has chosen to ignore them.

Using my skills I acquired as an English major in college, which are, essentially, useless in most other contexts, except writing a revenue-less blog, I performed some of my own research on Comair 191. As the author of this article correctly states, Comair 191 attempted to depart from the incorrect runway at Blue Grass Airport. The author then tries to make the connection that air traffic control somehow led to the Canadair Regional Jet 100ER (CRJ)’s erroneous departure runway, because, apparently, there was only one controller on duty. Not so, says, the press release from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). The NTSB release cites pilot error and “nonpertinent conversation” during taxi as the primary cause, bolding mine:

The National Transportation Safety Board today determined the probable cause of the Comair flight 5191 accident in Lexington, Kentucky was the flight crew’s failure to use available cues and aids to identify the airplane’s location on the airport surface during taxi and their failure to cross check and verify that the airplane was on the correct runway before takeoff. Contributing to this accident were the flight crew’s nonpertinent conversation during taxi, which resulted in loss of positional awareness and the Federal Aviation Administration’s failure to require that all runway crossings be authorized only by specific air traffic control clearances.

The NTSB, at no point, finds that despite a staffing level violation at Blue Grass Airport that evening, the controller delivered the wrong instructions to the pilots. In fact, in this CNN article, the issues with which the author of the KTVU articles poses the most concern, is this apparent violation in staffing requirements for air traffic controllers at Blue Grass airport. While I, and many articles, concede that there was indeed a violation of controller staffing levels, according to the CNN article, however, the FAA found that the presence of a second controller would not have prevented this crash, and in fact, a second controller at the airport would have had no part in clearing this airplane for taxi and takeoff:

In a written statement…the FAA suggested that a second controller would not have prevented the accident.

“Had there been a second controller present on Sunday, that controller would have been responsible for separating airborne traffic with radar, not aircraft on the airport’s runways,” the statement said.

Gee, just like the article says – we trust the guys in the front office of the airplane to make the right decisions. Yeah, as the article says, they put their trust in air traffic control, but, trust in incorrect instructions from the controller is absolutely irrelevant to the incident. At no point did the NTSB or FAA say that this one air traffic controller at Blue Grass Airport give the Comair pilots the instructions to taxi to a runway that was too short for a safe takeoff for a CRJ. Had there been an instruction from the tower to taxi to the incorrect runway, I’m betting that the pilots would’ve heard the error, and asked for clarification. Blue Grass airport has only two runways, one of which is too short for a safe departure of a CRJ, and would never, ever be used for a CRJ departure. Pilots, too, are obviously certified and cleared by their airlines to fly a specific aircraft type, and the pilots, obviously, are familiar with the takeoff requirements of their airplane, which are listed as specifications of the aircraft, and are also computed by onboard computers based on passenger load, fuel requirements, and weather. Moreover, when a pilot taxis an airplane through an airport, it’s not as if they’re driving their flying machine around blindly, blindly looking for exits and passageways like drivers in a mall parking lot on Christmas eve. Flight decks contain sheafs of officially published charts for airports, clearly detailing the layout, and clearly demonstrating the length of the runways. I’m betting had the pilots been paying better attention to their charts, and takeoff length requirements, they would’ve seen the discrepency between required length for takeoff, and the runway. Yes, pilots place their trust in air traffic control, but ultimately, they render the final decisions in the handling of their airplane , and in this case, with correct instructions from the controller, they executed incorrectly.

Former United Airlines pilot Bruce Milan agrees.

Bruce Milan flew for United Airlines for 32 years and now flies corporate jets.”You have one controller wearing 3 hats,” said Milan. “He may be giving a departure clearance, he may be controlling ground and he may be controlling the tower.”

Now, the author tries to find a primary source. Milan’s quotation, I’d be willing to bet, is completely taken out of context. I’m guessing that he is describing how controllers routinely rotate through their duties, or discussing procedures at smaller airports. Can you imagine one controller wearing multiple cliche “hats” at O’Hare or LAX? Absolutely not. Another failed quotation from the author. As well, irony abounds in the information that Milan now flies corportate jets. Corporate jets fly under the very same controllers that control commercial airplanes, helicopters, and light airplanes, nationwide. The author’s Comair crash evidence takes place in a smaller airport, a type, into which, corporate jets are most likely to fly to avoid the congestion of larger fields, one of the supposed faults of our air traffic control system. Of course, the irony is completely lost on the author.

Six recent near misses in the skies above southern California prompted Senator Dianne Feinstein to call for an audit of controller staffing levels.

She wants to know if there are enough controllers to keep the skies safe.

Most of all, I’m not, and other people who are much more “expert” in aviation than I, agree that our air traffic control system needs an overhaul. The overhaul, however, is not based on inappropriate staffing levels or some rampant failure to comply with safety by today’s controller, nor is it based on the idea that our current system will cause airplanes to crash with every takeoff, but based more on the fact that our navigational aids and procedures of navigating are growing antiquated and less efficient. Airplanes flying commercial routes or routes with an officially filed instrument-based flight plan navigate from point-to-point based on radio beacon signals, various intersections and waypoints based on where radio signals cross, and long range air routes (akin to freeways) in the sky. The technology was developed in the 1940s and 50s, and yes, while it does not make our skies unsafe, it certainly renders them more inefficient at times, in terms of routing and spacing.

As for the numbers of controllers, there’s a shortage of doctors, nurses, and teachers in the United States, and yes, while it does undermine efficiency at times, and perhaps lead to mistakes, I’d still trust my life to a busy emergency room physician. The “one-controller on duty” angle had, as reports show, no cause in the Comair incident, but, obviously will be the angle taken by sensationalist articles and law firms intent on suing for damages. Trust me, if the FAA did not think our skies were safe because of a lack of air traffic controllers to competently staff our flight control centers and control towers, every damn airplane would be grounded as a precaution. Say what you want about government organizations, but, the FAA is one that constantly remains a stickler for safety of the traveling public.

But Bruce Milan isn’t convinced the skies are safer.

“Some of it is luck,” he said. “There’s no doubt about that. There are near misses and they go unreported a lot of times. And some of it’s a little bit covered up i think.”

I’m not convinced that this writer has basic motor skills. And, great quotation, Bruce! Air traffic control in the United States is a giant conspiracy and coverup for frightening incidents. Ummm hummm. (Cue the movie preview voice, again). And, what is up with the lack of editing in this article? Not capitalizing the pronoun “I?” That’s something one learns in first grade.

Pilots and air traffic controllers aren’t immune to error, but, even with the propensity for error, I find it ridiculous and downright idiotic to consider the skies unsafe. One incident of pilot error cannot prove otherwise. I’ll continue to put my trust in the pilots, flight crew, and air traffic controllers. Need further convincing? Listen to a controller handling airplanes over O’Hare or JFK at airlines’ rush hour. It’s a beautiful and skillful coordination of machinery, helping them lift off, or come down, sometimes even sprinkled with a bit of humor and cheer.