July 26, 1999

Airplane Accident: John Kennedy Jr.

The general details of the recent accident are well known by each controller throughout the country. Further, there is a general understanding of where Flight Service fits into the event.

Friday night, July 16th, John Kennedy Jr. departed Essex County Airport, Caldwell, NJ (CDW) at approximately 8:39 pm. The pilot departed VFR to Martha’s Vineyard Haven, Martha’s Vineyard (MVY). According to family members, the aircraft was to arrive about 10 pm.

There are no records of the pilot contacting Flight Service for a preflight weather brief. There was no flight plan filed. There are no records of the pilot contacting Flight Service for any enroute services.

The aircraft failed to arrive at MVY.

At 2:15 am, over 4 hours after the expected arrival, a concerned family member contacted BDR AFSS and the search was initiated.

For any Flight Service Controller, the conclusions are obvious and clear. However, one phone call earlier in the evening clouds the issue.

About 10:15pm a call was received at BDR AFSS from an individual requesting us to "track" an aircraft that was to arrive at MVY. The individual gave two tail numbers and a few possible locations of departure. The individual gave the pilot’s name. Of course, we had no inbound, nor was there any information in the DD file. The controller informed the caller that we generally do not give out aircraft movement information to the general public. The caller indicated no big deal and terminated the call. No further action taken by the controller.

This was the issue where the Union was concerned. The individual that made the 10:15pm call, a ramp jockey at MVY, told the media that he informed the FAA earlier of the lost aircraft and the FAA took no action at that time. I will not comment on the individual’s motives or why he contacted the media rather than the FAA to report the call, but what is clear, he had his 15 minutes of fame. After the transcripts of the call were released to the media, this issue eventually fell out of the media circus. Further, the media reported from an anonymous source that the controller, who received the call at 10:15 pm, was to be disciplined, the FAA responded publicly that the controller’s actions were correct and that the controller would not be disciplined.

In regards to the 10:15 pm phone call, the issue was creditability. In this type of situation, the controller must use good judgment to determine creditability of the caller. We all have taken calls from family members, instructors and friends concerning the status of a particular flight. This is something that is more common than most realize in FAA HQ. In this particular phone call the caller was evasive as to his identity and was unsure of the particulars of the flight. Further, the caller did not indicate there was any problem, there was no statement of certainty of the flight and the subsequent failure to arrive. Circumstances were not clear and conclusive and creditability was not established.

My hope is that this issue will remain within the FAA. Any directives or procedures as a result of the 10:15 pm call, should be reasonable and designed to achieve a meaningful goal. Realizing most in the FAA HQ have limited knowledge of the day to day workings of Flight Service; I fear there maybe some knee jerk reaction that would create considerable difficulties for the controllers in the field. How far do we grill each pilot, preflight or enroute, each airport manager, each controller or even fellow controller to look for some hidden information? Will every communication be subject to an extensive effort to uncover some obtuse fact that may save the controller from second-guessing or Monday morning quarterbacking? What happens to our customers, who are already overwhelmed with the enormous amount of precautionary statements and warnings? All of which erodes our creditability and the desirability of our service by our customer.

As for the media circus surrounding the accident, the Union took the position not to exploit the tragedy for clearly parochial benefit. There was a clear need to articulate the role of Flight Service in this tragic event, however drawing any conclusions concerning the pilot’s actions would have been counter-productive. Our goal is for the advancement of the Flight Service not for our 15 minutes of fame. There will be an extensive NTSB investigation and I suspect a congressional inquiry. If there are any changes in regulations, they will be as a result of these investigations and the usual political dealings in Washington. This is where we need to direct or efforts. We will work with AOPA, the other groups representing our customers and congressional representatives to address the aviation safety issues raised by this accident.

Some questions to be answered;

Mandatory Preflight Briefings by Flight Service?
Mandatory Flight Plans, similar to the requirements in Canada?

Kurt

 

  1. TOGEL HONGKONG
  2. DATA SGP
  3. TOGEL SIDNEY
  4. DATA SGP
  5. TOGEL HK
  6. pengeluaran sdy