Hero's welcome for killer

[K. A. Pital]

Bringing a deadly weapon along when you're just there to 'ask for an apology' raises the question of premeditation, to me...

I think thoughts of murdering the inspector crossed his mind not once. So yes, it does raise this question. Was he set on to kill him from the start, or only to kill him if the inspector acts in an uncaring fashion, he took the weapon to do it.

[Broomstick]

Never said it did absolve him of all responsibility. And he was found guilty. But let's not pretend his was the only responsibility here.

If someone is being accused of a criminal breach of responsibility, why does it matter that he was not the only one guilty?

Don't the agencies running air traffic control also have a responsibility to maintain adequate staffing levels, and to see that equipment is maintained? The controller may have performed inadequately, but if there had been more staff available this may have been caught before disaster. Likewise, if all equipment had been fully functional this may not have happened. The controller is responsible for his own actions, but he can't hire more staff, set staffing levels, or repair the equipment himself. If any of that contributed to the accident then yes, others are responsible as well.

Analogy time again - yes, drivers have a responsibility to drive at a safe speed for conditions, but municipalities and governments have responsibility in regards to maintaining roads in a safe condition, don't they?

If you punish the controller, but allow other safety lapses or problems to slide you'll only wind up with further problems down the line. Remember, the only safety margin in the system is multiple layers and procedures and they all have to be maintained. If you're building a bridge and notice a bad rivet and you replace it, fine you've solved that problem but you need to make sure all the other rivets are fine, too, and if they're not you need to do something about it. If management is engaging in practices that diminish safety or fail to provide needed resources then they, too, share responsibility for accidents.

[Havok]

Your driving analogy works the other way as well. The driver has the responsibility to NOT drive if conditions reach a point where it is just plain unsafe. From what I have read, the controller knew conditions were at this point, he still went for a drive, and now many kids are dead.

[Broomstick]

Unlike driving, though, in aviation you can't just pull over to the side of the road. If there's no one to relieve the controller then he's stuck, and you're stuck with him. Which is one reason why cutting staff is not such a good idea. One and a spare is not a bad idea.

[Havok]

Broomstick

There are no situations where you can just have aircraft circle until you have the man power to direct traffic properly? 'Cause personally I would rather be a little inconvenienced than dead.

[Terralthra]

Broomstick

There are no situations where you can just have aircraft circle until you have the man power to direct traffic properly? 'Cause personally I would rather be a little inconvenienced than dead.

Aircraft do not have infinite fuel, and the pattern can not fit an arbitrary number of planes. Congestion of the skyways is a major issue already, having planes circle for hours(?) longer would only exacerbate the issue.

[Havok]

Broomstick

There are no situations where you can just have aircraft circle until you have the man power to direct traffic properly? 'Cause personally I would rather be a little inconvenienced than dead.

Aircraft do not have infinite fuel, and the pattern can not fit an arbitrary number of planes. Congestion of the skyways is a major issue already, having planes circle for hours(?) longer would only exacerbate the issue.

Planes have to circle all the time because of bad weather. Why can't being undermanned in the tower allow some sort of emergency action that planes can take. I do doubt that circling would be a good option as the tower is already undermanned. I was just throwing out an alternative to having the planes crash into each other, but there has to be something that a RESPONSIBLE controller can do in a situation like this.

[Broomstick]

Actually, sometimes having no controller can be safer than having a bad controller - if there's no controller the pilots can talk to each other and work things out (you fly this altitude, I fly that) which works as long as everyone's altimeter is set correctly and there are no insurmountable language barriers (in theory there shouldn't be, in practice it can happen). The problem here, as I understand it, is that controller inadvertently directed the airplanes to fly into each other rather than away. If the pilots had relied on the TCAS's instructions they would have been safe. But, from experience, when ATC says "jump" pilots are trained to do just that. They have the authority to disobey an ATC directive that creates a dangerous situation but they have to know it's a dangerous command. The pilots had avionics telling them one thing, ATC another, and they had to pick one to believe. Here, they picked the wrong one.

Having the planes circle is not inherently safer if they're at the same altitude since they could, if they're close enough already, still be in danger of collision although in other circumstances that would be OK. As pointed out, though, planes do not have infinite fuel and while airliners do carry some reserve it's not a lot because carrying extra fuel costs money. If you did have them circle you'd have to make sure they're at different altitudes.

The problem is, by the time you get to the situation this controller found himself you have so little time to sort things out. He may not have realized he was in over his head until it was too late.

[K. A. Pital]

The solution to punishment for criminal neglience is to punish all parties involved: controller and management. Not one or the other.

[Anguirus]

I think it's possible to take the position that Nielsen was a man who made several questionable decisions without taking the position that he deserved to be stabbed to death.

[Darth Wong]

Let me get this straight: there are people saying that instead of refusing to apologize, Nielsen instead ignored the man and then slapped the picture of his dead family to the ground? And this is somehow less obnoxious or likely to incite violence than refusing to apologize?

[Broomstick]

I gathered from the thread it was the killer who said the controller slapped the picture to the ground -- is there an independent witness of some sort? Because Mr. Killer has enough bias in this instance that I'd want independent confirmation of what happened if it is possible to get it.

[K. A. Pital]

I gathered from the thread it was the killer who said the controller slapped the picture to the ground -- is there an independent witness of some sort?

There were no witnesses to the murder itself apparently since Nielsen's wife found him dead only afterwards. Kaloev hacked him with an ordinary pocket knife. I don't know if Kaloev can be trusted to describe the incident 100% correct, but there's no one to corroborate this. He (Kaloev) told the story of how the murder happened to the press.

[Adrian Laguna]

Let me get this straight: there are people saying that instead of refusing to apologize, Nielsen instead ignored the man and then slapped the picture of his dead family to the ground? And this is somehow less obnoxious or likely to incite violence than refusing to apologize?

I didn't say it was less obnoxious, I said it may indicate that Neilsen was deeply troubled over the incident and not acting rationally when forced to confront it. Of course, that assumes Kayolev is telling the truth.