Hank Krakowski Takes the Fall for Sleeping Controllers


Hank Krakowski “resigned” yesterday.  “Resigned” is government-speak for “he got his butt tossed out onto the street.”

But the FAA firing squad got the wrong man. Let me rephrase that.  The FAA firing squad stopped well short of completing its mission.

Don’t get me wrong. FAA ATO (Air Traffic Organization) COO (Chief Operating Officer) Hank Krakowski should have been fired as one of  FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt’s first orders of business when he walked through the door at FAA Headquarters almost twenty-three months ago.  So should have a lot of other people in FAA management.  In fact, several of them should be in jail, in my opinion.  Right alongside the Congressman who helped previous FAA Administrator Marion C. Blakey destroy the Agency and degrade safety margins well below minimum acceptable levels.  I’m of course talking about the current Chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Congressman John Mica of Florida’s 7th Congressional District.  My point here, however, is that Mr. Krakowski is the fall guy  for sleeping controllers when he should have been cashiered long ago for the systemic problems currently permeating the ATO and for which he bears considerable responsibility.

There have in the past two months now been five cases of controllers falling asleep on midnight shifts.  It’s official.  There is no denying it any longer.  The nation’s aging and overworked air traffic controllers have finally reached their collective physical and mental breaking points.

It’s also hard to deny the obvious solutions, as recommended to the FAA by NASA, NTSB, practically every scientist on the planet who studies sleep, and even the FAA’s own fatigue expert Rick Huss.  What are they telling FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt?  They’re telling him to quit the ridiculous schedules that sometimes only afford as little as eight hours between shifts and disrupt the body’s natural circadian rhythms.  They’re telling him that if he doesn’t want controllers falling asleep on position, then he’d better start authorizing them to take a quick nap during their breaks.  They’re telling him that an environment totally devoid of any mental stimulation whatsoever during long lulls in traffic, as frequently occurs during midnight shifts, is a recipe for unintentional dozing.

And how has Administrator Babbitt responded to all this wonderful, free, and very expert advice?

Controllers are still not allowed to nap even when on an authorized break.  Controllers are still not allowed to have anything with them that might stimulate their brain just enough during zero-traffic periods that they might actually have a fighting chance of staying awake (radio, television, DVD player, reading material).  Indeed, control facilities are so understaffed that controllers are still expected to work an eight-hour midnight shift without so much as a bathroom break.

Now, bear in mind that Administrator Babbitt knows what the true problems are here. He’s been told by experts in the field.  He has access to confidential surveys from controllers and, yes, pilots as well, that tell him there are a lot of people falling asleep when they shouldn’t be.  He even has working for him a fatigue expert who has been giving him solutions.

So, armed with all this great information, what is Administrator Babbitt’s solution to a physiological problem of potentially catastrophic proportions?  Here’s some quotes from the man himself:

“Air traffic controllers are responsible for making sure aircraft safely reach their destinations.”

(Note:  It’s FAA management’s job to give controllers the tools they need to be able to do their job, and one of those tools is sufficient rest and consideration of basic human physiology and natural circadian rhythms.)

“We absolutely cannot and will not tolerate sleeping on the job”

(Note:  Keep in mind that recommendation for naps during breaks when you read those words and you can see just how truly out of touch this guy is.)

“This type of unprofessional behavior does not meet our high safety standards.”

(Note:  Wouldn’t the true unprofessional behavior in this case be that behavior coming from the one individual who could fix this, but instead has chosen to turn a blind eye?)

Basic Human Physiological Truths: Depriving someone of water to the point where they can think of nothing else, and then ordering them to do their job and not be thirsty does not address the underlying problem.  Depriving someone of food to the point of starvation and then ordering them to do their job without being hungry is just as ludicrous an example.  Yet, when you analyze what Administrator Babbitt is saying about his controller workforce, he’s doing what amounts to the same thing.  Administrator Babbitt is enforcing policies that deprive controllers of sleep, compounding that problem by denying them any form of mental stimulation at work, and then ordering them to do their job without being sleepy.

When we deprive prisoners of war of sleep to the point of exhaustion, we call it both torture and a war crime.  When Administrator Babbitt does it to his own workforce, he blames the controllers for being human.

Administrator Babbit inherited an absolute mess and a whole slew of bad policies from the most inept and incompetent Administrator in the history of the Agency—Marion C. Blakey.  Of that there can be no question.  But Administrator Babbit has now had almost two years to overturn those policies and take corrective action to fix the problems Ms. Blakey left in her wake (with Congressman John Mica’s enthusiastic encouragement and support).  Administrator Babbitt hasn’t done that.  Thus, Ms. Blakey’s policies are now Administrator Babbitt’s policies, because in refusing to change them he has tacitly given them his approval.

Ladies and Gentlemen, it is now time for Administrator Randy Babbitt to go. He has proven himself to be part of the problem rather than an advocate for safety and a source for solutions.  He should have been out on the street the same day as Hank Krakowski, along with almost the entire Blakey-era management team that still to this day rots the Agency from within.

If you want this mess reversed, write your representative and senators. Tell them you don’t want your life endangered any longer because of bad management and unrealistic demands on controllers.  And while you’re at it, scream both loud and long for the removal from Congressional Committee Chairmanships anyone who believes you can simply demand superhuman feats of stamina from worn-out fifty-year-old controllers in the twilight of their careers and get the desired results.  If you want to know why that last point is just as important, consider this quote from Chairman Mica:

“Only in the federal government would you double up on workers, averaging $161,000 per year in salary and benefits, that aren’t doing their job.”

(Note:  Chairman Mica seems to be saying that a salary “averaging $161,000 per year,” a figure by the way that miraculously changes every time he brings up controller compensation, entitles him to demand controllers somehow exempt themselves from any and all physiological needs.  Perhaps, if controllers were paid $30,000 more, he could demand that they quit eating, stop using the water fountain, and stop asking for pesky little bathroom breaks as well.  Anyone this out of touch has no business being in a position of oversight, and you should be outraged that he is.)

By the way, since Congressman Mica keeps bringing up the average salary and benefits of controllers, let’s take a quick look at how much this gentleman brings in for working on average two days a week over the course of a year.  Congressman Mica’s base salary is $174,000.  On top of that, he gets healthcare and retirement benefits and is eligible for a federal pension after only five years of service.  Including benefits, we’re talking well in excess of $200,000.  And then there’s that retirement thing.  Five years of service averaging two days a week means Congressman Mica was eligible to live off the largesse of the U.S. taxpayer for the rest of his life after only putting in a mere 520 days of actual work.  Not a bad gig considering that his only real contribution to the nation has been and continues to be endangering lives, property, and national security by degrading our ATC system to unsafe levels.

Tired of being unnecessarily endangered?  Do something about it.  The life you save may be your own.

3 Comments

Filed under Aviation Safety

Don’t Be a Casualty of the Great Megapixel War


After a brief respite, the Great Megapixel War is back in full swing. It seems camera manufacturers are upping their cameras’ megapixel ratings on almost a monthly, if not weekly, basis.  Unfortunately, there are other factors far more important than the number of megapixels crammed on that camera’s sensor, and most digital camera purchasers don’t have a clue what those factors are.  To illustrate my point please allow me to relate the following story:

I started using 35 mm cameras well over forty years ago, starting with a Petri 7s Rangefinder I saved up for and purchased when I was around fourteen or so.  I’ve been using SLR cameras since 1974, when I received on Christmas morning a really nifty Canon TLb.  Both cameras taught me a lot about photography, as did my all-time favorite book on photography The Honeywell Pentax Way by the late, great Herbert Keppler.  Because I was so enamored from such an early age with the 35 mm format, I delayed going to a digital SLR (DSLR) until someone came along with a (relatively) affordable “Full-Frame” version, meaning a sensor approximating the size of a 35 mm frame.  I was overjoyed when my old friends at Canon did just that with their breakthrough camera the Canon EOS 5D back in 2005.  When I finally got my 5D, my trusty old Canon EOS 10S was reverently and lovingly placed into semi-retirement, but still stands ready for those times when I want to revert back to 35 mm photography.

Alas, there are times when it’s just too darned inconvenient, cumbersome, or obvious to lug around such a huge camera and assorted lenses.  This is especially true when traveling abroad or in areas where thieves covet such gear.  I’m thinking specifically here places such as Rome, Athens, Barcelona, and Paris, where professional thieves working in packs can strip you practically down to your underwear in seconds.  Thus, I found myself just over a year ago in the market for a small travel zoom that I could take with me into areas or situations where a large, bulky DSLR just isn’t practical.

So it was in the early Spring of 2009 that I started shopping around for small camera that would give me at least acceptable pictures—not on par with my DSLR, of course, but at least something that would produce pictures I wouldn’t be embarrassed to show.  There were several competing cameras in the travel zoom category by then, including some rather nifty examples from my beloved Canon.  Indeed, many of these cameras offered 12 megapixels or more.  But being the photographic enthusiast that I am, I knew that megapixels do not necessarily equate to resolution, which is far more important.  Also, a higher megapixel rating often goes hand-in-hand with reduced low-light performance.  Obviously more pixels means smaller pixels for a sensor of any give size, and the smaller the pixel the more susceptible that pixel is to digital noise.  More digital noise means you have to lower the ISO setting of the camera to compensate.

After tossing aside megapixel considerations, I fixated on what is probably the most important yet also most neglected camera component—the lens.  Anyone who takes travel shots which, by definition, are landscape-centric, will tell you that wide angle performance is much more important than telephoto considerations.  My personal magic number for this is 24, which means I want a lens that gives me the 35 mm equivalent of at least a 24 mm lens.  If I can get below that magic number then all the better.  If I can’t, I want to get as close to that number as possible.  That means 28 mm or narrower just doesn’t do it for me.

Well, that magic number of mine immediately disqualified all the usual suspects. Canon, Nikon, and Sony started out at 28 mm to 38 mm on the wide side.  That left me looking at Panasonic, a brand I had never even considered before.  The Panasonic models closest to my magic number were the Lumix DMC-ZS1 and DMC-ZS3.  Both came equipped with the same Leica-manufactured 12X  4.1 mm to 49.2 mm zoom lens,.  For the size sensor in the ZS1 and ZS3, that worked out to the 35 mm equivalent of a 25 mm on the wide angle side zooming out to an incredible 300 mm on the telephoto side.  It was also the fastest lens of the bunch, f3.3 to f4.9 depending on the level of zoom.  Between the two, the ZS3 had the larger, higher-resolution LCD screen.  A large, bright LCD is essential in direct sunlight, so I sprang for the higher cost and happily left the store with my ZS3 even though it effectively had “only” 10.1 megapixels.  I was later vindicated in that decision when DPReview rated image quality for the ZS1/ZS3 line, both for daylight and low-light situations, above offerings from Canon, Olympus, and Samsung, and on par with the Sony H20.  If you glance at the specifications for the cameras tested, you will notice that the ZS1/ZS3 also happened to have the lowest megapixel ratings of the entire bunch.

That Spring, during a 54-day cruise, I went head-to-head against fellow passengers with DSLRs and equipment costing ten times or more what I spent on my diminutive Panasonic.  During a shipboard photo competition in which there were three categories, that little ZS3 produced 8 x 10 photographs that took first place in landscapes and third place in people.  Not bad.

Just a few months later Panasonic upgraded the ZS line with the ZS5, ZS6 (only available at Costco), and ZS7.  The sensor was now packed with 12.1 megapixels.  I wouldn’t have bit on this new line for the increased megapixel rating, but I did covet the manual modes this new line offered.  I was concerned that the smaller, more densely packed pixels would degrade low-light performance, but Panasonic managed to somewhat mitigate that problem by upgrading their Venus processing engine.  So, after due consideration I went ahead and purchased the ZS6, but only because of the increased control over aperture, shutter speed, and the ability to go into full manual mode when needed.

Sure enough, ISO performance slipped a little. Whereas I will push the ZS3 to ISO 400 with confidence, I find myself limiting the ZS6 to no more than ISO 200 unless I really have no choice.  And if I know I’m going into a low-light situation, as I did when I took these shots of Carnival in Rio de Janeiro, I revert to using the tried-and-true ZS3 if I don’t have access to my much more capable EOS 5D.

Now Panasonic has yet another new ZS line, the ZS8 and ZS10 with a new Leica 16X zoom that starts out at the 35 mm equivalent of 24 mm (they finally hit my magic number) and zooming out to an incredible 384 mm.  This new line also comes with a mind-boggling 14.1 megapixels crammed once again onto a sensor measuring only 6.13 mm across, 4.6 mm high, and 7.8 mm when measured diagonally.  This is known as a 1/2.33” sensor, and it’s smaller than the nail on your pinky finger. The internal processing engine remained pretty much the same with enhancements geared toward video capability, so I just knew there were going to be problems.  No way was I going to fall for this one.  And, boy, was I right.  The first review is in and CNET’s findings are not encouraging.  Even in good, bright light the pictures are coming out “soft” and there is observable “noise” at even ISO 100.  Image quality has dropped to the point that CNET advises against making prints any larger that 8×10, whereas I’ve had exceptional results with prints as large as 16×20 with my first-generation ZS3.

What a shame. Yet another senseless, tragic casualty of war . . . the Great Megapixel War.

2 Comments

Filed under Photography

Coming In May—The $114 Kindle 3 . . .


. . . but there’s a catch.

The price of a Kindle 3 WiFi is $139, and that’s pretty much the norm anywhere you shop.  The only deviation I’ve ever seen was a slightly lower price about a month ago at a BJ’s Wholesale Club in Dania Beach, Florida, at $136.

Now comes word that sometime next month you’ll be able to purchase a brand new Kindle 3 for the low, low price of $114.  Sounds good.  But there’s no such thing as a free lunch and, apparently in the world of Jeff Bezos, there’s no such thing as a free $25 discount.  So, what exactly do you give up for that quarter of a C-note?

Surprisingly, not much.  When the Kindle 3 goes into sleep mode, the display shows a portrait of a famous author of the past on what many jokingly call, “The Dead Author Screensaver.”  With the lower priced version, you’ll instead get promotional offers from Amazon and advertisements from other corporations.  According to this Publishers Weekly article, Buick, Olay, and Visa have already queued up for this latest advertising medium.

Additionally, Amazon will have a new Kindle 3 app and website called AdMash to go along with this little scheme.  Using AdMash, owners of the reduced price Kindle 3 WiFi will be able to vote for their favorite ads and give Amazon feedback as to which ads people want cluttering up their screen when their device is sleeping.  Apparently, all future ads will eventually be screened using data derived from AdMash users.

So, if $139 was still a little steep for your wallet, and if you can stand to look at an ad or two when you’re not using your Kindle, this just might be the opportunity for which you’ve been waiting.  Just click here to pre-order an ad-sponsored Kindle 3 WiFi.

But whatever you do, don’t forget to load up that new Kindle 3 WiFi with a copy of that critically acclaimed murder mystery Decisions using only $2.99 of that $25 I just saved you.  After all, what good is that new Kindle 3 WiFi if there’s nothing on it that’s fun to read?

Comments Off on Coming In May—The $114 Kindle 3 . . .

Filed under eReaders, Giveaways