while the airport's lone controller took a bathroom break [1], the controller's union said. The union on Tuesday cited the incident as evidence that air traffic control facilities are understaffed.
"There should never be (only) one person in the tower, because it's not safe," said Doug Church, the NATC spokesman. "It's just added proof that the system is stretched to its limits, and these are the type of things that are happening."
Federal Aviation Administration officials responded that staffing is sufficient, that the bathroom break was handled in accordance with policy, and that travelers were not endangered or unduly inconvenienced. FAA spokesman Jim Peters states that "He was only gone for twelve minutes, so while there may have been a slight delay in the aircraft landing, certainly the controller did what he had to do."
During the controller's break, the Lifeguard flight pilot transporting the lungs radioed the tower and spoke to a trainee, who was not certified to conduct controller operations. The trainee told the pilot he would have to wait ten minutes for the controller to return. The pilot replied that he had "lungs on board," Church said. Peters acknowledged that the Lifeguard flight was told it had to wait ten minutes, but said there was no indication from the pilot that the delay would cause problems.
How would you feel about waiting in a flight pattern while the air traffic controller was on the crapper? I think I would rather wait a few more minutes in the air -- rather than have the guy in the tower trying to hold back a grogan while directing my plane's landing. Would PoopReporters agree? Or would you rather pay more for an airline ticket so that there would always be at least two controllers for every shift? What do you consider to be "unduly inconvenienced" -- especially when it involves someone having to poop?
