Moving violation..NASA form?

You screwed up by taxiing without permission. Now you know better. Once
cleared to a runway you did not need permission to cross intervening
runways, closed or not.

This will not be the last time you screw up. File the NASA form when you do
and move on.

"Nasir" wrote in message
om...
I will file the form. It does not have any potential consequences, does
it?
I've heard people say that you should keep your mouth shut sometimes when
it
comes to FAA.

That's the whole point of the form. It's not the FAA, it's NASA. Any
personally identifying information is removed before any of it gets back to
the FAA. There's no downside to filing it, other than the nominal time
spent filling it out and sending it in.

Pete

On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 23:45:56 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

There's no downside to filing it, other than the nominal time
spent filling it out ...

Actually, that is a positive thing to the extent that it causes a
pilot to thoughtfully reflect on the actions that led to the
violation. Also good, might be a little investigation into CRM:
http://search.yahoo.com/search?x=op&...59-1&vm=p&n=20

And the best guidance you can get in dealing with the FAA is available
through AOPA's Legal Plan:
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite.../00-3-013.html


I doubt this incident qualifies as a runway incursion, but here's some
reassuring information just in case:


The FAA defines a runway incursion as:
Any occurrence at an airport involving an aircraft, vehicle, person,
or object on the ground that creates a collision hazard or results in
loss of separation with an aircraft taking off, or intending to take
off, landing, or intending to land.

-------------------------------------------------------------
FAA immunity for runway incursions
By John S. Yodice (From AOPA Pilot, June 2000.)

It seems that we can expect more uncomfortable one-on-one
discussions between pilots and FAA inspectors about possible
regulatory violations. We previously reported on the relatively new
FAA Streamlined Administrative Action Process (SAAP) program now in
effect (see "Pilot Counsel: FAA’s Ticket Program," September 1999
Pilot) and offered some legal guidance to pilots. Now pilots may need
some legal guidance about participating in another new FAA program,
the Runway Incursion Information and Evaluation Program (RIIEP).

The title of the program tells us the purpose of the program—to
gather and evaluate information on runway incursions. It was announced
on March 19, 2000, and runs through March 19, 2001. The announcement
encourages pilots (and others) to give information to the FAA that
could help the agency get at the root causes of runway incursions.
Under the program, FAA field inspectors will seek to interview pilots
involved in such incidents, either in person or by telephone. In
exchange, the FAA offers cooperating pilots a limited immunity against
FAA enforcement.

No pilot needs to be convinced that the threat of a collision
between an aircraft taking off or landing and another aircraft, or
vehicle, or person, or other object on the runway is a serious safety
problem. According to the FAA, there has been an increase in such
incidents in recent years. The FAA says that pilot deviations are the
leading cause of runway incursions, increasing by 38 percent from 1997
to 1998. Not surprisingly, the runway incursions most likely to cause
accidents generally occur at complex, high-volume airports.

The FAA usually has little problem in learning about runway
incursions and the pilots involved, since they happen at airports with
control towers. And the FAA has little trouble finding some infraction
of the federal aviation regulations that it can charge against one or
more of the pilots involved. The usual procedure in the past has been
for an FAA inspector to open an investigation when a controller
reports a runway incursion. An investigation often resulted in a
suspension of the certificate of one or more of the pilots, or less
drastically, an administrative action in the form of a warning notice
or letter of correction sent to the pilots.

This new program presents a dilemma for pilots. We certainly want
to cooperate with the FAA to solve the problem of runway incursions;
but in the process we don’t want to be cooperating ourselves into a
suspension of our pilot certificates or a black mark on our FAA
records. In the program, the FAA attempts to resolve this dilemma for
pilots by giving assurances that the usual enforcement action will not
be taken.

The FAA assurances take two forms. First, if a pilot cooperates,
subject to certain qualifications, "the FAA ordinarily does not expect
to take punitive legal enforcement action." Second, the FAA "does not
expect to use information provided by airmen during interviews
conducted by FAA inspectors under the RIIEP in any FAA punitive legal
enforcement action," according to the program.

Unfortunately, the assurances don’t seem to go far enough, using
qualifying words such as ordinarily and does not expect. They don’t
provide as much protection for the pilot as does the Aviation Safety
Reporting System, which is the time-honored method for anonymously and
confidentially getting safety information to the FAA in exchange for a
waiver of a disciplinary action.

So, what should a pilot do who gets a call from the tower or some
FAA inspector wanting to talk about an incident that is, or seems to
be, a "runway incursion"? In making a decision whether to cooperate, a
pilot needs to know his or her legal rights and the specifics of the
assurances that the FAA is offering. As we will see, the answer to
this question is complicated by the fact that a great deal of
discretion is given to the individual inspector in interpreting these
assurances.

To their credit, most pilots instinctively want to cooperate with
the FAA. That instinct is a good one. But pilots should understand
that participation in the program is strictly voluntary. A pilot has
no legal obligation to respond to an FAA inspector’s questions on a
possible runway incursion incident. Yet, answering the inspector’s
questions could cause the inspector to conclude that the program’s
immunity does not apply, or it could open the door to other
incriminating facts and circumstances.

Here is some general guidance. If there is anything aggravated
about the incident, it is probably best not to participate. For
example, if the circumstances are such that the FAA could allege that
the infraction was intentional (I don’t know of a runway incursion
that was intentional, but that is within the discretion of the
inspector to determine), the limited immunity would not apply. Or if
there was an accident as a result of the incursion, the immunity
aspect of the program would not apply. A pilot could be facing an
enforcement action to suspend or revoke the pilot certificate. The
pilot should seek some legal help before talking to the FAA, and
before completing an NTSB accident report.

The question becomes a muddy one if the incident is clearly
unintentional but does raise a question about the pilot’s
qualifications—for example, a runway incursion under circumstances
that suggest to the FAA that the pilot does not understand the air
traffic rules that govern an aircraft operating at an airport with a
control tower. The FAA will then ask the pilot to consent to a
reexamination or suffer a suspension of the pilot certificate. The
program says: "If alleged violation(s) resulting from the runway
incursion or the circumstances surrounding the runway incursion
demonstrate, or raise a question of, a lack of qualification of the
airman, then the FAA will proceed with appropriate remedial action,
which might include reexamination and/or certificate revocation or
certificate suspension pending reexamination."

If the incursion was unintentional, and the pilot does understand
the rules but just became confused or disoriented—which should be the
case in the majority of such events involving a pilot deviation—then
participation in the program is probably in order. That is a situation
where the FAA should be able to benefit most from an interview with
the pilot. We should expect that a reasonable inspector would take no
enforcement or administrative action against a cooperating pilot.
However, pilots should understand that even in such a situation, the
inspector has the discretion under the program of taking an
administrative action against the pilot. An administrative action does
not suspend or revoke a pilot certificate, but it will take the form
of a warning notice or letter of correction, which will be a matter of
record against the pilot for two years.

In any event, whether a pilot cooperates in the RIIEP or not,
there would seem to be no good reason not to file a NASA Safety Report
(do not report an accident or criminal activity, however) on NASA ARC
Form 277 and get whatever immunity, anonymity, and confidentiality
that is available through that program.

Peter Duniho" wrote:
The form should be filed regardless of whether you think you need
the enforcement protection. Your first thought should be regarding
whether the form can help others learn from your mistakes (or the
mistakes of others).

"Nasir" wrote:
I was not sure how harmless or harmful this mistake was and whether it may
be too trivial for the NASA form? For what its worth, I was VERY careful
before I started to taxi and made sure no other aircraft was on the taxiway
(pretty slow day at the airport). Something I learned diligently at the
uncontrolled field.

I agree with Peter; there is value in filing the form in helping to
improve overall system safety. Let's look at your incident.

The basic problem sounds like you did your training at an uncontrolled
field and weren't that familiar with controlled airport operations.
When you got to an airport which had a published tower frequency but no
ground frequency (a situation I've never actually seen myself; are you
sure about this?) you incorrectly assumed this meant you didn't need to
talk to anybody to taxi to the runway.

OK, that's fine. You made a mistake (and learned from it), but lots of
pilots (especially new ones) make mistakes. No training program is 100%
effective. But, maybe the mistake you made is a common one? If
everybody who made that mistake sent in a NASA form, somebody who reads
the forms might notice a pattern, and NASA might make a recommendation
to the FAA that student pilots training at uncontrolled airports get
better training in ATC ground operations. Eventually that
recommendation will filter down to CFIs like me and we'll change the way
we teach.

Well, at least that's the plan. Whether it really works that way is a
matter of conjecture :-)

"Nasir" wrote:
I will file the form. It does not have any potential consequences, does it?

I have never heard of anybody getting into trouble by filing a NASA form.

I've heard people say that you should keep your mouth shut sometimes when it
comes to FAA.

This is good advice, and worth listening to. But, that's also exactly
the reason the forms don't go to the FAA! NASA handles collecting the
forms, and entering the data into their database, with all identifying
information stripped out. This arms-length approach is what gives
pilots the confidence that they can admit their sins in confidence.

Nasir wrote:

Now I know I screwed up with not asking for taxi clearance but I believe I
did not need his permission to cross the other runway since 1, it was
closed, and 2, he had cleared me to taxi to the active which means I can
cross any runways on the way!

You're correct on both counts.

Should I be worried? Others been in this situation?

Don't worry about it. Been there (unfortunately).

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

C J Campbell ) wrote:

This will not be the last time you screw up. File the NASA form when you do
and move on.

Hopefully this incident will be the last time he taxis without permission.

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Peter R." wrote:

Hopefully this incident will be the last time he taxis without permission.

Experience is what enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again.

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
This will not be the last time you screw up. File the NASA form when you
do
and move on.

Gee, thanks for the vote of confidence

I thought about the incident a bit more and I realize one of the factors in
deciding not to talk to tower was something that had happened before during
my training.

I had done a stop and go during my long x-country and while departing out of
the class D, I requested permission to change frequency. I was rather
bluntly told that I dont need permission. I think in the back of my mind,
that little exchange was still in the back of my mind and maybe I partly
felt unncessary to bother the controller with my taxi request.

So I dont know what the solution is to that, but with so much to learn and
remember as a student, you sometimes forget if permission is required or not
and being cautious you go ahead and ask, but you get chewed out sometimes
that leaves you wondering if you should have asked!

Nasir ) wrote:

snip
So I dont know what the solution is to that, but with so much to learn and
remember as a student, you sometimes forget if permission is required or not
and being cautious you go ahead and ask, but you get chewed out sometimes
that leaves you wondering if you should have asked!

Always better to err on the side of caution and ask. I hear commercial
airline pilots confirming frequencies, headings, altitudes, and the such
all the time, despite reading back the request moments earlier.

Realize that there are always going to be some crabby controllers mixed in
with a lot of good ones. Never take their attitude personally, for you
could be the pinnacle of comm radio excellence and still get barked at by a
controller having a bad day/life.

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---