A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Pilot deviations and a new FAA reality



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #9  
Old October 9th 04, 07:59 PM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 18:39:39 GMT, "C Kingsbury"
wrote in
.net::

In most states you can get ticketed for "failure to stop at a stop sign" for
something as simple as not coming to a complete stop. You slow to less than
a crawl and the cop sees you look both ways carefully, but if your wheels
don't stop turning it's a moving violation. Of course, the cop can also
choose to just tell you to watch it. It saves him time that he can use to
pursue more important offenders.


Actually, there is a rational reason for making a complete stop at a
boulevard stop sign. If a motorist fails to make a complete stop, how
can another motorist at the same intersection know which vehicle was
the first to stop? As you'll recall, it is the first vehicle to stop
at the intersection that has the right of way. The vehicle on the
right only has the right of way when it's a dead heat.


What Chip's talking about is basically removing some of that discretionary
power from controllers.


Because the FAA is taking action against the controller who failed to
report the PD, there is probably regulatory language that mandates
s/he do so. I've posted a request for reference to it if it exists,
but have received no reply as yet.

Now, perhaps when management gets deluged with
reports of 50' altitude deviations and other trivial mistakes,


Because mode c transponders only report altitude in even hundreds,
that isn't very likely.

they'll
simply start punting things too, so the "no harm, no foul" policy just gets
shifted to a new desk. But in the meantime the volume of trees slaughtered
will increase, and with it the hours spent on pointless paperwork for
everybody. Safety will probably not benefit.


The increased workload may be sufficient to stimulate demand for
additional ATC personnel hiring. The change in policy of reporting
PDs may be the result of PATCO pressure or something else. Until we
know the language of the regulations governing ATC reporting PDs, it
is difficult to form an opinion as to the appropriateness of the
change in policy.

-cwk.

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:CrU9d.96803$He1.7786@attbi_s01...
A car that runs a red light can get ticketed even if no collision or even
near-collision happens to occur. It wouldn't upset me if pilot deviations
were treated similarly, as long as the penalties are not

disproportionately
harsh.

--Gary




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pilot deviations and a new FAA reality Chip Jones Instrument Flight Rules 36 October 14th 04 06:10 PM
Moving violation..NASA form? Nasir Piloting 47 November 5th 03 07:56 PM
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools RT Military Aviation 104 September 25th 03 03:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.