Pilot deviations and a new FAA reality

C Kingsbury wrote:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

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

Actually, there is a rational reason for making a complete stop at a
boulevard stop sign.


There is no rational reason when you can clearly see there is no conflicting
traffic within a mile, unless you count the slippery-slope theory, and I
don't.

Yeah, the guy that ran into my bike with his van as I went through the
intersection thought he slowed enough to see all traffic, too. If he had
stopped completely, he would have seen me. Unfortunately, he rolled
through, and did not see me because I was hidden from his sight by his
"A" pillar, which was keeping me hidden from his view (in his blind
spot) because he kept moving through the stop sign. This is one good
reason why you should come to a stop at a stop sign. Of course the few
seconds he might have saved ended up being an expensive proposition for
him, and a painful visit to the hospital for me.



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.


OK, 51' then. You get my point. There are deviations that clearly require
reporting and others that can be pretty effectively addressed by an ATC
tonguelashing. Unless someone shows me evidence that safety is being
degraded by failure to report every possible PD I'm going to say that the
way things work today are fine.


Actually, as a controller, I never considered or questioned an enroute
altitude deviation unless it exceeded 300' or was a threat to another
aircraft. At that point a controller has to determine if the pilots mode
C is incorrect or if he has just deviated from the assigned altitude.


The increased workload may be sufficient to stimulate demand for
additional ATC personnel hiring.


No, it will stimulate demand for more desk-bound paper-pushing "inspectors"
whose biggest concern is a loss of separation between them and their lunch
break. No government bureaucracy has ever responded to added workload by
becoming more efficient.


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.


Well, I wouldn't say so. There is a perfectly good argument to (a) have a
regulation that requires reporting every PD and (b) routinely ignore it.
Basically, you need to have the rule, so that you can go after a controller
who reports nobody no matter what because he's lazy. OTOH, reporting every
single incident when not necessary in the controller's view is just
paper-chasing and serves no end.

I will abort this line of argument if someone can show me that there is a
real safety issue here backed by something more than a gut instinct.

The example Chip gave was something that should have been reported
without a second thought. The example included another pilot having to
take evasive action because an aircraft entered the runway without
approval. Whether the pilot initiated the go-around or it was directed
by ATC is irrelevant, plus runway incursions are a hot topic in the FAA
these days, generating their own special reporting.


JPH

-cwk.