Pilot deviations and a new FAA reality

Chip Jones wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
No offense, Chip, but runway incursions are a pretty serious deviation.
I'm not sure I can fault the Feds for wanting these reported given
some of the past fatal accidents caused by them.



Matt, no offense taken. I agree with you that runway incursions are a
pretty serious deviation, but where do you draw the line for a "pretty
serious" pilot deviation? It is my opinion that the controller working the
situation, the person who issued the ignored hold short instruction, is the
Fed on the scene. Not the tower chief coming in on the scene a few days
later, If the person issuing ATC clearances sees no harm, no foul and
gives the crew a pass, why not leave it there? No loss of separation
occurred in this event. In FAA speak, "Safety was never compromised." No
harm done. Why crucify the controller for not crucifying the pilot and
crew?

Chip, you mentioned "no harm, no foul", but you also said the arriving
aircraft was given a go-around because this aircraft had taxied onto the
runway. That doesn't sound like "no harm no foul" to me. It sounds like
without the go-around, loss of separation would have occurred,
otherwise, a go-around would not have been needed?
For a pilot of an air carrier to taxi onto the runway after being told
to hold short and reading back the hold short instructions is a major
screw-up. Next time it might be IFR where you can't see the aircraft and
you wouldn't be aware that you have to issue a go-around to the
arriving aircraft.
What's worse is that you mentioned the aircraft had an FO? That means 2
people weren't paying attention and the FO didn't catch the pilots error
or was afraid to override the pilot (that happened at Tenerife several
years ago, too)
Or maybe the controller made a mistake and was worried that reporting
the error would reveal his error when the tapes were transcribed.
Sounds like your NATCA rep was just saying you should report it to your
supervisor and put it on his back. Good advice, unless you're willing
to take the responsibility for ignoring regulations.

JPH


And if you go after the controller for not narcing on the flight crew in
this case, then you have to go after every controller in every case of every
observed but unreported pilot deviation. To me, such a policy is
counter-productive to air safety because it builds an adversarial
relationship between ATC and pilots. After all, the controller got a paper
slap on the wrist compared to the likely loss of pay and possible loss of
employment for the captain and FO of the airliner in question. I prefer "no
harm, no foul" unless actual harm was committed.

Chip, ZTL

Chip Jones wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
No offense, Chip, but runway incursions are a pretty serious deviation.
I'm not sure I can fault the Feds for wanting these reported given
some of the past fatal accidents caused by them.



Matt, no offense taken. I agree with you that runway incursions are a
pretty serious deviation, but where do you draw the line for a "pretty
serious" pilot deviation? It is my opinion that the controller working the
situation, the person who issued the ignored hold short instruction, is the
Fed on the scene. Not the tower chief coming in on the scene a few days
later, If the person issuing ATC clearances sees no harm, no foul and
gives the crew a pass, why not leave it there? No loss of separation
occurred in this event. In FAA speak, "Safety was never compromised." No
harm done. Why crucify the controller for not crucifying the pilot and
crew?

Chip, you mentioned "no harm, no foul", but you also said the arriving
aircraft was given a go-around because this aircraft had taxied onto the
runway. That doesn't sound like "no harm no foul" to me. It sounds like
without the go-around, loss of separation would have occurred,
otherwise, a go-around would not have been needed?
For a pilot of an air carrier to taxi onto the runway after being told
to hold short and reading back the hold short instructions is a major
screw-up. Next time it might be IFR where you can't see the aircraft and
you wouldn't be aware that you have to issue a go-around to the
arriving aircraft.
What's worse is that you mentioned the aircraft had an FO? That means 2
people weren't paying attention and the FO didn't catch the pilots error
or was afraid to override the pilot (that happened at Tenerife several
years ago, too)
Or maybe the controller made a mistake and was worried that reporting
the error would reveal his error when the tapes were transcribed.
Sounds like your NATCA rep was just saying you should report it to your
supervisor and put it on his back. Good advice, unless you're willing
to take the responsibility for ignoring regulations.

JPH


And if you go after the controller for not narcing on the flight crew in
this case, then you have to go after every controller in every case of every
observed but unreported pilot deviation. To me, such a policy is
counter-productive to air safety because it builds an adversarial
relationship between ATC and pilots. After all, the controller got a paper
slap on the wrist compared to the likely loss of pay and possible loss of
employment for the captain and FO of the airliner in question. I prefer "no
harm, no foul" unless actual harm was committed.

Chip, ZTL