Pilot deviations and a new FAA reality

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 14:50:09 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
k.net::


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

If it was close enough to require a go-around, that seems close enough
to me to warrant a report.


I would have to agree if separation were lost.


Separation isn't going to be lost as long as the aircraft executes the go
around.

Given:

FAA considers crossing a hold short line, if another aircraft is
within 3,000 feet, as an incursion, even if no collision hazard
exists.

The implication being, that a Loss Of Separation occurs if a
landing and/or departing Category I or II aircraft, and the
Category I aircraft operating contrary to ATC instruction, come
within the FAA Order 7110.65 '3-9-6. SAME RUNWAY SEPARATION'
paragraph 'a'mandated 3,000 foot separation of each other,
results in a Category D Runway Incursion regardless if there is a
collision hazard or not. If a Category III is involved, the
mandatory separation is 6,000 feet. If the runway is clear of
aircraft, paragraph 'b' removes the mandate for separation.

How can you be sure that the landing aircraft and the aircraft that
necessitated the go around couldn't come within 3,000' of each other?



Here's some relevant information:
------------------------------------
http://www1.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/index.htm

http://www1.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp3/atc0309.html

3-9-5. ANTICIPATING SEPARATION

Takeoff clearance needs not be withheld until prescribed separation
exists if there is a reasonable assurance it will exist when the
aircraft starts takeoff roll.


3-9-6. SAME RUNWAY SEPARATION

Separate a departing aircraft from a preceding departing or arriving
aircraft using the same runway by ensuring that it does not begin
takeoff roll until:

a. The other aircraft has departed and crossed the runway end or
turned to avert any conflict. If you can determine distances by
reference to suitable landmarks, the other aircraft needs only
be airborne if the following minimum distance exists between aircraft:
(See FIG 3-9-1 and FIG 3-9-2.)

1. When only Category I aircraft are involved- 3,000 feet.

2. When a Category I aircraft is preceded by a Category II aircraft-
3,000 feet.

3. When either the succeeding or both are Category II aircraft- 4,500
feet.

4. When either is a Category III aircraft- 6,000 feet.

5. When the succeeding aircraft is a helicopter, visual separation may
be applied in lieu of using distance minima.

FIG 3-9-1

Same Runway Separation
[View 1]


FIG 3-9-2

Same Runway Separation
[View 2]


NOTE-
Aircraft same runway separation (SRS) categories are specified in
Appendices A, B, and C and based upon the following definitions:

CATEGORY I- small aircraft weighing 12,500 lbs. or less, with a single
propeller driven engine, and all helicopters.

CATEGORY II- small aircraft weighing 12,500 lbs. or less, with
propeller driven twin-engines.

CATEGORY III- all other aircraft.

b. A preceding landing aircraft is clear of the runway. (See FIG
3-9-3.)

FIG 3-9-3

Preceding Landing Aircraft Clear of Runway


REFERENCE-
P/CG Term- Clear of the Runway.

--------------------------------------------



Runway Incursion
A Runway Incursion is defined as any occurrence at an airport
involving an aircraft, vehicle, person or object on the ground that
creates a collision hazard or results in a loss of separation with an
aircraft taking off, intending to take off, landing, or intending to
land.

Surface Incident
A Surface Incident is defined as any event where unauthorized or
unapproved movement occurs within the movement area or an occurrence
in the movement area associated with the operation of an aircraft that
affects or could affect the safety of flight. Surface incidents result
from Pilot Deviations (PDs), Vehicle/Pedestrian Deviations (VPDs), or
Operational Error/Deviations (OEs/ODs).

Differences between a runway incursion and a surface incident a A
Runway Incursion occurs on a runway. A Surface Incident may occur on a
runway or a taxiway. A Runway Incursion has to have a collision hazard
or a loss of separation. The FAA categorizes Runway Incursions in four
categories depending on the potential for collision. These categories
a

A Separation decreases and participants take extreme action to
narrowly avoid a collision.

B Separation decreases and there is a significant potential for
collision.

C Separation decreases but there is ample time and distance to avoid a
potential collision.

D Little or no chance of collision but meets the definition of a
runway incursion.

When defining a runway incursion it is recognized that a wide range of
variables dramatically impact the relative severity of a runway
incursion. Of these many variables, five key parameters were selected
to add dimension to the evaluation of relative severity.
The five operational dimensions are interdependent; for example,
aircraft speed will affect available reaction time. These five
operational dimensions (listed below) formed the basis for developing
the runway incursion categories that capture the spectrum of
severity.

Operational Dimensions Affecting Runway Incursion Severity

Operational Dimensions Description

Available Reaction Time Available Reaction Time
considers how much time the pilot, controllers, and/or vehicle
operators had to react to the situation based on aircraft type, phase
of flight, and separation distance.

Evasive or Corrective Action Evasive or Corrective Action
considers the need for and type of evasive or corrective maneuvers
required to avoid a runway collision by pilots and/or air traffic
controllers.

Environmental Conditions Environmental Conditions
considers visibility, surface conditions, and light conditions.

Speed of Aircraft and/or Vehicle Speed of Aircraft and/or
Vehicle – speed as a function of aircraft type and phase of flight
(taxi, takeoff, landing)

Proximity of Aircraft and/or Vehicle Proximity of Aircraft and/or
Vehicle, or their separation distance from one another.

--------------------------------------



Of course, if the aircraft doesn't execute the go around, a
collision on the runway could result.

That statement seems a little banal, or perhaps I'm missing its point.

"C Kingsbury" wrote in message
link.net...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
news:ze1ad.13857

Being off by 50' in cruise wouldn't be noticed.


OK, to be precise, 100'+/- is OK, and encoders click over at 51', right?
So
you'd have to be 151' off for it to show as outside tolerance. Fly over
some
building cumulus in a 172 sometime- that can left your skirts 100' before
you know it. Better have that altitude nailed or you've violated your
clearance.

Hell, I remember vertical deviations of a lot more than that, with the VSI
being dam near pegged on the climb/descend scale in some sizeable twins,
during some turbulence.

I was on an Embrarer 55 out of Houston and heard the warning horn going off
in the cockpit during turbulence that I think got us zero gravity at a
couple of points.

"C Kingsbury" wrote in message
link.net...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
news:ze1ad.13857

Being off by 50' in cruise wouldn't be noticed.


OK, to be precise, 100'+/- is OK, and encoders click over at 51', right?
So
you'd have to be 151' off for it to show as outside tolerance. Fly over
some
building cumulus in a 172 sometime- that can left your skirts 100' before
you know it. Better have that altitude nailed or you've violated your
clearance.

Hell, I remember vertical deviations of a lot more than that, with the VSI
being dam near pegged on the climb/descend scale in some sizeable twins,
during some turbulence.

I was on an Embrarer 55 out of Houston and heard the warning horn going off
in the cockpit during turbulence that I think got us zero gravity at a
couple of points.

"Kyler Laird" wrote in message
...

I'd like to think we'd all change our assumptions given sufficient
evidence to the contrary.

Haven't been around Usenet very long, have 'ya? :~)

"Kyler Laird" wrote in message
...

I'd like to think we'd all change our assumptions given sufficient
evidence to the contrary.

Haven't been around Usenet very long, have 'ya? :~)

"Steven P. McNicoll" writes:
"Chip Jones" wrote
[snip]
Folks, I see at *least* one pilot deviation a week working traffic in my
small slice of the NAS. I don't report them unless separation is lost,
because I was trained under the "no harm, no foul" mentality. Pilots help
controllers, controllers help pilots, and the NAS ticks along like an old
clock. I'm not changing the way I do business, but I wanted you to know
that other controllers might, in order to cover themsleves against
antagonistic Management.

Pilot deviations come in a variety of flavors. A pilot may bust his
altitude but if there's no other traffic around there's no hazard. No harm,
no foul, no loss of separation.

At the other extreme a pilot blowing a runway hold short as another aircraft
is about to touch down can be disastrous.

On what side of the line should be placed the situation where there was no
loss of separation only because an alert controller stepped in?

I thought the FAA was under the gun to gain better and more
info regarding runway incursions. It sounds as if a controller
may have been admonished/penalized/whatever for failure to make
a "required" report of a runway incursion, not just a simple
pilot deviation. It seems as if the cited incident was quite
serious even though the system worked and no untoward harm
came to any of the parties involved.

"Steven P. McNicoll" writes:
"Chip Jones" wrote
[snip]
Folks, I see at *least* one pilot deviation a week working traffic in my
small slice of the NAS. I don't report them unless separation is lost,
because I was trained under the "no harm, no foul" mentality. Pilots help
controllers, controllers help pilots, and the NAS ticks along like an old
clock. I'm not changing the way I do business, but I wanted you to know
that other controllers might, in order to cover themsleves against
antagonistic Management.

Pilot deviations come in a variety of flavors. A pilot may bust his
altitude but if there's no other traffic around there's no hazard. No harm,
no foul, no loss of separation.

At the other extreme a pilot blowing a runway hold short as another aircraft
is about to touch down can be disastrous.

On what side of the line should be placed the situation where there was no
loss of separation only because an alert controller stepped in?

I thought the FAA was under the gun to gain better and more
info regarding runway incursions. It sounds as if a controller
may have been admonished/penalized/whatever for failure to make
a "required" report of a runway incursion, not just a simple
pilot deviation. It seems as if the cited incident was quite
serious even though the system worked and no untoward harm
came to any of the parties involved.

"Everett M. Greene" wrote in message
...

I thought the FAA was under the gun to gain better and more
info regarding runway incursions. It sounds as if a controller
may have been admonished/penalized/whatever for failure to make
a "required" report of a runway incursion, not just a simple
pilot deviation. It seems as if the cited incident was quite
serious even though the system worked and no untoward harm
came to any of the parties involved.


Yup, runway incursions has been the hot item for several years.

"Everett M. Greene" wrote in message
...

I thought the FAA was under the gun to gain better and more
info regarding runway incursions. It sounds as if a controller
may have been admonished/penalized/whatever for failure to make
a "required" report of a runway incursion, not just a simple
pilot deviation. It seems as if the cited incident was quite
serious even though the system worked and no untoward harm
came to any of the parties involved.


Yup, runway incursions has been the hot item for several years.

Larry Dighera wrote in message . ..

That FAAO mentions: "The identification of operational errors and
deviations without fear of reprisal is an absolute requirement and is
the responsibility of all of us who work within our [NAS] system."

Careful of pulling this from context. The word "operational" above
applies to both "errors" and "deviations".
An operational deviation is NOT the equivilent of a pilot deviation.
An operational deviation would be something like a controller letting
a pilot enter another controller's airspace without a handoff or other
form of coordination.

Operational deviations are what are required to be reported under that
section, not pilot deviations.