Pilot deviations and a new FAA reality

"Stan Prevost" wrote in message
...

Chip, increased emphasis on reporting of pilot deviations seems to lead to
a
need for increased pilot understanding of what constitutes a deviation
from
an ATC point of view. I doubt that controllers are required to know the
FARs to the depth required to determine if a pilot is operating within the
regulations that apply to pilots in all cases, so a large part of it would
seem to fall back on reporting deviations from an ATC instruction or
clearance. So what constitutes a deviation? As an example, what
deviation
in altitude constitutes a reportable deviation, if no loss of separation
occurs? It has been suggested in this thread that the Instrument PTS
standard of +/- 100 ft applies, but I doubt if controllers are familiar
with
the PTS. So is there an ATC document that defines deviation limits?

We give you 200 feet, plus the change if I remember correctly. When you get
to 300 feet above or below assigned altitude, your data block "breaks" and
ATC considers that you've busted your altitude.

How
far off the centerline of an airway can I be before being reported?

4 miles...


How
much heading error?

Good question. As a Center guy, I don't have a ready answer. To me, it
depends on whether you are assigned a heading/vector for traffic or if you
are navigating airways or point to point own nav. If you're on an assigned
vector, say 30 degrees left for traffic, and I never see you make the turn,
to me you have deviated your clearance. However, for FSDO you will likely
never get stuck with a PD, because I can't prove where the winds are etc.
Too many variables in all of these categories for me.

How long a delay is allowed before I begin a descent
after being instructed to do so?

US Airways, Delta and Northwest have all been guilty in my ARTCC of reading
back descent clearances and then remaining at the original altitude for over
five minutes before staring a descent. To the controllers involved who
subsequently were charged with operational errors when USA, DAL and NWA lost
vertical separation with traffic, the crews were guilty of PD's for not
adhering to clearance. In all three cases, FSDO refused to prosecute PD's,
even though the AIM (non-regulatory) was not complied with by the pilots who
read back those clearances. Sadky, I have no idea how long a delay is
allowed, and neither does anyone else in the system. I know what I think
constitutes as PD here, but I'm biased towards you starting a descent as
soon as you acknowledge the clearance. FSDO doesn't agree with me in this
area of the country.


If I am VFR in Class E airspace, and using
flight following, will I be reported for flying WAFDOF?

Well, according to the ATC QA Order you should be reported if you are
violating any FAR's.

Should we expect
a
report on every student pilot doing T&Gs and landing without clearance,
rather than being scolded for a one-time error, if no problem occured?

Really productive for air safety, ain't it?


Looks like a big can of worms to me.

It's all a huge can of worms better left unopened, IMO.

Chip, ZTL

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
link.net...
OK pilots, try this one on for size. As you likely know, there is a wide
and growing rift between the career FAA bureaucrats (aka FAA Management)
who
run the monstrosity called the federal Air Traffic Organization, and the
career FAA air traffic controllers who make that monstrosity work in the
NAS
on a daily basis. Regardless of where you stand on the politics of US air
traffic control (funding, privatization, user-fees, labor issues,
whatever),
the ugly, on-going feud between Management and Labor in air traffic
control
may finally have reached a point where you as a pilot will be personally
affected.


Chip, increased emphasis on reporting of pilot deviations seems to lead to a
need for increased pilot understanding of what constitutes a deviation from
an ATC point of view. I doubt that controllers are required to know the
FARs to the depth required to determine if a pilot is operating within the
regulations that apply to pilots in all cases, so a large part of it would
seem to fall back on reporting deviations from an ATC instruction or
clearance. So what constitutes a deviation? As an example, what deviation
in altitude constitutes a reportable deviation, if no loss of separation
occurs? It has been suggested in this thread that the Instrument PTS
standard of +/- 100 ft applies, but I doubt if controllers are familiar with
the PTS. So is there an ATC document that defines deviation limits? How
far off the centerline of an airway can I be before being reported? How
much heading error? How long a delay is allowed before I begin a descent
after being instructed to do so? If I am VFR in Class E airspace, and using
flight following, will I be reported for flying WAFDOF? Should we expect a
report on every student pilot doing T&Gs and landing without clearance,
rather than being scolded for a one-time error, if no problem occured?

Looks like a big can of worms to me.

Sta

"Chip Jones" wrote
Folks, I see at *least* one pilot deviation a week working traffic in my
small slice of the NAS.

Breaking news story - pilots are human and make mistakes. In other
news, the sun rose this morning.

I don't report them unless separation is lost,
because I was trained under the "no harm, no foul" mentality.

And frankly, I think that's an inherently wrong approach. These
deviation should be reported and tracked - because by studying them
(not as individual deviations but as patterns and trends) we might
discover a lot of things. We might discover what sorts of
circumstances significantly increase the likelihood of a deviation.
We might discover which kinds of deviations are most likely to lead to
an accident, by knowing how often the different ones occur. We might
learn a lot of things.

But we won't, because the people who will receive these reports of
deviation are a bunch of useless bloody loonies (to quote Douglas
Adams) and the only thing they will use these reports of pilot
deviation to do is bust pilots they don't like.

Therefore, your "no harm, no foul" approach is really for the best -
because anything else really will do nothing but create an adversarial
relationship between pilots and controllers with no benefit
whatsoever.

Michael

"Chip Jones" wrote
Folks, I see at *least* one pilot deviation a week working traffic in my
small slice of the NAS.

Breaking news story - pilots are human and make mistakes. In other
news, the sun rose this morning.

I don't report them unless separation is lost,
because I was trained under the "no harm, no foul" mentality.

And frankly, I think that's an inherently wrong approach. These
deviation should be reported and tracked - because by studying them
(not as individual deviations but as patterns and trends) we might
discover a lot of things. We might discover what sorts of
circumstances significantly increase the likelihood of a deviation.
We might discover which kinds of deviations are most likely to lead to
an accident, by knowing how often the different ones occur. We might
learn a lot of things.

But we won't, because the people who will receive these reports of
deviation are a bunch of useless bloody loonies (to quote Douglas
Adams) and the only thing they will use these reports of pilot
deviation to do is bust pilots they don't like.

Therefore, your "no harm, no foul" approach is really for the best -
because anything else really will do nothing but create an adversarial
relationship between pilots and controllers with no benefit
whatsoever.

Michael

The FAA is filling up with incompetent minorities
That is your big problem


Chip Jones wrote:

OK pilots, try this one on for size. As you likely know, there is a wide
and growing rift between the career FAA bureaucrats (aka FAA Management) who
run the monstrosity called the federal Air Traffic Organization, and the
career FAA air traffic controllers who make that monstrosity work in the NAS
on a daily basis. Regardless of where you stand on the politics of US air
traffic control (funding, privatization, user-fees, labor issues, whatever),
the ugly, on-going feud between Management and Labor in air traffic control
may finally have reached a point where you as a pilot will be personally
affected.

This just in:

***
Notice to all NATCA Bargaining Unit employees Please Post This notice
is intended to advise all NATCA Bargaining Unit employees of recent
occurrence in the Eastern Service Area. Controllers have been
encouraged, through the actions of supervisors, to look the other way
when it came to pilot deviations that did not result in a loss of
separation. We have all heard supervisors say "no harm, no foul" on
more than one occasion.

Until now, this has not created problems for bargaining unit
employees. Recently a facility in the Southern Region issued formal
discipline (Letter of Reprimand) to a NATCA bargaining unit employee
for failure to report a pilot deviation. An aircraft (Air Carrier) was
told to hold short of a runway, read it back, and proceeded to go onto
the runway. This resulted in a go-around with no loss of separation.

In the reprimand, the manager acknowledged that the controller was in
no way at fault operationally, but that he had violated an FAA order
by not reporting the deviation, and as such, was being issued
disciplinary action. During recent third level reviews, the Agency has
held steadfast to their position.

As your [NATCA title deleted], the only advice I can give you
is to protect yourself and your career. Your failure to advise your
supervisor of a pilot deviation may result in disciplinary action.
Even if no loss of separation occurs. Inform your supervisor
immediately if you witness a pilot deviation. Put the responsibility
on their backs.

Be warned!! Taking a "no harm, no foul" attitude with pilots could
result in harm to yourself.
***


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.

Regards,

Chip, ZTL

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 01:32:38 -0400, BuzzBoy
wrote in ::


The FAA is filling up with incompetent minorities
That is your big problem

Don't all government employees have to pass the same employment test?
FAA applicants are only given 5% for prior military service and an
additional 5% for a Purple Heart, so there can be a maximum 10%
advantage given to those applicants. But other than that, the playing
field should be level.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 01:32:38 -0400, BuzzBoy
wrote in ::


The FAA is filling up with incompetent minorities
That is your big problem

Don't all government employees have to pass the same employment test?
FAA applicants are only given 5% for prior military service and an
additional 5% for a Purple Heart, so there can be a maximum 10%
advantage given to those applicants. But other than that, the playing
field should be level.


When I took the entrance exam back in the late '80's, FAA was "fast
tracking" certain types of applicants. These included women and minorities
but not white males. The idea was apparently to speed up the hiring process
of certain personnel types. Exam score played a lesser role in this hiring
process than it might have otherwise. For example, I scored a 98 on the
civil service controller entrance exam. To this was added an extra 5% for
military service, which gave me a 103 on a test where 100 was the top score.
This put me in the top percent of the huge pool of applicants. However, it
didn't appear to do anything to speed up getting hired. I sat around for
months. Then, I went to the Persian Gulf War. As soon as FAA realized I
was in theater, they "fast tracked" my application and I had a job waiting
on me when I returned. As soon as I was discharged from active duty, I had
a job interview literally within 30 days. Within 90 days I was hired and
with 150 days I was at the Academy. In the meantime, scores of other
"fast-tracked" minority and female applicants with lower test scores had
been hired before me.

When you start applying for staff and management jobs, your minority status
or lack thereof becomes a huge factor. Management has been mostly white and
male since the CAA days. There has been a 15 year push to "normalize"
management by promoting women and minorities over white males, so that FAA
management "reflects the face of America." These days, the nickname
"Fast-track" is derisively applied to our ATC "stars" who spend a year or
two as controllers and then get "promoted" into traffic management or the
supervisor ranks. They are literally like the shake and bake staff NCO's
and 2nd Lieutenants of the early '70's.

In spite of this push, it has to be pointed out that the FAA is currently
*still* being run by a host of incompetent conservative, reactionary white
male feather merchants in upper and middle management. Good controllers
control airplanes. Poor controllers run as fast as they can from
controlling airplanes. The guys currently running FAA from the helms of
upper and middle management were among the worst controllers of their
classes. Also, they have received little to no training in management.
They were promoted under the white male good-old-boy yes-man brown-nosing
patronage system, just as bad IMO as promoting on the base of race or gender
rather than merit, which neither method seems to consider as the primary
qualification. That is our big problem, and it hasn't changed since 1981.

I'm starting to believe that the US Government ought to create a job
specialty called "FAA Management", offer high initial pay, and start
recruiting MBA college post-graduates strait into FAA management. Promotion
out of the ATC ranks would be limited to first level supervisor. The MBA
kids could then slowly start taking over the helm and all sub-departments of
managing the federal air traffic control system. The ATC feather merchants
these MBA's replace could either get a headset and return to work as a line
controller, or they could leave federal service with a swift kick in the
ass. This would leave air traffic controllers to control traffic, allowing
the government to fire or demote the weak controllers instead of promoting
them. Maybe then, FAA would do a hell of a lot better at not wasting tax
money on poorly managed technology projects and poor operational budgeting.
Also, it's possible that people trained in business management at college
would be more savvy at labor relations then the current crop of failed
controllers running the system. At least they would know that it is good
form to kiss labor before you screw labor. Finally, we could privatize all
of the ATC towers across the country. This would allow FAA to move swivel
heads from privatized FAA towers out into the field, where they would serve
as desperately needed radar controller reinforcements at critically
understaffed FAA Tracon and ARTCC facilities, saving the government a wad of
money in controller personnel costs.

Chip, ZTL

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:17:46 GMT, "Chip Jones"
wrote in
. net::


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 01:32:38 -0400, BuzzBoy
wrote in ::


The FAA is filling up with incompetent minorities
That is your big problem

Don't all government employees have to pass the same employment test?
FAA applicants are only given 5% for prior military service and an
additional 5% for a Purple Heart, so there can be a maximum 10%
advantage given to those applicants. But other than that, the playing
field should be level.


When I took the entrance exam back in the late '80's, FAA was "fast
tracking" certain types of applicants. These included women and minorities
but not white males. The idea was apparently to speed up the hiring process
of certain personnel types. Exam score played a lesser role in this hiring
process than it might have otherwise. For example, I scored a 98 on the
civil service controller entrance exam. To this was added an extra 5% for
military service, which gave me a 103 on a test where 100 was the top score.
This put me in the top percent of the huge pool of applicants. However, it
didn't appear to do anything to speed up getting hired. I sat around for
months. Then, I went to the Persian Gulf War. As soon as FAA realized I
was in theater, they "fast tracked" my application and I had a job waiting
on me when I returned. As soon as I was discharged from active duty, I had
a job interview literally within 30 days. Within 90 days I was hired and
with 150 days I was at the Academy. In the meantime, scores of other
"fast-tracked" minority and female applicants with lower test scores had
been hired before me.

When you start applying for staff and management jobs, your minority status
or lack thereof becomes a huge factor. Management has been mostly white and
male since the CAA days. There has been a 15 year push to "normalize"
management by promoting women and minorities over white males, so that FAA
management "reflects the face of America." These days, the nickname
"Fast-track" is derisively applied to our ATC "stars" who spend a year or
two as controllers and then get "promoted" into traffic management or the
supervisor ranks. They are literally like the shake and bake staff NCO's
and 2nd Lieutenants of the early '70's.

In spite of this push, it has to be pointed out that the FAA is currently
*still* being run by a host of incompetent conservative, reactionary white
male feather merchants in upper and middle management. Good controllers
control airplanes. Poor controllers run as fast as they can from
controlling airplanes. The guys currently running FAA from the helms of
upper and middle management were among the worst controllers of their
classes. Also, they have received little to no training in management.
They were promoted under the white male good-old-boy yes-man brown-nosing
patronage system, just as bad IMO as promoting on the base of race or gender
rather than merit, which neither method seems to consider as the primary
qualification. That is our big problem, and it hasn't changed since 1981.

I'm starting to believe that the US Government ought to create a job
specialty called "FAA Management", offer high initial pay, and start
recruiting MBA college post-graduates strait into FAA management. Promotion
out of the ATC ranks would be limited to first level supervisor. The MBA
kids could then slowly start taking over the helm and all sub-departments of
managing the federal air traffic control system. The ATC feather merchants
these MBA's replace could either get a headset and return to work as a line
controller, or they could leave federal service with a swift kick in the
ass. This would leave air traffic controllers to control traffic, allowing
the government to fire or demote the weak controllers instead of promoting
them. Maybe then, FAA would do a hell of a lot better at not wasting tax
money on poorly managed technology projects and poor operational budgeting.
Also, it's possible that people trained in business management at college
would be more savvy at labor relations then the current crop of failed
controllers running the system. At least they would know that it is good
form to kiss labor before you screw labor. Finally, we could privatize all
of the ATC towers across the country. This would allow FAA to move swivel
heads from privatized FAA towers out into the field, where they would serve
as desperately needed radar controller reinforcements at critically
understaffed FAA Tracon and ARTCC facilities, saving the government a wad of
money in controller personnel costs.

Chip, ZTL


Thank you for the information. I wasn't aware of the FAA fast-track
"normalization" practice. Personally, I'd prefer hiring of
safety-critical personnel to be based SOLELY ON MERIT, but with the
pro veteran bias policy long in place, the door was open to open it
further to accommodate "normalization" I suppose. If this sort of
corruption of the merit system is further exploited in the future,
there will be little need for examinations at all. :-(

Yes It is true any federal Job pushes the affirmative action program. The
same was true when I worked on gevernment contracts building aircraft. Very
little or no experience was hired just on the basis on skin color or gender.
Myself I can see wanting to make sure there is no discrimination, but to use
discrimination to stop discrimination is no the answer and is just "wrong".

Patrick
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:17:46 GMT, "Chip Jones"
wrote in
. net::


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 01:32:38 -0400, BuzzBoy
wrote in ::


The FAA is filling up with incompetent minorities
That is your big problem

Don't all government employees have to pass the same employment test?
FAA applicants are only given 5% for prior military service and an
additional 5% for a Purple Heart, so there can be a maximum 10%
advantage given to those applicants. But other than that, the playing
field should be level.


When I took the entrance exam back in the late '80's, FAA was "fast
tracking" certain types of applicants. These included women and
minorities
but not white males. The idea was apparently to speed up the hiring
process
of certain personnel types. Exam score played a lesser role in this
hiring
process than it might have otherwise. For example, I scored a 98 on the
civil service controller entrance exam. To this was added an extra 5%
for
military service, which gave me a 103 on a test where 100 was the top
score.
This put me in the top percent of the huge pool of applicants. However,
it
didn't appear to do anything to speed up getting hired. I sat around for
months. Then, I went to the Persian Gulf War. As soon as FAA realized I
was in theater, they "fast tracked" my application and I had a job
waiting
on me when I returned. As soon as I was discharged from active duty, I
had
a job interview literally within 30 days. Within 90 days I was hired and
with 150 days I was at the Academy. In the meantime, scores of other
"fast-tracked" minority and female applicants with lower test scores had
been hired before me.

When you start applying for staff and management jobs, your minority
status
or lack thereof becomes a huge factor. Management has been mostly white
and
male since the CAA days. There has been a 15 year push to "normalize"
management by promoting women and minorities over white males, so that
FAA
management "reflects the face of America." These days, the nickname
"Fast-track" is derisively applied to our ATC "stars" who spend a year or
two as controllers and then get "promoted" into traffic management or the
supervisor ranks. They are literally like the shake and bake staff NCO's
and 2nd Lieutenants of the early '70's.

In spite of this push, it has to be pointed out that the FAA is currently
*still* being run by a host of incompetent conservative, reactionary
white
male feather merchants in upper and middle management. Good controllers
control airplanes. Poor controllers run as fast as they can from
controlling airplanes. The guys currently running FAA from the helms of
upper and middle management were among the worst controllers of their
classes. Also, they have received little to no training in management.
They were promoted under the white male good-old-boy yes-man brown-nosing
patronage system, just as bad IMO as promoting on the base of race or
gender
rather than merit, which neither method seems to consider as the primary
qualification. That is our big problem, and it hasn't changed since
1981.

I'm starting to believe that the US Government ought to create a job
specialty called "FAA Management", offer high initial pay, and start
recruiting MBA college post-graduates strait into FAA management.
Promotion
out of the ATC ranks would be limited to first level supervisor. The MBA
kids could then slowly start taking over the helm and all sub-departments
of
managing the federal air traffic control system. The ATC feather
merchants
these MBA's replace could either get a headset and return to work as a
line
controller, or they could leave federal service with a swift kick in the
ass. This would leave air traffic controllers to control traffic,
allowing
the government to fire or demote the weak controllers instead of
promoting
them. Maybe then, FAA would do a hell of a lot better at not wasting tax
money on poorly managed technology projects and poor operational
budgeting.
Also, it's possible that people trained in business management at college
would be more savvy at labor relations then the current crop of failed
controllers running the system. At least they would know that it is good
form to kiss labor before you screw labor. Finally, we could privatize
all
of the ATC towers across the country. This would allow FAA to move
swivel
heads from privatized FAA towers out into the field, where they would
serve
as desperately needed radar controller reinforcements at critically
understaffed FAA Tracon and ARTCC facilities, saving the government a wad
of
money in controller personnel costs.

Chip, ZTL


Thank you for the information. I wasn't aware of the FAA fast-track
"normalization" practice. Personally, I'd prefer hiring of
safety-critical personnel to be based SOLELY ON MERIT, but with the
pro veteran bias policy long in place, the door was open to open it
further to accommodate "normalization" I suppose. If this sort of
corruption of the merit system is further exploited in the future,
there will be little need for examinations at all. :-(

Chip Jones wrote:

For example, I scored a 98 on the
civil service controller entrance exam. To this was added an extra 5% for
military service, which gave me a 103 on a test where 100 was the top score.
This put me in the top percent of the huge pool of applicants. However, it
didn't appear to do anything to speed up getting hired. I sat around for
months.

I scored an 89 on my test sometime in 1986. First day on the job was
11/8/88, hired by the Great Lakes Region. Lots of sittin' around waiting.