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.

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

Wrong altitude for direction of flight.

JPH

Matt Young wrote:

WAFDOF?

Wrong altitude for direction of flight.

JPH

Matt Young wrote:

WAFDOF?

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.

I knew about this. My altimeter shows my "actual" altitude and after
recycling my transponder will closely agree.

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.

I didn't know about this. So is the lesson to be learned "don't acknowledge
a clearance until ready to comply".

Just kidding.

I do hope that controllers are left with reasonable discretion on what to
formally report and what to let pass. "Work to rule" on the part of Managers
or Controllers will be counterproductive for everyone involved.

Howard


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.775 / Virus Database: 522 - Release Date: 10/8/2004

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.

I knew about this. My altimeter shows my "actual" altitude and after
recycling my transponder will closely agree.

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.

I didn't know about this. So is the lesson to be learned "don't acknowledge
a clearance until ready to comply".

Just kidding.

I do hope that controllers are left with reasonable discretion on what to
formally report and what to let pass. "Work to rule" on the part of Managers
or Controllers will be counterproductive for everyone involved.

Howard


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.775 / Virus Database: 522 - Release Date: 10/8/2004

"Matt Young" wrote in message news
WAFDOF?


www.acronymfinder.com

"Matt Young" wrote in message news
WAFDOF?


www.acronymfinder.com

"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