If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... Chip Jones wrote: 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. 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? 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 |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message news:tEW9d.211481$MQ5.87982@attbi_s52... What Chip's talking about is basically removing some of that discretionary power from controllers. Now, perhaps when management gets deluged with reports of 50' altitude deviations and other trivial mistakes, they'll simply start punting things too, so the "no harm, no foul" policy just gets shifted to a new desk. But in the meantime the volume of trees slaughtered will increase, and with it the hours spent on pointless paperwork for everybody. Safety will probably not benefit. Hm, I assumed that it's not a deviation if the pilot is within PTS standards; hence, being off by 50' in cruise wouldn't count. Being off by 50' in cruise wouldn't be noticed. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message news:tEW9d.211481$MQ5.87982@attbi_s52... What Chip's talking about is basically removing some of that discretionary power from controllers. Now, perhaps when management gets deluged with reports of 50' altitude deviations and other trivial mistakes, they'll simply start punting things too, so the "no harm, no foul" policy just gets shifted to a new desk. But in the meantime the volume of trees slaughtered will increase, and with it the hours spent on pointless paperwork for everybody. Safety will probably not benefit. Hm, I assumed that it's not a deviation if the pilot is within PTS standards; hence, being off by 50' in cruise wouldn't count. Being off by 50' in cruise wouldn't be noticed. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Objective does not imply intelligent, or productive. Perhaps, but it does imply impartial justice. I thought this was supposed to be about safety. Now it's about =justice=? This scares me. Jose -- (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address) |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Objective does not imply intelligent, or productive. Perhaps, but it does imply impartial justice. I thought this was supposed to be about safety. Now it's about =justice=? This scares me. Jose -- (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address) |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message ... And you haven't answered the question. In the absence of an impartial standard, who should be tasked with the subjective judgment? The person closest to the event, i.e., the controller who witnesses the PD. Much like the cop on the beat, he is the best-equipped to judge whether it is a serious event or not. In my view, the burden of proof should rest with the people who want to change established practice. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that if it cannot be shown that enforcing _all_ PDs will result in a reduced annual accident/incident rate, the tacit policy of 'no harm no foul" should be retained. That seems reasonable, but wouldn't it require a test period to assess the results? No, no. Real life is never that scientific. What I'm looking for is some clear argument indicating that the "no harm, no foul" approach is causing safety problems. Are we getting more loss of separation reports? Are runway incursions on the rise? Can you find a couple of controllers who will speak to a risky change in attitudes? My mind is open but I want material evidence, not theory. What "more damaging effects" do you envision? Let's say violations start hitting regularly- word gets around that if you're not 100% on flying IFR you've got a good chance of getting busted, even for just a trivial matter. Will that not increase the odds that someone will choose to push VFR minimums rather than going IFR and "risk losing my ticket because I let my altitude wander a little bit." A few years ago some group was pushing to require airline pax traveling with small children to put the kid in a child seat instead of carrying them in their lap, because in a crash, the kid is pretty much toast if they're not in a child seat. So far so good, right? Some think tank did a study and came up with the finding that this would actually lead to more children dying, as families who couldn't afford to buy that extra ticket chose to make the trip by car instead, where the risk of dying in a crash would actually be higher. What other objective do think the policy change may have other than safety? Do you think it's an airline ploy to reduce the number of GA operations? Actually, the more I read that memo Chip posted, the more this sounds to me like a union put-up job. A runway incursion that leads to a go-around could easily be the sort of PD that should be reported, and we don't know any of the context that helps determine what is and is not appropriate. In my experience, one of the key functions of any union is to protect its weakest members, in this case, the least competent. Perhaps this guy deserved to get nailed, but the union has decided to defend him, or at least pick a fight with management over the issue, so they issue a "scare" memo. Perhaps their goal is to deluge management with so many PD reports that it forces them to alter the system. Who knows. Politics of these things can get very tricky and I have no inside info. For all I know it's management playing some other game entirely. Personally, I don't trust either side to be too honest. I get the feeling that you feel that ATC reporting _all_ PDs will "screw it up," but for whom, the airlines, the military, GA, or all of the above? It would be interesting to know which of those three categories the test case Chip mentioned is a member. I don't see it helping anybody, frankly. It certainly won't help GA, except perhaps for the insurance companies who get a new excuse to raise premiums, while the airlines and the military get to waste a lot mroe time deciding what to do about a crewmember who gets violated. Every violation will produce a long paper trail that everyone has to chase down. Best, -cwk. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message ... And you haven't answered the question. In the absence of an impartial standard, who should be tasked with the subjective judgment? The person closest to the event, i.e., the controller who witnesses the PD. Much like the cop on the beat, he is the best-equipped to judge whether it is a serious event or not. In my view, the burden of proof should rest with the people who want to change established practice. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that if it cannot be shown that enforcing _all_ PDs will result in a reduced annual accident/incident rate, the tacit policy of 'no harm no foul" should be retained. That seems reasonable, but wouldn't it require a test period to assess the results? No, no. Real life is never that scientific. What I'm looking for is some clear argument indicating that the "no harm, no foul" approach is causing safety problems. Are we getting more loss of separation reports? Are runway incursions on the rise? Can you find a couple of controllers who will speak to a risky change in attitudes? My mind is open but I want material evidence, not theory. What "more damaging effects" do you envision? Let's say violations start hitting regularly- word gets around that if you're not 100% on flying IFR you've got a good chance of getting busted, even for just a trivial matter. Will that not increase the odds that someone will choose to push VFR minimums rather than going IFR and "risk losing my ticket because I let my altitude wander a little bit." A few years ago some group was pushing to require airline pax traveling with small children to put the kid in a child seat instead of carrying them in their lap, because in a crash, the kid is pretty much toast if they're not in a child seat. So far so good, right? Some think tank did a study and came up with the finding that this would actually lead to more children dying, as families who couldn't afford to buy that extra ticket chose to make the trip by car instead, where the risk of dying in a crash would actually be higher. What other objective do think the policy change may have other than safety? Do you think it's an airline ploy to reduce the number of GA operations? Actually, the more I read that memo Chip posted, the more this sounds to me like a union put-up job. A runway incursion that leads to a go-around could easily be the sort of PD that should be reported, and we don't know any of the context that helps determine what is and is not appropriate. In my experience, one of the key functions of any union is to protect its weakest members, in this case, the least competent. Perhaps this guy deserved to get nailed, but the union has decided to defend him, or at least pick a fight with management over the issue, so they issue a "scare" memo. Perhaps their goal is to deluge management with so many PD reports that it forces them to alter the system. Who knows. Politics of these things can get very tricky and I have no inside info. For all I know it's management playing some other game entirely. Personally, I don't trust either side to be too honest. I get the feeling that you feel that ATC reporting _all_ PDs will "screw it up," but for whom, the airlines, the military, GA, or all of the above? It would be interesting to know which of those three categories the test case Chip mentioned is a member. I don't see it helping anybody, frankly. It certainly won't help GA, except perhaps for the insurance companies who get a new excuse to raise premiums, while the airlines and the military get to waste a lot mroe time deciding what to do about a crewmember who gets violated. Every violation will produce a long paper trail that everyone has to chase down. Best, -cwk. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
On 10 Oct 2004 03:00:40 GMT, (Teacherjh)
wrote in :: Objective does not imply intelligent, or productive. Perhaps, but it does imply impartial justice. I thought this was supposed to be about safety. Actually, the topic is the change in the "no harm, no foul" (NHNF = no loss of separation occurred; safety was not compromised) concept of enforcing pilot/controller deviations/errors as mandated in FAAO 7210.56, "Air Traffic Quality Assurance" 5-1-2 SUSPECTED EVENT, IIRC. 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." The words "absolute requirement" are particularly pertinent to the change in enforcement Mr. Jones mentions, IMO. Due to the past NHNF policy, selective enforcement (an injustice) has occurred, as reported by Mr. Jones. If the FAAO were uniformly enforced, it would be more just, but probably unworkable. IIRC, motorists commit ~37 vehicle code violations on an average trip. If these were all cited and enforced, this would be a nation of court houses. It's not an easy issue. Controllers have an FAA form for reporting suspected PDs (Form 8020-17 Preliminary Pilot Deviation Report); airmen must write a letter* to the Administrator to report ATC operational errors. The NTSB has recommended that the FAA: ... Formally evaluate all reported safety-related events for potential air traffic control performance deficiencies and assign responsibility for the classification of all such events that occur within the National Airspace System to an internal oversight function that is independent of the Air Traffic Service. (A-00-36) Amend Federal Aviation Administration Order 7110.65, “Air Traffic Control,” (ATC) to require that controllers ask any member of a flight crew receiving ATC services who expresses concern about the proximity of another aircraft if he or she desires to file a formal near midair collision report. (A-00-37) Modify Federal Aviation Administration Form 8020-21, “Preliminary Near Midair Collision Report,” to include a section describing air traffic control actions relevant to the incident. (A-00-38) Amend Federal Aviation Administration Orders 7210.3, “Facility Operation and Administration,” and 8020.11, “Aircraft Accident and Incident Notification, Investigation, and Reporting,” to require that air traffic control facilities retain recorded voice communications and radar data for 45 days. (A-00-39) Amend Federal Aviation Administration Order 7210.3, “Facility Operation and Administration,” to require that all telephone conversations with personnel at air traffic control (ATC) facilities relating to an aircraft accident, incident, or ATC performance shall be conducted on recorded telephone lines. (A-00-40) http://www.avweb.com/other/ntsb0025a1.pdf Now it's about =justice=? This scares me. Why would it scare you? You are protected from your government by your Constitutional assurances, right? :-) * Sec. 13.5 Formal complaints. (a) Any person may file a complaint with the Administrator with respect to anything done or omitted to be done by any person in contravention of any provision of any Act or of any regulation or order issued under it, as to matters within the jurisdiction of the Administrator. This section does not apply to complaints against the Administrator or employees of the FAA acting within the scope of their employment. (b) Complaints filed under this section must-- (1) Be submitted in writing and identified as a complaint filed for the purpose of seeking an appropriate order or other enforcement action; (2) Be submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, Attention: Enforcement Docket (AGC-10), 800 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20591; (3) Set forth the name and address, if known, of each person who is the subject of the complaint and, with respect to each person, the specific provisions of the Act or regulation or order that the complainant believes were violated; (4) Contain a concise but complete statement of the facts relied upon to substantiate each allegation; (5) State the name, address and telephone number of the person filing the complaint; and (6) Be signed by the person filing the complaint or a duly authorized representative. (c) Complaints which do not meet the requirements of paragraph (b)of this section will be considered reports under Sec. 13.1. (d) Complaints which meet the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section will be docketed and a copy mailed to each person named in the complaint. (e) Any complaint filed against a member of the Armed Forces of the United States acting in the performance of official duties shall be referred to the Secretary of the Department concerned for action in accordance with the procedures set forth in Sec. 13.21 of this part. (f) The person named in the complaint shall file an answer within 20 days after service of a copy of the complaint. (g) After the complaint has been answered or after the allotted time in which to file an answer has expired, the Administrator shall determine if there are reasonable grounds for investigating the complaint. (h) If the Administrator determines that a complaint does not state facts which warrant an investigation or action, the complaint may be dismissed without a hearing and the reason for the dismissal shall be given, in writing, to the person who filed the complaint and the person named in the complaint. (i) If the Administrator determines that reasonable grounds exist, an informal investigation may be initiated or an order of investigation may be issued in accordance with Subpart F of this part, or both. Each person named in the complaint shall be advised which official has been delegated the responsibility under Sec. 13.3(b) or (c) for conducting the investigation. (j) If the investigation substantiates the allegations set forth in the complaint, a notice of proposed order may be issued or other enforcement action taken in accordance with this part. (k) The complaint and other pleadings and official FAA records relating to the disposition of the complaint are maintained in current docket form in the Enforcement Docket (AGC-209), Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D. C. 20591. Any interested person may examine any docketed material at that office, at any time after the docket is established, except material that is ordered withheld from the public under applicable law or regulations, and may obtain a photostatic or duplicate copy upon paying the cost of the copy. The full text can be found he http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...13_main_02.tpl |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
On 10 Oct 2004 03:00:40 GMT, (Teacherjh)
wrote in :: Objective does not imply intelligent, or productive. Perhaps, but it does imply impartial justice. I thought this was supposed to be about safety. Actually, the topic is the change in the "no harm, no foul" (NHNF = no loss of separation occurred; safety was not compromised) concept of enforcing pilot/controller deviations/errors as mandated in FAAO 7210.56, "Air Traffic Quality Assurance" 5-1-2 SUSPECTED EVENT, IIRC. 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." The words "absolute requirement" are particularly pertinent to the change in enforcement Mr. Jones mentions, IMO. Due to the past NHNF policy, selective enforcement (an injustice) has occurred, as reported by Mr. Jones. If the FAAO were uniformly enforced, it would be more just, but probably unworkable. IIRC, motorists commit ~37 vehicle code violations on an average trip. If these were all cited and enforced, this would be a nation of court houses. It's not an easy issue. Controllers have an FAA form for reporting suspected PDs (Form 8020-17 Preliminary Pilot Deviation Report); airmen must write a letter* to the Administrator to report ATC operational errors. The NTSB has recommended that the FAA: ... Formally evaluate all reported safety-related events for potential air traffic control performance deficiencies and assign responsibility for the classification of all such events that occur within the National Airspace System to an internal oversight function that is independent of the Air Traffic Service. (A-00-36) Amend Federal Aviation Administration Order 7110.65, “Air Traffic Control,” (ATC) to require that controllers ask any member of a flight crew receiving ATC services who expresses concern about the proximity of another aircraft if he or she desires to file a formal near midair collision report. (A-00-37) Modify Federal Aviation Administration Form 8020-21, “Preliminary Near Midair Collision Report,” to include a section describing air traffic control actions relevant to the incident. (A-00-38) Amend Federal Aviation Administration Orders 7210.3, “Facility Operation and Administration,” and 8020.11, “Aircraft Accident and Incident Notification, Investigation, and Reporting,” to require that air traffic control facilities retain recorded voice communications and radar data for 45 days. (A-00-39) Amend Federal Aviation Administration Order 7210.3, “Facility Operation and Administration,” to require that all telephone conversations with personnel at air traffic control (ATC) facilities relating to an aircraft accident, incident, or ATC performance shall be conducted on recorded telephone lines. (A-00-40) http://www.avweb.com/other/ntsb0025a1.pdf Now it's about =justice=? This scares me. Why would it scare you? You are protected from your government by your Constitutional assurances, right? :-) * Sec. 13.5 Formal complaints. (a) Any person may file a complaint with the Administrator with respect to anything done or omitted to be done by any person in contravention of any provision of any Act or of any regulation or order issued under it, as to matters within the jurisdiction of the Administrator. This section does not apply to complaints against the Administrator or employees of the FAA acting within the scope of their employment. (b) Complaints filed under this section must-- (1) Be submitted in writing and identified as a complaint filed for the purpose of seeking an appropriate order or other enforcement action; (2) Be submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, Attention: Enforcement Docket (AGC-10), 800 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20591; (3) Set forth the name and address, if known, of each person who is the subject of the complaint and, with respect to each person, the specific provisions of the Act or regulation or order that the complainant believes were violated; (4) Contain a concise but complete statement of the facts relied upon to substantiate each allegation; (5) State the name, address and telephone number of the person filing the complaint; and (6) Be signed by the person filing the complaint or a duly authorized representative. (c) Complaints which do not meet the requirements of paragraph (b)of this section will be considered reports under Sec. 13.1. (d) Complaints which meet the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section will be docketed and a copy mailed to each person named in the complaint. (e) Any complaint filed against a member of the Armed Forces of the United States acting in the performance of official duties shall be referred to the Secretary of the Department concerned for action in accordance with the procedures set forth in Sec. 13.21 of this part. (f) The person named in the complaint shall file an answer within 20 days after service of a copy of the complaint. (g) After the complaint has been answered or after the allotted time in which to file an answer has expired, the Administrator shall determine if there are reasonable grounds for investigating the complaint. (h) If the Administrator determines that a complaint does not state facts which warrant an investigation or action, the complaint may be dismissed without a hearing and the reason for the dismissal shall be given, in writing, to the person who filed the complaint and the person named in the complaint. (i) If the Administrator determines that reasonable grounds exist, an informal investigation may be initiated or an order of investigation may be issued in accordance with Subpart F of this part, or both. Each person named in the complaint shall be advised which official has been delegated the responsibility under Sec. 13.3(b) or (c) for conducting the investigation. (j) If the investigation substantiates the allegations set forth in the complaint, a notice of proposed order may be issued or other enforcement action taken in accordance with this part. (k) The complaint and other pleadings and official FAA records relating to the disposition of the complaint are maintained in current docket form in the Enforcement Docket (AGC-209), Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D. C. 20591. Any interested person may examine any docketed material at that office, at any time after the docket is established, except material that is ordered withheld from the public under applicable law or regulations, and may obtain a photostatic or duplicate copy upon paying the cost of the copy. The full text can be found he http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...13_main_02.tpl |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
"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. -cwk. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pilot deviations and a new FAA reality | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 36 | October 14th 04 06:10 PM |
Moving violation..NASA form? | Nasir | Piloting | 47 | November 5th 03 07:56 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |