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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 20:43:24 GMT, "C Kingsbury"
wrote in .net:: 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. That argument begs the question: Who's subjective opinion determines which PDs are reported and which are not? The current system (if it requires _all_ PDs to be reported) is more objective. Don't get me wrong. I'm not looking forward to more PDs being reported. I'm just interested in enhancing safety. I think you are looking at the subject from a more realistic viewpoint and I from the more theoretical. If we don't attempt to strive for the best that we are capable, we will certainly create an imperfect system. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message ... That argument begs the question: Who's subjective opinion determines which PDs are reported and which are not? The current system (if it requires _all_ PDs to be reported) is more objective. Objective does not imply intelligent, or productive. In my view, the burden of proof should rest with the people who want to change established practice. They need to prove that the way things are being done today is wrong AND that their changes will not cause other, more damaging effects. Don't get me wrong. I'm not looking forward to more PDs being reported. I'm just interested in enhancing safety. As am I. This doesn't smell like it has anything to do with safety, but that's just my opinion, and it's worth about as much as you're paying for it. I think you are looking at the subject from a more realistic viewpoint and I from the more theoretical. If we don't attempt to strive for the best that we are capable, we will certainly create an imperfect system. Imperfection is for certain. The real question is, how badly can we screw it up? When people start fixing things that aren't broken, you never know what will happen. -cwk. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message ... That argument begs the question: Who's subjective opinion determines which PDs are reported and which are not? The current system (if it requires _all_ PDs to be reported) is more objective. Objective does not imply intelligent, or productive. In my view, the burden of proof should rest with the people who want to change established practice. They need to prove that the way things are being done today is wrong AND that their changes will not cause other, more damaging effects. Don't get me wrong. I'm not looking forward to more PDs being reported. I'm just interested in enhancing safety. As am I. This doesn't smell like it has anything to do with safety, but that's just my opinion, and it's worth about as much as you're paying for it. I think you are looking at the subject from a more realistic viewpoint and I from the more theoretical. If we don't attempt to strive for the best that we are capable, we will certainly create an imperfect system. Imperfection is for certain. The real question is, how badly can we screw it up? When people start fixing things that aren't broken, you never know what will happen. -cwk. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 22:27:14 GMT, "C Kingsbury"
wrote in .net:: "Larry Dighera" wrote in message .. . That argument begs the question: Who's subjective opinion determines which PDs are reported and which are not? The current system (if it requires _all_ PDs to be reported) is more objective. Objective does not imply intelligent, or productive. Perhaps, but it does imply impartial justice. And you haven't answered the question. In the absence of an impartial standard, who should be tasked with the subjective judgment? 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? They need to prove that the way things are being done today is wrong AND that their changes will not cause other, more damaging effects. It would seem reasonable that reporting errant pilots for remedial training would result in fewer accidents/incidents, but who knows? What "more damaging effects" do you envision? Don't get me wrong. I'm not looking forward to more PDs being reported. I'm just interested in enhancing safety. As am I. This doesn't smell like it has anything to do with safety, 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? but that's just my opinion, and it's worth about as much as you're paying for it. I think you are looking at the subject from a more realistic viewpoint and I from the more theoretical. If we don't attempt to strive for the best that we are capable, we will certainly create an imperfect system. Imperfection is for certain. Unfortunately, that's true, but failing to attempt our best is likely to exacerbate the imperfection rather than mitigate it. The real question is, how badly can we screw it up? 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. When people start fixing things that aren't broken, you never know what will happen. Umm... |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 22:27:14 GMT, "C Kingsbury"
wrote in .net:: "Larry Dighera" wrote in message .. . That argument begs the question: Who's subjective opinion determines which PDs are reported and which are not? The current system (if it requires _all_ PDs to be reported) is more objective. Objective does not imply intelligent, or productive. Perhaps, but it does imply impartial justice. And you haven't answered the question. In the absence of an impartial standard, who should be tasked with the subjective judgment? 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? They need to prove that the way things are being done today is wrong AND that their changes will not cause other, more damaging effects. It would seem reasonable that reporting errant pilots for remedial training would result in fewer accidents/incidents, but who knows? What "more damaging effects" do you envision? Don't get me wrong. I'm not looking forward to more PDs being reported. I'm just interested in enhancing safety. As am I. This doesn't smell like it has anything to do with safety, 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? but that's just my opinion, and it's worth about as much as you're paying for it. I think you are looking at the subject from a more realistic viewpoint and I from the more theoretical. If we don't attempt to strive for the best that we are capable, we will certainly create an imperfect system. Imperfection is for certain. Unfortunately, that's true, but failing to attempt our best is likely to exacerbate the imperfection rather than mitigate it. The real question is, how badly can we screw it up? 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. When people start fixing things that aren't broken, you never know what will happen. Umm... |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message ... On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 15:08:08 GMT, "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. Can you provide a pointer to the specific FAA Order that mandates that ATC report all pilot deviations? That order is FAAO 7210.56, "Air Traffic Quality Assurance." Here's a link: http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATQ/INDEX.htm Buried deep within this tome, which 90% of line controllers have likely never even heard of, is paragraph 5-1-2, which reads: " 5-1-2. SUSPECTED EVENT a. In order to maintain an effective Air Traffic System, it is imperative that we identify all deficiencies within our system and take appropriate corrective actions necessary to fix any associated problems. Operational errors and deviations are reported for just that reason, so those problems (either systemic or individual) can be corrected to enhance system integrity. 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 system. b. Accordingly, it remains Air Traffic Policy that any employee who is aware of any occurrence that may be an operational error, deviation, or air traffic incident (as defined in paragraph 4-1-1, Definitions), immediately report the occurrence to any available supervisor, controller-in-charge (CIC) or management official. c. Employees' shall verbally provide the preliminary information, of which they have knowledge, when requested by the supervisor, controller-in-charge (CIC) or management official to make an initial determination as to whether an investigation is warranted. This phase is meant only to determine the need of an investigation and is not investigatory. Therefore, Union representation is not required at this time." The key words in 5-1-2 are in the word group "air traffic incident", which is defined in 4-4-1 to include pilot deviations. Pilot deviations are defined in this order as "the actions of a pilot that result in the violation of a Federal Aviation Regulation or a North American Aerospace Defense (Command Air Defense Identification Zone) tolerance." Thus, if you bust your altitude at 3 in the morning, with no traffic within 100 miles of you, I am apparently supposed to turn you in for a pilot deviation (failure to adhere to clearance), or else risk formal discipline... Chip, ZTL |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message ... On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 15:08:08 GMT, "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. Can you provide a pointer to the specific FAA Order that mandates that ATC report all pilot deviations? That order is FAAO 7210.56, "Air Traffic Quality Assurance." Here's a link: http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATQ/INDEX.htm Buried deep within this tome, which 90% of line controllers have likely never even heard of, is paragraph 5-1-2, which reads: " 5-1-2. SUSPECTED EVENT a. In order to maintain an effective Air Traffic System, it is imperative that we identify all deficiencies within our system and take appropriate corrective actions necessary to fix any associated problems. Operational errors and deviations are reported for just that reason, so those problems (either systemic or individual) can be corrected to enhance system integrity. 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 system. b. Accordingly, it remains Air Traffic Policy that any employee who is aware of any occurrence that may be an operational error, deviation, or air traffic incident (as defined in paragraph 4-1-1, Definitions), immediately report the occurrence to any available supervisor, controller-in-charge (CIC) or management official. c. Employees' shall verbally provide the preliminary information, of which they have knowledge, when requested by the supervisor, controller-in-charge (CIC) or management official to make an initial determination as to whether an investigation is warranted. This phase is meant only to determine the need of an investigation and is not investigatory. Therefore, Union representation is not required at this time." The key words in 5-1-2 are in the word group "air traffic incident", which is defined in 4-4-1 to include pilot deviations. Pilot deviations are defined in this order as "the actions of a pilot that result in the violation of a Federal Aviation Regulation or a North American Aerospace Defense (Command Air Defense Identification Zone) tolerance." Thus, if you bust your altitude at 3 in the morning, with no traffic within 100 miles of you, I am apparently supposed to turn you in for a pilot deviation (failure to adhere to clearance), or else risk formal discipline... Chip, ZTL |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
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 |