Pilot deviations and a new FAA reality

Chip Jones wrote:

"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



If it was close enough to require a go-around, that seems close enough
to me to warrant a report. If nobody else was within 10 miles of the
airport, then I might feel differently.

Matt

C Kingsbury wrote:

"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.





Last I knew, you had 300' of tolerance before a violation was a concern.
Has this changed recently?

Matt

C Kingsbury wrote:

"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.





Last I knew, you had 300' of tolerance before a violation was a concern.
Has this changed recently?

Matt

"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 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

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 09:32:24 -0400, Matt Whiting
wrote in ::


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.

Here is a report from the AOPA web site with information on the FAA's
Runway Incursion Immunity policy for pilots. I'm not sure it applies
to controllers.


Pilot Counsel

FAA immunity for runway incursions

By John S. Yodice (From AOPA Pilot, June 2000.)

It seems that we can expect more uncomfortable one-on-one discussions
between pilots and FAA inspectors about possible regulatory
violations. We previously reported on the relatively new FAA
Streamlined Administrative Action Process (SAAP) program now in effect
(see "Pilot Counsel: FAA’s Ticket Program," September 1999 Pilot) and
offered some legal guidance to pilots. Now pilots may need some legal
guidance about participating in another new FAA program, the Runway
Incursion Information and Evaluation Program (RIIEP).

The title of the program tells us the purpose of the program—to gather
and evaluate information on runway incursions. It was announced on
March 19, 2000, and runs through March 19, 2001. The announcement
encourages pilots (and others) to give information to the FAA that
could help the agency get at the root causes of runway incursions.
Under the program, FAA field inspectors will seek to interview pilots
involved in such incidents, either in person or by telephone. In
exchange, the FAA offers cooperating pilots a limited immunity against
FAA enforcement.

No pilot needs to be convinced that the threat of a collision between
an aircraft taking off or landing and another aircraft, or vehicle, or
person, or other object on the runway is a serious safety problem.
According to the FAA, there has been an increase in such incidents in
recent years. The FAA says that pilot deviations are the leading cause
of runway incursions, increasing by 38 percent from 1997 to 1998. Not
surprisingly, the runway incursions most likely to cause accidents
generally occur at complex, high-volume airports.

The FAA usually has little problem in learning about runway incursions
and the pilots involved, since they happen at airports with control
towers. And the FAA has little trouble finding some infraction of the
federal aviation regulations that it can charge against one or more of
the pilots involved. The usual procedure in the past has been for an
FAA inspector to open an investigation when a controller reports a
runway incursion. An investigation often resulted in a suspension of
the certificate of one or more of the pilots, or less drastically, an
administrative action in the form of a warning notice or letter of
correction sent to the pilots.

This new program presents a dilemma for pilots. We certainly want to
cooperate with the FAA to solve the problem of runway incursions; but
in the process we don’t want to be cooperating ourselves into a
suspension of our pilot certificates or a black mark on our FAA
records. In the program, the FAA attempts to resolve this dilemma for
pilots by giving assurances that the usual enforcement action will not
be taken.

The FAA assurances take two forms. First, if a pilot cooperates,
subject to certain qualifications, "the FAA ordinarily does not expect
to take punitive legal enforcement action." Second, the FAA "does not
expect to use information provided by airmen during interviews
conducted by FAA inspectors under the RIIEP in any FAA punitive legal
enforcement action," according to the program.

Unfortunately, the assurances don’t seem to go far enough, using
qualifying words such as ordinarily and does not expect. They don’t
provide as much protection for the pilot as does the Aviation Safety
Reporting System, which is the time-honored method for anonymously and
confidentially getting safety information to the FAA in exchange for a
waiver of a disciplinary action.

So, what should a pilot do who gets a call from the tower or some FAA
inspector wanting to talk about an incident that is, or seems to be, a
"runway incursion"? In making a decision whether to cooperate, a pilot
needs to know his or her legal rights and the specifics of the
assurances that the FAA is offering. As we will see, the answer to
this question is complicated by the fact that a great deal of
discretion is given to the individual inspector in interpreting these
assurances.

To their credit, most pilots instinctively want to cooperate with the
FAA. That instinct is a good one. But pilots should understand that
participation in the program is strictly voluntary. A pilot has no
legal obligation to respond to an FAA inspector’s questions on a
possible runway incursion incident. Yet, answering the inspector’s
questions could cause the inspector to conclude that the program’s
immunity does not apply, or it could open the door to other
incriminating facts and circumstances.

Here is some general guidance. If there is anything aggravated about
the incident, it is probably best not to participate. For example, if
the circumstances are such that the FAA could allege that the
infraction was intentional (I don’t know of a runway incursion that
was intentional, but that is within the discretion of the inspector to
determine), the limited immunity would not apply. Or if there was an
accident as a result of the incursion, the immunity aspect of the
program would not apply. A pilot could be facing an enforcement
action to suspend or revoke the pilot certificate. The pilot should
seek some legal help before talking to the FAA, and before completing
an NTSB accident report.

The question becomes a muddy one if the incident is clearly
unintentional but does raise a question about the pilot’s
qualifications—for example, a runway incursion under circumstances
that suggest to the FAA that the pilot does not understand the air
traffic rules that govern an aircraft operating at an airport with a
control tower. The FAA will then ask the pilot to consent to a
reexamination or suffer a suspension of the pilot certificate. The
program says: "If alleged violation(s) resulting from the runway
incursion or the circumstances surrounding the runway incursion
demonstrate, or raise a question of, a lack of qualification of the
airman, then the FAA will proceed with appropriate remedial action,
which might include reexamination and/or certificate revocation or
certificate suspension pending reexamination."

If the incursion was unintentional, and the pilot does understand the
rules but just became confused or disoriented—which should be the case
in the majority of such events involving a pilot deviation—then
participation in the program is probably in order. That is a situation
where the FAA should be able to benefit most from an interview with
the pilot. We should expect that a reasonable inspector would take no
enforcement or administrative action against a cooperating pilot.
However, pilots should understand that even in such a situation, the
inspector has the discretion under the program of taking an
administrative action against the pilot. An administrative action does
not suspend or revoke a pilot certificate, but it will take the form
of a warning notice or letter of correction, which will be a matter of
record against the pilot for two years.

In any event, whether a pilot cooperates in the RIIEP or not, there
would seem to be no good reason not to file a NASA Safety Report (do
not report an accident or criminal activity, however) on NASA ARC Form
277 and get whatever immunity, anonymity, and confidentiality that is
available through that program.


Posted Friday, May 19, 2000 11:53:26 AM
©1995-2000 Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 09:32:24 -0400, Matt Whiting
wrote in ::


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.

Here is a report from the AOPA web site with information on the FAA's
Runway Incursion Immunity policy for pilots. I'm not sure it applies
to controllers.


Pilot Counsel

FAA immunity for runway incursions

By John S. Yodice (From AOPA Pilot, June 2000.)

It seems that we can expect more uncomfortable one-on-one discussions
between pilots and FAA inspectors about possible regulatory
violations. We previously reported on the relatively new FAA
Streamlined Administrative Action Process (SAAP) program now in effect
(see "Pilot Counsel: FAA’s Ticket Program," September 1999 Pilot) and
offered some legal guidance to pilots. Now pilots may need some legal
guidance about participating in another new FAA program, the Runway
Incursion Information and Evaluation Program (RIIEP).

The title of the program tells us the purpose of the program—to gather
and evaluate information on runway incursions. It was announced on
March 19, 2000, and runs through March 19, 2001. The announcement
encourages pilots (and others) to give information to the FAA that
could help the agency get at the root causes of runway incursions.
Under the program, FAA field inspectors will seek to interview pilots
involved in such incidents, either in person or by telephone. In
exchange, the FAA offers cooperating pilots a limited immunity against
FAA enforcement.

No pilot needs to be convinced that the threat of a collision between
an aircraft taking off or landing and another aircraft, or vehicle, or
person, or other object on the runway is a serious safety problem.
According to the FAA, there has been an increase in such incidents in
recent years. The FAA says that pilot deviations are the leading cause
of runway incursions, increasing by 38 percent from 1997 to 1998. Not
surprisingly, the runway incursions most likely to cause accidents
generally occur at complex, high-volume airports.

The FAA usually has little problem in learning about runway incursions
and the pilots involved, since they happen at airports with control
towers. And the FAA has little trouble finding some infraction of the
federal aviation regulations that it can charge against one or more of
the pilots involved. The usual procedure in the past has been for an
FAA inspector to open an investigation when a controller reports a
runway incursion. An investigation often resulted in a suspension of
the certificate of one or more of the pilots, or less drastically, an
administrative action in the form of a warning notice or letter of
correction sent to the pilots.

This new program presents a dilemma for pilots. We certainly want to
cooperate with the FAA to solve the problem of runway incursions; but
in the process we don’t want to be cooperating ourselves into a
suspension of our pilot certificates or a black mark on our FAA
records. In the program, the FAA attempts to resolve this dilemma for
pilots by giving assurances that the usual enforcement action will not
be taken.

The FAA assurances take two forms. First, if a pilot cooperates,
subject to certain qualifications, "the FAA ordinarily does not expect
to take punitive legal enforcement action." Second, the FAA "does not
expect to use information provided by airmen during interviews
conducted by FAA inspectors under the RIIEP in any FAA punitive legal
enforcement action," according to the program.

Unfortunately, the assurances don’t seem to go far enough, using
qualifying words such as ordinarily and does not expect. They don’t
provide as much protection for the pilot as does the Aviation Safety
Reporting System, which is the time-honored method for anonymously and
confidentially getting safety information to the FAA in exchange for a
waiver of a disciplinary action.

So, what should a pilot do who gets a call from the tower or some FAA
inspector wanting to talk about an incident that is, or seems to be, a
"runway incursion"? In making a decision whether to cooperate, a pilot
needs to know his or her legal rights and the specifics of the
assurances that the FAA is offering. As we will see, the answer to
this question is complicated by the fact that a great deal of
discretion is given to the individual inspector in interpreting these
assurances.

To their credit, most pilots instinctively want to cooperate with the
FAA. That instinct is a good one. But pilots should understand that
participation in the program is strictly voluntary. A pilot has no
legal obligation to respond to an FAA inspector’s questions on a
possible runway incursion incident. Yet, answering the inspector’s
questions could cause the inspector to conclude that the program’s
immunity does not apply, or it could open the door to other
incriminating facts and circumstances.

Here is some general guidance. If there is anything aggravated about
the incident, it is probably best not to participate. For example, if
the circumstances are such that the FAA could allege that the
infraction was intentional (I don’t know of a runway incursion that
was intentional, but that is within the discretion of the inspector to
determine), the limited immunity would not apply. Or if there was an
accident as a result of the incursion, the immunity aspect of the
program would not apply. A pilot could be facing an enforcement
action to suspend or revoke the pilot certificate. The pilot should
seek some legal help before talking to the FAA, and before completing
an NTSB accident report.

The question becomes a muddy one if the incident is clearly
unintentional but does raise a question about the pilot’s
qualifications—for example, a runway incursion under circumstances
that suggest to the FAA that the pilot does not understand the air
traffic rules that govern an aircraft operating at an airport with a
control tower. The FAA will then ask the pilot to consent to a
reexamination or suffer a suspension of the pilot certificate. The
program says: "If alleged violation(s) resulting from the runway
incursion or the circumstances surrounding the runway incursion
demonstrate, or raise a question of, a lack of qualification of the
airman, then the FAA will proceed with appropriate remedial action,
which might include reexamination and/or certificate revocation or
certificate suspension pending reexamination."

If the incursion was unintentional, and the pilot does understand the
rules but just became confused or disoriented—which should be the case
in the majority of such events involving a pilot deviation—then
participation in the program is probably in order. That is a situation
where the FAA should be able to benefit most from an interview with
the pilot. We should expect that a reasonable inspector would take no
enforcement or administrative action against a cooperating pilot.
However, pilots should understand that even in such a situation, the
inspector has the discretion under the program of taking an
administrative action against the pilot. An administrative action does
not suspend or revoke a pilot certificate, but it will take the form
of a warning notice or letter of correction, which will be a matter of
record against the pilot for two years.

In any event, whether a pilot cooperates in the RIIEP or not, there
would seem to be no good reason not to file a NASA Safety Report (do
not report an accident or criminal activity, however) on NASA ARC Form
277 and get whatever immunity, anonymity, and confidentiality that is
available through that program.


Posted Friday, May 19, 2000 11:53:26 AM
©1995-2000 Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association

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

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

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.