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
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" writes:
"Chip Jones" wrote [snip] 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. Pilot deviations come in a variety of flavors. A pilot may bust his altitude but if there's no other traffic around there's no hazard. No harm, no foul, no loss of separation. At the other extreme a pilot blowing a runway hold short as another aircraft is about to touch down can be disastrous. On what side of the line should be placed the situation where there was no loss of separation only because an alert controller stepped in? I thought the FAA was under the gun to gain better and more info regarding runway incursions. It sounds as if a controller may have been admonished/penalized/whatever for failure to make a "required" report of a runway incursion, not just a simple pilot deviation. It seems as if the cited incident was quite serious even though the system worked and no untoward harm came to any of the parties involved. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Everett M. Greene" wrote in message ... I thought the FAA was under the gun to gain better and more info regarding runway incursions. It sounds as if a controller may have been admonished/penalized/whatever for failure to make a "required" report of a runway incursion, not just a simple pilot deviation. It seems as if the cited incident was quite serious even though the system worked and no untoward harm came to any of the parties involved. Yup, runway incursions has been the hot item for several years. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
WAFDOF?
Stan Prevost wrote: "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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
In article . net,
Matt Young wrote: WAFDOF? Wrong Altitude For Direction Of Flight, flying westbound at 7500 instead of 6500. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Wrong altitude for direction of flight.
JPH Matt Young wrote: WAFDOF? |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|