Pilot deviations and a new FAA reality

"Chip Jones" wrote
Folks, I see at *least* one pilot deviation a week working traffic in my
small slice of the NAS.

Breaking news story - pilots are human and make mistakes. In other
news, the sun rose this morning.

I don't report them unless separation is lost,
because I was trained under the "no harm, no foul" mentality.

And frankly, I think that's an inherently wrong approach. These
deviation should be reported and tracked - because by studying them
(not as individual deviations but as patterns and trends) we might
discover a lot of things. We might discover what sorts of
circumstances significantly increase the likelihood of a deviation.
We might discover which kinds of deviations are most likely to lead to
an accident, by knowing how often the different ones occur. We might
learn a lot of things.

But we won't, because the people who will receive these reports of
deviation are a bunch of useless bloody loonies (to quote Douglas
Adams) and the only thing they will use these reports of pilot
deviation to do is bust pilots they don't like.

Therefore, your "no harm, no foul" approach is really for the best -
because anything else really will do nothing but create an adversarial
relationship between pilots and controllers with no benefit
whatsoever.

Michael

WAFDOF?


www.acronymfinder.com


That site may have lots of acronyms, but it also uses nasty popups and hidden
obfuscated scripts. It let a worm into my system once and doesn't play nice
with popup stoppers. The webmaster uses tricks to force its way in.

http://www.acronymsearch.com/ has fewer acronyms but plays nice. Try that one.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

J Haggerty wrote:

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.

And that is why smart pilots start correcting their altitude just as
soon as the controller asks you to "recycle your transponder!"

Matt

"Chip Jones" wrote in message =
It's all a huge can of worms better left unopened, IMO.

It seems to be opened already. Being privy to our union's safety reports, I
know that PDs without loss of seperation are being investigated much more
frequently in recent months. Most of these result in counseling and
training. That is good for safety as most of these reports involve the lower
rung of the professional spectrum. However, I am old school like yourself
and believe that we shouldn't be forced to play policeman. We all have bad
days. I still carry NASA forms in my flight case. The nature of NASA forms
is too coerce pilots and controllers into telling the whole story of what
went wrong so that it can be fixed. Pitting ATC against aircrews could
ultimately prove to compromise safety as the communication breakdown imposed
by defense lawyers will not allow the full story to come out and therefore
no meaningful data can be gathered to improve safety for the future.

D.

The FAA is filling up with incompetent minorities
That is your big problem


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.

Regards,

Chip, ZTL

BuzzBoy wrote:
The FAA is filling up with incompetent minorities
That is your big problem

That's right. Center controllers are minorities, there's a lot more of
us tower controllers out here.

John Clonts wrote:
Matt Young wrote:

WAFDOF?

www.acronymfinder.com

Well said, sir!

I also wondered what it meant, but very quickly found the answer
from that site.