Pilot deviations and a new FAA reality

"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.

"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.

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

In article . net,
Matt Young wrote:

WAFDOF?

Wrong Altitude For Direction Of Flight, flying westbound at 7500 instead
of 6500.

"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

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.

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

Wrong altitude for direction of flight.

JPH

Matt Young wrote:

WAFDOF?

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

"Matt Young" wrote in message news
WAFDOF?


www.acronymfinder.com