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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|