"C Kingsbury" wrote in message
link.net...

{snipped}

Actually, the more I read that memo Chip posted, the more this sounds to
me
like a union put-up job. A runway incursion that leads to a go-around
could
easily be the sort of PD that should be reported, and we don't know any of
the context that helps determine what is and is not appropriate. In my
experience, one of the key functions of any union is to protect its
weakest
members, in this case, the least competent. Perhaps this guy deserved to
get
nailed, but the union has decided to defend him, or at least pick a fight
with management over the issue, so they issue a "scare" memo. Perhaps
their
goal is to deluge management with so many PD reports that it forces them
to
alter the system. Who knows. Politics of these things can get very tricky
and I have no inside info. For all I know it's management playing some
other
game entirely. Personally, I don't trust either side to be too honest.

That's a wise point of view, IMO. I don't trust either side either.
However, I posted this as a safety issue, not to make a point for NATCA.
Who is in a better position than the tower controller involved to determine
if this PD should have been reported? The corporate culture of FAA's air
traffic control has always been "no harm, no foul" when dealing with pilot
deviations that do not lead to loss of separation. Frankly, there are just
too many PD's to go after, and controllers aren't cops. This poilicy seems
to force them to report, "or else."

Chip, ZTL