Pilot deviations and a new FAA reality

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 20:43:24 GMT, "C Kingsbury"
wrote in
.net::

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.

That argument begs the question: Who's subjective opinion determines
which PDs are reported and which are not? The current system (if it
requires _all_ PDs to be reported) is more objective.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not looking forward to more PDs being
reported. I'm just interested in enhancing safety.

I think you are looking at the subject from a more realistic viewpoint
and I from the more theoretical. If we don't attempt to strive for
the best that we are capable, we will certainly create an imperfect
system.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

That argument begs the question: Who's subjective opinion determines
which PDs are reported and which are not? The current system (if it
requires _all_ PDs to be reported) is more objective.

Objective does not imply intelligent, or productive. In my view, the burden
of proof should rest with the people who want to change established
practice. They need to prove that the way things are being done today is
wrong AND that their changes will not cause other, more damaging effects.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not looking forward to more PDs being
reported. I'm just interested in enhancing safety.

As am I. This doesn't smell like it has anything to do with safety, but
that's just my opinion, and it's worth about as much as you're paying for
it.

I think you are looking at the subject from a more realistic viewpoint
and I from the more theoretical. If we don't attempt to strive for
the best that we are capable, we will certainly create an imperfect
system.

Imperfection is for certain. The real question is, how badly can we screw it
up? When people start fixing things that aren't broken, you never know what
will happen.

-cwk.

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 22:27:14 GMT, "C Kingsbury"
wrote in
.net::


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

That argument begs the question: Who's subjective opinion determines
which PDs are reported and which are not? The current system (if it
requires _all_ PDs to be reported) is more objective.

Objective does not imply intelligent, or productive.

Perhaps, but it does imply impartial justice.

And you haven't answered the question. In the absence of an impartial
standard, who should be tasked with the subjective judgment?

In my view, the burden of proof should rest with the people who want to
change established practice.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that if it cannot be
shown that enforcing _all_ PDs will result in a reduced annual
accident/incident rate, the tacit policy of 'no harm no foul" should
be retained. That seems reasonable, but wouldn't it require a test
period to assess the results?

They need to prove that the way things are being done today is
wrong AND that their changes will not cause other, more damaging effects.

It would seem reasonable that reporting errant pilots for remedial
training would result in fewer accidents/incidents, but who knows?

What "more damaging effects" do you envision?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not looking forward to more PDs being
reported. I'm just interested in enhancing safety.

As am I. This doesn't smell like it has anything to do with safety,

What other objective do think the policy change may have other than
safety? Do you think it's an airline ploy to reduce the number of GA
operations?

but that's just my opinion, and it's worth about as much as you're paying for
it.

I think you are looking at the subject from a more realistic viewpoint
and I from the more theoretical. If we don't attempt to strive for
the best that we are capable, we will certainly create an imperfect
system.

Imperfection is for certain.

Unfortunately, that's true, but failing to attempt our best is likely
to exacerbate the imperfection rather than mitigate it.

The real question is, how badly can we screw it up?

I get the feeling that you feel that ATC reporting _all_ PDs will
"screw it up," but for whom, the airlines, the military, GA, or all of
the above? It would be interesting to know which of those three
categories the test case Chip mentioned is a member.

When people start fixing things that aren't broken, you never know what
will happen.

Umm...

Objective does not imply intelligent, or productive.

Perhaps, but it does imply impartial justice.


I thought this was supposed to be about safety. Now it's about =justice=?
This scares me.

Jose

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

On 10 Oct 2004 03:00:40 GMT, (Teacherjh)
wrote in ::


Objective does not imply intelligent, or productive.

Perhaps, but it does imply impartial justice.


I thought this was supposed to be about safety.

Actually, the topic is the change in the "no harm, no foul" (NHNF = no
loss of separation occurred; safety was not compromised) concept of
enforcing pilot/controller deviations/errors as mandated in FAAO
7210.56, "Air Traffic Quality Assurance" 5-1-2 SUSPECTED EVENT, IIRC.

That FAAO mentions: "The identification of operational errors and
deviations without fear of reprisal is an absolute requirement and is
the responsibility of all of us who work within our [NAS] system."
The words "absolute requirement" are particularly pertinent to the
change in enforcement Mr. Jones mentions, IMO.

Due to the past NHNF policy, selective enforcement (an injustice) has
occurred, as reported by Mr. Jones. If the FAAO were uniformly
enforced, it would be more just, but probably unworkable. IIRC,
motorists commit ~37 vehicle code violations on an average trip. If
these were all cited and enforced, this would be a nation of court
houses. It's not an easy issue.

Controllers have an FAA form for reporting suspected PDs (Form 8020-17
Preliminary Pilot Deviation Report); airmen must write a letter* to
the Administrator to report ATC operational errors.


The NTSB has recommended that the FAA:

...
Formally evaluate all reported safety-related events for potential
air traffic control performance deficiencies and assign
responsibility for the classification of all such events that
occur within the National Airspace System to an internal oversight
function that is independent of the Air Traffic Service. (A-00-36)

Amend Federal Aviation Administration Order 7110.65, “Air
Traffic Control,” (ATC) to require that controllers ask any member
of a flight crew receiving ATC services who expresses concern
about the proximity of another aircraft if he or she
desires to file a formal near midair collision report. (A-00-37)
Modify Federal Aviation Administration Form 8020-21, “Preliminary
Near Midair Collision Report,” to include a section describing air
traffic control actions relevant to the incident. (A-00-38)

Amend Federal Aviation Administration Orders 7210.3, “Facility
Operation and Administration,” and 8020.11, “Aircraft Accident and
Incident Notification, Investigation, and Reporting,” to require
that air traffic control facilities retain recorded voice
communications and radar data for 45 days. (A-00-39)

Amend Federal Aviation Administration Order 7210.3, “Facility
Operation and Administration,” to require that all telephone
conversations with personnel at air traffic control (ATC)
facilities relating to an aircraft accident, incident, or ATC
performance shall be conducted on recorded telephone lines.
(A-00-40)
http://www.avweb.com/other/ntsb0025a1.pdf


Now it's about =justice=? This scares me.

Why would it scare you? You are protected from your government by
your Constitutional assurances, right? :-)




*
Sec. 13.5 Formal complaints.

(a) Any person may file a complaint with the Administrator with
respect to anything done or omitted to be done by any person in
contravention of any provision of any Act or of any regulation or
order issued under it, as to matters within the jurisdiction of the
Administrator. This section does not apply to complaints against the
Administrator or employees of the FAA acting within the scope of their
employment.
(b) Complaints filed under this section must--
(1) Be submitted in writing and identified as a complaint filed
for the purpose of seeking an appropriate order or other enforcement
action;
(2) Be submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Attention: Enforcement Docket (AGC-10), 800
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20591;
(3) Set forth the name and address, if known, of each person who
is the subject of the complaint and, with respect to each person, the
specific provisions of the Act or regulation or order that the
complainant believes were violated;
(4) Contain a concise but complete statement of the facts relied
upon to substantiate each allegation;
(5) State the name, address and telephone number of the person
filing the complaint; and
(6) Be signed by the person filing the complaint or a duly
authorized representative.
(c) Complaints which do not meet the requirements of paragraph
(b)of this section will be considered reports under Sec. 13.1.
(d) Complaints which meet the requirements of paragraph (b) of
this section will be docketed and a copy mailed to each person named
in the complaint.
(e) Any complaint filed against a member of the Armed Forces of
the United States acting in the performance of official duties shall
be referred to the Secretary of the Department concerned for action in
accordance with the procedures set forth in Sec. 13.21 of this part.
(f) The person named in the complaint shall file an answer
within 20 days after service of a copy of the complaint.
(g) After the complaint has been answered or after the allotted
time in which to file an answer has expired, the Administrator shall
determine if there are reasonable grounds for investigating the
complaint.
(h) If the Administrator determines that a complaint does not
state facts which warrant an investigation or action, the complaint
may be dismissed without a hearing and the reason for the dismissal
shall be given, in writing, to the person who filed the complaint and
the person named in the complaint.
(i) If the Administrator determines that reasonable grounds
exist, an informal investigation may be initiated or an order of
investigation may be issued in accordance with Subpart F of this part,
or both. Each person named in the complaint shall be advised which
official has been delegated the responsibility under Sec. 13.3(b) or
(c) for conducting the investigation.
(j) If the investigation substantiates the allegations set forth
in the complaint, a notice of proposed order may be issued or other
enforcement action taken in accordance with this part.
(k) The complaint and other pleadings and official FAA records
relating to the disposition of the complaint are maintained in current
docket form in the Enforcement Docket (AGC-209), Office of the Chief
Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue,
S.W., Washington, D. C. 20591. Any interested person may examine any
docketed material at that office, at any time after the docket is
established, except material that is ordered withheld from the public
under applicable law or regulations, and may obtain a photostatic or
duplicate copy upon paying the cost of the copy.

The full text can be found he
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...13_main_02.tpl

Larry Dighera wrote in message . ..

That FAAO mentions: "The identification of operational errors and
deviations without fear of reprisal is an absolute requirement and is
the responsibility of all of us who work within our [NAS] system."

Careful of pulling this from context. The word "operational" above
applies to both "errors" and "deviations".
An operational deviation is NOT the equivilent of a pilot deviation.
An operational deviation would be something like a controller letting
a pilot enter another controller's airspace without a handoff or other
form of coordination.

Operational deviations are what are required to be reported under that
section, not pilot deviations.

On 10 Oct 2004 16:07:45 -0700, (TJ Girl) wrote:

Operational deviations are what are required to be reported under that
section, not pilot deviations.


I wonder if this could be where some of the confusion is coming from
by asking pilots to give a reason for their flight deviations.

z

On 10 Oct 2004 16:07:45 -0700, (TJ Girl) wrote:

Operational deviations are what are required to be reported under that
section, not pilot deviations.


I wonder if this could be where some of the confusion is coming from
by asking pilots to give a reason for their flight deviations.

z

On 10 Oct 2004 16:07:45 -0700, (TJ Girl) wrote in
: :

Larry Dighera wrote in message . ..

That FAAO mentions: "The identification of operational errors and
deviations without fear of reprisal is an absolute requirement and is
the responsibility of all of us who work within our [NAS] system."

Careful of pulling this from context. The word "operational" above
applies to both "errors" and "deviations".
An operational deviation is NOT the equivilent of a pilot deviation.
An operational deviation would be something like a controller letting
a pilot enter another controller's airspace without a handoff or other
form of coordination.

Operational deviations are what are required to be reported under that
section, not pilot deviations.

If what you say is true, can you provide a pointer to the correct
regulation/order that does mandate that ATC controllers report all
PDs?

On 10 Oct 2004 16:07:45 -0700, (TJ Girl) wrote in
: :

Larry Dighera wrote in message . ..

That FAAO mentions: "The identification of operational errors and
deviations without fear of reprisal is an absolute requirement and is
the responsibility of all of us who work within our [NAS] system."

Careful of pulling this from context. The word "operational" above
applies to both "errors" and "deviations".
An operational deviation is NOT the equivilent of a pilot deviation.
An operational deviation would be something like a controller letting
a pilot enter another controller's airspace without a handoff or other
form of coordination.

Operational deviations are what are required to be reported under that
section, not pilot deviations.

If what you say is true, can you provide a pointer to the correct
regulation/order that does mandate that ATC controllers report all
PDs?