Pilot deviations and a new FAA reality

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 18:39:39 GMT, "C Kingsbury"
wrote in
.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
a crawl and the cop sees you look both ways carefully, but if your wheels
don't stop turning it's a moving violation. Of course, the cop can also
choose to just tell you to watch it. It saves him time that he can use to
pursue more important offenders.

Actually, there is a rational reason for making a complete stop at a
boulevard stop sign. If a motorist fails to make a complete stop, how
can another motorist at the same intersection know which vehicle was
the first to stop? As you'll recall, it is the first vehicle to stop
at the intersection that has the right of way. The vehicle on the
right only has the right of way when it's a dead heat.


What Chip's talking about is basically removing some of that discretionary
power from controllers.

Because the FAA is taking action against the controller who failed to
report the PD, there is probably regulatory language that mandates
s/he do so. I've posted a request for reference to it if it exists,
but have received no reply as yet.

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.

they'll
simply start punting things too, so the "no harm, no foul" policy just gets
shifted to a new desk. But in the meantime the volume of trees slaughtered
will increase, and with it the hours spent on pointless paperwork for
everybody. Safety will probably not benefit.

The increased workload may be sufficient to stimulate demand for
additional ATC personnel hiring. The change in policy of reporting
PDs may be the result of PATCO pressure or something else. 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.

-cwk.

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:CrU9d.96803$He1.7786@attbi_s01...
A car that runs a red light can get ticketed even if no collision or even
near-collision happens to occur. It wouldn't upset me if pilot deviations
were treated similarly, as long as the penalties are not
disproportionately
harsh.

--Gary

"C Kingsbury" wrote in message
link.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
a crawl and the cop sees you look both ways carefully, but if your wheels
don't stop turning it's a moving violation. Of course, the cop can also
choose to just tell you to watch it. It saves him time that he can use to
pursue more important offenders.

What Chip's talking about is basically removing some of that discretionary
power from controllers. Now, perhaps when management gets deluged with
reports of 50' altitude deviations and other trivial mistakes, they'll
simply start punting things too, so the "no harm, no foul" policy just
gets
shifted to a new desk. But in the meantime the volume of trees slaughtered
will increase, and with it the hours spent on pointless paperwork for
everybody. Safety will probably not benefit.

Hm, I assumed that it's not a deviation if the pilot is within PTS
standards; hence, being off by 50' in cruise wouldn't count.

--Gary


-cwk.

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:CrU9d.96803$He1.7786@attbi_s01...
A car that runs a red light can get ticketed even if no collision or even
near-collision happens to occur. It wouldn't upset me if pilot deviations
were treated similarly, as long as the penalties are not
disproportionately
harsh.

--Gary

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
a crawl and the cop sees you look both ways carefully, but if your wheels
don't stop turning it's a moving violation. Of course, the cop can also
choose to just tell you to watch it. It saves him time that he can use to
pursue more important offenders.

What Chip's talking about is basically removing some of that discretionary
power from controllers. Now, perhaps when management gets deluged with
reports of 50' altitude deviations and other trivial mistakes, they'll
simply start punting things too, so the "no harm, no foul" policy just gets
shifted to a new desk. But in the meantime the volume of trees slaughtered
will increase, and with it the hours spent on pointless paperwork for
everybody. Safety will probably not benefit.

-cwk.

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:CrU9d.96803$He1.7786@attbi_s01...
A car that runs a red light can get ticketed even if no collision or even
near-collision happens to occur. It wouldn't upset me if pilot deviations
were treated similarly, as long as the penalties are not
disproportionately
harsh.

--Gary

"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.

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.


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?

A car that runs a red light can get ticketed even if no collision or even
near-collision happens to occur. It wouldn't upset me if pilot deviations
were treated similarly, as long as the penalties are not disproportionately
harsh.

--Gary

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.

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

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Chip Jones wrote:


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.

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?

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

Chip Jones wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Chip Jones wrote:


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.

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?

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



If it was close enough to require a go-around, that seems close enough
to me to warrant a report. If nobody else was within 10 miles of the
airport, then I might feel differently.

Matt

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 09:32:24 -0400, Matt Whiting
wrote in ::


If it was close enough to require a go-around, that seems close enough
to me to warrant a report.

I would have to agree if separation were lost.

Here is a report from the AOPA web site with information on the FAA's
Runway Incursion Immunity policy for pilots. I'm not sure it applies
to controllers.


Pilot Counsel

FAA immunity for runway incursions

By John S. Yodice (From AOPA Pilot, June 2000.)

It seems that we can expect more uncomfortable one-on-one discussions
between pilots and FAA inspectors about possible regulatory
violations. We previously reported on the relatively new FAA
Streamlined Administrative Action Process (SAAP) program now in effect
(see "Pilot Counsel: FAA’s Ticket Program," September 1999 Pilot) and
offered some legal guidance to pilots. Now pilots may need some legal
guidance about participating in another new FAA program, the Runway
Incursion Information and Evaluation Program (RIIEP).

The title of the program tells us the purpose of the program—to gather
and evaluate information on runway incursions. It was announced on
March 19, 2000, and runs through March 19, 2001. The announcement
encourages pilots (and others) to give information to the FAA that
could help the agency get at the root causes of runway incursions.
Under the program, FAA field inspectors will seek to interview pilots
involved in such incidents, either in person or by telephone. In
exchange, the FAA offers cooperating pilots a limited immunity against
FAA enforcement.

No pilot needs to be convinced that the threat of a collision between
an aircraft taking off or landing and another aircraft, or vehicle, or
person, or other object on the runway is a serious safety problem.
According to the FAA, there has been an increase in such incidents in
recent years. The FAA says that pilot deviations are the leading cause
of runway incursions, increasing by 38 percent from 1997 to 1998. Not
surprisingly, the runway incursions most likely to cause accidents
generally occur at complex, high-volume airports.

The FAA usually has little problem in learning about runway incursions
and the pilots involved, since they happen at airports with control
towers. And the FAA has little trouble finding some infraction of the
federal aviation regulations that it can charge against one or more of
the pilots involved. The usual procedure in the past has been for an
FAA inspector to open an investigation when a controller reports a
runway incursion. An investigation often resulted in a suspension of
the certificate of one or more of the pilots, or less drastically, an
administrative action in the form of a warning notice or letter of
correction sent to the pilots.

This new program presents a dilemma for pilots. We certainly want to
cooperate with the FAA to solve the problem of runway incursions; but
in the process we don’t want to be cooperating ourselves into a
suspension of our pilot certificates or a black mark on our FAA
records. In the program, the FAA attempts to resolve this dilemma for
pilots by giving assurances that the usual enforcement action will not
be taken.

The FAA assurances take two forms. First, if a pilot cooperates,
subject to certain qualifications, "the FAA ordinarily does not expect
to take punitive legal enforcement action." Second, the FAA "does not
expect to use information provided by airmen during interviews
conducted by FAA inspectors under the RIIEP in any FAA punitive legal
enforcement action," according to the program.

Unfortunately, the assurances don’t seem to go far enough, using
qualifying words such as ordinarily and does not expect. They don’t
provide as much protection for the pilot as does the Aviation Safety
Reporting System, which is the time-honored method for anonymously and
confidentially getting safety information to the FAA in exchange for a
waiver of a disciplinary action.

So, what should a pilot do who gets a call from the tower or some FAA
inspector wanting to talk about an incident that is, or seems to be, a
"runway incursion"? In making a decision whether to cooperate, a pilot
needs to know his or her legal rights and the specifics of the
assurances that the FAA is offering. As we will see, the answer to
this question is complicated by the fact that a great deal of
discretion is given to the individual inspector in interpreting these
assurances.

To their credit, most pilots instinctively want to cooperate with the
FAA. That instinct is a good one. But pilots should understand that
participation in the program is strictly voluntary. A pilot has no
legal obligation to respond to an FAA inspector’s questions on a
possible runway incursion incident. Yet, answering the inspector’s
questions could cause the inspector to conclude that the program’s
immunity does not apply, or it could open the door to other
incriminating facts and circumstances.

Here is some general guidance. If there is anything aggravated about
the incident, it is probably best not to participate. For example, if
the circumstances are such that the FAA could allege that the
infraction was intentional (I don’t know of a runway incursion that
was intentional, but that is within the discretion of the inspector to
determine), the limited immunity would not apply. Or if there was an
accident as a result of the incursion, the immunity aspect of the
program would not apply. A pilot could be facing an enforcement
action to suspend or revoke the pilot certificate. The pilot should
seek some legal help before talking to the FAA, and before completing
an NTSB accident report.

The question becomes a muddy one if the incident is clearly
unintentional but does raise a question about the pilot’s
qualifications—for example, a runway incursion under circumstances
that suggest to the FAA that the pilot does not understand the air
traffic rules that govern an aircraft operating at an airport with a
control tower. The FAA will then ask the pilot to consent to a
reexamination or suffer a suspension of the pilot certificate. The
program says: "If alleged violation(s) resulting from the runway
incursion or the circumstances surrounding the runway incursion
demonstrate, or raise a question of, a lack of qualification of the
airman, then the FAA will proceed with appropriate remedial action,
which might include reexamination and/or certificate revocation or
certificate suspension pending reexamination."

If the incursion was unintentional, and the pilot does understand the
rules but just became confused or disoriented—which should be the case
in the majority of such events involving a pilot deviation—then
participation in the program is probably in order. That is a situation
where the FAA should be able to benefit most from an interview with
the pilot. We should expect that a reasonable inspector would take no
enforcement or administrative action against a cooperating pilot.
However, pilots should understand that even in such a situation, the
inspector has the discretion under the program of taking an
administrative action against the pilot. An administrative action does
not suspend or revoke a pilot certificate, but it will take the form
of a warning notice or letter of correction, which will be a matter of
record against the pilot for two years.

In any event, whether a pilot cooperates in the RIIEP or not, there
would seem to be no good reason not to file a NASA Safety Report (do
not report an accident or criminal activity, however) on NASA ARC Form
277 and get whatever immunity, anonymity, and confidentiality that is
available through that program.


Posted Friday, May 19, 2000 11:53:26 AM
©1995-2000 Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

If it was close enough to require a go-around, that seems close enough
to me to warrant a report.


I would have to agree if separation were lost.


Separation isn't going to be lost as long as the aircraft executes the go
around. Of course, if the aircraft doesn't execute the go around, a
collision on the runway could result.