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

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 15:08:08 GMT, "Chip Jones"
> wrote:

>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.


What are the steps that are followed after you report a deviation to
your supervisor?

Thanks for the info.
z

"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

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
>
>

"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
>>
>>
>
>

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> 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
>
> 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.

> >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.

> 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.

-cwk.

>>
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.
<<

This comes from the mentality, not present in aviation, that rules of the road
need to be set up for the lowest common denomenator, because just anybody who
can breathe can get a license to drive. So the rules are set up so that even
the least competent driver is safe if he just follows the rules. No judgement
needed.

In aviation it is different. Minimum are set for the competent pilot, but
pilots are expected to excercise judgement as to whether any given legal
situation is safe, and act accordingly. I assume controllers are also expected
to excercise judgement.

On the surface it appears that this rule is recinding the idea that judgement
should be applied, and instead, it puts a cop on every corner, making ATC work
against the pilot as well as for them.

Jose




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

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

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> 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.
> <<
>
> This comes from the mentality, not present in aviation, that rules of the
road
> need to be set up for the lowest common denomenator, because just anybody
who
> can breathe can get a license to drive.

Also, while most pilot errors are honest mistakes (e.g. busting an
altitude), most traffic violations are intentional attempts to evade the
rules.

-cwk.

"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

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:tEW9d.211481$MQ5.87982@attbi_s52...
>>
>> 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.
>

Being off by 50' in cruise wouldn't be noticed.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
news:ze1ad.13857
>
> Being off by 50' in cruise wouldn't be noticed.
>

OK, to be precise, 100'+/- is OK, and encoders click over at 51', right? So
you'd have to be 151' off for it to show as outside tolerance. Fly over some
building cumulus in a 172 sometime- that can left your skirts 100' before
you know it. Better have that altitude nailed or you've violated your
clearance.

-cwk.

"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> OK, to be precise, 100'+/- is OK, and encoders click over at 51', right?
> So
> you'd have to be 151' off for it to show as outside tolerance. Fly over
> some
> building cumulus in a 172 sometime- that can left your skirts 100' before
> you know it. Better have that altitude nailed or you've violated your
> clearance.
>

Call ATC with a PIREP on the turbulence.

"C Kingsbury" > writes:

>> >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.

Plus the maximum allowed deviation for the encoder at your altitude. I
forget the table but I recall it being quite significant above 14,000'.
(I got a transponder check letter when mine wasn't making good contact
with my encoder.)

>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.

I'd like to think we'd all change our assumptions given sufficient
evidence to the contrary.

--kyler

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

C Kingsbury wrote:

> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> news:ze1ad.13857
>
>>Being off by 50' in cruise wouldn't be noticed.
>>
>
>
> OK, to be precise, 100'+/- is OK, and encoders click over at 51', right? So
> you'd have to be 151' off for it to show as outside tolerance. Fly over some
> building cumulus in a 172 sometime- that can left your skirts 100' before
> you know it. Better have that altitude nailed or you've violated your
> clearance.
>
> -cwk.
>
>
>
>

Last I knew, you had 300' of tolerance before a violation was a concern.
Has this changed recently?

Matt

"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

"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> news:ze1ad.13857
> >
> > Being off by 50' in cruise wouldn't be noticed.
> >
>
> OK, to be precise, 100'+/- is OK, and encoders click over at 51', right?
So
> you'd have to be 151' off for it to show as outside tolerance. Fly over
some
> building cumulus in a 172 sometime- that can left your skirts 100' before
> you know it. Better have that altitude nailed or you've violated your
> clearance.
>
Hell, I remember vertical deviations of a lot more than that, with the VSI
being dam near pegged on the climb/descend scale in some sizeable twins,
during some turbulence.

I was on an Embrarer 55 out of Houston and heard the warning horn going off
in the cockpit during turbulence that I think got us zero gravity at a
couple of points.

"Kyler Laird" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'd like to think we'd all change our assumptions given sufficient
> evidence to the contrary.
>
Haven't been around Usenet very long, have 'ya? :~)

"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 et>,
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
. 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 ink.net...
> WAFDOF?
>

www.acronymfinder.com

"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

>>
> 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)

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

>"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.

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
>
>

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.

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.