Moving violation..NASA form?

[Nasir]

I recently got my PPL and went for my first x-country with my wife.

I trained at an uncontrolled field and going to a controlled field always
was a little more challenging for me. Anyway all went well on our trip to
the class-D airport. We got the courtesy car, went to have the $100
hamburger..all in all it went great!

On our return trip however, I screwed up. This particular airport does not
have a separate ground frequency..tower is also the ground controller. After
I started up the plane, for some very stupid reason I assumed that since
there is no separate ground controller, I did not need permission to taxi to
the active (I know, its unbelievably stupid!). I tuned ATIS, figured out the
active, tuned to tower and without saying anything, I started to taxi to it.
I was not going to get onto the runway or cross any runwyas and would have
definetly asked permission but did not ask for taxi clearance.

The tower called me and told me to "STOP". I hit the brakes and responded to
their call. They asked me what I was doing. I sheepishly said I am taxing to
active. The guy tells me its a controlled field and I am required to ask
permission before I can taxi. I acknowledged. He asked where I was headed
and I told him. He cleared me to taxi to the runway.

While getting to the active, I came across another runway that was closed,
but since the guy had chewed me out before I decided to ask anyway. He told
me I had already crossed the hold-short line so yeah go ahead! I taxi all
the way to the active, he cleared me to depart and go to my heading.

Now I know I screwed up with not asking for taxi clearance but I believe I
did not need his permission to cross the other runway since 1, it was
closed, and 2, he had cleared me to taxi to the active which means I can
cross any runways on the way!

Anyway, he never asked me to "call the tower" or anything. I am wondering if
I am in trouble? Should I file that nasa form? I talked to my instructor and
was told it was no big deal since they never asked me to call the tower and
did not mention any action would be taken, but I still concerned.

Should I be worried? Others been in this situation?

thanks.

PS: posted this in the student newgroup too so others can learn. When in ANY
DOUBT, ASK!

[Roy Smith]

"Nasir" > wrote:
> Anyway, he never asked me to "call the tower" or anything. I am wondering if
> I am in trouble? Should I file that nasa form? I talked to my instructor and
> was told it was no big deal since they never asked me to call the tower and
> did not mention any action would be taken, but I still concerned.

File the NASA form. From what you describe, it doesn't sound like any
official action will ever come of this, but filing the form is cheap
insurance.

[Newps]

Nasir wrote:


> Now I know I screwed up with not asking for taxi clearance but I believe I
> did not need his permission to cross the other runway since 1, it was
> closed,

Closed how? Permanently as in it is no longer a runway but now a
taxiway? Or closed for construction? You are right that you can go all
the way to your departure runway as you stated but you cannot know that
a runway is closed. If it is temporarily closed it is still a runway.


> Anyway, he never asked me to "call the tower" or anything. I am wondering if
> I am in trouble?

Nope, wouldn't worry about it.

[Peter Duniho]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> File the NASA form. From what you describe, it doesn't sound like any
> official action will ever come of this, but filing the form is cheap
> insurance.

Furthermore, the NASA form exists not just for "insurance" purposes. The
aviation community in general learns about safety issues through the use of
the NASA form. The "get out of jail free" aspect is simply encouragement to
participate in the overall purpose.

The form should be filed regardless of whether you think you need the
enforcement protection. Your first thought should be regarding whether the
form can help others learn from your mistakes (or the mistakes of others).

Pete

[Nasir]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:Yfjpb.91154$e01.315653@attbi_s02...
>
>
> Nasir wrote:
>
>
> > Now I know I screwed up with not asking for taxi clearance but I believe
I
> > did not need his permission to cross the other runway since 1, it was
> > closed,
>
> Closed how? Permanently as in it is no longer a runway but now a
> taxiway? Or closed for construction? You are right that you can go all
> the way to your departure runway as you stated but you cannot know that
> a runway is closed. If it is temporarily closed it is still a runway.
>

The A/FD says 'Runway xx-xx CLOSED indef'. Regardless, I thought (and like
you say) I was cleared all the way to the active but wanted to add that the
runway in question was not even open to traffic. I guess the controller was
just ****ed at me and wasn't done with me from the taxi mishap.

>
> > Anyway, he never asked me to "call the tower" or anything. I am
wondering if
> > I am in trouble?
>
> Nope, wouldn't worry about it.
>
>

[Nasir]

> The form should be filed regardless of whether you think you need the
> enforcement protection. Your first thought should be regarding whether
the
> form can help others learn from your mistakes (or the mistakes of others).
>
> Pete

I was not sure how harmless or harmful this mistake was and whether it may
be too trivial for the NASA form? For what its worth, I was VERY careful
before I started to taxi and made sure no other aircraft was on the taxiway
(pretty slow day at the airport). Something I learned diligently at the
uncontrolled field.

Nasir

[Pixel Dent]

In article >,
Roy Smith > wrote:

> "Nasir" > wrote:
> > Anyway, he never asked me to "call the tower" or anything. I am wondering if
> > I am in trouble? Should I file that nasa form? I talked to my instructor and
> > was told it was no big deal since they never asked me to call the tower and
> > did not mention any action would be taken, but I still concerned.
>

File a NASA form not to get yourself out of trouble, but because this is
the sort of circumstance they were meant for. You ran into situation
which is likely to trip up other pilots as well. Get it in their
database.

[Peter Duniho]

"Nasir" > wrote in message
om...
> I was not sure how harmless or harmful this mistake was and whether it may
> be too trivial for the NASA form?

Better to err on the side of filing too many NASA forms. Perhaps you are
the only pilot in existence to ever have forgotten to contact ground at an
airport where the ground and tower frequencies are shared. If you are, your
form will be the only to ever mention that issue. But there's never any
harm in filing the form. Who knows? Maybe your form will be last one
needed for NASA to figure out there's a problem using the same frequency for
tower and ground (assuming there is).

Provide the data. Let NASA decide whether it's a real problem or not.

Pete

[John Gaquin]

"Nasir" > wrote in message news:W6jpb.827>
> Should I be worried? Others been in this situation?

Go ahead and file the form; it costs you nothing. But more importantly,
how did your wife react? Will she go with you again? Hopefully!

JG

[Nasir]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Nasir" > wrote in message
news:W6jpb.827>
> > Should I be worried? Others been in this situation?
>
> Go ahead and file the form; it costs you nothing. But more importantly,
> how did your wife react? Will she go with you again? Hopefully!

I will file the form. It does not have any potential consequences, does it?
I've heard people say that you should keep your mouth shut sometimes when it
comes to FAA.

My wife was fine. When we got back to home base she did not want to finish
the trip and wanted to go elsewhere!

[C J Campbell]

You screwed up by taxiing without permission. Now you know better. Once
cleared to a runway you did not need permission to cross intervening
runways, closed or not.

This will not be the last time you screw up. File the NASA form when you do
and move on.

[Peter Duniho]

"Nasir" > wrote in message
om...
> I will file the form. It does not have any potential consequences, does
it?
> I've heard people say that you should keep your mouth shut sometimes when
it
> comes to FAA.

That's the whole point of the form. It's not the FAA, it's NASA. Any
personally identifying information is removed before any of it gets back to
the FAA. There's no downside to filing it, other than the nominal time
spent filling it out and sending it in.

Pete

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 23:45:56 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>There's no downside to filing it, other than the nominal time
>spent filling it out ...

Actually, that is a positive thing to the extent that it causes a
pilot to thoughtfully reflect on the actions that led to the
violation. Also good, might be a little investigation into CRM:
http://search.yahoo.com/search?x=op&vp=crew+resource+management&vp_vt=any&vst=0&vd=all&fl=0&ei=ISO-8859-1&vm=p&n=20

And the best guidance you can get in dealing with the FAA is available
through AOPA's Legal Plan:
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2000/00-3-013.html


I doubt this incident qualifies as a runway incursion, but here's some
reassuring information just in case:


The FAA defines a runway incursion as:
Any occurrence at an airport involving an aircraft, vehicle, person,
or object on the ground that creates a collision hazard or results in
loss of separation with an aircraft taking off, or intending to take
off, landing, or intending to land.

-------------------------------------------------------------
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.

[Roy Smith]

Peter Duniho" wrote:
>> The form should be filed regardless of whether you think you need
>> the enforcement protection. Your first thought should be regarding
>> whether the form can help others learn from your mistakes (or the
>> mistakes of others).

"Nasir" > wrote:
> I was not sure how harmless or harmful this mistake was and whether it may
> be too trivial for the NASA form? For what its worth, I was VERY careful
> before I started to taxi and made sure no other aircraft was on the taxiway
> (pretty slow day at the airport). Something I learned diligently at the
> uncontrolled field.

I agree with Peter; there is value in filing the form in helping to
improve overall system safety. Let's look at your incident.

The basic problem sounds like you did your training at an uncontrolled
field and weren't that familiar with controlled airport operations.
When you got to an airport which had a published tower frequency but no
ground frequency (a situation I've never actually seen myself; are you
sure about this?) you incorrectly assumed this meant you didn't need to
talk to anybody to taxi to the runway.

OK, that's fine. You made a mistake (and learned from it), but lots of
pilots (especially new ones) make mistakes. No training program is 100%
effective. But, maybe the mistake you made is a common one? If
everybody who made that mistake sent in a NASA form, somebody who reads
the forms might notice a pattern, and NASA might make a recommendation
to the FAA that student pilots training at uncontrolled airports get
better training in ATC ground operations. Eventually that
recommendation will filter down to CFIs like me and we'll change the way
we teach.

Well, at least that's the plan. Whether it really works that way is a
matter of conjecture :-)

[Roy Smith]

"Nasir" > wrote:
> I will file the form. It does not have any potential consequences, does it?

I have never heard of anybody getting into trouble by filing a NASA form.

> I've heard people say that you should keep your mouth shut sometimes when it
> comes to FAA.

This is good advice, and worth listening to. But, that's also exactly
the reason the forms don't go to the FAA! NASA handles collecting the
forms, and entering the data into their database, with all identifying
information stripped out. This arms-length approach is what gives
pilots the confidence that they can admit their sins in confidence.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Nasir wrote:
>
> Now I know I screwed up with not asking for taxi clearance but I believe I
> did not need his permission to cross the other runway since 1, it was
> closed, and 2, he had cleared me to taxi to the active which means I can
> cross any runways on the way!

You're correct on both counts.

> Should I be worried? Others been in this situation?

Don't worry about it. Been there (unfortunately).

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

[Peter R.]

C J Campbell ) wrote:

> This will not be the last time you screw up. File the NASA form when you do
> and move on.

Hopefully this incident will be the last time he taxis without permission.

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Peter R." wrote:
>
> Hopefully this incident will be the last time he taxis without permission.

Experience is what enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again.

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

[Nasir]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> This will not be the last time you screw up. File the NASA form when you
do
> and move on.

Gee, thanks for the vote of confidence ;)

I thought about the incident a bit more and I realize one of the factors in
deciding not to talk to tower was something that had happened before during
my training.

I had done a stop and go during my long x-country and while departing out of
the class D, I requested permission to change frequency. I was rather
bluntly told that I dont need permission. I think in the back of my mind,
that little exchange was still in the back of my mind and maybe I partly
felt unncessary to bother the controller with my taxi request.

So I dont know what the solution is to that, but with so much to learn and
remember as a student, you sometimes forget if permission is required or not
and being cautious you go ahead and ask, but you get chewed out sometimes
that leaves you wondering if you should have asked!

[Peter R.]

Nasir ) wrote:

<snip>
> So I dont know what the solution is to that, but with so much to learn and
> remember as a student, you sometimes forget if permission is required or not
> and being cautious you go ahead and ask, but you get chewed out sometimes
> that leaves you wondering if you should have asked!

Always better to err on the side of caution and ask. I hear commercial
airline pilots confirming frequencies, headings, altitudes, and the such
all the time, despite reading back the request moments earlier.

Realize that there are always going to be some crabby controllers mixed in
with a lot of good ones. Never take their attitude personally, for you
could be the pinnacle of comm radio excellence and still get barked at by a
controller having a bad day/life.

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Gene Seibel]

All but a few perfect pilots have made such a mistake. Don't worry
about it, but try not to do it again. ;)
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.



> Anyway, he never asked me to "call the tower" or anything. I am wondering if
> I am in trouble? Should I file that nasa form? I talked to my instructor and
> was told it was no big deal since they never asked me to call the tower and
> did not mention any action would be taken, but I still concerned.
>
> Should I be worried? Others been in this situation?
>
> thanks.
>
> PS: posted this in the student newgroup too so others can learn. When in ANY
> DOUBT, ASK!

[C J Campbell]

"Nasir" > wrote in message
. com...
|
| I had done a stop and go during my long x-country and while departing out
of
| the class D, I requested permission to change frequency. I was rather
| bluntly told that I dont need permission.

No, you do not need permission. It is courteous to inform the tower that you
are changing frequencies. The guy who barked at you is a jerk. He will not
be the last one of those you will run into, either.

[Joe Johnson]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
> Experience is what enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it
again.
>
> George Patterson
> You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the
mud.

An expert is an individual who has made every possible mistake in a very
narrow field of inquiry

--Niels Bohr

[Snowbird]

"Nasir" > wrote in message >...

> I had done a stop and go during my long x-country and while departing out of
> the class D, I requested permission to change frequency. I was rather
> bluntly told that I dont need permission. I think in the back of my mind,
> that little exchange was still in the back of my mind and maybe I partly
> felt unncessary to bother the controller with my taxi request.

Ah! The solution here is remember something one of my first CFIs
told me.

There is no room for three people in the cockpit of a two-person
plane. Keep the controller OUT of the cockpit. If you get your
butt chewed out by a controller, it doesn't necessarily mean you
have done a thing wrong. You could have; or the controller could
have; or, the controller could be having a bad day and taking it
out on you.

Keep the controller out of your head and out of your plane and
move on. On the ground, assess the situation and figure out
what happened and how to do better in future, but don't let the
fear of being chewed out change your behavior.

Cheers,
Sydney

[John Galban]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> "Nasir" > wrote in message
> . com...
> |
> | I had done a stop and go during my long x-country and while departing out
> of
> | the class D, I requested permission to change frequency. I was rather
> | bluntly told that I dont need permission.
>
> No, you do not need permission. It is courteous to inform the tower that you
> are changing frequencies. The guy who barked at you is a jerk. He will not
> be the last one of those you will run into, either.

Just to clarify. If you are still within the boundaries of the
class D, then you do need permission. Once outside the class D
boundary, no permission or other communication is required.

My local tower has requested that pilots "go quietly" from the class
D and not request frequency change unless they are still within the
class D boundary. It cuts down on unnecessary radio clutter during
busy periods.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[G.R. Patterson III]

Joe Johnson wrote:
>
> An expert is an individual who has made every possible mistake in a very
> narrow field of inquiry

Ex - a prefix indicating that you don't do this anymore.
Spurt - a drip under pressure.
Expert - a former drip under pressure.

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

[Jeff Franks]

> Realize that there are always going to be some crabby controllers mixed in
> with a lot of good ones. Never take their attitude personally, for you
> could be the pinnacle of comm radio excellence and still get barked at by
a
> controller having a bad day/life.
>

Its amazing to me the number of controllers that have no aviation experience
outside of their jobs. This isn't to say that they are bad controllers
because of it. But, just like its good for pilots to visit the tower to see
how ATC works (can you still do that post-9/11?), I wonder how much training
the ATC folks get on "our" side of the fence.

My father was a PATCO controller (pre-Reagan firing) and he was in the
minority in that he had his PPL.

[Paul Sengupta]

At RAF Shawbury when I picked up my plane from the RAF,
I got everything ready, started the engine, then made contact
with the tower. Tower asked me then to "report ready for
engine start"...oops!

Paul

"Gene Seibel" > wrote in message
om...
> All but a few perfect pilots have made such a mistake. Don't worry
> about it, but try not to do it again. ;)

[Ron Natalie]

"Jeff Franks" > wrote in message ...

> My father was a PATCO controller (pre-Reagan firing) and he was in the
> minority in that he had his PPL.

Yep, such is the nature of things. I saw a similar thing with ER docs and
Paramedics. Frequently neither new anything of the other's roles other than
what was in the official protocols (and sometimes a poor understanding of
that). I happened to be working in the ER one day when some intern was
standing their exasperated doing a cardiac consult with a unit in the field.
"I don't know what more they expect me to do for this patient." I pointed out
that they wanted her to tell them they could stop treatment on a dead patient.
Our protocols don't allow paramedics to discontinue treatment ONCE it is
started on our own authority.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Paul Sengupta" > wrote:

> At RAF Shawbury when I picked up my plane from the RAF,
> I got everything ready, started the engine, then made contact
> with the tower. Tower asked me then to "report ready for
> engine start"...oops!
>
> Paul
>
> "Gene Seibel" > wrote in message
> om...
> > All but a few perfect pilots have made such a mistake. Don't worry
> > about it, but try not to do it again. ;)
>
>

Yes -- a lot of countries -- European, especially, have the req to
contact tower BEFORE engine start! It is a really stupid reg, and can
play real havoc with the electronics, if you have a voltage spike due to
releasing the starter button after the engine fires.

This req epitomizes the stupidity of non-aviators making the rules!

[Robert Moore]

Orval Fairbairn wrote
> Yes -- a lot of countries -- European, especially, have the req
> to contact tower BEFORE engine start! It is a really stupid reg,
> and can play real havoc with the electronics, if you have a
> voltage spike due to releasing the starter button after the
> engine fires.
>
> This req epitomizes the stupidity of non-aviators making the
> rules!

A very narrow point of view. I found it very frustrating to fire-up
all four engines, push back from the jetway, unhook the tug, call
Ground Control for taxi only to be told that there was a 45 min
hold on all West bound departures. That's what brought about the
rule.

Bob Moore

[Corky Scott]

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 10:07:43 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

>
>"Nasir" > wrote in message
. com...
>|
>| I had done a stop and go during my long x-country and while departing out
>of
>| the class D, I requested permission to change frequency. I was rather
>| bluntly told that I dont need permission.
>
>No, you do not need permission. It is courteous to inform the tower that you
>are changing frequencies. The guy who barked at you is a jerk. He will not
>be the last one of those you will run into, either.
>
>
While I was in training, I noticed that the tower would ask us where
we were going at some point after the initial contact following engine
start, if we didn't say so ourselves. Then when we took off, the CFI
would always tell the tower when we had departed the Class D airspace.
Depending on where we were going, cross country or just local for
maneuvering training, the tower would either approve a frequency
change or just thank us for informing him that we were departing the
class D space.

When I flew solo, and later after I got my PPL, I continued to inform
the tower when I departed it's airspace. Haven't flown into any
really busy airports though. Well I take that back, Portland is a
"busy" airport and we did not tell them when we departed their class C
space. The one I trained at isn't normally really busy.

Corky Scott

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 17:24:36 GMT, Robert Moore
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>Orval Fairbairn wrote
>> Yes -- a lot of countries -- European, especially, have the req
>> to contact tower BEFORE engine start! It is a really stupid reg,
>> and can play real havoc with the electronics, if you have a
>> voltage spike due to releasing the starter button after the
>> engine fires.
>>
>> This req epitomizes the stupidity of non-aviators making the
>> rules!
>
>A very narrow point of view.

But it is a point of view consistent with GA aspect of the newsgroup
charter:

The charter of rec.aviation.piloting is:


************************************************** **************************
* Information pertinent to pilots of general aviation aircraft
* which would not fall into one of the other non-misc
* rec.aviation groups. Topics include, but are not limited to
* flying skills, interesting sights, destinations, flight
* characteristics of aircraft, unusual situations, handling
* emergencies, working with air traffic control, international
* flights, customs and immigration, experiences with ground
* support facilities, etc.

************************************************** **************************

>I found it very frustrating to fire-up
>all four engines, push back from the jetway, unhook the tug, call
>Ground Control for taxi only to be told that there was a 45 min
>hold on all West bound departures. That's what brought about the
>rule.

That's interesting information.

Mr. Fairbairn's argument against radio contact with the tower before
engine start implies that it is not possible to disconnect the
electronic equipment from the electrical bus before starting the
engine(s). I have not encountered aircraft with such a limitation.

[Paul Sengupta]

It tends to be individual airfields here as far as puddlejumpers
are concerned (here = UK). I guess RAF places have it, I think
Bristol has that requirement (trying to be a big airport and discourge
GA), and I was up in Swansea the other day and heard others
calling for startup. I didn't bother and the tower didn't complain!

Maybe it'll be mentioned in the next AFE/Pooleys.

Oh, and just because you have to have your radio on to call
them doesn't mean you have to keep it on while starting the
engine! In places like Tampa, you call for clearance (or I do
anyway) before you start up.

Paul

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
.
...
> Yes -- a lot of countries -- European, especially, have the req to
> contact tower BEFORE engine start! It is a really stupid reg, and can
> play real havoc with the electronics, if you have a voltage spike due to
> releasing the starter button after the engine fires.
>
> This req epitomizes the stupidity of non-aviators making the rules!

[Peter Duniho]

"Robert Moore" > wrote in message
. 6...
> A very narrow point of view. I found it very frustrating to fire-up
> all four engines, push back from the jetway, unhook the tug, call
> Ground Control for taxi only to be told that there was a 45 min
> hold on all West bound departures. That's what brought about the
> rule.

You're saying they wrote a rule to force pilots to act toward their own
convenience?

Forgive me if I'm skeptical.

It's true that it's possible to start up an engine (or four) without having
the radios on, even if contact with ATC is required prior to engine start.
But to claim that a rule was created *forcing* contact with ATC before
engine start *because* there was a perceived need to not inconvenience
pilots seems a little bit of a stretch.

Pete

[Robert Moore]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote

> You're saying they wrote a rule to force pilots to act toward
> their own convenience?

No Peter, they wrote the rule to keep 25-30 aircraft at the
"hub" push time at the gate and off the ramps and taxiways.


Bob

[Peter Duniho]

"Robert Moore" > wrote in message
. 8...
> No Peter, they wrote the rule to keep 25-30 aircraft at the
> "hub" push time at the gate and off the ramps and taxiways.

How does the rule accomplish that? Wouldn't it make more sense to write a
rule that requires an aircraft to stay put and leave the question of engine
start up to the pilot? How does requiring contact with the tower prior to
engine start prevent an aircraft from being towed by a tug?

[Teacherjh]

>>
In places like Tampa, you call for clearance (or I do
anyway) before you start up.
<<

IFR I always call for my clearance before starting up. If there's a routing
problem or delay, I don't want the hobbs meter running while it's sorted out.

Jose

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

[Ron Natalie]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message ...

> IFR I always call for my clearance before starting up. If there's a routing
> problem or delay, I don't want the hobbs meter running while it's sorted out.
>
I just had the hobbs meter removed.

[ZikZak]

On 11/3/03 3:35 PM, in article
, "John Galban"
> wrote:

> My local tower has requested that pilots "go quietly" from the class
> D and not request frequency change unless they are still within the
> class D boundary. It cuts down on unnecessary radio clutter during
> busy periods.
>

That's interesting. Where I learned to fly (ITH), the tower controllers
routinely instructed pilots to "report clear of the Class D airspace."
Diff'rent strokes, I guess.

[Steve]

I wonder if it's dependant on whether the aiport has a radar feed or not. I
know that Ithaca does not, so may be requesting that you are clear. Airports
that either have there own radar, or have a feed from a nearby airport,
already know when you are clear.
-Steve

"ZikZak" > wrote in message
...
> On 11/3/03 3:35 PM, in article
> , "John Galban"
> > wrote:
>
> > My local tower has requested that pilots "go quietly" from the class
> > D and not request frequency change unless they are still within the
> > class D boundary. It cuts down on unnecessary radio clutter during
> > busy periods.
> >
>
> That's interesting. Where I learned to fly (ITH), the tower controllers
> routinely instructed pilots to "report clear of the Class D airspace."
> Diff'rent strokes, I guess.
>
>

[...]

Steve wrote:
> I wonder if it's dependant on whether the aiport has a radar feed or not. I
> know that Ithaca does not, so may be requesting that you are clear. Airports
> that either have there own radar, or have a feed from a nearby airport,
> already know when you are clear.
> -Steve

I think not having a radar at the tower is exactly the reason the tower
wants to know your position and then grants "Changing frequency".
SAF is Class D and doesn't have radar, thus the ATC folks request to
report 5nm out and then tell you that "change of frequency approved".

Chris

>
> "ZikZak" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On 11/3/03 3:35 PM, in article
, "John Galban"
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>My local tower has requested that pilots "go quietly" from the class
>>>D and not request frequency change unless they are still within the
>>>class D boundary. It cuts down on unnecessary radio clutter during
>>>busy periods.
>>>
>>
>>That's interesting. Where I learned to fly (ITH), the tower controllers
>>routinely instructed pilots to "report clear of the Class D airspace."
>>Diff'rent strokes, I guess.
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Jeff]

Personally I would not file a form unless asked to.
I have seen alot of bone head mistakes and heard alot of bone head mistakes
while flying into airports and waiting to depart. I am willing to bet everyone
has made a bone head mistake. The thing about mistakes is to realize you made it
and not do it again.
If ever in doubt, ask, who cares if it ****es off the controller, its alot
better then having an accident. I have been told to stop where I was at, turn
around and go the opposite direction several times, I have forgot to completly
secure my door before take off causing me to land so I can close it. I have
clipped the class B over las vegas lots of times. One day a controller at LAS,
when I called for clearance into the class B, told me "well your already inside
the class B you might as well contine"

I would just chalk it up to learning, slap yourself on the head and not forget
it. If you write a report for every little thing you do, you may has well keep a
stack of them on file.

As for calling in when departing, if your unsure of how they normally operate,
make a simple short radio call, "cherokee 47891 frequency. change"
give him about 30-45 seconds to respond, if he does not, change.


Nasir wrote:

> I recently got my PPL and went for my first x-country with my wife.
>
> I trained at an uncontrolled field and going to a controlled field always
> was a little more challenging for me. Anyway all went well on our trip to
> the class-D airport. We got the courtesy car, went to have the $100
> hamburger..all in all it went great!
>
> On our return trip however, I screwed up. This particular airport does not
> have a separate ground frequency..tower is also the ground controller. After
> I started up the plane, for some very stupid reason I assumed that since
> there is no separate ground controller, I did not need permission to taxi to
> the active (I know, its unbelievably stupid!). I tuned ATIS, figured out the
> active, tuned to tower and without saying anything, I started to taxi to it.
> I was not going to get onto the runway or cross any runwyas and would have
> definetly asked permission but did not ask for taxi clearance.
>
> The tower called me and told me to "STOP". I hit the brakes and responded to
> their call. They asked me what I was doing. I sheepishly said I am taxing to
> active. The guy tells me its a controlled field and I am required to ask
> permission before I can taxi. I acknowledged. He asked where I was headed
> and I told him. He cleared me to taxi to the runway.
>
> While getting to the active, I came across another runway that was closed,
> but since the guy had chewed me out before I decided to ask anyway. He told
> me I had already crossed the hold-short line so yeah go ahead! I taxi all
> the way to the active, he cleared me to depart and go to my heading.
>
> Now I know I screwed up with not asking for taxi clearance but I believe I
> did not need his permission to cross the other runway since 1, it was
> closed, and 2, he had cleared me to taxi to the active which means I can
> cross any runways on the way!
>
> Anyway, he never asked me to "call the tower" or anything. I am wondering if
> I am in trouble? Should I file that nasa form? I talked to my instructor and
> was told it was no big deal since they never asked me to call the tower and
> did not mention any action would be taken, but I still concerned.
>
> Should I be worried? Others been in this situation?
>
> thanks.
>
> PS: posted this in the student newgroup too so others can learn. When in ANY
> DOUBT, ASK!

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 00:36:17 -0800, Jeff > wrote in
Message-Id: >:

>Personally I would not file a form unless asked to.

Who would ask you to file a NASA form?

[ZikZak]

On 11/5/03 12:36 AM, in article , "Jeff"
> wrote:

> Personally I would not file a form unless asked to.

Who would ever ask you to file a NASA form?? There is no downside to
reporting a safety issue or accidental violation. There is a lot of upside,
both to you and to GA as a whole.


> If ever in doubt, ask, who cares if it ****es off the controller, its alot
> better then having an accident. I have been told to stop where I was at, turn
> around and go the opposite direction several times, I have forgot to completly
> secure my door before take off causing me to land so I can close it. I have
> clipped the class B over las vegas lots of times. One day a controller at LAS,
> when I called for clearance into the class B, told me "well your already
> inside
> the class B you might as well contine"

You busted class B multiple times to the extent that you got chewed out by a
controller and never filed a NASA report??

I would definitely have filed for that, and maybe for the times when you
seem to have taken a wrong turn on the tarmac, depending on whether there
was a safety or security issue involved. When you file an ASRS report,
you're getting free violation insurance and helping to improve flight safety
for all of us.

[Roy Smith]

In article >, ZikZak >
wrote:

> > If ever in doubt, ask, who cares if it ****es off the controller, its alot
> > better then having an accident. I have been told to stop where I was at,
> > turn
> > around and go the opposite direction several times, I have forgot to
> > completly
> > secure my door before take off causing me to land so I can close it. I have
> > clipped the class B over las vegas lots of times. One day a controller at
> > LAS,
> > when I called for clearance into the class B, told me "well your already
> > inside
> > the class B you might as well contine"
>
> You busted class B multiple times to the extent that you got chewed out by a
> controller and never filed a NASA report??


I'm wondering why after busting class B multiple times he didn't get
some remedial training on how to read a map.

[John Galban]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message >...
> "Robert Moore" > wrote in message
> . 8...
> > No Peter, they wrote the rule to keep 25-30 aircraft at the
> > "hub" push time at the gate and off the ramps and taxiways.
>
> How does the rule accomplish that? Wouldn't it make more sense to write a
> rule that requires an aircraft to stay put and leave the question of engine
> start up to the pilot? How does requiring contact with the tower prior to
> engine start prevent an aircraft from being towed by a tug?

FWIW, most of the bigger class C & B airports I've visited have a
note on ATIS requiring the big jets to contact ground before pushback.
Never heard any mention of engine start.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[John Galban]

Jeff > wrote in message >...
> Personally I would not file a form unless asked to.

????
<snip>

> The thing about mistakes is to realize you made it
> and not do it again.

Excellent advice.
<snip>

> I have
> clipped the class B over las vegas lots of times.

See previous quote.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)