Pilot deviations and a new FAA reality

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

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


I would have to agree if separation were lost.


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

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


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

I would have to agree if separation were lost.

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


Pilot Counsel

FAA immunity for runway incursions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


Folks, I see at *least* one pilot deviation a week working traffic in my
small slice of the NAS. I don't report them unless separation is lost,
because I was trained under the "no harm, no foul" mentality. Pilots
help
controllers, controllers help pilots, and the NAS ticks along like an
old
clock. I'm not changing the way I do business, but I wanted you to know
that other controllers might, in order to cover themsleves against
antagonistic Management.

No offense, Chip, but runway incursions are a pretty serious deviation.
I'm not sure I can fault the Feds for wanting these reported given
some of the past fatal accidents caused by them.


Matt, no offense taken. I agree with you that runway incursions are a
pretty serious deviation, but where do you draw the line for a "pretty
serious" pilot deviation? It is my opinion that the controller working the
situation, the person who issued the ignored hold short instruction, is the
Fed on the scene. Not the tower chief coming in on the scene a few days
later, If the person issuing ATC clearances sees no harm, no foul and
gives the crew a pass, why not leave it there? No loss of separation
occurred in this event. In FAA speak, "Safety was never compromised." No
harm done. Why crucify the controller for not crucifying the pilot and
crew?

And if you go after the controller for not narcing on the flight crew in
this case, then you have to go after every controller in every case of every
observed but unreported pilot deviation. To me, such a policy is
counter-productive to air safety because it builds an adversarial
relationship between ATC and pilots. After all, the controller got a paper
slap on the wrist compared to the likely loss of pay and possible loss of
employment for the captain and FO of the airliner in question. I prefer "no
harm, no foul" unless actual harm was committed.

Chip, ZTL

Chip Jones wrote:
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

"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

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 . net,
Matt Young wrote:

WAFDOF?

Wrong Altitude For Direction Of Flight, flying westbound at 7500 instead
of 6500.