Pilot deviations and a new FAA reality

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

"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 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

"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.

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)

"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.