Pilot deviations and a new FAA reality

"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

C Kingsbury wrote:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 18:39:39 GMT, "C Kingsbury"
wrote in
nk.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.

C Kingsbury wrote:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 18:39:39 GMT, "C Kingsbury"
wrote in
nk.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.

Insert NATCA vice PATCO. You must have a long memory.

Bob Gardner

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

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


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

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

Now, perhaps when management gets deluged with
reports of 50' altitude deviations and other trivial mistakes,

Because mode c transponders only report altitude in even hundreds,
that isn't very likely.

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

The increased workload may be sufficient to stimulate demand for
additional ATC personnel hiring. The change in policy of reporting
PDs may be the result of PATCO pressure or something else. Until we
know the language of the regulations governing ATC reporting PDs, it
is difficult to form an opinion as to the appropriateness of the
change in policy.

-cwk.

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

--Gary

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.