If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Pilot deviations and a new FAA reality
OK pilots, try this one on for size. As you likely know, there is a wide
and growing rift between the career FAA bureaucrats (aka FAA Management) who run the monstrosity called the federal Air Traffic Organization, and the career FAA air traffic controllers who make that monstrosity work in the NAS on a daily basis. Regardless of where you stand on the politics of US air traffic control (funding, privatization, user-fees, labor issues, whatever), the ugly, on-going feud between Management and Labor in air traffic control may finally have reached a point where you as a pilot will be personally affected. This just in: *** Notice to all NATCA Bargaining Unit employees Please Post This notice is intended to advise all NATCA Bargaining Unit employees of recent occurrence in the Eastern Service Area. Controllers have been encouraged, through the actions of supervisors, to look the other way when it came to pilot deviations that did not result in a loss of separation. We have all heard supervisors say "no harm, no foul" on more than one occasion. Until now, this has not created problems for bargaining unit employees. Recently a facility in the Southern Region issued formal discipline (Letter of Reprimand) to a NATCA bargaining unit employee for failure to report a pilot deviation. An aircraft (Air Carrier) was told to hold short of a runway, read it back, and proceeded to go onto the runway. This resulted in a go-around with no loss of separation. In the reprimand, the manager acknowledged that the controller was in no way at fault operationally, but that he had violated an FAA order by not reporting the deviation, and as such, was being issued disciplinary action. During recent third level reviews, the Agency has held steadfast to their position. As your [NATCA title deleted], the only advice I can give you is to protect yourself and your career. Your failure to advise your supervisor of a pilot deviation may result in disciplinary action. Even if no loss of separation occurs. Inform your supervisor immediately if you witness a pilot deviation. Put the responsibility on their backs. Be warned!! Taking a "no harm, no foul" attitude with pilots could result in harm to yourself. *** Folks, I see at *least* one pilot deviation a week working traffic in my small slice of the NAS. I don't report them unless separation is lost, because I was trained under the "no harm, no foul" mentality. Pilots help controllers, controllers help pilots, and the NAS ticks along like an old clock. I'm not changing the way I do business, but I wanted you to know that other controllers might, in order to cover themsleves against antagonistic Management. Regards, Chip, ZTL |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 15:08:08 GMT, "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. Can you provide a pointer to the specific FAA Order that mandates that ATC report all pilot deviations? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 15:08:08 GMT, "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. Can you provide a pointer to the specific FAA Order that mandates that ATC report all pilot deviations? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Chip Jones" wrote in message link.net... OK pilots, try this one on for size. As you likely know, there is a wide and growing rift between the career FAA bureaucrats (aka FAA Management) who run the monstrosity called the federal Air Traffic Organization, and the career FAA air traffic controllers who make that monstrosity work in the NAS on a daily basis. Regardless of where you stand on the politics of US air traffic control (funding, privatization, user-fees, labor issues, whatever), the ugly, on-going feud between Management and Labor in air traffic control may finally have reached a point where you as a pilot will be personally affected. This just in: *** Notice to all NATCA Bargaining Unit employees Please Post This notice is intended to advise all NATCA Bargaining Unit employees of recent occurrence in the Eastern Service Area. Controllers have been encouraged, through the actions of supervisors, to look the other way when it came to pilot deviations that did not result in a loss of separation. We have all heard supervisors say "no harm, no foul" on more than one occasion. Until now, this has not created problems for bargaining unit employees. Recently a facility in the Southern Region issued formal discipline (Letter of Reprimand) to a NATCA bargaining unit employee for failure to report a pilot deviation. An aircraft (Air Carrier) was told to hold short of a runway, read it back, and proceeded to go onto the runway. This resulted in a go-around with no loss of separation. In the reprimand, the manager acknowledged that the controller was in no way at fault operationally, but that he had violated an FAA order by not reporting the deviation, and as such, was being issued disciplinary action. During recent third level reviews, the Agency has held steadfast to their position. As your [NATCA title deleted], the only advice I can give you is to protect yourself and your career. Your failure to advise your supervisor of a pilot deviation may result in disciplinary action. Even if no loss of separation occurs. Inform your supervisor immediately if you witness a pilot deviation. Put the responsibility on their backs. Be warned!! Taking a "no harm, no foul" attitude with pilots could result in harm to yourself. *** Folks, I see at *least* one pilot deviation a week working traffic in my small slice of the NAS. I don't report them unless separation is lost, because I was trained under the "no harm, no foul" mentality. Pilots help controllers, controllers help pilots, and the NAS ticks along like an old clock. I'm not changing the way I do business, but I wanted you to know that other controllers might, in order to cover themsleves against antagonistic Management. Pilot deviations come in a variety of flavors. A pilot may bust his altitude but if there's no other traffic around there's no hazard. No harm, no foul, no loss of separation. At the other extreme a pilot blowing a runway hold short as another aircraft is about to touch down can be disastrous. On what side of the line should be placed the situation where there was no loss of separation only because an alert controller stepped in? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Chip Jones" wrote in message link.net... OK pilots, try this one on for size. As you likely know, there is a wide and growing rift between the career FAA bureaucrats (aka FAA Management) who run the monstrosity called the federal Air Traffic Organization, and the career FAA air traffic controllers who make that monstrosity work in the NAS on a daily basis. Regardless of where you stand on the politics of US air traffic control (funding, privatization, user-fees, labor issues, whatever), the ugly, on-going feud between Management and Labor in air traffic control may finally have reached a point where you as a pilot will be personally affected. This just in: *** Notice to all NATCA Bargaining Unit employees Please Post This notice is intended to advise all NATCA Bargaining Unit employees of recent occurrence in the Eastern Service Area. Controllers have been encouraged, through the actions of supervisors, to look the other way when it came to pilot deviations that did not result in a loss of separation. We have all heard supervisors say "no harm, no foul" on more than one occasion. Until now, this has not created problems for bargaining unit employees. Recently a facility in the Southern Region issued formal discipline (Letter of Reprimand) to a NATCA bargaining unit employee for failure to report a pilot deviation. An aircraft (Air Carrier) was told to hold short of a runway, read it back, and proceeded to go onto the runway. This resulted in a go-around with no loss of separation. In the reprimand, the manager acknowledged that the controller was in no way at fault operationally, but that he had violated an FAA order by not reporting the deviation, and as such, was being issued disciplinary action. During recent third level reviews, the Agency has held steadfast to their position. As your [NATCA title deleted], the only advice I can give you is to protect yourself and your career. Your failure to advise your supervisor of a pilot deviation may result in disciplinary action. Even if no loss of separation occurs. Inform your supervisor immediately if you witness a pilot deviation. Put the responsibility on their backs. Be warned!! Taking a "no harm, no foul" attitude with pilots could result in harm to yourself. *** Folks, I see at *least* one pilot deviation a week working traffic in my small slice of the NAS. I don't report them unless separation is lost, because I was trained under the "no harm, no foul" mentality. Pilots help controllers, controllers help pilots, and the NAS ticks along like an old clock. I'm not changing the way I do business, but I wanted you to know that other controllers might, in order to cover themsleves against antagonistic Management. Pilot deviations come in a variety of flavors. A pilot may bust his altitude but if there's no other traffic around there's no hazard. No harm, no foul, no loss of separation. At the other extreme a pilot blowing a runway hold short as another aircraft is about to touch down can be disastrous. On what side of the line should be placed the situation where there was no loss of separation only because an alert controller stepped in? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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$He1.7786@attbi_s01... A car that runs a red light can get ticketed even if no collision or even near-collision happens to occur. It wouldn't upset me if pilot deviations were treated similarly, as long as the penalties are not disproportionately harsh. --Gary |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
In most states you can get ticketed for "failure to stop at a stop sign" for
something as simple as not coming to a complete stop. You slow to less than a crawl and the cop sees you look both ways carefully, but if your wheels don't stop turning it's a moving violation. Of course, the cop can also choose to just tell you to watch it. It saves him time that he can use to pursue more important offenders. What Chip's talking about is basically removing some of that discretionary power from controllers. Now, perhaps when management gets deluged with reports of 50' altitude deviations and other trivial mistakes, they'll simply start punting things too, so the "no harm, no foul" policy just gets shifted to a new desk. But in the meantime the volume of trees slaughtered will increase, and with it the hours spent on pointless paperwork for everybody. Safety will probably not benefit. -cwk. "Gary Drescher" wrote in message news:CrU9d.96803$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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pilot deviations and a new FAA reality | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 36 | October 14th 04 06:10 PM |
Moving violation..NASA form? | Nasir | Piloting | 47 | November 5th 03 07:56 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |