Pilot deviations and a new FAA reality

"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...

{snipped}

Actually, the more I read that memo Chip posted, the more this sounds to
me
like a union put-up job. A runway incursion that leads to a go-around
could
easily be the sort of PD that should be reported, and we don't know any of
the context that helps determine what is and is not appropriate. In my
experience, one of the key functions of any union is to protect its
weakest
members, in this case, the least competent. Perhaps this guy deserved to
get
nailed, but the union has decided to defend him, or at least pick a fight
with management over the issue, so they issue a "scare" memo. Perhaps
their
goal is to deluge management with so many PD reports that it forces them
to
alter the system. Who knows. Politics of these things can get very tricky
and I have no inside info. For all I know it's management playing some
other
game entirely. Personally, I don't trust either side to be too honest.

That's a wise point of view, IMO. I don't trust either side either.
However, I posted this as a safety issue, not to make a point for NATCA.
Who is in a better position than the tower controller involved to determine
if this PD should have been reported? The corporate culture of FAA's air
traffic control has always been "no harm, no foul" when dealing with pilot
deviations that do not lead to loss of separation. Frankly, there are just
too many PD's to go after, and controllers aren't cops. This poilicy seems
to force them to report, "or else."

Chip, ZTL

"C Kingsbury" wrote in message
link.net...

{snipped}

Actually, the more I read that memo Chip posted, the more this sounds to
me
like a union put-up job. A runway incursion that leads to a go-around
could
easily be the sort of PD that should be reported, and we don't know any of
the context that helps determine what is and is not appropriate. In my
experience, one of the key functions of any union is to protect its
weakest
members, in this case, the least competent. Perhaps this guy deserved to
get
nailed, but the union has decided to defend him, or at least pick a fight
with management over the issue, so they issue a "scare" memo. Perhaps
their
goal is to deluge management with so many PD reports that it forces them
to
alter the system. Who knows. Politics of these things can get very tricky
and I have no inside info. For all I know it's management playing some
other
game entirely. Personally, I don't trust either side to be too honest.

That's a wise point of view, IMO. I don't trust either side either.
However, I posted this as a safety issue, not to make a point for NATCA.
Who is in a better position than the tower controller involved to determine
if this PD should have been reported? The corporate culture of FAA's air
traffic control has always been "no harm, no foul" when dealing with pilot
deviations that do not lead to loss of separation. Frankly, there are just
too many PD's to go after, and controllers aren't cops. This poilicy seems
to force them to report, "or else."

Chip, ZTL

"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 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.

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
hlink.net...

That's a wise point of view, IMO. I don't trust either side either.
However, I posted this as a safety issue, not to make a point for NATCA.
Who is in a better position than the tower controller involved to
determine
if this PD should have been reported?


This PD required a go around to avert a collision on the runway. If he's
not going to report a deviation like this one, what kind of PD would he
report?

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
hlink.net...

That's a wise point of view, IMO. I don't trust either side either.
However, I posted this as a safety issue, not to make a point for NATCA.
Who is in a better position than the tower controller involved to
determine
if this PD should have been reported?


This PD required a go around to avert a collision on the runway. If he's
not going to report a deviation like this one, what kind of PD would he
report?

"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" 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

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