Pilot deviations and a new FAA reality

"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

"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.

"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.

Objective does not imply intelligent, or productive.

Perhaps, but it does imply impartial justice.


I thought this was supposed to be about safety. Now it's about =justice=?
This scares me.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Objective does not imply intelligent, or productive.

Perhaps, but it does imply impartial justice.


I thought this was supposed to be about safety. Now it's about =justice=?
This scares me.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

And you haven't answered the question. In the absence of an impartial
standard, who should be tasked with the subjective judgment?

The person closest to the event, i.e., the controller who witnesses the PD.
Much like the cop on the beat, he is the best-equipped to judge whether it
is a serious event or not.

In my view, the burden of proof should rest with the people who want to
change established practice.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that if it cannot be
shown that enforcing _all_ PDs will result in a reduced annual
accident/incident rate, the tacit policy of 'no harm no foul" should
be retained. That seems reasonable, but wouldn't it require a test
period to assess the results?

No, no. Real life is never that scientific. What I'm looking for is some
clear argument indicating that the "no harm, no foul" approach is causing
safety problems. Are we getting more loss of separation reports? Are runway
incursions on the rise? Can you find a couple of controllers who will speak
to a risky change in attitudes? My mind is open but I want material
evidence, not theory.

What "more damaging effects" do you envision?

Let's say violations start hitting regularly- word gets around that if
you're not 100% on flying IFR you've got a good chance of getting busted,
even for just a trivial matter. Will that not increase the odds that someone
will choose to push VFR minimums rather than going IFR and "risk losing my
ticket because I let my altitude wander a little bit."

A few years ago some group was pushing to require airline pax traveling with
small children to put the kid in a child seat instead of carrying them in
their lap, because in a crash, the kid is pretty much toast if they're not
in a child seat. So far so good, right? Some think tank did a study and came
up with the finding that this would actually lead to more children dying, as
families who couldn't afford to buy that extra ticket chose to make the trip
by car instead, where the risk of dying in a crash would actually be higher.

What other objective do think the policy change may have other than
safety? Do you think it's an airline ploy to reduce the number of GA
operations?

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.


I get the feeling that you feel that ATC reporting _all_ PDs will
"screw it up," but for whom, the airlines, the military, GA, or all of
the above? It would be interesting to know which of those three
categories the test case Chip mentioned is a member.

I don't see it helping anybody, frankly. It certainly won't help GA, except
perhaps for the insurance companies who get a new excuse to raise premiums,
while the airlines and the military get to waste a lot mroe time deciding
what to do about a crewmember who gets violated. Every violation will
produce a long paper trail that everyone has to chase down.

Best,
-cwk.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

And you haven't answered the question. In the absence of an impartial
standard, who should be tasked with the subjective judgment?

The person closest to the event, i.e., the controller who witnesses the PD.
Much like the cop on the beat, he is the best-equipped to judge whether it
is a serious event or not.

In my view, the burden of proof should rest with the people who want to
change established practice.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that if it cannot be
shown that enforcing _all_ PDs will result in a reduced annual
accident/incident rate, the tacit policy of 'no harm no foul" should
be retained. That seems reasonable, but wouldn't it require a test
period to assess the results?

No, no. Real life is never that scientific. What I'm looking for is some
clear argument indicating that the "no harm, no foul" approach is causing
safety problems. Are we getting more loss of separation reports? Are runway
incursions on the rise? Can you find a couple of controllers who will speak
to a risky change in attitudes? My mind is open but I want material
evidence, not theory.

What "more damaging effects" do you envision?

Let's say violations start hitting regularly- word gets around that if
you're not 100% on flying IFR you've got a good chance of getting busted,
even for just a trivial matter. Will that not increase the odds that someone
will choose to push VFR minimums rather than going IFR and "risk losing my
ticket because I let my altitude wander a little bit."

A few years ago some group was pushing to require airline pax traveling with
small children to put the kid in a child seat instead of carrying them in
their lap, because in a crash, the kid is pretty much toast if they're not
in a child seat. So far so good, right? Some think tank did a study and came
up with the finding that this would actually lead to more children dying, as
families who couldn't afford to buy that extra ticket chose to make the trip
by car instead, where the risk of dying in a crash would actually be higher.

What other objective do think the policy change may have other than
safety? Do you think it's an airline ploy to reduce the number of GA
operations?

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.


I get the feeling that you feel that ATC reporting _all_ PDs will
"screw it up," but for whom, the airlines, the military, GA, or all of
the above? It would be interesting to know which of those three
categories the test case Chip mentioned is a member.

I don't see it helping anybody, frankly. It certainly won't help GA, except
perhaps for the insurance companies who get a new excuse to raise premiums,
while the airlines and the military get to waste a lot mroe time deciding
what to do about a crewmember who gets violated. Every violation will
produce a long paper trail that everyone has to chase down.

Best,
-cwk.

On 10 Oct 2004 03:00:40 GMT, (Teacherjh)
wrote in ::


Objective does not imply intelligent, or productive.

Perhaps, but it does imply impartial justice.


I thought this was supposed to be about safety.

Actually, the topic is the change in the "no harm, no foul" (NHNF = no
loss of separation occurred; safety was not compromised) concept of
enforcing pilot/controller deviations/errors as mandated in FAAO
7210.56, "Air Traffic Quality Assurance" 5-1-2 SUSPECTED EVENT, IIRC.

That FAAO mentions: "The identification of operational errors and
deviations without fear of reprisal is an absolute requirement and is
the responsibility of all of us who work within our [NAS] system."
The words "absolute requirement" are particularly pertinent to the
change in enforcement Mr. Jones mentions, IMO.

Due to the past NHNF policy, selective enforcement (an injustice) has
occurred, as reported by Mr. Jones. If the FAAO were uniformly
enforced, it would be more just, but probably unworkable. IIRC,
motorists commit ~37 vehicle code violations on an average trip. If
these were all cited and enforced, this would be a nation of court
houses. It's not an easy issue.

Controllers have an FAA form for reporting suspected PDs (Form 8020-17
Preliminary Pilot Deviation Report); airmen must write a letter* to
the Administrator to report ATC operational errors.


The NTSB has recommended that the FAA:

...
Formally evaluate all reported safety-related events for potential
air traffic control performance deficiencies and assign
responsibility for the classification of all such events that
occur within the National Airspace System to an internal oversight
function that is independent of the Air Traffic Service. (A-00-36)

Amend Federal Aviation Administration Order 7110.65, “Air
Traffic Control,” (ATC) to require that controllers ask any member
of a flight crew receiving ATC services who expresses concern
about the proximity of another aircraft if he or she
desires to file a formal near midair collision report. (A-00-37)
Modify Federal Aviation Administration Form 8020-21, “Preliminary
Near Midair Collision Report,” to include a section describing air
traffic control actions relevant to the incident. (A-00-38)

Amend Federal Aviation Administration Orders 7210.3, “Facility
Operation and Administration,” and 8020.11, “Aircraft Accident and
Incident Notification, Investigation, and Reporting,” to require
that air traffic control facilities retain recorded voice
communications and radar data for 45 days. (A-00-39)

Amend Federal Aviation Administration Order 7210.3, “Facility
Operation and Administration,” to require that all telephone
conversations with personnel at air traffic control (ATC)
facilities relating to an aircraft accident, incident, or ATC
performance shall be conducted on recorded telephone lines.
(A-00-40)
http://www.avweb.com/other/ntsb0025a1.pdf


Now it's about =justice=? This scares me.

Why would it scare you? You are protected from your government by
your Constitutional assurances, right? :-)




*
Sec. 13.5 Formal complaints.

(a) Any person may file a complaint with the Administrator with
respect to anything done or omitted to be done by any person in
contravention of any provision of any Act or of any regulation or
order issued under it, as to matters within the jurisdiction of the
Administrator. This section does not apply to complaints against the
Administrator or employees of the FAA acting within the scope of their
employment.
(b) Complaints filed under this section must--
(1) Be submitted in writing and identified as a complaint filed
for the purpose of seeking an appropriate order or other enforcement
action;
(2) Be submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Attention: Enforcement Docket (AGC-10), 800
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20591;
(3) Set forth the name and address, if known, of each person who
is the subject of the complaint and, with respect to each person, the
specific provisions of the Act or regulation or order that the
complainant believes were violated;
(4) Contain a concise but complete statement of the facts relied
upon to substantiate each allegation;
(5) State the name, address and telephone number of the person
filing the complaint; and
(6) Be signed by the person filing the complaint or a duly
authorized representative.
(c) Complaints which do not meet the requirements of paragraph
(b)of this section will be considered reports under Sec. 13.1.
(d) Complaints which meet the requirements of paragraph (b) of
this section will be docketed and a copy mailed to each person named
in the complaint.
(e) Any complaint filed against a member of the Armed Forces of
the United States acting in the performance of official duties shall
be referred to the Secretary of the Department concerned for action in
accordance with the procedures set forth in Sec. 13.21 of this part.
(f) The person named in the complaint shall file an answer
within 20 days after service of a copy of the complaint.
(g) After the complaint has been answered or after the allotted
time in which to file an answer has expired, the Administrator shall
determine if there are reasonable grounds for investigating the
complaint.
(h) If the Administrator determines that a complaint does not
state facts which warrant an investigation or action, the complaint
may be dismissed without a hearing and the reason for the dismissal
shall be given, in writing, to the person who filed the complaint and
the person named in the complaint.
(i) If the Administrator determines that reasonable grounds
exist, an informal investigation may be initiated or an order of
investigation may be issued in accordance with Subpart F of this part,
or both. Each person named in the complaint shall be advised which
official has been delegated the responsibility under Sec. 13.3(b) or
(c) for conducting the investigation.
(j) If the investigation substantiates the allegations set forth
in the complaint, a notice of proposed order may be issued or other
enforcement action taken in accordance with this part.
(k) The complaint and other pleadings and official FAA records
relating to the disposition of the complaint are maintained in current
docket form in the Enforcement Docket (AGC-209), Office of the Chief
Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue,
S.W., Washington, D. C. 20591. Any interested person may examine any
docketed material at that office, at any time after the docket is
established, except material that is ordered withheld from the public
under applicable law or regulations, and may obtain a photostatic or
duplicate copy upon paying the cost of the copy.

The full text can be found he
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...13_main_02.tpl

On 10 Oct 2004 03:00:40 GMT, (Teacherjh)
wrote in ::


Objective does not imply intelligent, or productive.

Perhaps, but it does imply impartial justice.


I thought this was supposed to be about safety.

Actually, the topic is the change in the "no harm, no foul" (NHNF = no
loss of separation occurred; safety was not compromised) concept of
enforcing pilot/controller deviations/errors as mandated in FAAO
7210.56, "Air Traffic Quality Assurance" 5-1-2 SUSPECTED EVENT, IIRC.

That FAAO mentions: "The identification of operational errors and
deviations without fear of reprisal is an absolute requirement and is
the responsibility of all of us who work within our [NAS] system."
The words "absolute requirement" are particularly pertinent to the
change in enforcement Mr. Jones mentions, IMO.

Due to the past NHNF policy, selective enforcement (an injustice) has
occurred, as reported by Mr. Jones. If the FAAO were uniformly
enforced, it would be more just, but probably unworkable. IIRC,
motorists commit ~37 vehicle code violations on an average trip. If
these were all cited and enforced, this would be a nation of court
houses. It's not an easy issue.

Controllers have an FAA form for reporting suspected PDs (Form 8020-17
Preliminary Pilot Deviation Report); airmen must write a letter* to
the Administrator to report ATC operational errors.


The NTSB has recommended that the FAA:

...
Formally evaluate all reported safety-related events for potential
air traffic control performance deficiencies and assign
responsibility for the classification of all such events that
occur within the National Airspace System to an internal oversight
function that is independent of the Air Traffic Service. (A-00-36)

Amend Federal Aviation Administration Order 7110.65, “Air
Traffic Control,” (ATC) to require that controllers ask any member
of a flight crew receiving ATC services who expresses concern
about the proximity of another aircraft if he or she
desires to file a formal near midair collision report. (A-00-37)
Modify Federal Aviation Administration Form 8020-21, “Preliminary
Near Midair Collision Report,” to include a section describing air
traffic control actions relevant to the incident. (A-00-38)

Amend Federal Aviation Administration Orders 7210.3, “Facility
Operation and Administration,” and 8020.11, “Aircraft Accident and
Incident Notification, Investigation, and Reporting,” to require
that air traffic control facilities retain recorded voice
communications and radar data for 45 days. (A-00-39)

Amend Federal Aviation Administration Order 7210.3, “Facility
Operation and Administration,” to require that all telephone
conversations with personnel at air traffic control (ATC)
facilities relating to an aircraft accident, incident, or ATC
performance shall be conducted on recorded telephone lines.
(A-00-40)
http://www.avweb.com/other/ntsb0025a1.pdf


Now it's about =justice=? This scares me.

Why would it scare you? You are protected from your government by
your Constitutional assurances, right? :-)




*
Sec. 13.5 Formal complaints.

(a) Any person may file a complaint with the Administrator with
respect to anything done or omitted to be done by any person in
contravention of any provision of any Act or of any regulation or
order issued under it, as to matters within the jurisdiction of the
Administrator. This section does not apply to complaints against the
Administrator or employees of the FAA acting within the scope of their
employment.
(b) Complaints filed under this section must--
(1) Be submitted in writing and identified as a complaint filed
for the purpose of seeking an appropriate order or other enforcement
action;
(2) Be submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Attention: Enforcement Docket (AGC-10), 800
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20591;
(3) Set forth the name and address, if known, of each person who
is the subject of the complaint and, with respect to each person, the
specific provisions of the Act or regulation or order that the
complainant believes were violated;
(4) Contain a concise but complete statement of the facts relied
upon to substantiate each allegation;
(5) State the name, address and telephone number of the person
filing the complaint; and
(6) Be signed by the person filing the complaint or a duly
authorized representative.
(c) Complaints which do not meet the requirements of paragraph
(b)of this section will be considered reports under Sec. 13.1.
(d) Complaints which meet the requirements of paragraph (b) of
this section will be docketed and a copy mailed to each person named
in the complaint.
(e) Any complaint filed against a member of the Armed Forces of
the United States acting in the performance of official duties shall
be referred to the Secretary of the Department concerned for action in
accordance with the procedures set forth in Sec. 13.21 of this part.
(f) The person named in the complaint shall file an answer
within 20 days after service of a copy of the complaint.
(g) After the complaint has been answered or after the allotted
time in which to file an answer has expired, the Administrator shall
determine if there are reasonable grounds for investigating the
complaint.
(h) If the Administrator determines that a complaint does not
state facts which warrant an investigation or action, the complaint
may be dismissed without a hearing and the reason for the dismissal
shall be given, in writing, to the person who filed the complaint and
the person named in the complaint.
(i) If the Administrator determines that reasonable grounds
exist, an informal investigation may be initiated or an order of
investigation may be issued in accordance with Subpart F of this part,
or both. Each person named in the complaint shall be advised which
official has been delegated the responsibility under Sec. 13.3(b) or
(c) for conducting the investigation.
(j) If the investigation substantiates the allegations set forth
in the complaint, a notice of proposed order may be issued or other
enforcement action taken in accordance with this part.
(k) The complaint and other pleadings and official FAA records
relating to the disposition of the complaint are maintained in current
docket form in the Enforcement Docket (AGC-209), Office of the Chief
Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue,
S.W., Washington, D. C. 20591. Any interested person may examine any
docketed material at that office, at any time after the docket is
established, except material that is ordered withheld from the public
under applicable law or regulations, and may obtain a photostatic or
duplicate copy upon paying the cost of the copy.

The full text can be found he
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...13_main_02.tpl

"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.