Pilot deviations and a new FAA reality

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

"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

"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

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

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.

"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.

On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 13:14:38 -0700, "Bob Gardner"
wrote in ::

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

Thanks, Bob. You're a true diplomat.

On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 13:14:38 -0700, "Bob Gardner"
wrote in ::

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

Thanks, Bob. You're a true diplomat.

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 20:43:24 GMT, "C Kingsbury"
wrote in
.net::

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.

That argument begs the question: Who's subjective opinion determines
which PDs are reported and which are not? The current system (if it
requires _all_ PDs to be reported) is more objective.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not looking forward to more PDs being
reported. I'm just interested in enhancing safety.

I think you are looking at the subject from a more realistic viewpoint
and I from the more theoretical. If we don't attempt to strive for
the best that we are capable, we will certainly create an imperfect
system.