Pilot deviations and a new FAA reality

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.

Chip Jones wrote:
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.

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

Chip Jones wrote:
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.

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

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

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.

Objective does not imply intelligent, or productive. In my view, the burden
of proof should rest with the people who want to change established
practice. They need to prove that the way things are being done today is
wrong AND that their changes will not cause other, more damaging effects.

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

As am I. This doesn't smell like it has anything to do with safety, but
that's just my opinion, and it's worth about as much as you're paying for
it.

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.

Imperfection is for certain. The real question is, how badly can we screw it
up? When people start fixing things that aren't broken, you never know what
will happen.

-cwk.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

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.

Objective does not imply intelligent, or productive. In my view, the burden
of proof should rest with the people who want to change established
practice. They need to prove that the way things are being done today is
wrong AND that their changes will not cause other, more damaging effects.

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

As am I. This doesn't smell like it has anything to do with safety, but
that's just my opinion, and it's worth about as much as you're paying for
it.

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.

Imperfection is for certain. The real question is, how badly can we screw it
up? When people start fixing things that aren't broken, you never know what
will happen.

-cwk.

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 22:27:14 GMT, "C Kingsbury"
wrote in
.net::


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

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.

Objective does not imply intelligent, or productive.

Perhaps, but it does imply impartial justice.

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

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?

They need to prove that the way things are being done today is
wrong AND that their changes will not cause other, more damaging effects.

It would seem reasonable that reporting errant pilots for remedial
training would result in fewer accidents/incidents, but who knows?

What "more damaging effects" do you envision?

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

As am I. This doesn't smell like it has anything to do with safety,

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?

but that's just my opinion, and it's worth about as much as you're paying for
it.

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.

Imperfection is for certain.

Unfortunately, that's true, but failing to attempt our best is likely
to exacerbate the imperfection rather than mitigate it.

The real question is, how badly can we screw it up?

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.

When people start fixing things that aren't broken, you never know what
will happen.

Umm...

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 22:27:14 GMT, "C Kingsbury"
wrote in
.net::


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

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.

Objective does not imply intelligent, or productive.

Perhaps, but it does imply impartial justice.

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

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?

They need to prove that the way things are being done today is
wrong AND that their changes will not cause other, more damaging effects.

It would seem reasonable that reporting errant pilots for remedial
training would result in fewer accidents/incidents, but who knows?

What "more damaging effects" do you envision?

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

As am I. This doesn't smell like it has anything to do with safety,

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?

but that's just my opinion, and it's worth about as much as you're paying for
it.

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.

Imperfection is for certain.

Unfortunately, that's true, but failing to attempt our best is likely
to exacerbate the imperfection rather than mitigate it.

The real question is, how badly can we screw it up?

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.

When people start fixing things that aren't broken, you never know what
will happen.

Umm...

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
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?


That order is FAAO 7210.56, "Air Traffic Quality Assurance." Here's a
link: http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATQ/INDEX.htm

Buried deep within this tome, which 90% of line controllers have likely
never even heard of, is paragraph 5-1-2, which reads:

" 5-1-2. SUSPECTED EVENT
a. In order to maintain an effective Air Traffic System, it is
imperative that we identify all deficiencies within our system and take
appropriate corrective actions necessary to fix any associated problems.
Operational errors and deviations are reported for just that reason, so
those problems (either systemic or individual) can be corrected to enhance
system integrity. 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 system.

b. Accordingly, it remains Air Traffic Policy that any
employee who is aware of any occurrence that may be an operational error,
deviation, or air traffic incident (as defined in paragraph 4-1-1,
Definitions), immediately report the occurrence to any available supervisor,
controller-in-charge (CIC) or management official.

c. Employees' shall verbally provide the preliminary
information, of which they have knowledge, when requested by the supervisor,
controller-in-charge (CIC) or management official to make an initial
determination as to whether an investigation is warranted. This phase is
meant only to determine the need of an investigation and is not
investigatory. Therefore, Union representation is not required at this
time."


The key words in 5-1-2 are in the word group
"air traffic incident", which is defined in 4-4-1 to include pilot
deviations. Pilot deviations are defined in this order as "the actions of a
pilot that result in the violation of a Federal Aviation Regulation or a
North American Aerospace Defense (Command Air Defense Identification Zone)
tolerance."

Thus, if you bust your altitude at 3 in the morning, with no traffic within
100 miles of you, I am apparently supposed to turn you in for a pilot
deviation (failure to adhere to clearance), or else risk formal
discipline...



Chip, ZTL

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
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?


That order is FAAO 7210.56, "Air Traffic Quality Assurance." Here's a
link: http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATQ/INDEX.htm

Buried deep within this tome, which 90% of line controllers have likely
never even heard of, is paragraph 5-1-2, which reads:

" 5-1-2. SUSPECTED EVENT
a. In order to maintain an effective Air Traffic System, it is
imperative that we identify all deficiencies within our system and take
appropriate corrective actions necessary to fix any associated problems.
Operational errors and deviations are reported for just that reason, so
those problems (either systemic or individual) can be corrected to enhance
system integrity. 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 system.

b. Accordingly, it remains Air Traffic Policy that any
employee who is aware of any occurrence that may be an operational error,
deviation, or air traffic incident (as defined in paragraph 4-1-1,
Definitions), immediately report the occurrence to any available supervisor,
controller-in-charge (CIC) or management official.

c. Employees' shall verbally provide the preliminary
information, of which they have knowledge, when requested by the supervisor,
controller-in-charge (CIC) or management official to make an initial
determination as to whether an investigation is warranted. This phase is
meant only to determine the need of an investigation and is not
investigatory. Therefore, Union representation is not required at this
time."


The key words in 5-1-2 are in the word group
"air traffic incident", which is defined in 4-4-1 to include pilot
deviations. Pilot deviations are defined in this order as "the actions of a
pilot that result in the violation of a Federal Aviation Regulation or a
North American Aerospace Defense (Command Air Defense Identification Zone)
tolerance."

Thus, if you bust your altitude at 3 in the morning, with no traffic within
100 miles of you, I am apparently supposed to turn you in for a pilot
deviation (failure to adhere to clearance), or else risk formal
discipline...



Chip, ZTL

"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