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

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?

"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

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?

"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?

"Steven P. McNicoll" writes:
"Chip Jones" wrote
[snip]
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?

I thought the FAA was under the gun to gain better and more
info regarding runway incursions. It sounds as if a controller
may have been admonished/penalized/whatever for failure to make
a "required" report of a runway incursion, not just a simple
pilot deviation. It seems as if the cited incident was quite
serious even though the system worked and no untoward harm
came to any of the parties involved.

"Everett M. Greene" wrote in message
...

I thought the FAA was under the gun to gain better and more
info regarding runway incursions. It sounds as if a controller
may have been admonished/penalized/whatever for failure to make
a "required" report of a runway incursion, not just a simple
pilot deviation. It seems as if the cited incident was quite
serious even though the system worked and no untoward harm
came to any of the parties involved.


Yup, runway incursions has been the hot item for several years.

"Everett M. Greene" wrote in message
...

I thought the FAA was under the gun to gain better and more
info regarding runway incursions. It sounds as if a controller
may have been admonished/penalized/whatever for failure to make
a "required" report of a runway incursion, not just a simple
pilot deviation. It seems as if the cited incident was quite
serious even though the system worked and no untoward harm
came to any of the parties involved.


Yup, runway incursions has been the hot item for several years.

"Steven P. McNicoll" writes:
"Chip Jones" wrote
[snip]
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?

I thought the FAA was under the gun to gain better and more
info regarding runway incursions. It sounds as if a controller
may have been admonished/penalized/whatever for failure to make
a "required" report of a runway incursion, not just a simple
pilot deviation. It seems as if the cited incident was quite
serious even though the system worked and no untoward harm
came to any of the parties involved.