PDA

View Full Version : Heads Up: FAA ATC Mandatory Occurance Reporting


jjflys
February 9th, 2012, 03:01 PM
Went to a meeting at my flying school/club last night at Rocky Mtn Metro (KBJC) and a controller was talking to the group about a new mandatory reporting requirement that they are charged with from now on. What this means is that if you make an infraction such as a surface deviation (i.e. turning on taxiway A6 instead of A8 or exiting the runway w/o instructions) they HAVE to report it to the FSDO. The controller stressed that they are trying to look out for people and warning them via radio BEFORE they make a mistake when possible, but if you hear the following words:

(Aircraft identification) POSSIBLE PILOT DEVIATION, ADVISE YOU CONTACT (facility) AT (telephone
number).

You are going to be reported to the FSDO NO MATTER WHAT and you better get your ASRS report ready.

Another great example of the FAA's motto in play: We're not happy until you're not happy!

A copy of the reg if you are interested:
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/JO7210.632.pdf

RotorAndWing
February 9th, 2012, 03:20 PM
This has actually been in effect for awhile.

And you can thank ATC for this one.

Tom-D
February 9th, 2012, 03:22 PM
This has actually been in effect for awhile.

And you can thank ATC for this one.
What's the difference?

TMetzinger
February 9th, 2012, 03:23 PM
So... don't read back any instructions until you've done the necessary thinking and are SURE you can comply with them.

"... Unable left at A6, we can make A7".

RotorAndWing
February 9th, 2012, 03:26 PM
What's the difference?

The FAA is made up of several organizations.

ATC is separate from Flight Standards.

Trust me, no one at Flight Standards wanted this, it's an ATC product.

Ron Levy
February 9th, 2012, 03:39 PM
...and it's not that new. And when it involves a runway incursion, it's even less new. So mind your p's and q's, and don't screw up.

JoeSelch
February 9th, 2012, 03:54 PM
Went to a meeting at my flying school/club last night at Rocky Mtn Metro (KBJC) and a controller was talking to the group about a new mandatory reporting requirement that they are charged with from now on. What this means is that if you make an infraction such as a surface deviation (i.e. turning on taxiway A6 instead of A8 or exiting the runway w/o instructions) they HAVE to report it to the FSDO. The controller stressed that they are trying to look out for people and warning them via radio BEFORE they make a mistake when possible, but if you hear the following words:

Question... At a controlled field, are we not still supposed to turn off at the first available taxiway when able (unless instructed otherwise)?
Seems to me this would be "exiting the runway w/o instructions."

Fearless Tower
February 9th, 2012, 04:02 PM
Question... At a controlled field, are we not still supposed to turn off at the first available taxiway when able (unless instructed otherwise)?
Seems to me this would be "exiting the runway w/o instructions."

Exactly...if this really was to be interpreted that way.....I can see a whole lot of go-arounds in the future as planes park on the active until given direction.

Ron Levy
February 9th, 2012, 04:05 PM
Question... At a controlled field, are we not still supposed to turn off at the first available taxiway when able (unless instructed otherwise)? Seems to me this would be "exiting the runway w/o instructions."Yes, you are still supposed to turn off at the first available taxiway when able unless instructed otherwise, and no, that is not "exiting the runway w/o instructions" because the AIM instructs us to do that unless instructed otherwise.
In the absence of ATC instructions, the pilot is expected to taxi clear of the landing runway by taxiing beyond the runway holding position markings associated with the landing runway, even if that requires the aircraft to protrude into or cross another taxiway or ramp area.
Of course, once you clear the hold-short line, you stop until you get further instructions.
Once all parts of the aircraft have crossed the runway holding position markings, the pilot must hold unless further instructions have been issued by ATC.
See AIM 4-3-20 for details.

Biut don't ever turn off the landing runway at a tower-controlled airport onto another runway without prior approval. And don't even do that at a nontowered airport without a good look-see both ways.:eek:

azure
February 9th, 2012, 04:22 PM
c. Any occurrence where an aircraft enters special use airspace (for example, a warning area, military operations area, or ATC-assigned airspace) without coordination and/or authorization.
So they are supposed to report us now if we fly through a MOA without coordination?? That's new as far as I know (and pretty extreme IMO -- not that flying through a hot MOA without FF is wise or shows good judgment, but I didn't know it was against the regs... :hairraise:).

And where does it say they have to report whenever an aircraft on a flight plan diverts or otherwise doesn't reach the filed destination? (That was mentioned in another thread somewhere recently, but I can't find it at the moment.)

JoeSelch
February 9th, 2012, 06:23 PM
Yes, you are still supposed to turn off at the first available taxiway when able unless instructed otherwise, and no, that is not "exiting the runway w/o instructions" because the AIM instructs us to do that unless instructed

So, one would never really be "exiting the runway w/o instructions", only, perhaps, contrary to instructions?
What was the OP getting at then...Simply failing to follow instructions (and so the runway exit thing was a poor example)?

If we're gonna be dancing on the pointy end of the pin, I wanna know! ;-)

Palmpilot
February 9th, 2012, 06:37 PM
Hmm...I guess this isn't being strictly enforced. I recently took the wrong taxiway and haven't hear boo about it.

zaitcev
February 9th, 2012, 09:17 PM
Biut don't ever turn off the landing runway at a tower-controlled airport onto another runway without prior approval.
This is exactly what I really hate about SAF. And one time I skipped a runway turnoff, the controller fumed on the radio about "that Cherokee who missed a perfectly good runway", then kept me in the run-up pocket for 20 minutes as a punishment.

Clark1961
February 9th, 2012, 09:26 PM
Hmm...I guess this isn't being strictly enforced. I recently took the wrong taxiway and haven't hear boo about it.

I imagine the guys in contract towers don't want the extra paperwork (to say the least). I think most don't want to play cop...

Palmpilot
February 9th, 2012, 09:36 PM
I imagine the guys in contract towers don't want the extra paperwork (to say the least). I think most don't want to play cop...

I don't know whether it was a contract tower or Federal. Does anyone know where I can look that up?

CT4ME
February 9th, 2012, 10:18 PM
Whoaaa Nelly.... back to that MOA thing... WTF? Since when was "coordination" required? Is it now? I was always taught it was "see and avoid". Out West, we regularly fly through MOAs, carefully, since they occupy a large chunk of the airspace...
And just who do you coordinate with, since there's no radio communication possible in many areas, unless you're at 10K plus?

Tim
February 9th, 2012, 10:28 PM
The FAA is made up of several organizations.

ATC is separate from Flight Standards.

Trust me, no one at Flight Standards wanted this, it's an ATC product.


I was married to an ATC for 20 years but has been ten years since that ended and they where told this years ago but they didn't do it. and back then it didn't start in ATC.

RotorAndWing
February 9th, 2012, 10:31 PM
I was married to an ATC for 20 years but has been ten years since that ended and they where told this years ago but they didn't do it. and back then it didn't start in ATC.

The latest version has.:rolleyes2:

denverpilot
February 9th, 2012, 10:34 PM
I foresee more "unable" and "request progressive taxi" in my future. ;)

BillTIZ
February 9th, 2012, 10:45 PM
Para A-6-f says "unintentional departure from runway or taxiway", but I intended to depart the runway at the intersection.

So as I read another section, tower clears me to "line up and wait", I cross the hold line. The aircraft for which I am waiting screws up and my clearance gets canceled. So who gets reported, me or the other pilot, or ATC for screwing it up.

It happens a lot here with or trainee controllers.

gismo
February 10th, 2012, 12:44 AM
Whoaaa Nelly.... back to that MOA thing... WTF? Since when was "coordination" required? Is it now? I was always taught it was "see and avoid". Out West, we regularly fly through MOAs, carefully, since they occupy a large chunk of the airspace...
And just who do you coordinate with, since there's no radio communication possible in many areas, unless you're at 10K plus?
I'm pretty certain that this is about one controller directing an aircraft into an active MOA without notifying the controller responsible for the MOA, i.e. not about VFR traffic not talking to ATC.

DavidWhite
February 10th, 2012, 02:13 AM
I foresee more "unable" and "request progressive taxi" in my future. ;)

Me too

Ted DuPuis
May 17th, 2012, 06:21 PM
I'd mostly forgotten about this until Grant had it posted on Facebook. Now I'm curious, so since then I've done a little necro-digging and it seems there are a good number of people who are concerned about getting phone calls from the FSDO over every little thing.

I've not noticed any increase in "Have a phone number to call, advise ready to copy," nor have I heard of any increase in phone calls from the FSDO. The number is the same as it usually is - about zero unless you actually do something wrong that warrants enforcement action. R&W and Ron both say it's effectively already been in place, and in the list of possible deviations I see more for ATC than for pilots. It looks to me like a way of collecting more information that might (gasp) provide recommendations for hopefully improving flight safety.

So what's this translate into? I was just going to keep on flying my normal way, and not worry about getting told to make a call (or receive an unannounced phone call from the FSDO) unless I did something wrong - which is what I did before. Has anyone actually seen evidence to support an increase in enforcement actions? Should I buy a new foil hat?

GCA319
May 17th, 2012, 06:28 PM
This is exactly what I really hate about SAF. And one time I skipped a runway turnoff, the controller fumed on the radio about "that Cherokee who missed a perfectly good runway", then kept me in the run-up pocket for 20 minutes as a punishment.
I can guess which SAF controller that was too...The same guy who gives T & G traffic unofficial LAHSO clearances and tries to give unofficial line up and wait's as well (neither of which SAF can legally do). In short, there's not an FAA standard bone in his body and you just have to resist the urge to play along.

Fearless Tower
May 17th, 2012, 06:28 PM
I'd mostly forgotten about this until Grant had it posted on Facebook. Now I'm curious, so since then I've done a little necro-digging and it seems there are a good number of people who are concerned about getting phone calls from the FSDO over every little thing.

I've not noticed any increase in "Have a phone number to call, advise ready to copy," nor have I heard of any increase in phone calls from the FSDO. The number is the same as it usually is - about zero unless you actually do something wrong that warrants enforcement action. R&W and Ron both say it's effectively already been in place, and in the list of possible deviations I see more for ATC than for pilots. It looks to me like a way of collecting more information that might (gasp) provide recommendations for hopefully improving flight safety.

So what's this translate into? I was just going to keep on flying my normal way, and not worry about getting told to make a call (or receive an unannounced phone call from the FSDO) unless I did something wrong - which is what I did before. Has anyone actually seen evidence to support an increase in enforcement actions? Should I buy a new foil hat?
I have not seen anything firm yet to verify this, but a friend who flies for a major air carrier just said there was a 40% increase in Pilot Deviations in the first 30 days of MOR going into effect.

Morne
May 17th, 2012, 06:40 PM
Crikey...let's hear it for untowered fields.

Ted DuPuis
May 17th, 2012, 06:51 PM
I have not seen anything firm yet to verify this, but a friend who flies for a major air carrier just said there was a 40% increase in Pilot Deviations in the first 30 days of MOR going into effect.

Based on...?

I guess I'm looking for something credible that shows an increase in pilot deviations and enforcement thereof.

GCA319
May 17th, 2012, 06:53 PM
Crikey...let's hear it for untowered fields.
Both have their advantages/disadvantages...I tend to prefer towered fields, but that's a preference, not an absolute.

Fearless Tower
May 17th, 2012, 08:11 PM
Based on...?

I guess I'm looking for something credible that shows an increase in pilot deviations and enforcement thereof.

Like I said in the post you have quoted- just grumblings from the 121 world right now. Nothing official out yet to refute or confirm.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

roncachamp
May 17th, 2012, 08:41 PM
Went to a meeting at my flying school/club last night at Rocky Mtn Metro (KBJC) and a controller was talking to the group about a new mandatory reporting requirement that they are charged with from now on. What this means is that if you make an infraction such as a surface deviation (i.e. turning on taxiway A6 instead of A8 or exiting the runway w/o instructions) they HAVE to report it to the FSDO. The controller stressed that they are trying to look out for people and warning them via radio BEFORE they make a mistake when possible, but if you hear the following words:

(Aircraft identification) POSSIBLE PILOT DEVIATION, ADVISE YOU CONTACT (facility) AT (telephone
number).

You are going to be reported to the FSDO NO MATTER WHAT and you better get your ASRS report ready.

Another great example of the FAA's motto in play: We're not happy until you're not happy!

A copy of the reg if you are interested:
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/JO7210.632.pdf

Exiting the runway without instructions would be a deviation only if previously told not to exit the runway. If given no instructions you should exit at the first available taxiway.

Everskyward
May 17th, 2012, 08:46 PM
Has anyone actually seen evidence to support an increase in enforcement actions? Should I buy a new foil hat?I have not noticed anything or heard anything from anyone outside of here, and I'm not doing anything different.

AuntPeggy
May 17th, 2012, 09:59 PM
Exiting the runway without instructions would be a deviation only if previously told not to exit the runway. If given no instructions you should exit at the first available taxiway.
Suppose I'm instructed to turn off the landing runway at Charlie, but I don't make the turn and continue on to Delta. Is that a mandatory reportable occurance?

BillTIZ
May 17th, 2012, 10:41 PM
Suppose I'm instructed to turn off the landing runway at Charlie, but I don't make the turn and continue on to Delta. Is that a mandatory reportable occurance?

A quick, "unable" as you roll by the intersection should solve the issue.
75% of the landing traffic makes "C", but every once in a while you land long and need to go to "D", ATC screwed up by not monitoring the landing and giving a clearance you could not comply with.

Go-arounds from botched approaches get reported too.

As for the ATC at SAF, enough complaints to FSDO should get him investigated.

Everskyward
May 17th, 2012, 11:20 PM
Go-arounds from botched approaches get reported too.I went around recently and never got a call. Of course it was probably the controller who botched the spacing or the other airplane didn't get off the runway as quickly as anticipated. It could never be anything I did. :aureola: :rofl:

Clark1961
May 17th, 2012, 11:29 PM
It could never be anything I did. :aureola: :rofl:

You were jus' followin' instructions, right?

Everskyward
May 17th, 2012, 11:33 PM
You were jus' followin' instructions, right?I always follow instructions. :D

jpower
May 17th, 2012, 11:45 PM
Go-arounds from botched approaches get reported too.

...? So if for some reason I screw up on approach because of a wind shift or something and have to go around, I get reported to the FSDO? For being safe? I must be missing something....

Clark1961
May 17th, 2012, 11:49 PM
I always follow instructions. :D

Ummm, are you doing anything tomorrow night? :D

Everskyward
May 17th, 2012, 11:55 PM
Ummm, are you doing anything tomorrow night? :DLooks like I'm flying the Twin Cessna. I'll try not to go around...

Clark1961
May 17th, 2012, 11:57 PM
Looks like I'm flying the Twin Cessna. I'll try not to go around...

:(:wink2::D

HPNPilot1200
May 17th, 2012, 11:58 PM
...? So if for some reason I screw up on approach because of a wind shift or something and have to go around, I get reported to the FSDO? For being safe? I must be missing something....

My understanding is that an MOR for a go around is only required if it is performed by a turbojet powered aircraft inside a 1/2 mile final that is not part of a practice approach.

They are also requiring MORs for any aborted takeoff (unless previously coordinated and approved by the tower).

gprellwitz
May 18th, 2012, 12:24 AM
I'd mostly forgotten about this until Grant had it posted on Facebook. Now I'm curious, so since then I've done a little necro-digging and it seems there are a good number of people who are concerned about getting phone calls from the FSDO over every little thing.

I've not noticed any increase in "Have a phone number to call, advise ready to copy," nor have I heard of any increase in phone calls from the FSDO. The number is the same as it usually is - about zero unless you actually do something wrong that warrants enforcement action. R&W and Ron both say it's effectively already been in place, and in the list of possible deviations I see more for ATC than for pilots. It looks to me like a way of collecting more information that might (gasp) provide recommendations for hopefully improving flight safety.

So what's this translate into? I was just going to keep on flying my normal way, and not worry about getting told to make a call (or receive an unannounced phone call from the FSDO) unless I did something wrong - which is what I did before. Has anyone actually seen evidence to support an increase in enforcement actions? Should I buy a new foil hat?
Actually, I was responding to a FB post by Dan Gryder with winks to the actual FAA orders. To be honest, I'm not planning to change anything. Just fly the best that I can.

GCA319
May 18th, 2012, 01:58 AM
A quick, "unable" as you roll by the intersection should solve the issue.
75% of the landing traffic makes "C", but every once in a while you land long and need to go to "D", ATC screwed up by not monitoring the landing and giving a clearance you could not comply with.

Go-arounds from botched approaches get reported too.

As for the ATC at SAF, enough complaints to FSDO should get him investigated.
I'm not terribly interested in going that far with it. I just don't accept the non-standard clearances ("Taxi up to the edge of the runway and be ready" or "Proceed onto the runway to complete your checks" etc) and I feel I'm covered. He's actually a good controller in terms of situational awareness and the ability to push tin, just not very "by the book".

Palmpilot
May 18th, 2012, 02:37 AM
My understanding is that an MOR for a go around is only required if it is performed by a turbojet powered aircraft inside a 1/2 mile final that is not part of a practice approach.

They are also requiring MORs for any aborted takeoff (unless previously coordinated and approved by the tower).

It sounds like an MOR does not necessarily equal a violation, since those examples are clearly within PIC prerogatives.

HPNPilot1200
May 18th, 2012, 07:36 AM
It sounds like an MOR does not necessarily equal a violation, since those examples are clearly within PIC prerogatives.

Correct. An MOR is just a "report."

Ted DuPuis
May 18th, 2012, 10:45 AM
I have not noticed anything or heard anything from anyone outside of here, and I'm not doing anything different.

Ok, kinda what I figured.

Looks like I'm flying the Twin Cessna. I'll try not to go around...

A Twin Cessna is a beast of an aircraft. Go-arounds sometimes occur.

Actually, I was responding to a FB post by Dan Gryder with winks to the actual FAA orders. To be honest, I'm not planning to change anything. Just fly the best that I can.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply anything. Simply that it posted on my Facebook whatevermagig (these new-fangled dingle-hoppers are too shiny for my feeble pilot brain that likes magnetos) as something from you, which prompted my interest.

Dean
May 18th, 2012, 11:26 AM
Both have their advantages/disadvantages...I tend to prefer towered fields, but that's a preference, not an absolute.

You must have done your training at a towered airport. It's funny how people that learned at a towered airport hate flying into non-towered ones and people who learned at non towered hate flying into towered ones. I am in the later group, I'll take a non towered over a towered any day.

dell30rb
May 18th, 2012, 11:36 AM
I was on final @ KILM a few weeks ago and someone ignored instructions and pulled on the runway in front of me. The controller was frustrated with the perp but did not give him a number to call. He chewed him out though "You HAVE to listen to my instructions"

Palmpilot
May 18th, 2012, 02:35 PM
You must have done your training at a towered airport. It's funny how people that learned at a towered airport hate flying into non-towered ones and people who learned at non towered hate flying into towered ones. I am in the later group, I'll take a non towered over a towered any day.

I learned at a towered airport, but I prefer non-towered in general.

GCA319
May 18th, 2012, 02:40 PM
You must have done your training at a towered airport. It's funny how people that learned at a towered airport hate flying into non-towered ones and people who learned at non towered hate flying into towered ones. I am in the later group, I'll take a non towered over a towered any day.
It is funny. I learned and now work out of a towered field, but I still frequent non-towered fields, so I'm comfortable at both. It just so happens that I prefer a second set of eyes.

Pa28-140
May 18th, 2012, 03:32 PM
This has actually been in effect for awhile.

And you can thank ATC for this one.

Actually, it's an ATC MANAGEMENT program. Controllers have been against this type of Gestapo enforcement from the beginning. Most (not all) controllers would much rather give you a gentle reminder if there was no safety issue. MANAGEMENT took the position that if you don't turn in EVERY infraction, then we are coming after you for hiding it. Whether you agree or not, FAA managers did not get where they are because of being stellar at doing the job. This enforcement program has only turned pilots against controllers who no longer have any discretionary authority. This is exactly what MANAGEMENT wanted, the controllers to have no allies. One more reason so many controllers are retiring.

Ted DuPuis
May 18th, 2012, 03:32 PM
You must have done your training at a towered airport. It's funny how people that learned at a towered airport hate flying into non-towered ones and people who learned at non towered hate flying into towered ones. I am in the later group, I'll take a non towered over a towered any day.

I learned at a towered airport and wasn't comfortable at non-towered airports for a while. Nowadays I frequent both. For normal operations, I prefer non-towered airports. When something goes wrong, I want the towered airport, with the greater services provided.

I was on final @ KILM a few weeks ago and someone ignored instructions and pulled on the runway in front of me. The controller was frustrated with the perp but did not give him a number to call. He chewed him out though "You HAVE to listen to my instructions"

I'm surprised that he didn't get a phone number. Runway incursions are a big deal these days.

flyingcheesehead
May 18th, 2012, 09:11 PM
You must have done your training at a towered airport. It's funny how people that learned at a towered airport hate flying into non-towered ones and people who learned at non towered hate flying into towered ones. I am in the later group, I'll take a non towered over a towered any day.

I trained at a class C... But I'll fly anywhere. Towered (with or without TRACON) or not, paved runway(s) or not, FBO or not... I'm happy to pump my own gas, land on unpaved runways, and provide my own traffic avoidance despite learning at a field with 3 150-foot wide hunks of concrete ranging from 5800 to 9000 feet in length with a 24x7 full-service FBO.

I guess that's not too big of a surprise, considering I like flying both high wings and low wings. :D

BillTIZ
May 19th, 2012, 12:10 AM
I went around recently and never got a call. Of course it was probably the controller who botched the spacing or the other airplane didn't get off the runway as quickly as anticipated. It could never be anything I did. :aureola: :rofl:

He has to report himself too, if he botched the spacing.

BillTIZ
May 19th, 2012, 12:15 AM
I'm not terribly interested in going that far with it. I just don't accept the non-standard clearances ("Taxi up to the edge of the runway and be ready" or "Proceed onto the runway to complete your checks" etc) and I feel I'm covered. He's actually a good controller in terms of situational awareness and the ability to push tin, just not very "by the book".

I have "pushed tin" in my careers, not following standard language and operating by the book causes problems. But to the hold an aircraft on the ground after landing in a "penalty box" is a major foul, and a waste of fuel, engine hours and good will.

Ted DuPuis
May 19th, 2012, 09:20 AM
I have "pushed tin" in my careers, not following standard language and operating by the book causes problems. But to the hold an aircraft on the ground after landing in a "penalty box" is a major foul, and a waste of fuel, engine hours and good will.

When you talk to New York Approach (or sometimes even Center), there's lots of non-standard phraseology. It causes problems for first-timers, and I agree is an overall problem. I tell people that flying in New York City is just like driving there.

"Outta my way I'm landin' hear!" :mad:

;)

AuntPeggy
May 21st, 2012, 03:57 PM
From AvWeb:
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Pilot_Deviation_Rules_Surprise_Pilots_206720-1.html
May 21, 2012
New Pilot Deviation Rules Surprise Pilots
By Russ Niles, Editor-in-Chief

The Airline Pilots Association is advising members (PDF) to voluntarily report to the FAA Aviation Safety Action Program even the most minor deviation from ATC instructions, regardless of their origin (ie equipment failure or even weather deviations) or risk being written up for a pilot deviation (PD). Although airline pilots are more likely to run afoul of a new FAA internal reporting policy for deviations, it applies to all aircraft under active control and the consequences can include FAA enforcement and a note on a pilot's permanent record. While the intent of the policy shift appears to be to encourage pilots to self report deviations (doing so triggers enforcement "incentives" that reduce the consequences) ALPA says pilots who have been assured by controllers that the transgression is a minor one not worthy of FAA attention have found out later that they've been written up.

In one case, according to ALPA, a Delta crew departing Atlanta on autopilot went off track briefly when the autopilot disconnected. They flew manually to the correct track and were assured by the controller that it was "no problem." Under the new rules, however, that controller was required to report the incident and it was forwarded to a "quality assurance 'clearing house'" which ultimately decided if an enforceable pilot deviation occurred. In that spirit, ALPA has essentially invited its pilots to flood the system with reports. "Any safety-related event, any slight deviation from clearance, even if not noted by ATC, should be documented via ASAP," ALPA advised its members. "Again, if in doubt, file. If you have doubt, and that doubt is somehow dispelled later, file anyway! Do not let assurances from ATC convince you that an ASAP report is somehow unnecessary." It's recommending that all members of the cockpit crew file the reports and that they also consider filing one to the NASA Aerospace Safety Advisory Program (also acronymed ASAP) whose mandate is to collect air safety data rather than mitigate enforcement action.

RotorAndWing
May 21st, 2012, 05:55 PM
From AvWeb:
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Pilot_Deviation_Rules_Surprise_Pilots_206720-1.html

Wow, AvWeb is pumping the paranoia on this.

TMetzinger
May 21st, 2012, 06:26 PM
R&W,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I really did think this was a QA-type project to develop some metrics, not a reason to give inspectors an overflowing inbox.

Let's assume that every go-around is not the result of a loss of separation or other ATC or pilot error. Still useful data to have because it gives a more realistic picture of what sort of capacity that airport would have, no?

denverpilot
May 21st, 2012, 06:37 PM
Gee, since there's already a fully working system to handle safety reports (ASRS) why not just make certain reports to it mandatory? Oh wait... we need another bureaucracy fed and clothed.

(And if the purpose truly is only for data gathering, the anonymous nature already built into ASRS is perfect.)

The thing to be paranoid about isn't the scare tactic stuff AvWeb and others are pushing, it's the waste of money and time to handle the load. Ramping up ASRS a bit makes a lot more sense.

Means it'll never happen.

Flying h4x0r
May 21st, 2012, 07:11 PM
I busted my altitude by 120 ft due to turbulence on an IFR flight this morning. ATC didn't say anything. I doubt they even noticed. There was no traffic around for miles.

So the ALPA would recommend I fill out a ASRS form for this?

TMetzinger
May 21st, 2012, 07:12 PM
By 120 feet, do you mean outside the "normal" 200 foot window?

Flying h4x0r
May 21st, 2012, 07:16 PM
By 120 feet, do you mean outside the "normal" 200 foot window?
I always believed that the 200ft window gave you 100 ft above and 100 ft below your assigned altitude.

:dunno: You guys definitely know more than I do.

TMetzinger
May 21st, 2012, 07:20 PM
That's a good belief. I don't THINK the ATC alert on the scope goes off until you're more than 200' high or low. That said I work hard to not vary altitude (or I let OTTO work hard when he's onboard).

Palmpilot
May 21st, 2012, 07:38 PM
I always believed that the 200ft window gave you 100 ft above and 100 ft below your assigned altitude.

Since the PTS for the instrument rating only requires the applicant to be able to hold altitude within +/- 100 feet, it wouldn't make sense to hold pilots to a tighter standard than that. (An exception is at the MDA, where the tolerance is +100, -0 feet.)

http://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/airmen/test_standards/media/faa-s-8081-4e.pdf

In addition, there are altimeter errors that have to be taken into account.

roncachamp
May 21st, 2012, 07:45 PM
I always believed that the 200ft window gave you 100 ft above and 100 ft below your assigned altitude.

:dunno: You guys definitely know more than I do.

Your Mode C is verified if it and your stated altitude are within 200 feet.

wsuffa
May 21st, 2012, 07:47 PM
R&W,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I really did think this was a QA-type project to develop some metrics, not a reason to give inspectors an overflowing inbox.

Let's assume that every go-around is not the result of a loss of separation or other ATC or pilot error. Still useful data to have because it gives a more realistic picture of what sort of capacity that airport would have, no?

Granted that it may be the intent, but pretty much every such fishing expedition carries with it the risk of abuse. Unfortunately, the track record of such abuse is "legendary" - think "Bob Hoover" or "Yoke mounted GPS" or "Scimitar Prop"....

Not saying abuse WILL happen, just that *I* wouldn't call a certain level of paranoia as being unwarranted.

Everskyward
May 21st, 2012, 09:42 PM
Gee, since there's already a fully working system to handle safety reports (ASRS) why not just make certain reports to it mandatory? Hush! Can you imagine what an avalanche of reports that would produce?

RotorAndWing
May 21st, 2012, 11:59 PM
R&W,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I really did think this was a QA-type project to develop some metrics, not a reason to give inspectors an overflowing inbox.

Let's assume that every go-around is not the result of a loss of separation or other ATC or pilot error. Still useful data to have because it gives a more realistic picture of what sort of capacity that airport would have, no?

Sums it up pretty good. There is a lot of data imputed into ATQA (Air Traffic Quality Assurance) that covers a whole host of parameters and helps ATC develop better procedures as well as identifying problematic areas. I've seen several instances where the data collected has helped improve ATC procedures at certain airports.