Heads Up: FAA ATC Mandatory Occurance Reporting

jjflys

jjflys

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Oct 2, 2010
Messages
141
Location
Denver, CO
Display Name
Display name:
jjflys
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





 
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".
 
...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.
 
jjflys said:
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:
Click to expand...

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."
 
JoeSelch said:
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."
Click to expand...

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.
 
JoeSelch said:
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."
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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:
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...
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.)
 
Ron Levy said:
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
Click to expand...

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! ;-)
 
Hmm...I guess this isn't being strictly enforced. I recently took the wrong taxiway and haven't hear boo about it.
 
Ron Levy said:
Biut don't ever turn off the landing runway at a tower-controlled airport onto another runway without prior approval.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Palmpilot said:
Hmm...I guess this isn't being strictly enforced. I recently took the wrong taxiway and haven't hear boo about it.
Click to expand...

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...
 
Clark1961 said:
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...
Click to expand...

I don't know whether it was a contract tower or Federal. Does anyone know where I can look that up?
 
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?
 
Rotor&Wing said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
I foresee more "unable" and "request progressive taxi" in my future. ;)
 
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.
 
CT4ME said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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?
 
zaitcev said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Crikey...let's hear it for untowered fields.
 
Fearless Tower said:
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.
Click to expand...

Based on...?

I guess I'm looking for something credible that shows an increase in pilot deviations and enforcement thereof.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Based on...?

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

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
 
jjflys said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Ted DuPuis said:
Has anyone actually seen evidence to support an increase in enforcement actions? Should I buy a new foil hat?
Click to expand...
I have not noticed anything or heard anything from anyone outside of here, and I'm not doing anything different.
 
roncachamp said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
AuntPeggy said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
BillTIZ said:
Go-arounds from botched approaches get reported too.
Click to expand...
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:
 
BillTIZ said:
Go-arounds from botched approaches get reported too.
Click to expand...

...? 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....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top