Got a pilot deviation today

azure said:
Ummm... that's if he's not a total scumbag. If you can't think of any worse possibilities, then your imagination is lacking. I really don't want to post what I'm thinking here, I just hope the guy is more above board than that.
Click to expand...


A CFI talking to a FAA ASI blaming the student for a PD on a training flight, lol I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that phone call.

Ether way, I can't imagine anyone the CFI going that route could hurt, other than the CFI
 
Last edited:
Don’t be surprised if you get a phone call. If you where given a number to call,ATC now talks to you then sends it up to flight safety. Give up the CZfI as soon as you get the phone call.
 
Kritchlow said:
How did the CFI know he wasn’t causing a loss of seperation with arrival aircraft? I get that he can see terrain in good VMC, but an IFR aircraft just can’t stray into the arrival path. I understand that is not what happened in this case, but he likely didn’t know that.
Click to expand...


You think there were arriving aircraft flying below them? Or at 1000' and 5 miles out?
 
Velocity173 said:
PD isn’t just a loss of sep. Just the violation of 91.123 is enough. Loss of seperation is just a continuation of that if it should happen. Most controllers hold off on the 91.123 violation MOR unless it results in loss of sep.

I’ve had several aircraft that either deviated from course or altitude but never wrote them up. Those are all PDs but PDs I could slip under the rug. Had an F-18 student blow right through 10,000 and I didn’t catch it until she hit 12,000 and in center’s airspace. Could have easily issued a Brasher and written up a MOR but I didn’t. Center didn’t care and I didn’t care. She’s probably Admiral now. :D
Click to expand...
What's an "MOR"?
 
bflynn said:
You think there were arriving aircraft flying below them? Or at 1000' and 5 miles out?
Click to expand...
Thats not the point. The point is that it’s not okay to wander of course because there could be conflicting traffic. This situation that wasn’t the case, but it certainly could be next time. What if he was higher and strayed from course? Is it not possible to wander and cause a conflict with someone on an approach?? Departing La Guardia and Kennedy arrivals? That can get pretty tight if you stray.
 
Kritchlow said:
Thats not the point. The point is that it’s not okay to wander of course because there could be conflicting traffic. This situation that wasn’t the case, but it certainly could be next time. What if he was higher and strayed from course? Is it not possible to wander and cause a conflict with someone on an approach?? Departing La Guardia and Kennedy arrivals? That can get pretty tight if you stray.
Click to expand...

What if it was Tuesday and the moon was full? You're proposing a hypothetical situation and we have no idea what the instructor would have done in a different situation and nobody is asserting that this is how someone should fly. We don't know the full situation. What we know is that an instructor allowed a student to deviate and the result was that the student has learned to appreciate the value of being very prepared.

I'm good.
 
OP here said:
TRACON told me that QC MAY follow up if they have questions. Does this mean that it'll go up the food chain to FSDO at some point in time? Or can this stop at TRACON with a conversation? I did state for the record that I am an Instrument student flying with my CFII on this flight.
Click to expand...
I don't have a dog in this fight so what happens to the CFII is unimportant to me.

OP, you did well when you put it on the record that this was an instructional flight and you were a student. That needs to be known. That is the important part for you. Admitting that you lost SA under the hood is not the end of the world. Not for you anyway.

And btw, remember the feeling you had when your SA went out the window. If you ever feel like that again (especially single-pilot in IMC once you get your IR), that should trigger a re-evaluation of your SA. This is a good learning opportunity.
 
bflynn said:
What we know is that an instructor allowed a student to deviate and the result was that the student has learned to appreciate the value of being very prepared.
Click to expand...

Technically we don’t even know that. We have an anonymous post on an Internet forum that claims it happened. For all we know, it’s complete fiction.
 
i-think-funny.jpg
 
I for one am shocked this thread stayed on topic for 3 pages... Guess a hot button was hit
 
Velocity173 said:
You’re loss of seperation with terrain triggered a low altitude alert. That’s a mandatory occurrence report by ATC.
Click to expand...
Do they always have to file a report for a low altitude alert? I was flying into JQF last year and got a low altitude alert from tower (weird because we were VMC and we didn't look that low) and we didn't hear anything else about it.
 
rt4388 said:
Do they always have to file a report for a low altitude alert? I was flying into JQF last year and got a low altitude alert from tower (weird because we were VMC and we didn't look that low) and we didn't hear anything else about it.
Click to expand...

@mtuomi has a thread where he did his first IFR flight and got one coming back into PDK I think. Either he or someone else said in the thread it was automatic and based on something like rate of descent, etc.
 
rt4388 said:
Do they always have to file a report for a low altitude alert? I was flying into JQF last year and got a low altitude alert from tower (weird because we were VMC and we didn't look that low) and we didn't hear anything else about it.
Click to expand...

They don’t report a low altitude alert (MSAW) to higher. MSAW goes off all the time based on a set of algorithms predicting an IFR loss of seperation with terrain / obstacles. If you actually lose sep, then yes, that’s an occurrence and must be submitted with an MOR. Some of its subjective though. A controller could submit an MOR on a VFR if they believe they’re at an unsafe altitude.

None of the software I’m familiar with will generate an electronic occurrence report (EOR) off of an MSAW. If they did, the QA guy would be inundated and wouldn’t have enough time to investigate them. From what controller friends have told me, the EOR is generated only off of a loss of aircraft separation. That’s if the facility is equipped.

Also, If the loss of sep with the terrain / obstruction is due to a controller error, they have another mandatory reporting requirement as well. They’ll do an MOR along with an FAA Operational Error / Deviation form.
 
Last edited:
rt4388 said:
Do they always have to file a report for a low altitude alert? I was flying into JQF last year and got a low altitude alert from tower (weird because we were VMC and we didn't look that low) and we didn't hear anything else about it.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that neither you nor the controller has a complete obstacle picture. The low altitude aler may be due to a tower a couple of miles away from where you are.
 
OP here. Been 25 days since this happened.. Got my reciept back from ASRS yesterday. Am I correct in assuming since it's almost been a month that FSDO isn't gonna get involved in this gongshow
 
John Collins said:
If you were the pilot flying and rated in the aircraft and the flight was conducted under IFR rules, unless you met the currency requirements for instrument flight, you could not act as PIC, in spite of being qualified to log the time as PIC. That would mean that the pilot who was acting as PIC would have to be the CFII and his name should be on the flightplan. Here are the relevant regulations for logging:



I would suggest the CFII also submit a NASA form as he was most likely PIC and as such it was his pilot deviation he allowed you to commit.
Click to expand...

Yep. When I was in IFR training, I made the phone calls to learn the process, but not being rated I always had to give the CFII's name. I logged PIC time, but could not accept the clearance, and could not act as PIC. Them's the rules per the FARs that someone nicely quoted above.
 
Whoops said:
OP here. Been 25 days since this happened.. Got my reciept back from ASRS yesterday. Am I correct in assuming since it's almost been a month that FSDO isn't gonna get involved in this gongshow
Click to expand...

Impossible to say.

Sometimes inspectors are behind on stuff they’re working on.

Sometimes they’re just not interested at all and decided the controller’s notes showed enough was done. There’s no statute of limitations.

That said, the more time goes by the less the chance of a call or letter.

Just hang on to the ASRS stub and file it somewhere you know where it is, and plan to deal with it all if the phone call or the letter arrive.

For reference, getting certain things from the inspectors around here locally takes four to six weeks for simple stuff like appointments and such.

So you’re probably not completely out of the weeds at 25 days, unfortunately. Technically you’re never out of the weeds but you already have a “compliance attitude” documented in the ASRS participation and know what was done wrong.

Don’t stress. It won’t help. :) Easy to say from here, I know.
 
denverpilot said:
Impossible to say.

Sometimes inspectors are behind on stuff they’re working on.

Sometimes they’re just not interested at all and decided the controller’s notes showed enough was done. There’s no statute of limitations.
Click to expand...
Sort of. There is an NTSB "stale complaint" rule (821.33) that a certificate action must be started within 6 months after the deviation absent "good cause." Not quite as hard a line as a statute of limitations (which also has exceptions) but it is a fairly limited set of extenuating circumstances, mostly involving the FAA not discovering the event in time.

Otherwise, I agree. ASIs are overloaded and investigating deviations is extra work on top of their regular responsibilities (which they love as much as we do). I can see this one being discussed back and forth a bit, which takes time. But that also means they want to clear their desk.

I wouldn't read anything good or bad into a delay, but it's useless to fret about it. Worrying doesn't change anything. Steps like a NASA report, perhaps logging some ground instruction on the subject of the deviation (with a different CFI :D) at least do something proactive.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
Sort of. There is an NTSB "stale complaint" rule (821.33) that a certificate action must be started within 6 months after the deviation absent "good cause." Not quite as hard a line as a statute of limitations (which also has exceptions) but it is a fairly limited set of extenuating circumstances, mostly involving the FAA not discovering the event in time.
Click to expand...

I’d forgotten about that one. Although as you mention it doesn’t have much in the way of teeth.

I think I’ve seen pilots argue it in a couple
of case summaries I’ve read (perhaps Yodice’s stuff in AOPA mag years ago) and the ALJ tosses the stale compliant rule because their infractions were ongoing...

If you kept doing the bad thing, the clock kept resetting and FAA was allowed to bring up the oldest infraction and every one in between that one and the present day one.

That’s what I remember about common use of the stale complaint rule. Could be way off on that.

Doesn’t apply to this particular pilot’s story in the thread, but since we’re discussing it, we’ll add it for future clarity if someone searches for this info in the future.
 
denverpilot said:
I’d forgotten about that one. Although as you mention it doesn’t have much in the way of teeth.

I think I’ve seen pilots argue it in a couple
of case summaries I’ve read (perhaps Yodice’s stuff in AOPA mag years ago) and the ALJ tosses the stale compliant rule because their infractions were ongoing...

If you kept doing the bad thing, the clock kept resetting and FAA was allowed to bring up the oldest infraction and every one in between that one and the present day one.

That’s what I remember about common use of the stale complaint rule. Could be way off on that.

Doesn’t apply to this particular pilot’s story in the thread, but since we’re discussing it, we’ll add it for future clarity if someone searches for this info in the future.
Click to expand...
If the infraction is ongoing, a Statute of Limitations doesn't stop a criminal prosecution or civil case either. Plenty of exceptions in those too. And even in the criminal world where there are Constitutional limitations, prior uncharged and unconvicted offenses are considered for sentence enhancement.

The stale complaint rule has been applied. The problem with the cases on it is, the data is skewed. The FAA doesn't bring enforcement actions when the rule clearly applies, so by far most the cases on it tend to be those arguing about the exceptions.
 
denverpilot said:
I’d forgotten about that one. Although as you mention it doesn’t have much in the way of teeth.

I think I’ve seen pilots argue it in a couple
of case summaries I’ve read (perhaps Yodice’s stuff in AOPA mag years ago) and the ALJ tosses the stale compliant rule because their infractions were ongoing...

If you kept doing the bad thing, the clock kept resetting and FAA was allowed to bring up the oldest infraction and every one in between that one and the present day one.

That’s what I remember about common use of the stale complaint rule. Could be way off on that.

Doesn’t apply to this particular pilot’s story in the thread, but since we’re discussing it, we’ll add it for future clarity if someone searches for this info in the future.
Click to expand...

ALJ ???
 
luvflyin said:
ALJ ???
Click to expand...
As @azure said, Administrative Law Judge. Overview of typical process when the FAA decides to violate:
  1. FAA attorney mails "Notice of Proposed Certificate Action" to Pilot.
  2. Conferencing and attempts to settle fail and FAA Attorney mails final notice of certificate action.
  3. Unhappy pilot appeals to the NTSB. A trial takes place before an NTSB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ - the term is universal in federal administrative law, not limited to aviation). Witnesses, dicymentary evudence, the whole thing. No jury. Kind of like a lower state court nonjury criminal trial.
  4. Pilot or FAA (sometimes both) unhappy with result appeal to a full NTSB panel which sits as a court of appeals with a limited review if what the ALJ did. It's a bit more complicated, but generally the appeal is limited to whether the ALJ applied legal principles correctly. For the most part the defer to the ALJ's factual findings.
  5. Pilot or FAA (sometimes both) unhappy with the result appeals into the federal court system.
338C47AF-3D14-476E-AF89-4C020DB315D1.jpeg
 
midlifeflyer said:
The stale complaint rule has been applied. The problem with the cases on it is, the data is skewed. The FAA doesn't bring enforcement actions when the rule clearly applies, so by far most the cases on it tend to be those arguing about the exceptions.
Click to expand...

Makes sense. I was mainly just saying I’ve seen cases where the ALJ said it doesn’t apply or simply that they won’t acknowledge it.

The few I’ve seen were usually fairly blatant repetitive infraction types of things. And I certainly don’t read all the cases... that online database is fairly awful to find anything in, but one can get sidetracked into some interesting reading, when looking there for something else. LOL.
 
Well, this thing is behind me.. I am the OP in this mess. Got the call from the FAA inspector on Friday. Was a very cordial call, he asked me a few questions, we talked flying, and where I am in my IR training. He said there was going to be no enforcement action for me or my CFI, not even an unkind word in our files. Just a small talking to, and chalk it up to lessons learned. He also said there is a fine line as a CFI between letting your student learn from their mistakes, and getting a deviation. So, all in all a great learning experience, and thanks everyone for all your input
 
Happy to see it handled this way. You guys learned something. Nobody was endangered. No reason to violate anyone. Fly safe.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top