Heads Up: FAA ATC Mandatory Occurance Reporting

[HPNPilot1200]

...? 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[BillTIZ]

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.

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

 

[BillTIZ]

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]

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!"

 

[AuntPeggy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

By 120 feet, do you mean outside the "normal" 200 foot window?

 

[Flying h4x0r]

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.

You guys definitely know more than I do.

 

[TMetzinger]

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]

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]

I always believed that the 200ft window gave you 100 ft above and 100 ft below your assigned altitude.

You guys definitely know more than I do.

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

 

[wsuffa]

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]

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]

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.