"Possible pilot deviations" do sometimes end well

[MAKG1]

So, last weekend, I did some more 182 "familiarization" landings (that's what CAP calls them), this time at a busy towered airport, and with an instructor. Not a CAP aircraft, though I doubt that would have mattered.

The airport is configured with two parallel runways, 31L and 31R. All the taxiways are on the right side, and in general both runways are in use while the tower is open.

So, we're finishing up a pretty good lesson, and ask Tower for a full stop. We're cleared to land on 31L. Make a pretty good landing, power off and full flap, and turn off and stop. Tower clears me across 31R, tells me to stop on the other side and contact ground. Halfway across the runway, Tower makes another call to "follow the other Cessna ahead." There is a 152 visible about 150 feet directly in front, and some traffic coming our way on the parallel we would need to block to contact Ground (not that close, but 15 seconds stopped would be a problem) -- I figure that's the point of the taxi clearance. So, I do. Then, turn left past transient parking, now outside the movement area. The 152 is still in front, and Tower says to copy a number for a possible PD. The instructor and I look at each other dumbfounded.

So, we park the aircraft, go back to the office and call the number. The controller is very apologetic, saying "this is stupid but we have to do this" and asks for contact information from both of us. The instructor mentions the instruction was "confusing" (being nice, IMO). The response is "to a point."

A few days later, the instructor gets a call from the tower supervisor. He says he reviewed the recording, we did exactly as instructed, and he's recommending the report be closed with a resolution "requiring remedial training for the controller" and no other actions. While that makes sense, I've never heard of that before. The supervisor has not contacted me directly, though the controller said he would want to.

So, I have mixed feelings about that. The controller screwed up, and gave a clearance he didn't mean to. No real incursions resulted, and no one even needed to use brakes who wouldn't have otherwise. Now, the FSDO is involved. This should have been a simple "that's what not to do" for the controller. Nevertheless, the process appears to have worked as it purports to -- an honest and rapid investigation.

I'm apparently not officially off the hook until the FSDO acts, but it would be extraordinary to overrule the tower supervisor.

In retrospect, the only thing I can come up with that I could have done differently was perhaps to ask Tower to confirm I should remain on Tower frequency. But I didn't think of that; it sounded like the controller overruled his previous instruction with the new one.

Of course I made the NASA report, as did the instructor. Giving an unintended clearance could obviously end much worse in other contexts.

But a "call this number" doesn't necessarily mean any sanction at all from the FAA.

 

[bullwinkle]

I go to towered airports when necessary, but I really like that I'm based at a non-towered field.

 

[CTLSi]

Remember, as PIC you can still refuse a dumb statement from a controller. Since the controller didn't hand you off to ground, and didn't give you taxi assignments you were technically in violation. But since the controller failed to do it, it's reasonable to not zap you for it.

You can still make them say it right. The recordings are there as a record to both protect we pilots and to also protect the controllers when it's not done right.

 

[MAKG1]

Remember, as PIC you can still refuse a dumb statement from a controller. Since the controller didn't hand you off to ground, and didn't give you taxi assignments you were technically in violation. But since the controller failed to do it, it's reasonable to not zap you for it.

You can still make them say it right. The recordings are there as a record to both protect we pilots and to also protect the controllers when it's not done right.

Well, I kinda thought "follow Cessna ahead" was a taxi clearance, given that the Cessna ahead was headed away on a taxiway, beyond the movement area. Though it was not standard phraseology. I really can't come up with any other meaning for it.

Apparently, the tower supervisor agreed with me.

And the thing is, given converging traffic around there, moving along DID look like the right thing to do. It made all kinds of sense to me, which is why I didn't question it. If I had stopped and questioned it, there would have been a traffic jam right at a charted "hot spot."

I suspect the real error here was that I shouldn't have been cleared across 31R quite so quickly. A short hold there would have made the traffic problem evaporate.

 

[RotorAndWing]

But a "call this number" doesn't necessarily mean any sanction at all from the FAA.

Never has. The majority are cleared up on the phone. Others are just routine. Rarely does one result in a violation.

 

[poadeleted20]

Never has. The majority are cleared up on the phone. Others are just routine. Rarely does one result in a violation.

Which is why generally the worst thing to do is not make the call -- that only motivates ATC to let the FSDO handle it from there. In the posted case, the call made sure the right thing happened. But even if it had been the pilot who'd (innocently) erred, ATC is usually satisfied if you call and accept your counseling from them without them having to fill out the paperwork to get the FSDO involved.

 

[Zeldman]

Which is why generally the worst thing to do is not make the call -- that only motivates ATC to let the FSDO handle it from there. In the posted case, the call made sure the right thing happened. But even if it had been the pilot who'd (innocently) erred, ATC is usually satisfied if you call and accept your counseling from them without them having to fill out the paperwork to get the FSDO involved.

Just another viewpoint, and not disagreeing, but you are not required to make the call. Just ask any aviation lawyer. It might be in your best interest to call, but the tower police are not going to bust down your door if you don't make that call. You are also not required to call as soon as you get out of the plane. If serious violation may have occurred, a call to an aviation lawyer or AOPA legal services should happen first.

In this situation, it sounds as if the tower knew they screwed up and were in CYA mode and were doing it "by the book."

Again, it might be in your best interest to make the call, but it is a judgement decision on whom to call first. Don't answer accusatory questions without legal advice.

I am not a lawyer, and I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express, but my wife has me in the dog house tonight.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Just another viewpoint, and not disagreeing, but you are not required to make the call. Just ask any aviation lawyer. It might be in your best interest to call, but the tower police are not going to bust down your door if you don't make that call. You are also not required to call as soon as you get out of the plane. If serious violation may have occurred, a call to an aviation lawyer or AOPA legal services should happen first.

In this situation, it sounds as if the tower knew they screwed up and were in CYA mode and were doing it "by the book."

Again, it might be in your best interest to make the call, but it is a judgement decision on whom to call first. Don't answer accusatory questions without legal advice.

I am not a lawyer, and I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express, but my wife has me in the dog house tonight.

Had a guy do that to me once. Refused to talk to the tower, refused to talk to the FSDO when it became a PD.

He "lawyered up" and refused to cooperate.

It ended with him getting a 44709 ride.

 

[Velocity173]

Nothing good can come from not calling. The call isn't trying to incriminate the pilot, they're just wanting to discuss the PD and how the process is going to go from there. If you call and the PD is minor (tower infraction) you could possibly get out of it completely. Don't call, and you're just going to tick the twr sup off and he'll definitely send it up. If it's radar loss of sep, you can lawyer up all you want, the "tapes" don't lie.

 

[Henning]

Just another viewpoint, and not disagreeing, but you are not required to make the call. Just ask any aviation lawyer. It might be in your best interest to call, but the tower police are not going to bust down your door if you don't make that call. You are also not required to call as soon as you get out of the plane. If serious violation may have occurred, a call to an aviation lawyer or AOPA legal services should happen first.

In this situation, it sounds as if the tower knew they screwed up and were in CYA mode and were doing it "by the book."

Again, it might be in your best interest to make the call, but it is a judgement decision on whom to call first. Don't answer accusatory questions without legal advice.

I am not a lawyer, and I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express, but my wife has me in the dog house tonight.

Why wouldn't you call? Here's the thing, we're not talking criminal violation here, it's administrative law, nobody is going to prison. If you talk to them, the worst thing that will happen to you is a 44709 ride. If you don't talk to them, the definite thing that is going to happen is a 44709 ride. Most likely unless you really screwed up, all that's going to happen is you get some counseling on proper procedure and why what you did was dangerous.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Nothing good can come from not calling. The call isn't trying to incriminate the pilot, they're just wanting to discuss the PD and how the process is going to go from there. If you call and the PD is minor (tower infraction) you could possibly get out of it completely. Don't call, and you're just going to tick the twr sup off and he'll definitely send it up. If it's radar loss of sep, you can lawyer up all you want, the "tapes" don't lie.

 

[MAKG1]

Most likely unless you really screwed up, all that's going to happen is you get some counseling on proper procedure and why what you did was dangerous.

And in this case, not even that happened.

 

[poadeleted20]

I've read that some aviation lawyers have recommended not calling because, they say, that prevents the FAA from proving you were the PIC of that aircraft. However, the record shows otherwise. In every case I've seen where pilot identification was challenged by the respondent and the case went to the NTSB, the FAA prevailed in proving it "more likely than not" (the standard of proof in such cases, as opposed to "beyond reasonable doubt" in criminal cases) that the person charged was the PIC.

And as noted by others, had the call been made, the issue might have ended with the conclusion of the call. Instead, when there was no call, the FAA got their fur up and went after the pilot with an enforcement action. Even if you know you were wrong and did break the rule, your call can still show "a positive attitude towards compliance" which can go a long way towards mitigating what happens to you as a result. If instead you essentially thumb your nose at them, all that goes out the window and they tend to go for the throat.

So if you ever get that "I have a number for you to call" line, choose wisely.

 

[Sac Arrow]

I'm guessing that was RHV.

One time I was parking my plane and I overheard a student pilot screwing up royally in the pattern. The controller gave him a number to call and "offered to give him a tour of the tower."

I talked to the student pilot later. It was just an informal bitching out with no FAA action involved.

 

[dukeblue219]

What was it the controller actually wanted you to do that you didn't? If I heard this I would have done the exact same thing. Maybe asked if he still wanted me to contact ground, but I would have followed the plane as instructed. Was he expecting that you'd follow that Cessna while contacting ground?

 

[MAKG1]

What was it the controller actually wanted you to do that you didn't? If I heard this I would have done the exact same thing. Maybe asked if he still wanted me to contact ground, but I would have followed the plane as instructed. Was he expecting that you'd follow that Cessna while contacting ground?

I think, in retrospect, that he expected me to stop just over the hold line for 31R, contact Ground, and then follow the Cessna. But if that were the case, the instruction should have come from Ground, or at least should have included all the details. And it would have blocked taxiing traffic on the parallel, so it really didn't make any sense.

Or maybe, as you suggest, he wanted us contacting Ground on the roll -- which is not terribly safe when there is converging traffic.

It has me -- and the instructor who was also involved -- scratching my head as well. I'm having a hard time figuring out what I should have done differently -- even challenging the controller for a more clear instruction was not the safest course of action, due to the other traffic.

 

[Sac Arrow]

One time at KAPC, I called for taxi to depart to the Northeast and was given taxi instructions to 18L. I taxied to 18L, did my runup then called tower for departure.

Tower was surprised and either forgot or didn't realize ground had already given me taxi clearance and bitched me out. Nothing came of it though.

 

[jsstevens]

I've read that some aviation lawyers have recommended not calling because, they say, that prevents the FAA from proving you were the PIC of that aircraft. However, the record shows otherwise. In every case I've seen where pilot identification was challenged by the respondent and the case went to the NTSB, the FAA prevailed in proving it "more likely than not" (the standard of proof in such cases, as opposed to "beyond reasonable doubt" in criminal cases) that the person charged was the PIC.

And as noted by others, had the call been made, the issue might have ended with the conclusion of the call. Instead, when there was no call, the FAA got their fur up and went after the pilot with an enforcement action. Even if you know you were wrong and did break the rule, your call can still show "a positive attitude towards compliance" which can go a long way towards mitigating what happens to you as a result. If instead you essentially thumb your nose at them, all that goes out the window and they tend to go for the throat.

So if you ever get that "I have a number for you to call" line, choose wisely.

See this thread for my story. I believe Ron is correct on this one.

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39513

John

 

[Richard]

Something like 5 times I've been given the number to call. Not once was it a hard violation. But in at least two of those conversations I was told that if I hadn't called they would have had to pass it up the chain. One such call was to discuss a *possible* runway incursion. I am hard pressed to imagine how it would be more beneficial to speak with those who weren't there than those who were there. Acute situational awareness is the key. Even then, fess up or bear the consequences. The further from the incident or deviation the deeper you get into being charged with violation. Anecdotal yes, but that is my outlook.

Two of five calls involved a mild tongue lashing akin to what your parents would say to you - parents need to say that stuff. Even in those calls, which did involve a misunderstanding of an ambiguous clearance to cross an active runway during push at a Class C, we ended with a laugh. Higher up the command chain I think it would have been much serious with increased probability of infraction. By making the call I controlled how high up the ladder it would go.