Should I report myself (ASRS)

VWGhiaBob

VWGhiaBob

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
884
Display Name
Display name:
VWGhiaBob
I never know when to ASRS or not and have not ever done so.

Just today, I wonder if I should report myself. I was flying west at 4,500 feet on flight following (So Cal). I then told ATC I was turning East, which would put me at an odd altitude of course on VFR. I started to descend when ATC informed me of traffic 500 feet below me, 1 o'clock. Since I didn't have the traffic in sight, I held off on descending into his flight path.

The controller came back on and asked me to "please descent to an appropriate VFR altitude." I replied that I had hesitated to descend earlier because of the traffic he told me about, but then I said I was starting an immediate descent to 3,500.

He seemed fine with this. However, do technical deviations like this, even when they are for a good reason, sometimes result in FAA action?

And should I report to ASRS or is this just way too trivial?
 
No need to report this.

Actively avoiding traffic takes priority regardless of what the FAR says. Your the PIC, it is your responsibility to assure the safety of your aircraft, using any means necessary.


ASRS is for reporting things like landing without clearance or busting someone's airspace.
 
Last edited:
Don't worry about it, that's not going to go anywhere.

Heck 9.9 times out of 10, unless the controller gives you the "possible pilot deviation" line you're fine.
 
Last edited:
Something doesn't sound right. He called traffic at 1 o'clock and 500 below, you call no joy, and then he wants you to descend into the traffic?

I have a real hard time believing it went that way. I'm thinking you missed a call like; 'previous traffic no factor', or something like that. BTW, my opinion is you did not have a 'technical deviation'.

Lastly, this stuff doesn't happen when your radio is in the off position, or as a sop to Ron - monitoring guard.
 
MachFly said:
West/east cruising altitudes are a recommendation, that is why they are in the AIM, not the FAR.
Click to expand...

Actually the hemispheric rules are in the regulations; see under:
§91.159 - VFR cruising altitude or flight level.
 
MachFly said:
No need to report this.

West/east cruising altitudes are a recommendation, that is why they are in the AIM, not the FAR. You're not violating any regs if you fly east at an even altitude.
Plus, actively avoiding traffic takes priority regardless of what the FAR says. Your the PIC, it is your responsibility to assure the safety of your aircraft, using any means possible.


ASRS is for reporting things like landing without clearance or busting someone's airspace.
Click to expand...

FAR 91.159
 
MachFly said:
Okay, guess I haven't open the FAR in a long time.

Interesting though, the other day ATC assigned me an eastbound cruising altitude of 6000ft.
Click to expand...

Might be a good idea to review.

In controlled airspace under IFR, there is no hemispheric rule. You are required to fly the assigned altitude. For VFR (and VFR on top), there is an important "unless authorized by ATC" phrase.

Non-standard cruising altitudes are assigned to VFR aircraft in Class B all the time.
 
MAKG1 said:
In controlled airspace under IFR, there is no hemispheric rule. You are required to fly the assigned altitude. For VFR (and VFR on top), there is an important "unless authorized by ATC" phrase.

Non-standard cruising altitudes are assigned to VFR aircraft in Class B all the time.
Click to expand...

Yep, just odd for ATC to assign that.
 
I think we tend to view the ASRS report as mainly a...

goojfc_01.jpg6b314d9e-be53-464f-b9e0-03d26ceb8602Large.jpg


Really, the main reason is to report things that, in your opinion, could lead to an unsafe situation.

If you feel that way, report it. If in any doubt, report it. If not, don't.
 
Unless you were in airspace were seperation became an issue, don't worry about it. ATC doesn't care about a 91.159 violation.
 
Just don't fly more than 3000 feet AGL and your good to go.:D

Or just never fly level. :goofy:

"an aircraft under VFR in level cruising flight more than 3,000 feet above the surface shall..."
 
Normally I do not nitpick. But his stopping the descent is not a violation of 91.159 after receiving an advisory of traffic conflict.
He may have missed the follow up 'traffic no longer a factor' that ATC is spoze to provide - if able (shrug)
 
MachFly said:
No need to report this.

Actively avoiding traffic takes priority regardless of what the FAR says. Your the PIC, it is your responsibility to assure the safety of your aircraft, using any means necessary.


ASRS is for reporting things like landing without clearance or busting someone's airspace.
Click to expand...

Actually, no it's it not. I agree completely with the initial statement that traffic avoidance took precedence in this situation and holding altitude was the correct decision in this instance rather than crossing an altitude with known traffic.

The intent of the ASRS though has nothing to do with busting anything or staying out of trouble, that is a bonus that NASA and the FAA threw in there to keep people from not reporting the more serious errors for which they could be penalized.

The intent of the ASRS form is to collect as much data as possible about things that could have gone wrong and potentially caused a casualty.
 
Last edited:
DFH65 said:
Or just never fly level. :goofy:

"an aircraft under VFR in level cruising flight more than 3,000 feet above the surface shall..."
Click to expand...

What altitude do you fly in lazy 360s at 65% power?:D




:stirpot:
 
Velocity173 said:
Unless you were in airspace were seperation became an issue, don't worry about it. ATC doesn't care about a 91.159 violation.
Click to expand...
On more than one occasion while receiving flight following VFR and stopping at the wrong altitude for direction of flight, I've been told (correctly) by ATC that I'm at the wrong altitude for my direction of flight. In addition, when circumstances have made a "wrong" altitude a good idea, I've asked ATC to invoke the "unless otherwise authorized by ATC" clause of 91.159, and had both "OK" and "negative" responses. So, at least sometimes, ATC must care about this issue.

In any event, to the OP, I say "go ahead and file" it. You're not "reporting yourself" by doing so -- you're providing a piece of information that may be useful to improving aviation safety. Someone else may read this story and realize that stopping your descent at the "wrong" altitude because there's traffic you don't see between you and the "right" altitude is a smart thing to do even if an excessively strict interpretation of the regulations might lead someone to think otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, all. I will not report this.

Note to Random: You're right...it didn't happen the way you described it. (See original post.)

Thanks all, for the usual valuable info. Can't say enough good things about the folks on this site and the valuable advice I get almost every day. This site has been the single most important ingredient in my return to flying...and to the 230 hour's I've accumulated in the the process in just over a year.
 
I fly the VFR altitudes > 3k but there have been times when I have planned for 4500 heading west and the cloud layer was lower than predicted.

On more than one occasion, I have told ATC "I'm holding here at 4200 to remain clear of clouds" or whatever. They have never had an issue with this or made me fly a specific alt.

Inside the class Bravo it is a different story. They have directed me to fly all sorts of specific altitudes and a small percentage of the time, they will even be 3600 or something slightly off the VFR alt.

I assume if I tell them I am going to fly this goofy altitude and they don't tell me otherwise, there is no issue :dunno:
 
I don't see a violation here. You were in the process of descending, paused momentarily for traffic, ATC thought your intention might be to cruise at that altitude, and you clarified the situation.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
I fly the VFR altitudes > 3k but there have been times when I have planned for 4500 heading west and the cloud layer was lower than predicted.

On more than one occasion, I have told ATC "I'm holding here at 4200 to remain clear of clouds" or whatever. They have never had an issue with this or made me fly a specific alt.

Inside the class Bravo it is a different story. They have directed me to fly all sorts of specific altitudes and a small percentage of the time, they will even be 3600 or something slightly off the VFR alt.

I assume if I tell them I am going to fly this goofy altitude and they don't tell me otherwise, there is no issue :dunno:
Click to expand...


If you're above the clouds at 4200 descending to 3500, you should climb to 5500 unless it's a "hold" less than two minutes. If below the cloud climbing to 4500, you need to get below 3000 AGL.

VFR cruise altitudes ARE regulated. You almost certainly won't be reported if another reg takes priority.

The OP did nothing wrong. Avoiding traffic is one of those "duh" reasons why the PIC has to be in the airplane rather than in a darkened ARTCC somewhere. However, an ASRS might still be appropriate because ATC screwed up -- giving a traffic advisory and then telling a pilot to descend into it is not right. There is indeed a safety issue there.
 
MAKG1 said:
If you're above the clouds at 4200 descending to 3500, you should climb to 5500 unless it's a "hold" less than two minutes. If below the cloud climbing to 4500, you need to get below 3000 AGL.

VFR cruise altitudes ARE regulated. You almost certainly won't be reported if another reg takes priority.

The OP did nothing wrong. Avoiding traffic is one of those "duh" reasons why the PIC has to be in the airplane rather than in a darkened ARTCC somewhere. However, an ASRS might still be appropriate because ATC screwed up -- giving a traffic advisory and then telling a pilot to descend into it is not right. There is indeed a safety issue there.
Click to expand...

And some would interpret that as Pilots taking up for Pilots. Not that I disagree with your vantage point here.:D
 
VWGhiaBob said:
I then told ATC I was turning East, which would put me at an odd altitude of course on VFR. I started to descend when ATC informed me of traffic 500 feet below me, 1 o'clock. Since I didn't have the traffic in sight, I held off on descending into his flight path.

The controller came back on and asked me to "please descent to an appropriate VFR altitude."
Click to expand...

:dunno::dunno::dunno:

<edit: Are you sure he didn't say "climb" and you heard "descend"? >
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
On more than one occasion while receiving flight following VFR and stopping at the wrong altitude for direction of flight, I've been told (correctly) by ATC that I'm at the wrong altitude for my direction of flight. In addition, when circumstances have made a "wrong" altitude a good idea, I've asked ATC to invoke the "unless otherwise authorized by ATC" clause of 91.159, and had both "OK" and "negative" responses. So, at least sometimes, ATC must care about this issue.

In any event, to the OP, I say "go ahead and file" it. You're not "reporting yourself" by doing so -- you're providing a piece of information that may be useful to improving aviation safety. Someone else may read this story and realize that stopping your descent at the "wrong" altitude because there's traffic you don't see between you and the "right" altitude is a smart thing to do even if an excessively strict interpretation of the regulations might lead someone to think otherwise.
Click to expand...

Obviously the controller "cares" in this instance or they would've told him about it in the first place. I'm talking about caring enough to write him up and send it to the FSDO necessitating a ASRS from the OP. No controller is going to write this up as a PD unless they have a lot of time on their hands.
 
Henning said:
Actually, no it's it not. I agree completely with the initial statement that traffic avoidance took precedence in this situation and holding altitude was the correct decision in this instance rather than crossing an altitude with known traffic.

The intent of the ASRS though has nothing to do with busting anything or staying out of trouble, that is a bonus that NASA and the FAA through in there to keep people from not reporting the more serious errors which they could be penalized for.

The intent of the ASRS form is to collect as much data as possible about things that could have gone wrong and potentially caused a casualty.
Click to expand...

True. I file ASRS reports when I either screw something up or observe a clearly dangerous scenario. So I report things when I think that something should be changed. I try not to spam the ASAR system with useless reports.

But yeah, you're right.
 
Re: Should I report myself (ASRS)

no one likes a tattletale!
 
I'll put my flame suit and confess: When VFR I never fly at the 'correct' +500 foot altitude.

I stay one or two hundred feet above or below the official +500 foot altitude.

Because collision.
 
And BTW, filing an ASRS is not an automatic get out of jail card. If the FAA says you willfully broke an FAR, it doesn't count. And they can almost always make that claim stick if they wish.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Buggsy2 said:
And BTW, filing an ASRS is not an automatic get out of jail card. If the FAA says you willfully broke an FAR, it doesn't count. And they can almost always make that claim stick if they wish.
Click to expand...

Are you aware of any documented examples of the willful-violation exception being applied inappropriately?
 
Buggsy2 said:
And BTW, filing an ASRS is not an automatic get out of jail card. If the FAA says you willfully broke an FAR, it doesn't count. And they can almost always make that claim stick if they wish.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...

You are relying on "I read on the internet" as your source. Please do some reading on the subject first from a reliable source. :rolleyes:
 
Where were you? Was the ground less than 3000' below you? Then the hemispheric rule does not apply at all . . .

Keep that in mind the next time you decide to beat yourself up . . .

You just turned around - ATC called traffic, you called no joy - what would you have yourself do? Descend in to traffic to satisfy a rule?
 
Velocity173 said:
Obviously the controller "cares" in this instance or they would've told him about it in the first place. I'm talking about caring enough to write him up and send it to the FSDO necessitating a ASRS from the OP.
Click to expand...
People seem to keep missing the point. The reason the ASRS was developed was not to provide a means of avoiding sanctions for violations. It was developed as a means for identifying safety problems both to fix the system and to educate users with an end goal of making aviation safer. The "waiver of sanction" feature was created only as an additional motivation for people to file these reports. The fact that one is not facing an FAA enforcement action is not a reason not to file an ASRS report when that report might help improve safety or educate another pilot/controller/etc. For that reason, I strongly encourage the OP to write it up and send it in -- it may help someone else.
 
MachFly said:
True. I file ASRS reports when I either screw something up or observe a clearly dangerous scenario. So I report things when I think that something should be changed. I try not to spam the ASAR system with useless reports.

But yeah, you're right.
Click to expand...

No worries, spam them away, they have the capacity to process everything that comes. We pay good tax money for this stuff that's supposed to help us in the long run. Thing is it needs the data we have to provide to yield a meaningful result.
 
I'm trying to figure out what you feel was wrong with the situation, prompting you wonder about filing an ASRS?? You were changing altitudes, which is correct. ATC provided you a courtesy traffic advisory, which is correct. You took heed to the courtesy traffic advisory, which is correct. ATC politely asked you to change altitudes, which is correct.

I see nothing that would be unusual. Chances are the traffic was not a factor or he would have said so. It's just an advisory of nearby traffic. You can always ask the for the distance or if it is a factor if unsure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top