They didn't blame the pilot this time!

"We're logging this as a controller error and not a pilot error because the burden is on the controller to ensure that the pilot's read-back is correct," Gregor said."

That does seem to recant an earlier ruling (someone will have to find that for us) where the pilots are at fault even if the controller did not correct a bad readback. 'I remember us saying, why do we have to readback if they are not obliged to even listen?'
 
I'm ok with this ruling. Its about time ATC had to take SOME responsibility. Jeez.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
"We're logging this as a controller error and not a pilot error because the burden is on the controller to ensure that the pilot's read-back is correct," Gregor said."

That does seem to recant an earlier ruling (someone will have to find that for us) where the pilots are at fault even if the controller did not correct a bad readback. 'I remember us saying, why do we have to readback if they are not obliged to even listen?'
Click to expand...
The case was Administrator v. Merrell, in which Merrell's readback of an instruction to another aircraft was blocked by the other aircraft's acknowledgement, and Merrell executed that instruction, resulting in the filing of a Pilot Deviation Report. The three NTSB hearings on that case are:
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4530.PDF
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4670.PDF
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4814.PDF

Note in particular the original holding of the ALJ in the Merrell case that "absent ATC contribution to the deviation, a respondent will not be excused such a mistake." In this latest case, since the readback was apparently audible to the controller, who failed to catch it, there was an "ATC contribution to the deviation," and I suppose the pilot could be excused. However, a strict reading of the FAA's interpretation as finalized in Merrell...
Under the Administrator’s interpretation of the relevant regulations, however, an error of perception does not constitute a reasonable explanation for a deviation from a clearly transmitted clearance or instruction. Rather, inattentiveness or carelessness is presumed from the occurrence of a deviation unless, as we understand it, the misperception or mistake concerning the clearance was attributable to some factor for which the airman was not responsible, such as an equipment failure.[emphasis added]
Click to expand...
​
​
​

...would suggest that in the current case, both pilot and controller will fry, because there was no "reasonable explanation for a deviation from [the apparently] clearly transmitted clearance or instruction." If they let this pilot walk, then Merrell deserves a rehearing.
 
I think that whole Merrell ruling is bullcrap. Like Dave said, we might as well have everything go like this:

ATC: 2-2-Romeo-Lima climb and maintain 5,000 expect 9,000 in ten minuted.
22RL: Booga Booga, Ugh, munch, grall!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top