GaryM
Pattern Altitude
Not a solution by itself, but once the FAA adds on mandatory recurrent training for anyone who might close a door, they'll feel they've addressed the problem adequately.
Towers snitching on aborted take-offs?
- Thread starter schmookeeg
- Start date
Not a solution by itself, but once the FAA adds on mandatory recurrent training for anyone who might close a door, they'll feel they've addressed the problem adequately.
schmookeeg
En-Route
Read what I wrote, slowly this time, then return to the lectern.
Llewtrah381
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2010
- Messages
- 972
- Display Name
Display name:
Llewtrah
If people want a buzzkill, they should read that document. First paragraph: "The Air Traffic Organization (ATO) uses a systemic perspective of safety within the National Airspace System (NAS). This perspective places more value on discovering why adverse safety events happen and identifying risk in the system, rather than determining who was at fault. .... The sharing of reported information allows the ATO to effectively and safely manage operations within the NAS, and is integral to the successful execution of the ATO Safety Management System (SMS). This directive establishes reporting requirements that support the collection of safety data."
Then Chapter 2, 2, a: "The requirements for reporting the occurrences described by this directive are intended primarily to ensure that safety data that may benefit the NAS are collected. The simple act of reporting an occurrence should not automatically trigger quality control functions"
With all the concern about this, has anyone heard of an adverse action against a pilot being taken because of this? I haven't seen one noted.
I'd contend we have the safest aviation system in the world - and it's because we gather data and work improvements with that. I've mentioned in the past I was a Flight Surgeon for an F-16 squadron in a past life and part of my training was on the history of military aviation safety and how candid, fact-based debriefs and data collection led to rapid, big improvements.
While I share (to some degree) the reasonable concern the data could be used against a pilot, this sure feels like declaring an emergency: despite the hesitancy to do so, I think the general consensus even on this forum is that the up-side of declaring one is always better than the down-side (real or imagined).
I don't see this as something that will prompt me personally to not abort when I think that's best. If they report it, fine. I'm PIC and that was the safest thing to do at the moment. I may (or may not) file an ASRS but even that adds useful data as well as a potential alibi.
Lots of good discussion here but I'd encourage people to not be so concerned about a "big brother" aspect that hasn't actually been shown - especially if that causes someone to second-guess an abort.