TFaudree_ERAU
Mashin' dem buttons
With the staffing shortage, I'd be surprised if they answer the phone at all if you call.
I need you to write down this number...
- Thread starter dc3flyer
- Start date
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
I thought your initial post said
I guess I don't understand.
dc3flyer
Well-Known Member
I guess you are right. He didn't give specifics, as earlier discussed, but he did give him a vague reason (possible pilot deviation).
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
That's really all they say - possible deviation; call this number. More would (a) clog up communications and (b) add stress to the situation.
A reason that you may not hear the "event" - "get back to your altitude!!" - is because the deviation notice might not be given when the event happens. For example, the event might be a loss of separation. The immediate concern is safety - get people where they belong and don't add to the situation by flustering the guy who just screwed up.
The deviation notice may even be given by a controller other than the one who caught the deviation. Think of a deviation at the edge of Center and Approach airspace. The deviation may be caught by Center but the pilot not notified untill switching to TRACON (or vice versa).
taildragger173
Well-Known Member
I heard a guy get the phone number today. I think it was a kid on his first solo x/c. Runway incursion.
SpiraMirabilis
Possible Subversive
Had CFI at my school who got a 709 ride on his CFI certificates because a student of his had a runway incursion.
PeanuckleCRJ
Poodle Wrangler
It's very rare for a controller to give out a number when it's unwarranted. They likely didn't give out the number immediately for one of a few reasons:
They likely wanted the situation to stabilize and not agitate the pilot further during a sensitive situation.
Also, the controller which noted the deviation might have wanted to discuss with a supervisor if the deviation occurred as well as replay the situation to confirm what happened. This can take a little while.
I have also asked a controller for a number before due to getting vectored into an area with a glider competition (yowza).
DE727UPS
Well-Known Member
"Is there a number we as pilots could give to controllers to call in the event of a "possible controller deviation"????"
You could note the exact time and frequency. Then, after the flight, look up the FAA facility phone number and ask for "quality assurance". If that doesn't satisfy you, you could contact the local FSDO and try to file a complaint. I'm not sure how that would go.
Main thing is, if you ever think you screwed up, file an ASAP or a NASA report. I had a situation where I didn't make a crossing going into SDF and ATC seemed to not really care. I blew it off but the F/O really wanted to do an ASAP, so we both did one. Nothing came of it, but it's never a bad idea to file one.
You could note the exact time and frequency. Then, after the flight, look up the FAA facility phone number and ask for "quality assurance". If that doesn't satisfy you, you could contact the local FSDO and try to file a complaint. I'm not sure how that would go.
Main thing is, if you ever think you screwed up, file an ASAP or a NASA report. I had a situation where I didn't make a crossing going into SDF and ATC seemed to not really care. I blew it off but the F/O really wanted to do an ASAP, so we both did one. Nothing came of it, but it's never a bad idea to file one.
As to the controller not knowing where the phone number was going to go within the center, think about it, a typical center employs 300-500 people if not more. There's layers upon layers of managment and support people and I'll guarantee the supervisor working in that area passed the phone number to the controller and he/she had no clue where that number went. The pilot could have had a deviation in another sector, center, airport, etc. and he/she was just relaying the message.
In the past at GFK, we've had pilots that have had deviation when they departed, we investigate while they still are still out flying to make sure everyone has their story straight, and when the aircraft returns (hours later) we give the standard phraseology: "Possible pilot deviation, contact GFK tower at xxx-xxxx". So it's very possible that the deviation could have occured earlier.
On the more broad topic of when to write up a pilot deviation or not let me stress to you that we as controllers are not the FAA police. I don't get paid enough to write up every deviation I see. The amount of paperwork required is beyond belief. Since GFK is a heavy student pilot training airport, mistakes are bound to happen. We have to find a good balance of education and keeping things safe.
Here's one example:
An aircraft lands and I instruct the pilot to turn at taxiway XX and the aircraft gets confused and ends up turning onto a crossing runway (very common at night). They are the only aircraft within 60 miles of the airport and causes no harm. I'll inform the pilot that they turned off the wrong exit and let it go. This is the education part.
The same aircraft lands and makes the wrong turn onto the crossing runway, it's very busy, I'm running a 'squeeze play' (praying to the ATC Gods that everything is going to work out the way I need them to or else someone is going to have to go-around) and now this aircraft is in harms way and causes a go-around. More than likely a pilot deviation will follow. This is the safety part.
Hope this all made sense......
In the past at GFK, we've had pilots that have had deviation when they departed, we investigate while they still are still out flying to make sure everyone has their story straight, and when the aircraft returns (hours later) we give the standard phraseology: "Possible pilot deviation, contact GFK tower at xxx-xxxx". So it's very possible that the deviation could have occured earlier.
On the more broad topic of when to write up a pilot deviation or not let me stress to you that we as controllers are not the FAA police. I don't get paid enough to write up every deviation I see. The amount of paperwork required is beyond belief. Since GFK is a heavy student pilot training airport, mistakes are bound to happen. We have to find a good balance of education and keeping things safe.
Here's one example:
An aircraft lands and I instruct the pilot to turn at taxiway XX and the aircraft gets confused and ends up turning onto a crossing runway (very common at night). They are the only aircraft within 60 miles of the airport and causes no harm. I'll inform the pilot that they turned off the wrong exit and let it go. This is the education part.
The same aircraft lands and makes the wrong turn onto the crossing runway, it's very busy, I'm running a 'squeeze play' (praying to the ATC Gods that everything is going to work out the way I need them to or else someone is going to have to go-around) and now this aircraft is in harms way and causes a go-around. More than likely a pilot deviation will follow. This is the safety part.
Hope this all made sense......
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
That's terrible. How can someone be counted responsible for the actions of another. stupid stupid stupid feds.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
The controllers up here seem to watch our back a lot. They'll say things like "say altitude" if they think you're off. then its up to you to say something incriminating over the radio.
Further, even if they see you are off some how, it might not be an actual issue. Airplanes have all sorts of quirks. We had an airplane that had a transponder problem that no one could track down and the airplane would periodically (we replaced the transponder and the antennae, and the altimeter, and checked the static system its a freak) indicate 200-300ft higher than we were indicating. Welllllll, atc would periodically get concerned and ask us, and we would tell them we're still level at 1000 or whatever, and things would be good.
Further, even if they see you are off some how, it might not be an actual issue. Airplanes have all sorts of quirks. We had an airplane that had a transponder problem that no one could track down and the airplane would periodically (we replaced the transponder and the antennae, and the altimeter, and checked the static system its a freak) indicate 200-300ft higher than we were indicating. Welllllll, atc would periodically get concerned and ask us, and we would tell them we're still level at 1000 or whatever, and things would be good.
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
Maybe because he's an instructor and a violation by a student pilot he's teaching at least raises the question of whether the student was properly taught?
That doesn't mean that it deserved a 709 ride. That depends on all of the circumstances. But if one of my students had an accident or violated a FAR, I'd expect the FAA to at least ask the student about his training, check out our training records, and take a close look at me to make a decision whether my instructor credentials should be retested. Frankly, I think the feds would be stupid if they didn't.
That's not responsibility for the actions of another. It's responsibility for your own as an instructor.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
Just because someone screwed up once doesn't mean they were trained improperly. As for the CFI having to do a 709 ride, that kind of strikes me as "guilty until proven innocent."
SpiraMirabilis
Possible Subversive
The student was soloing, signed off to solo by this instructor. I always assumed something like this would happen if my student screwed up badly enough, which is why I was always sure they were ready before I signed their student pilot certificate.
Boris Badenov
This is no laughing matter.
"Guilty until proven innocent" is exactly the way it works. It's administrative law, which has a totally different burden of proof than criminal or even standard civil law.
I was one of the weirdos who (sort of, mostly) liked instructing, but you won't catch me in the right seat of a trainer ever again for precisely that reason. It's simply not possible to ascertain with certainty that a new pilot won't screw something up, no matter how well trained. Yet they're flying on your ticket. Hey, that's the way it works. You pays your money and you takes your chances. I for one shall not miss it.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
That's wrong at the end of the day. Guilty until proven innocent is something that should be washed out of our aviation vocabulary. Administrative law being what it is, this may not be easy, however, allowing Federal Administrations to run roughshod over us is ridiculous. I'm smelling a supreme court case one day (don't know if its already been done) that will change the way our systems works. One more reason why I don't think I want to leave alaska anytime soon, as weird as the FAA is up here, I don't think I'd want to tangle with the Feds down south.
I have a friend who just left the FAA after trying to get in and make a difference, the guy is a career flight instructor 25000TT or more, multiple types from his old job, and an incredible knowledge of the regs and flying in general. That being said, he couldnt handle the massive requirement for him to violate, they pressured him to violate people who he say didn't need it, they needed recurrent training, and an embarrasing trip down to flight safety, the fact that the first urge was to annihilate their careers and push these guys out. ERRRRR. RANT OUT.
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
Don't bet on it.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that this is an FAA issue. Most of the FAA/NTSB enforcement process shares the same administrative law process, methods, rules, and legal requirements as all other federal agencies from the US Agriculture Department to the US Veterans Administration. Those rules have withstood repeated challenges to constitutionality for a long, long time.
And it's not really "guilty until proven innocent." It sometimes just feels that way, but guess what? Spend a day in a local lower level criminal court and "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" will likely look pretty much the same.
dc3flyer,
Thanks for sharing this story. It's good to read how a situation like this impacts the pilots hearing it. I have no idea the specifics of the situation you are describing, but I'd like to offer a flip-side of this particular coin.
8020.16 114. a: (GENOT 08/01 N8020.176)
a. Notify the pilot:
(1) Workload permitting, using the following phraseology:
"(aircraft identification) possible pilot deviation advise you contact (facility) at (telephone number)."
(2) When workload does not permit for the immediate notification of the pilot, alternative actions should be attempted to make sure the pilot is aware of the possible deviation. Suggestions include making the notification on the next frequency the pilot was assigned or possibly contacting the owner of the aircraft as soon as possible. Whatever alternatives are decided upon, the individuals involved will use their best judgement.
Our local orders dictate that we shall use our frequency, or the next assigned frequency to notify the pilot of the possible devation. That being said...
FAA TABLE OF DISCIPLINARY OFFENSES AND PENALTIES
5. Failure or delay in carrying out orders, directions, assignments, instructions, etc given by a superior offical.
First offense: Reprimand to 14 day suspension.
Wait, no. You were briefed, you read, and you initialed the local order stating you shall notify on the next frequency. You knew and didn't do it!
6. Insubordination; refusal to carry out orders, directions, assignements, instructions, etc given by a superior offical.
First offense: 14 day suspension to removal.
Technically, I could be fired the first and only time I fail to notify directly, or fail to notify on the next frequency.
Again, no idea what was transpiring in your sky that night...just offering some insight to what it could be when you're in a different piece of sky on another night.
PanJet
Well-Known Member
:yeahthat:
Unfortunately liability is wide-reaching, ever-changing issue. In some cases you don't even have to really be involved to be guilty of negligence, and I can tell you that in the CFI with student pilot case, there is far more involvement than in many.
To be liable for ordinary negligence (not gross or criminal negligence), all one needs to do is not take his/her proper "duty of care" for whatever the situation holds. A CFI holds a duty of care to ensure that his/her student is fully prepared for anything the CFI certifies the student to do with a signature. Short of videotaping every single lesson you do with a student, it would be very difficult to prove that you did or did not teach the student every last thing they needed to know, so the liability lies with the instructor.
