Screaming_Emu
Well-Known Member
God I don't miss ATL one bit.
"No Problem May Be A Problem"
- Thread starter derg
- Start date
God I don't miss ATL one bit.
Some.
Sometimes on some flavors of FMS the flight director will somewhat lag and if you're hand flying, it may (will in some cases) result in you being off your track. Not a problem in most places, but with some tight tolerance departures like LGW with a bunch of AOA's and AOB's, it's heavily recommended to get the automation on and monitor.
RRPower
Well-Known Member
That was not a serious comment I made. Of course they can't say anything if you are following the rules. It was a joke, but at those two airports you will jack up their system of you do stop.
Autothrust Blue
”…trusting ze process…”
And they need us to catch their screwups.
At Brand X airlines on the ERJ, full automation is recommended for RNAV DPs.
Which is great, except when I can do a better job than the Honeywell Primus of keeping the course. (No, seriously.)
Which is the absolute wrong thing to do.
genot
Well-Known Member
There has got to be a consensus from the grunts at NATCA/ALPA/et all on this. I'm not out to get you and I sure hope nobody is out to get me. I've mentioned this before, but its out of controller's hands. The people at the regional office see what they care to look up or are required to view. I've filed an ATSAP (our version of ASAP) twice on pilots. Neither case was it something I could explain away or laugh off. Its was truly ignorant SA and operations in both cases.
The guiding reason why is because of new automation its either my mistake or the pilots mistake. These are transmitted in programs so accurate I can't even judge if I've had a loss of separation or not. We're honestly now judged in terms of thousanths of a mile, about 6 feet. I can't see 6 feet on my scope. I can't see 60 feet even. I have no idea if I ran it tight or had a deal. I have a sledgehammer with which to produce a fine sculpture.
The guiding reason why is because of new automation its either my mistake or the pilots mistake. These are transmitted in programs so accurate I can't even judge if I've had a loss of separation or not. We're honestly now judged in terms of thousanths of a mile, about 6 feet. I can't see 6 feet on my scope. I can't see 60 feet even. I have no idea if I ran it tight or had a deal. I have a sledgehammer with which to produce a fine sculpture.
Hey guys,
I just wanted to take a few (long) moments to comment on something in the original post. Specifically, this statement: "Local ATC controllers are now required to report all "occurrences," and their supervisors must now complete Mandatory Occurrence Reports (MORs)."
That is 100% accurate as stated. However, I feel it is important to explain what that means - exactly. First, some boring definitions:
Mandatory Occurrence Report (MOR) - An occurrence involving air traffic services for which the collection of associated safety-related data and conditions is mandatory.
Electronic Occurrence Report (EOR) - An alert identified by an automated system such as Traffic Analysis and Review Program (TARP) or Operational Error Detection Patch (OEDP) that automatically uploads into the Comprehensive Electronic Data Analysis and Reporting (CEDAR) tool.
Occurrence - Any occurrence observed or suspected, that meets the definition of an MOR; or any automated loss of standard separation detection alert (EOR).
And because that may be confusing, they compiled a list of "occurrences." Here it is the list:
Airborne Loss of Separation
1. Any suspected loss of radar separation involving instrument flight rules (IFR) aircraft other than as a result of compression on final approach.
2. Any suspected loss of separation involving visual flight rules (VFR) aircraft in Class B and C airspace, Terminal Radar Service Area (TRSA), or practice VFR approaches.
3. Any suspected loss of separation involving formation flights.
4. Any suspected loss of separation involving non-radar standards.
Airport Surface Loss of Separation
1. Any ground surveillance alert [Airport Surface Detection Equipment (ASDE) or Airport Movement Area Safety System (AMASS)] between two aircraft.
2. Any ground surveillance alert (ASDE or AMASS) between an aircraft and a vehicle.
3. Any suspected loss of runway/airport surface separation between two aircraft.
4. Any suspected loss of runway/airport surface separation between an aircraft and a vehicle.
5. Any suspected loss of runway/airport surface separation between an aircraft and a pedestrian.
Terrain/Obstruction
1. Any suspected loss of separation between an IFR aircraft and terrain or obstacles; for example, operations below minimum vectoring altitude.
2. Any operation of a VFR aircraft in proximity to terrain or obstructions that the employee providing air traffic services determines affected the safety of flight. These occurrences normally result in air traffic control (ATC) issuing a safety alert or control action.
Airborne Air Traffic Control Anomaly (Airspace/Altitude/Route/Speed) not Involving a Loss of Separation
1. Any instance in which an aircraft enters airspace on other than the expected or intended altitude, routing, or airspeed, or without a point-out or hand-off.
2. Any instance where an aircraft operates at an altitude, routing, or airspeed that the employee providing air traffic services determines affected the safety of flight or operations. These occurrences normally result in ATC issuing a safety alert or control action. All non-loss Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) resolution advisories (RA) and/or spillouts must be reported under this MOR.
3. Any occurrence where an aircraft enters special use airspace (for example, a warning area, military operations area, or ATC-assigned airspace) without coordination and/or authorization.
Airport Environment
1. The presence of an aircraft, vehicle, or pedestrian on any movement area or runway safety area not expected/intended by ATC.
2. Any instance in which an aircraft unexpectedly lands or departs, or attempts to land or depart, a runway or surface.
3. Any instance in which an aircraft lands or departs on, or flies an unrestricted low approach to, a closed runway (or portion thereof).
4. Any go-around initiated by either a flight crew or ATC involving turbojet aircraft within a 1/2-mile of the arrival threshold not involving practice approaches.
5. Any instance in which any part of the aircraft has crossed over the runway hold-short line and the controller cancels the take-off or the flight crew aborts the take-off.
6. Any instance in which an aircraft unintentionally maneuvers off the runway/taxiway.
7. Any improper/unexpected presence of a vehicle or aircraft inside the instrument landing system (ILS) protected area.
Communication
1. Any instance in which communication with an aircraft was not established or not maintained as expected/intended, and results in alternative control actions or additional notifications by ATC, or a flight crew, or in a landing without a clearance.
Emergency or In-Flight Hazard (examples, not all inclusive)
1. Medical Emergency
2. Inflight equipment malfunction requiring special handling.
3. Bird strike.
4. Fuel quantity emergency.
5. Pilot disorientation.
6. VFR pilot trapped on top of clouds.
7. Laser light illumination.
8. Hijacking.
9. Bomb threat.
Inquiry
1. Any expression of concern or inquiry by any external entity to a management official/controller-in-charge (CIC) or to ATC on the radio concerning the proximity or operation of an aircraft, either airborne or on the surface, including near midair collision (NMAC) notifications from a flight crew.
Now onto how and to whom we (the controllers) make these mandatory reports...
Employee Responsibilities
1. Employees must ensure that all occurrences of which they are aware, through either direct involvement or observation, are reported. All personnel with knowledge of an occurrence are encouraged to report even if it results in multiple submissions of the same occurrence.
There you go, it is true. That entire list must be reported. However...
2. Nonmanagement employees eligible to participate in a VSRP such as Air Traffic Safety Action Program (ATSAP) may satisfy the reporting requirements of this directive by reporting occurrences through those programs, except as specified in FAA Order JO 7200.20 and this order.
Our VSRP was modeled after your ASAP, and is covered under JO 7200.20. You'll see that referenced here a bit. I’ll get to the exceptions later.
What to report
1. All observed or suspected occurrences which meet the MOR criteria as defined in Appendix A.
That long list in red would be Appendix A.
How to Report. As soon as practical, without impacting operations:
a. Nonmanagement personnel must report the occurrence:
(1) As soon as practical, to on-duty management/controller-in-charge (CIC) but no later than
the end of duty shift; or
(2) According to FAA Order JO 7200.20.
b. Management personnel/CIC:
(1) Must ensure that all reported or observed occurrences are entered into CEDAR as the
appropriate MOR before the end of the current duty shift.
(2) Must update the original MOR to note all new pertinent information when more than one
report of the same occurrence is received.
(3) Each MOR is assigned a unique identification number. Upon request, management must
provide employees with a copy of the MOR.
(4) For an employee-reported occurrence that does not meet any MOR criteria, remind the
employee about their VSRP. Management must still address any valid safety concerns identified by the employee.
Nonmanagement employees (controllers) use ATSAP to fulfill the mandatory reporting requirement as directed by this order, with some exceptions. Management employees, however, are not eligible to do so. So when they observe or become aware of anything on that list, they use the MOR procedure as outlined.
Mandatory Occurrence Report Criteria
1. All employees must ensure that the following occurrences, of which they are aware, through either direct involvement or observation, are reported. These occurrences or conditions must be reported using the mandatory occurrence report (MOR) process described in this directive or in FAA Order JO 7200.20, Voluntary Safety Reporting Program (VSRP). Submission of a VSRP report satisfies nonmanagement employees' requirement to report according to this directive except when the employee providing air traffic services determines that pilot actions affected the safety of operations. When such a determination is made, pilot actions must also be reported as an MOR in accordance with paragraphs A2-A8.
2. Submission of a VSRP does not exempt employees from making appropriate notifications when the employee providing air traffic services determines an occurrence involved national security or the immediate safety of flight (for example, in-flight emergencies, overdue aircraft, no radio [NORDO]/no radio acknowledgement [NORAC] aircraft, aircraft accidents).
So what can I not file an ATSAP for and still be in compliance with this order? Please understand that I do not work in a tower, nor do I work at a center (enroute). I’d assume they have their own set of “exceptions.” For example, I’m pretty sure a tower controller is required to notify management if an aircraft “unintentionally maneuvers off the runway,” etc.
Pretty much everything under Emergency or In-flight Hazard: Medical emergency, inflight emergency, bird strike, minimum fuel, laser light, hijack, bomb threat, overdue aircraft, violate a TFR or MOA, etc. Things I was all required to tell management before this order was created. If I am informed you are performing an RA, I am required to inform management. NORDO has a separate requirement and I am required to inform management. If you go around and come back out to me for resequence, I’m going to be asked to ask you the reason for the go-around. In accordance with this order, management in turn files their MOR. For everything else, in accordance with this order, I file an ATSAP.
Or, if you do something so outrageously dense, and under this order I determine that it affected the safety of operations I can inform management who then in turn files an MOR. The following applies:
Flight Crew Notification of Suspected Pilot Deviations (PD)
1. When the employee providing air traffic services determines that pilot actions affected the safety of operations, the employee must report through the MOR process and notify the flight crew as soon as operationally practical using the following phraseology:
PHRASEOLOGY-
(Aircraft identification) POSSIBLE PILOT DEVIATION, ADVISE YOU CONTACT (facility) AT (telephone
number).
2. The employee reporting the occurrence should notify the front-line manager (or controller-incharge), operations manager, as appropriate, of the circumstances involved so that they may be communicated to the pilot upon contacting the facility.
NOTE This notification, known as the “Brasher Notification,” is intended to provide the involved flight crew with an opportunity to make note of the occurrence and collect their thoughts for future coordination with Flight Standards regarding enforcement actions or operator training.
If I’m squealing, I’m required to inform you as such by issuing the Brasher. Please understand, that if you are receiving “the number” it does not necessarily mean the controller is doing it. In my entire career I have done it without being ordered to do it exactly one time. All other times I have been instructed by management to do it.
Now the TARP. Round and round she goes, where she stops, nobody knows. You could get a, “It’s all good, no worries,” from me while without anyone’s knowledge the TARP is snitching through my airspace and I have 14 degrees divergence instead of 15, or 2.987 miles instead of 3 somewhere else. The TARP hits, it gets submitted electronically, it goes to review…and there you have it. Does that happen? I cannot confirm or deny for sure. From my understanding, monitoring what everyone else is doing while investigating an MOR is not conducive to the safety culture the agency is attempting to reshape and attempts to do so were determined to be...not okay.
What I do know is that these changes (beginning with ATSAP itself) are sweeping, drastic changes for the agency. An absolute 180 from the…system…they had before, and especially the one they built under Blakey. There has been some resistance. There has been a lot of “no, you can’t do that anymore,” at the field level. There has been a wee bit of thinking from the management/staff that the rules don’t apply to them. It’s been taken out of their hands with the introduction of this order. With any change, there are going to be bumps – and this isn’t an exception. The good news is, from what I have observed, the people who are more concerned with the who instead of the what are being beat with the noncompliance stick and brought into line pretty quickly. I honestly believe that is why there was a noticeable increase on inception, and then a sharp decline since then.
Sorry to ramble for so long, here’s some links to the orders. Shockingly enough, they aren’t eleventy billion pages long and are really quick reads.
JO 7200.20 – Voluntary Safety Reporting System
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...cfm/go/document.information/documentID/322841
JO 7210.632 – Air Traffic Organization Occurrence Reporting
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...cfm/go/document.information/documentID/393468
I just wanted to take a few (long) moments to comment on something in the original post. Specifically, this statement: "Local ATC controllers are now required to report all "occurrences," and their supervisors must now complete Mandatory Occurrence Reports (MORs)."
That is 100% accurate as stated. However, I feel it is important to explain what that means - exactly. First, some boring definitions:
Mandatory Occurrence Report (MOR) - An occurrence involving air traffic services for which the collection of associated safety-related data and conditions is mandatory.
Electronic Occurrence Report (EOR) - An alert identified by an automated system such as Traffic Analysis and Review Program (TARP) or Operational Error Detection Patch (OEDP) that automatically uploads into the Comprehensive Electronic Data Analysis and Reporting (CEDAR) tool.
Occurrence - Any occurrence observed or suspected, that meets the definition of an MOR; or any automated loss of standard separation detection alert (EOR).
And because that may be confusing, they compiled a list of "occurrences." Here it is the list:
Airborne Loss of Separation
1. Any suspected loss of radar separation involving instrument flight rules (IFR) aircraft other than as a result of compression on final approach.
2. Any suspected loss of separation involving visual flight rules (VFR) aircraft in Class B and C airspace, Terminal Radar Service Area (TRSA), or practice VFR approaches.
3. Any suspected loss of separation involving formation flights.
4. Any suspected loss of separation involving non-radar standards.
Airport Surface Loss of Separation
1. Any ground surveillance alert [Airport Surface Detection Equipment (ASDE) or Airport Movement Area Safety System (AMASS)] between two aircraft.
2. Any ground surveillance alert (ASDE or AMASS) between an aircraft and a vehicle.
3. Any suspected loss of runway/airport surface separation between two aircraft.
4. Any suspected loss of runway/airport surface separation between an aircraft and a vehicle.
5. Any suspected loss of runway/airport surface separation between an aircraft and a pedestrian.
Terrain/Obstruction
1. Any suspected loss of separation between an IFR aircraft and terrain or obstacles; for example, operations below minimum vectoring altitude.
2. Any operation of a VFR aircraft in proximity to terrain or obstructions that the employee providing air traffic services determines affected the safety of flight. These occurrences normally result in air traffic control (ATC) issuing a safety alert or control action.
Airborne Air Traffic Control Anomaly (Airspace/Altitude/Route/Speed) not Involving a Loss of Separation
1. Any instance in which an aircraft enters airspace on other than the expected or intended altitude, routing, or airspeed, or without a point-out or hand-off.
2. Any instance where an aircraft operates at an altitude, routing, or airspeed that the employee providing air traffic services determines affected the safety of flight or operations. These occurrences normally result in ATC issuing a safety alert or control action. All non-loss Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) resolution advisories (RA) and/or spillouts must be reported under this MOR.
3. Any occurrence where an aircraft enters special use airspace (for example, a warning area, military operations area, or ATC-assigned airspace) without coordination and/or authorization.
Airport Environment
1. The presence of an aircraft, vehicle, or pedestrian on any movement area or runway safety area not expected/intended by ATC.
2. Any instance in which an aircraft unexpectedly lands or departs, or attempts to land or depart, a runway or surface.
3. Any instance in which an aircraft lands or departs on, or flies an unrestricted low approach to, a closed runway (or portion thereof).
4. Any go-around initiated by either a flight crew or ATC involving turbojet aircraft within a 1/2-mile of the arrival threshold not involving practice approaches.
5. Any instance in which any part of the aircraft has crossed over the runway hold-short line and the controller cancels the take-off or the flight crew aborts the take-off.
6. Any instance in which an aircraft unintentionally maneuvers off the runway/taxiway.
7. Any improper/unexpected presence of a vehicle or aircraft inside the instrument landing system (ILS) protected area.
Communication
1. Any instance in which communication with an aircraft was not established or not maintained as expected/intended, and results in alternative control actions or additional notifications by ATC, or a flight crew, or in a landing without a clearance.
Emergency or In-Flight Hazard (examples, not all inclusive)
1. Medical Emergency
2. Inflight equipment malfunction requiring special handling.
3. Bird strike.
4. Fuel quantity emergency.
5. Pilot disorientation.
6. VFR pilot trapped on top of clouds.
7. Laser light illumination.
8. Hijacking.
9. Bomb threat.
Inquiry
1. Any expression of concern or inquiry by any external entity to a management official/controller-in-charge (CIC) or to ATC on the radio concerning the proximity or operation of an aircraft, either airborne or on the surface, including near midair collision (NMAC) notifications from a flight crew.
Now onto how and to whom we (the controllers) make these mandatory reports...
Employee Responsibilities
1. Employees must ensure that all occurrences of which they are aware, through either direct involvement or observation, are reported. All personnel with knowledge of an occurrence are encouraged to report even if it results in multiple submissions of the same occurrence.
There you go, it is true. That entire list must be reported. However...
2. Nonmanagement employees eligible to participate in a VSRP such as Air Traffic Safety Action Program (ATSAP) may satisfy the reporting requirements of this directive by reporting occurrences through those programs, except as specified in FAA Order JO 7200.20 and this order.
Our VSRP was modeled after your ASAP, and is covered under JO 7200.20. You'll see that referenced here a bit. I’ll get to the exceptions later.
What to report
1. All observed or suspected occurrences which meet the MOR criteria as defined in Appendix A.
That long list in red would be Appendix A.
How to Report. As soon as practical, without impacting operations:
a. Nonmanagement personnel must report the occurrence:
(1) As soon as practical, to on-duty management/controller-in-charge (CIC) but no later than
the end of duty shift; or
(2) According to FAA Order JO 7200.20.
b. Management personnel/CIC:
(1) Must ensure that all reported or observed occurrences are entered into CEDAR as the
appropriate MOR before the end of the current duty shift.
(2) Must update the original MOR to note all new pertinent information when more than one
report of the same occurrence is received.
(3) Each MOR is assigned a unique identification number. Upon request, management must
provide employees with a copy of the MOR.
(4) For an employee-reported occurrence that does not meet any MOR criteria, remind the
employee about their VSRP. Management must still address any valid safety concerns identified by the employee.
Nonmanagement employees (controllers) use ATSAP to fulfill the mandatory reporting requirement as directed by this order, with some exceptions. Management employees, however, are not eligible to do so. So when they observe or become aware of anything on that list, they use the MOR procedure as outlined.
Mandatory Occurrence Report Criteria
1. All employees must ensure that the following occurrences, of which they are aware, through either direct involvement or observation, are reported. These occurrences or conditions must be reported using the mandatory occurrence report (MOR) process described in this directive or in FAA Order JO 7200.20, Voluntary Safety Reporting Program (VSRP). Submission of a VSRP report satisfies nonmanagement employees' requirement to report according to this directive except when the employee providing air traffic services determines that pilot actions affected the safety of operations. When such a determination is made, pilot actions must also be reported as an MOR in accordance with paragraphs A2-A8.
2. Submission of a VSRP does not exempt employees from making appropriate notifications when the employee providing air traffic services determines an occurrence involved national security or the immediate safety of flight (for example, in-flight emergencies, overdue aircraft, no radio [NORDO]/no radio acknowledgement [NORAC] aircraft, aircraft accidents).
So what can I not file an ATSAP for and still be in compliance with this order? Please understand that I do not work in a tower, nor do I work at a center (enroute). I’d assume they have their own set of “exceptions.” For example, I’m pretty sure a tower controller is required to notify management if an aircraft “unintentionally maneuvers off the runway,” etc.
Pretty much everything under Emergency or In-flight Hazard: Medical emergency, inflight emergency, bird strike, minimum fuel, laser light, hijack, bomb threat, overdue aircraft, violate a TFR or MOA, etc. Things I was all required to tell management before this order was created. If I am informed you are performing an RA, I am required to inform management. NORDO has a separate requirement and I am required to inform management. If you go around and come back out to me for resequence, I’m going to be asked to ask you the reason for the go-around. In accordance with this order, management in turn files their MOR. For everything else, in accordance with this order, I file an ATSAP.
Or, if you do something so outrageously dense, and under this order I determine that it affected the safety of operations I can inform management who then in turn files an MOR. The following applies:
Flight Crew Notification of Suspected Pilot Deviations (PD)
1. When the employee providing air traffic services determines that pilot actions affected the safety of operations, the employee must report through the MOR process and notify the flight crew as soon as operationally practical using the following phraseology:
PHRASEOLOGY-
(Aircraft identification) POSSIBLE PILOT DEVIATION, ADVISE YOU CONTACT (facility) AT (telephone
number).
2. The employee reporting the occurrence should notify the front-line manager (or controller-incharge), operations manager, as appropriate, of the circumstances involved so that they may be communicated to the pilot upon contacting the facility.
NOTE This notification, known as the “Brasher Notification,” is intended to provide the involved flight crew with an opportunity to make note of the occurrence and collect their thoughts for future coordination with Flight Standards regarding enforcement actions or operator training.
If I’m squealing, I’m required to inform you as such by issuing the Brasher. Please understand, that if you are receiving “the number” it does not necessarily mean the controller is doing it. In my entire career I have done it without being ordered to do it exactly one time. All other times I have been instructed by management to do it.
Now the TARP. Round and round she goes, where she stops, nobody knows. You could get a, “It’s all good, no worries,” from me while without anyone’s knowledge the TARP is snitching through my airspace and I have 14 degrees divergence instead of 15, or 2.987 miles instead of 3 somewhere else. The TARP hits, it gets submitted electronically, it goes to review…and there you have it. Does that happen? I cannot confirm or deny for sure. From my understanding, monitoring what everyone else is doing while investigating an MOR is not conducive to the safety culture the agency is attempting to reshape and attempts to do so were determined to be...not okay.
What I do know is that these changes (beginning with ATSAP itself) are sweeping, drastic changes for the agency. An absolute 180 from the…system…they had before, and especially the one they built under Blakey. There has been some resistance. There has been a lot of “no, you can’t do that anymore,” at the field level. There has been a wee bit of thinking from the management/staff that the rules don’t apply to them. It’s been taken out of their hands with the introduction of this order. With any change, there are going to be bumps – and this isn’t an exception. The good news is, from what I have observed, the people who are more concerned with the who instead of the what are being beat with the noncompliance stick and brought into line pretty quickly. I honestly believe that is why there was a noticeable increase on inception, and then a sharp decline since then.
Sorry to ramble for so long, here’s some links to the orders. Shockingly enough, they aren’t eleventy billion pages long and are really quick reads.
JO 7200.20 – Voluntary Safety Reporting System
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...cfm/go/document.information/documentID/322841
JO 7210.632 – Air Traffic Organization Occurrence Reporting
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...cfm/go/document.information/documentID/393468
CoffeeIcePapers
Well-Hung Member
So if you don't get the Brasher, you can't get a PD?
wheelsup
Well-Known Member
Last time I was in ORD was April 2008 but in LGA tower clears you to turn onto the taxiway and call ground. Personally, I've never seen an aircraft STOP on the taxiway there unless they had no clue what they were doing (ie SWA when they first started). I don't think you'll find anyone who actually stops at those airports. If you do you are 1/10,000. Not saying you are wrong...but....
Autothrust Blue
”…trusting ze process…”
If you're unsure of where to proceed or if you've been cleared to proceed, then slowing down is probably a good thing. My point is you shouldn't be afraid of stopping if you think you need to—hurry up go faster is the exact wrong thing, is my point.
wheelsup
Well-Known Member
Why the need to quote him and say what he said was the wrong thing to do though? You come off pretty arrogant, have you ever been to LGA? They tell you turn make two lefts or rights and call ground, it's pretty simple.
wheelsup
Well-Known Member
You're more sarcastically arrogant so it's cool
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
If you'd get off the internets and spend some of your inflated wages in Vegas, you'd probably find the same thing is true with Autothrust Blue.
boondr
Penalty Vectorer
I didn't read the whole thread, I did see TripSix 's post on MOR's
As an ATC I am probably going to say "No problem" 99% of the time unless in involves a loss of separation. I know what the rules are and I know what I am supposed to do, but I also know I don't want anyone getting in trouble. However I strongly suggest that you use ASAP whenever you think there is the smallest chance of a problem.
Some of those were plain stupid. A "PD" for getting lost in frequency land? There are a million reasons that could explain that, especially in a center environment involving long distances. God I hate stupid people in charge.
As an ATC I am probably going to say "No problem" 99% of the time unless in involves a loss of separation. I know what the rules are and I know what I am supposed to do, but I also know I don't want anyone getting in trouble. However I strongly suggest that you use ASAP whenever you think there is the smallest chance of a problem.
Some of those were plain stupid. A "PD" for getting lost in frequency land? There are a million reasons that could explain that, especially in a center environment involving long distances. God I hate stupid people in charge.
cmill
Cold Ass Honky
On the subject of PDs, I've gotten "the number" twice. The first time was no big deal, kinda BS, the second time was pretty serious, but I was basically in an emergency situation. Both times i was told no big deal, dont worry about it. Even being told that, I still considered sending a nasa form for the second incident, mainly because it involved another aircraft, and he was clearly pissed over the radio, and i didnt know how far he was going to take it.
On the flip side, I know guys who have gotten a PD because of busting altitude by 500 ft. They didn't cause a loss of separation, they were just a dick about it.
I think the point of all that is, there is (was) some humanity involved in it. At least we all have a chance to save or hang ourselves.
On the flip side, I know guys who have gotten a PD because of busting altitude by 500 ft. They didn't cause a loss of separation, they were just a dick about it.
I think the point of all that is, there is (was) some humanity involved in it. At least we all have a chance to save or hang ourselves.
Exactly. And a PD for coming off an RNAV departure? Oh that's just hilarious (sarcasm, by the way). Apparently the pilot designs the avionics, updates the FMS, and builds the damn departure in their free time - so it MUST be their fault if the FMS doesn't capture. Maybe if more time was spent trying to determine why it happens (and it happens a lot) than shaking fingers at the "naughty pilots" - they could fix the problem.
On that note, for those of you who fly RNAV departures: If you find yourself in the position where for whatever reason you can't get or stay on the RNAV, notify the departure controller immediately. "Departure, BeerCan 123, we came off the RNAV - we need a vector." If they try to PD you after that - go to town. On the other hand, if you KNOW you can't fly the departure (for whatever reason), don't accept the clearance anyway and blast off...flailing about. That can get you in some hot water...
Nark
Macho Superpilot
While I see you point, I have to interject. Just because the autopilot/FMS is doing something screwy, it is no excuse if you fail to maintain your assigned clearance, ie RNAV SID.
It is our responsibility to put the aircraft where we want it, not follow it to where it's going.
Understood. I've seen it happen quite a few times where they have tried to blame the crew, because while troubleshooting the problem - they failed to maintain the assigned clearance (SID). Apparently, according to the original post, that is still happening. Maybe I'm just a tad oversensitive about it, but a pilot being deviated for doing the right thing really - really - gets under my skin...
boondr
Penalty Vectorer
When a pilot busts an altitude like that and isn't an separation issue I generally say something like "check your altimeter, altimeter 29.92, maintain X thousand." Wink Wink