"No Problem May Be A Problem"

Derg · May 15, 2012

From DALPA Central Air Safety Committee:

“No Problem” May Be a Big Problem!
There have been at least six events since ASAP was reinstituted in which a crew decided not to file ASAP reports based on a casual assurance of “no problem” from ATC (via either the radio or in response to a telephone call), and a Pilot Deviation (PD) was subsequently filed against them. In each case, the crew was informed of the PD after the ASAP reporting window was closed. Below are summaries of some of these events.

Event 1: A 757 crew was departing ATL on an RNAV SID, fully coupled and automated as recommended. On climbout, they experienced an autopilot failure and the aircraft started to roll away from the SID track. The Pilot Flying (PF) disconnected the malfunctioning autopilot and took control of the aircraft, and after what was described as a few seconds of assessment, manually turned back toward the SID track. The PF then attempted to re-engage the autopilot, which again resulted in a roll away from the track, so he again disconnected and turned back in the proper direction. As the crew was correcting to course, ATC queried them regarding their situation, notified them they were off track, and directed them back toward course. Upon landing, the Captain phoned ATC, spoke with ATL tower and departure personnel, and was told there had been no loss of separation, and it was not a problem. The crew then decided there was no reason or need to file ASAP reports. Two days later (and outside the ASAP reporting window), a PD was filed against the crew.

Event 2: A crew landed in ATL and was directed by tower to cross the inboard runway, join Taxiway M, and contact ground. The Ground Control frequency was busy, so while the captain monitored ground waiting for a break, the first officer called Ramp Control, and the aircraft was cleared into the ramp. The aircraft was on Taxiway M directly outside of Ramp 3, no traffic was coming in either direction on Taxiway L, and the crew elected to proceed into the ramp. A PD was subsequently filed against this crew. This crew also failed to recognize the potential violation, and did not submit ASAP reports until several days later when told a PD had been filed.

Event 3: A crew was at altitude one quiet night, monitoring Center and Guard frequencies, when they received an ACARS message from dispatch to contact Center on another frequency. There had been approximately 30 minutes of no communications. No apparent attempt was made to raise the crew on Guard or to have another aircraft on frequency try to call them. A PD was filed against this crew for failure to maintain communications. The crew never even considered the need to file ASAP reports until informed later that a PD had been filed.

The FAA has recently implemented revised internal processes with regard to operational errors and pilot deviations. These changes were part of an effort by the FAA to increase emphasis on Voluntary Safety Programs and on positive utilization of safety information.

Local ATC controllers are now required to report all “occurrences,” and their supervisors must now complete Mandatory Occurrence Reports (MORs). This information is forwarded upstream to a regional Quality Assurance “Clearing House,” reviewed, and in many cases the decision made at that level as to whether or not a PD will be filed. The Air Traffic Controller you work with may be totally unaware of the eventual outcome of your occurrence. Good intentions aside, this new process, at least initially, appears to be driving up the number of PDs filed by the FAA. More specifically, it appears to be driving up the number of PDs filed against Delta pilots who are totally unaware or unsuspecting that there has even been a deviation.

While it is still too early in the process to draw firm conclusions, the first 30 days of the new FAA procedures, when compared to the previous 30 days, show an increase of 40 percent in total Pilot Deviations filed against Delta flight crews (21 vs. 15).

Since March 1, the number of deviations filed has gone down dramatically. It is not clear if this is due to the change in process, fewer pilot errors, or merely a reduction in backlog of paperwork at the FAA QA clearing house.

Additionally, the test period of the Terminal Analysis and Review Program (TARP) is nearing completion, and the system is scheduled to become operational sometime in May 2012. TARP is an automated system, which measures aircraft position against separation standards—vertical, lateral, and angular divergence. The TARP system generates an alert when an aircraft approaches the limits of the required separation, and subsequently generates an Electronic Occurrence Report (EOR). An EOR is forwarded to the same regional QA clearing house as an MOR and can result in a pilot deviation without the Controller saying a word to the crew.

Language in the ASAP MOU describing the timeliness requirements for non-sole source ASAP reports references whether the crew “knew or should have known” that the possible deviation occurred. We still strongly encourage all pilots to file ASAPs whenever anything which could possibly be categorized as a violation occurs. In each of the examples above, the FAA could attempt to argue that every pilot should know getting off the track on an RNAV, crossing a taxiway without clearance, or not communicating with ATC is a potential violation.
Finally, for several months now, ATC has made a practice of filing PDs against crews who deviate from ATL RNAV SID tracks even slightly; autopilot disconnects, turbulence avoidance, or nav system limitations notwithstanding. There is active debate among the parties regarding the navigation accuracy standard on these SIDs, the reference for that standard, and the accuracy and scale of the Departure Control radar depictions. ATL ATC has informally agreed to review their standards/procedures and revisit the manner in which they are policing RNAV departures. However, the message and best practice for our pilots is not affected by the outcome of that debate and review. Any divergence from the SID track which could possibly be construed as a deviation on RNAV SIDs, whether in ATL or elsewhere, and warrants ASAP reports from all cockpit crewmembers.

Your ALPA safety team will continue to work hard to address these issues. For the line pilot, the message is simple: Any safety-related event, any slight deviation from clearance, even if not noted by ATC, should be documented via ASAP. Filing a NASA report should also always be considered. Again, if in doubt, file. If you have doubt, and that doubt is somehow dispelled later, file anyway! Do not let assurances from ATC convince you that an ASAP report is somehow unnecessary. As always, if you have questions about an event you have been involved in on the line call 800 USA ALPA and ask to speak to a safety representative or call the ALPA Intl’s 24 Safety Accident/Incident Hotline at 202 797 4180 (if outside the US you must use the US country code of 001 or 011). For any non-time critical safety related problem call the ALPA Engineering and Air Safety Department at 1 800 424 2470 (US and Canada).

Bud01 · May 15, 2012

thanks for the heads up @Derg.

DE727UPS · May 15, 2012

The problem with this is pilots will be motivated to file ASAP's and take action against the controllers when ATC makes a minor screw up. We save their butts as much as they save ours. And this is coming from someone who used to work at LA Tracon for pete's sake.

Kingairer · May 15, 2012

Event 2: A crew landed in ATL and was directed by tower to cross the inboard runway, join Taxiway M, and contact ground. The Ground Control frequency was busy, so while the captain monitored ground waiting for a break, the first officer called Ramp Control, and the aircraft was cleared into the ramp. The aircraft was on Taxiway M directly outside of Ramp 3, no traffic was coming in either direction on Taxiway L, and the crew elected to proceed into the ramp. A PD was subsequently filed against this crew. This crew also failed to recognize the potential violation, and did not submit ASAP reports until several days later when told a PD had been filed.

I hate this...Youve just crossed 5 aircraft, all trying to check in at the same time, and we are pointing at the ramp we need to go to, on the taxiway we were cleared to join. Why dont you just tell us to monitor....Im writing my congressman.

Derg · May 15, 2012

@DE727UPS I agree. However, I think the big problem comes from above.

The Feds need to understand that they're not dealing with robots. Even if we were 100% infallible robots, does anyone have a damned Zoomba that works worth a crap!?

Make a 20 degree error in your heading and lose your career.

Make a $2 billion dollar "oops" as a CEO of an accounting firm and, well, here's your multi-million dollar golden parachute before you head off to become the CEO of Yahoo!

Nark · May 15, 2012

Event 3: A crew was at altitude one quiet night, monitoring Center and Guard frequencies, when they received an ACARS message from dispatch to contact Center on another frequency. There had been approximately 30 minutes of no communications. No apparent attempt was made to raise the crew on Guard or to have another aircraft on frequency try to call them. A PD was filed against this crew for failure to maintain communications. The crew never even considered the need to file ASAP reports until informed later that a PD had been filed.

This is absolute horse dung. I had this happen to me as well. (except I didn't get a PD)
I'm sorry if my flying through your airspace isn't important enough to hand off between your Scrabble moves at 3am. ATC not giving a hand off is no way shape or form pilot responsibility.

Querying ATC after a few minutes of dead air is a nicety, not a requirement. Well at least according to the WP-40 chapter 15.

PhilosopherPilot · May 15, 2012

This is why you should file an ASAP when you have any doubt that there was any kind of deviation. If the tapes show that you were aware there was a problem, the PD will stick, and your "aware clock" will already be run out.

File an ASAP. It doesn't cost anything, and it protects you.

Screaming_Emu · May 15, 2012

PhilosopherPilot said: ↑

This is why you should file an ASAP when you have any doubt that there was any kind of deviation. If the tapes show that you were aware there was a problem, the PD will stick, and your "aware clock" will already be run out.

File an ASAP. It doesn't cost anything, and it protects you.

And people learn from your (or others) mistakes. I've had at least two ASAPs I've filed result in noticeable changes to our 10-7/9 pages. I'm happy the ASAP program kept my crew and I out of hot water. But even better I'm glad that it has kept others from making the same mistakes (hopefully).

If my union dues only went to fund an ASAP program, it would be money well spent.

Seggy · May 15, 2012

Word around the water cooler is that it is becoming a huge 'administrative burden' ( @CAPIP1998 and @bareman are going to try to beat the snot out of me for using that term) on the FAA with these actions.

With that said, guess what is the root cause for this change in attitude by the FAA was? The leadership G.W.B. put in place within the FAA and their lack of respect for a just safety culture within the agency. Hopefully, under new leadership it starts turning around.

z987k · May 15, 2012

PhilosopherPilot said: ↑

This is why you should file an ASAP when you have any doubt that there was any kind of deviation. If the tapes show that you were aware there was a problem, the PD will stick, and your "aware clock" will already be run out.

File an ASAP. It doesn't cost anything, and it protects you.

If I filed an ASAP every time I didn't hear anyone on the radio for 15 mins and didn't query, I'd have to file about 10 a day. The other option would be to annoy the living crap out of ATC.

SurferLucas · May 15, 2012

I know of an instance where a crew departed LAX, only to find out a full month later that LAX Tower had filed a PD against them for taking off without a clearance. Thankfully their ASAP reports were accepted since they filed within 48 hours of finding out about it. Crew wasn't given a PD.

Strange thing is, the crew claims they were cleared for takeoff...and upon hearing a recording they had obtained from LiveATC, there's a 2 min 28 second gap between transmissions. Now I don't know about you, but I've never heard a 2.5 min gap in talking at LAX.

MikeD · May 15, 2012

For the line pilot, the message is simple: Any safety-related event, any slight deviation from clearance, even if not noted by ATC, should be documented via ASAP.

This is going to create a huge pile of BS paperwork.....both the ATC requirement to file MOR's on anything, regardless of whether the controller thought it was a problem or not; which causes the above quoted in order for pilots to have to cover their butts from the possibility of a PD they may not know about.

Both of which should be wholly unnecessary.

block30 · May 15, 2012

SurferLucas said: ↑

I know of an instance where a crew departed LAX, only to find out a full month later that LAX Tower had filed a PD against them for taking off without a clearance. Thankfully their ASAP reports were accepted since they filed within 48 hours of finding out about it. Crew wasn't given a PD.

Strange thing is, the crew claims they were cleared for takeoff...and upon hearing a recording they had obtained from LiveATC, there's a 2 min 28 second gap between transmissions. Now I don't know about you, but I've never heard a 2.5 min gap in talking at LAX.

Lol reminds me of a time a pilot who I personally know, had a beef with a controller, and ran their complaint up the food chain. The controller in question was also the facility manager. Mysteriously the tapes from said incident disappeared when an inquiry was started. Suffice it to say that controller is done.

dasleben · May 15, 2012

Event 2: A crew landed in ATL and was directed by tower to cross the inboard runway, join Taxiway M, and contact ground. The Ground Control frequency was busy, so while the captain monitored ground waiting for a break, the first officer called Ramp Control, and the aircraft was cleared into the ramp. The aircraft was on Taxiway M directly outside of Ramp 3, no traffic was coming in either direction on Taxiway L, and the crew elected to proceed into the ramp. A PD was subsequently filed against this crew. This crew also failed to recognize the potential violation, and did not submit ASAP reports until several days later when told a PD had been filed.

It's crap like this that torques me off. Controllers, particularly at larger airports, often expect you to know what you're supposed to be doing. This crew probably thought they'd get chewed out by stopping in the middle of a taxiway.

Actually, this just happened to me in JFK after landing at 0500L. The controller told us to join a taxiway and monitor the frequency. Nothing about taxiing to the ramp. When I asked (hey, I'm new to JFK), I got a pretty sharp response back from the controller, who apparently expected us to taxi to the ramp without any sort of instruction. Oookay. Potential PD if you don't ask, tongue lashing if you do.

drunkenbeagle · May 15, 2012

MikeD said: ↑

This is going to create a huge pile of BS paperwork.....both the ATC requirement to file MOR's on anything, regardless of whether the controller thought it was a problem or not; which causes the above quoted in order for pilots to have to cover their butts from the possibility of a PD they may not know about.

Both of which should be wholly unnecessary.

Well, if it were actually in the interest of safety, or identifying problems in the system - possibly a good idea.

If it results unnecessary carpet dances (which it will), maybe should be thought out a bit more.

All three of the above examples have happened to me, and I'm sure everyone else too.

N519AT · May 15, 2012

Ridiculous. So basically we're going to have to file an ASAP just about every flight, to cover your ass just in case the supervisor on duty didn't like something that you did.

This is BS.

They should make it a FAR or put it in the 7110.65 that controllers are required to tell you when there was a possible pilot deviation, because with this new policy we aren't even being allowed to defend ourselves in the form of an ASAP (or NASA report).

Sometimes pilot deviations are justified, but other times I think it's appropriate to chalk it up to happens, especially in the case of a malfunctioning autopilot. Like @Derg said, we aren't robots, we're human and we make mistakes. happens.

MikeD · May 15, 2012

drunkenbeagle said: ↑

Well, if it were actually in the interest of safety, or identifying problems in the system - possibly a good idea.

If it results unnecessary carpet dances (which it will), maybe should be thought out a bit more.

All three of the above examples have happened to me, and I'm sure everyone else too.

But in this case, it's BS that ATC management came up with, causing pilots to have to react to cover their butts, thus creating nothing but reams of paperwork. A controller should be able to determine what needs reporting and what doesn't, and oftentimes, so-called "no harm, no foul" issues are quickly resolved at the pilot-controller level. That's where those need to remain. This isnt going to be anything more than a bureaucratic mess of work for both sides.

drunkenbeagle · May 15, 2012

MikeD said: ↑

But in this case, it's BS that ATC management came up with, causing pilots to have to react to cover their butts, thus creating nothing but reams of paperwork. A controller should be able to determine what needs reporting and what doesn't, and oftentimes, so-called "no harm, no foul" issues are quickly resolved at the pilot-controller level. That's where those need to remain. This isnt going to be anything more than a bureaucratic mess of work for both sides.

It sounds to me that it is more to find controller screw ups - the PD's are an unfortunate byproduct

MikeD · May 15, 2012

drunkenbeagle said: ↑

It sounds to me that it is more to find controller screw ups - the PD's are an unfortunate byproduct

With the as-described method they're going about it, that very well could be. Bureaucratic crap from the facility management, it would seem, begetting a number of other problems.

exneophyte · May 15, 2012

z987k said: ↑

If I filed an ASAP every time I didn't hear anyone on the radio for 15 mins and didn't query, I'd have to file about 10 a day. The other option would be to annoy the living crap out of ATC.

Can you hear me now?....GOOOD!

Log in or Sign up

"No Problem May Be A Problem"

Derg Major Domo

Bud01 Welcome to the Jungle.

DE727UPS Well-Known Member

Kingairer Well-Known Member

Derg Major Domo

Nark Well-Known Member

PhilosopherPilot Well-Known Member

Screaming_Emu Wiggle wiggle wiggle...YEAH

Seggy Well-Known Member

z987k Well-Known Member

SurferLucas Southern Gentleman

MikeD Administrator

block30 Well-Known Member

dasleben a> run "dasleben's_email"

drunkenbeagle Gang Member

N519AT Ahh! This is how I change this!

MikeD Administrator

drunkenbeagle Gang Member

MikeD Administrator

exneophyte Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

"No Problem May Be A Problem"

Derg Major Domo

Bud01 Welcome to the Jungle.

DE727UPS Well-Known Member

Kingairer Well-Known Member

Derg Major Domo

Nark Well-Known Member

PhilosopherPilot Well-Known Member

Screaming_Emu Wiggle wiggle wiggle...YEAH

Seggy Well-Known Member

z987k Well-Known Member

SurferLucas Southern Gentleman

MikeD Administrator

block30 Well-Known Member

dasleben a> run "dasleben's_email"

drunkenbeagle Gang Member

N519AT Ahh! This is how I change this!

MikeD Administrator

drunkenbeagle Gang Member

MikeD Administrator

exneophyte Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches