Aviation Safety

sbav8r

New Member
Today I got this advertisement in the mail from a magazine called "Aviation Safety," wanting me to subscribe. The magazine markets itself as being for the protection of our licenses from the FAA. They gave examples of what were supposed to be unjust repercussions from the FAA, but the example they gave just doesn't convince me.

Here it is:

[ QUOTE ]
Recently in the Midwest a pilot was instructed to "climb and maintain one five thousand." The controller then cleared the pilot to an enroute point "as filed." The pilot heard the no more transmissions. He proceeded to climb to climb to his requested altitude of 19,000 feet. And got busted
The FAA maintained that the instruction containing the phrase "as filed" related only to the route, not the altitude! The FAA won and the pilot did 30 days on the bench.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, I personally never would have deviated from altitude after being issued "climb maintain." Just because you requested an altitude does not mean you automatically get that altitude. If radio communication was lost then the pilot would have been expected to fly the highest of the following: assigned altitude, MEA, or if ATC has advised to expect a higher altitude. Nowhere is it ever appropriate to fly the filed altitude in your flight plan. Speaking of lost radio, why did the controller not contact him when he deviated from altitude? The letter only says "the pilot heard no more transmissions." What does that mean? Did the controller not attempt to contact him or did the pilot not respond? Had he really lost communication and then proceeded to climb to his requested altitude? This letter acts as though I should be appalled by the actions of the FAA however, I think that they are very reasonable in citing this pilot from what little information was contained in the letter.

Any other opinions on this?
 

A300Capt

Freight Dawg
[ QUOTE ]
First, I personally never would have deviated from altitude after being issued "climb maintain."


[/ QUOTE ]

First, never say "never". Things happen and mistakes are made. Hopefully, the ones you or I make aren't fatal.

[ QUOTE ]
Just because you requested an altitude does not mean you automatically get that altitude. If radio communication was lost then the pilot would have been expected to fly the highest of the following: assigned altitude, MEA, or if ATC has advised to expect a higher altitude. Nowhere is it ever appropriate to fly the filed altitude in your flight plan

[/ QUOTE ]

You took one little "blurb" from an incident report and "assumed" to know what actually took place between the pilot and controller. It probably all boiled down to a simple misunderstanding in the communications between the pilot/controller. It happens all the time.

[ QUOTE ]
Speaking of lost radio, why did the controller not contact him when he deviated from altitude?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who knows? The controller may have been very busy and not caught it. There may have been a shift change with another controller and the new guy wasn't aware of the situation for awhile.

[ QUOTE ]
Did the controller not attempt to contact him or did the pilot not respond?

[/ QUOTE ]

You read the article...you tell us. You'll probably have to ask the parties involved.

[ QUOTE ]
This letter acts as though I should be appalled by the actions of the FAA however, I think that they are very reasonable in citing this pilot from what little information was contained in the letter.


[/ QUOTE ]

Impossible to determine the correct outcome or punishment since none of us were there nor do we know the complete details. Use these articles to learn from other's mistakes and try not to make the same ones. Don't be so quick to judge or place blame on others if you don't have all the details.
 

sbav8r

New Member
[ QUOTE ]
You took one little "blurb" from an incident report and "assumed" to know what actually took place between the pilot and controller. It probably all boiled down to a simple misunderstanding in the communications between the pilot/controller. It happens all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, this was not an incident report. This was an advertisement for a magazine company.

[ QUOTE ]
You read the article...you tell us. You'll probably have to ask the parties involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not an article. All the information in the post was all the information given of the incident.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't be so quick to judge or place blame on others if you don't have all the details.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's pretty obvious that perhaps I did not explain myself well. I am not putting blame on anyone besides the author of the letter. This company gave me this little bit of information of the incident and prceeded to make the FAA look like the Gustapo for grounding the pilot for 30 days. They want my money to protect me from the "evil's of the FAA." From the little bit of info that was in the letter I didn't see anything alarming.

What I really wanted to convey was that I failed to see anything alarming that necessitated me to subscribe to the services. I don't feel the FAA was wrong for temporary grounding a pilot that deviated from assigned altitude. The advertisement did not make me feel as though the FAA is acting unfairly or that I need protection from them. Then I wanted to know what everyone else thought. Does this marketing attempt worry you at all?

[ QUOTE ]
First, never say "never". Things happen and mistakes are made. Hopefully, the ones you or I make aren't fatal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very true... I will make mistakes, I too hope that they are minor.

I was never trying to place any blame or act as though I knew what happened. On the contrary, I was criticizing the company of what you assumed I was doing. Taking a small portion of an incident that left many questions unanswered and placing blame. In the letter the blame was on the FAA and not the pilot.
 

ready2fly

Well-Known Member
I subscribe to Aviation Safety magazine. One of the reasons I like it is because they DO NOT candy coat anything....

When it comes to safety, I wouldn't want it candy-coated anyway. Maybe just me.

I've received two issues in my current subscription and one of the members of this board sent me a truckload of back issues (THANKS AGAIN!!). I've read all of them and I can tell you that you will learn a lot.

Try it out. If you don't like it - cancel. Or, if that one article pissed you off sufficiently - don't subscribe. It's that easy.
 

sbav8r

New Member
Thanks R2F

Since I do get a free issue I think I will take your advise and try it out. The advertisement didn't piss me off, just thought it was a weak example for what they were trying to acheive. I really have no idea what to expect, who knows I may really like it.
 

ready2fly

Well-Known Member
FWIW - when I first got it, I had that "What the hell is THIS?" reaction too.

The articles were kind of "in your face" and took me aback... sort of.

ANyway - I read through that issue and thought I might like to read more. I did and I like it.

Enjoy.
 

EatSleepFly

Well-Known Member
If you guys like Aviation Safety, try reading "IFR" (I think thats what its called). Same format, maybe even same publisher. Good mag., lots of good stuff in it...
 
Top