X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 07:51:40 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from QMTA02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.24] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.6) with ESMTP id 3097602 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 06:14:58 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=76.96.62.24; envelope-from=mjrav@comcast.net Received: from OMTA14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.60]) by QMTA02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 7m2C1a0021HzFnQ52mEMVb; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:14:21 +0000 Received: from mjr ([71.233.32.130]) by OMTA14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 7mEK1a0022oTP2X3amEMr8; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:14:21 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=2pueZqJnVLgA:10 a=HfPVJwF0120A:10 a=V4B05YJgAAAA:8 a=KCTzrKbQGJbfzkShj5MA:9 a=UtXUrMTvqTrekwISReUA:7 a=p_wbB5u0l4emwCYYojLNKHrB4_0A:4 a=jI77epmzR7sA:10 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=si9q_4b84H0A:10 a=cvn8laQl214A:10 a=eZLSmJVMEtUA:10 a=37Z9sJxmnKX4rXuF-dcA:9 a=7g6DaOvkZbVftESxnT0A:7 a=6m2T_z-VYN4yGm3OANwNmp4rZNsA:4 a=EfJqPEOeqlMA:10 a=AfD3MYMu9mQA:10 X-Original-Message-ID: <002c01c908f7$19f85820$8220e947@mjr> From: "Mark Ravinski" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Anatomy of an ATC violation case (T Storm Avoidance) X-Original-Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 06:16:14 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0029_01C908D5.92C52660" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1933 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1933 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0029_01C908D5.92C52660 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: [LML] Anatomy of an ATC violation case (T Storm Avoidance)I once had = a controler insist that I maintain altitude when I had reported engine = problems. (Dual engine surges and bangs above 70% power). When I said "unable" he = still insisted. Rather than declare an emergency, I asked to talk to = his supervisor. That solved the controler issue and at reduced power I was able to glide = back to my training base runway. Mark Ravinski 1444 still lucky hours ----- Original Message -----=20 From: GT-Phantom=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 9:48 PM Subject: [LML] Re: Anatomy of an ATC violation case (T Storm = Avoidance) I'll bet more than a few of us have visited Alamogordo, and probably = driven cross-country to "Lost Crew Chiefs" (Las Cruces) for a beer as = well. I'm the last person to claim to be a rules expert, so feel free to = poke holes in this. It is my understanding that all the pilot need have = done is declare an emergency for violent weather and declare to RAPCON = that he was deviating from the assigned flight plan FOR THAT REASON. = Emergency declared, no permission required to deviate as necessary for = the safety of the aircraft - emergency to be terminated by the pilot = once the danger was passed. =20 Is this not correct? I once had a RAPCON trainee repeatedly attempt to vector me East into = a violent thunderstorm near Del Rio, TX (home of the Mexican Air Force, = it is said). I avoided a similar fate to this pilot by simply refusing = the instructions emphatically, and countering with, "I'll take North, = South, West, or I'll cancel IFR. If you want East, you'll have to shake = the stick!" I was a nervous student at the time in a T-38, but my sense = of survival just wouldn't let me say "yes" to unnecessary peacetime = risk. Bill Reister N351E -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- From: John Hafen [mailto:j.hafen@comcast.net]=20 Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 11:48 To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [LML] Anatomy of an ATC violation case (T Storm = Avoidance) The real question is why would anyone in their right minds ever want = to fly to Alamogordo, New Mexico, unless they were assigned to Holloman = AFB. I guess the place has its high points. Aliens visited there in April = of 1963. They did set a land speed record for railed craft in 2003 of = 6,453 MPH. It does happen to be the perfect place to learn to drop = bombs, because however badly you screw up, you are never going to hurt = anything (I'll tell you the story at the bar sometime). =20 John Hafen LIVP N413AJ On 8/22/08 6:51 AM, "Jeffrey Liegner, MD" = wrote: Pilot departed IFR, given SID clearence, saw thunderstorms over VOR = ahead, requested deviation (even discussed it), waited for ATC, and then = deviated away from the storms. He was "violated" for deviating from an = IFR clearence. He could have done it differently (like declaring an emergency = before changing course), but he did it this way. Not an unreasonable = pilot decision, but with consequences. Jeff L http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2008/pc0808.html Pilot Counsel: Anatomy of an ATC violation case John S. Yodice is the owner of a Cessna 310. In my experience, pilots prefer gaining insights into the = operational and flight rules that govern their flying from actual cases = rather than from any dry academic discussion. That's true, too, about = the FAA enforcement process. Here is a case that involves the rule on = "clearances" as it is applied to an IFR departure procedure, about what = constitutes an emergency, when does the "get-out-of-jail-free" policy = apply, what is the likely punishment, and more. A pilot lost his ATP certificate for 60 days for violating an IFR = departure clearance. He was pilot in command of a Cessna Citation CE-560 = on an IFR flight departing from Buchanan Field in Concord, California, = destined for Alamogordo, New Mexico. The flight had been issued a = standard instrument departure (SID) clearance: "the Buchanan Seven = Departure...PITTS transition." The pilot acknowledged and read back the = clearance. The SID requires a climbing turn direct to the Concord CCR = VOR/DME, and from there to the PITTS intersection via the 071-degree = radial from the CCR VOR/DME. According to the FAA, the pilot deviated = from this clearance and "broke off from the instrument departure = procedure route to proceed directly to PITTS intersection" and as "a = result [the flight] entered into airspace, under IFR, at an altitude = lower than the minimum vectoring altitude." There were several air traffic control facilities involved. The = clearance was relayed to the flight by Concord/Buchanan Field tower that = received it from Travis Air Force Base RAPCON (Radar Approach Control). = Within one minute after takeoff, Concord instructed the flight to = contact Travis RAPCON. Within two minutes, the flight contacted Travis = and was requested to transponder "ident" for radar identification. The = pilot then asked Travis for a deviation to bypass the weather over the = VOR. Travis acknowledged, radar identified the flight, and said that the = deviation request was pending (the request had to be coordinated with = the next control sector under Northern California Terminal Approach = Control before Travis could authorize the deviation request). Travis = then alerted the flight to high terrain. The pilot replied: "Sir, we see = the terrain, but we're not going to fly in that thunderstorm over the = VOR." Travis saw the aircraft enter NorCal's airspace and "pointed out" = the aircraft to NorCal. Travis gave the flight a low-altitude alert = because it hit the MVA (the 5,100 feet MVA is 1,000 above a nearby 4,100 = foot mountain). According to the FAA, the flight would never have entered the MVA if = it had stayed on the SID as cleared. The Travis RAPCON filed a = Preliminary Pilot Deviation Report, stating that the flight's = penetration into NorCal's airspace was without coordination, and that = the flight entered a minimum vectoring altitude area at an altitude = below the limit. As a result, the FAA suspended the pilot's license for = 90 days for violating the "clearance" rule, FAR 91.123(a), and for being = "careless or reckless" in violation of FAR 91.13(a) (automatically = charged in every operational violation case). The pilot appealed the = suspension to the NTSB, as was his right. In such an appeal a pilot is = entitled to a trial-type hearing at which the FAA has the burden of = proving the violations by a preponderance of "reliable, probative, and = substantial evidence." At the NTSB hearing the FAA produced as witnesses the civilian and = military controllers involved as well as the Flight Standards Inspector = who investigated the case; the FAA introduced into evidence tape = recordings of the air traffic control conversations with the pilot, the = SID chart, the departure clearance strip, the pilot deviation report, = the weather report for Concord, and the sanction guidance table. The = pilot testified in his own behalf and presented a receipt evidencing the = timely filing of a report to the National Aeronautics and Space = Administration under the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS). Based = on the evidence, the NTSB law judge sustained the FAA charges but = reduced the period of suspension from 90 days to 60 days. FAR 91.123(a) provides that: "When an air traffic control clearance = has been obtained, no pilot in command may deviate from that clearance = unless an amended clearance is obtained, an emergency exits, or the = deviation is in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance = system resolution advisory. However, except in Class A airspace, a pilot = may cancel an IFR flight plan if the operation is being conducted in VFR = weather conditions. When a pilot is uncertain of an ATC clearance, that = pilot should immediately request clarification from ATC." The law judge concluded that the pilot deviated from his departure = clearance without obtaining an amended clearance and that no weather = emergency existed. The pilot also lost in his appeal to the full = five-member NTSB. The board did not believe the pilot's defense that a = weather emergency required him to deviate from the departure clearance. Under the ASRS, certificate suspension may be waived, despite a = finding of a regulatory violation, if certain requirements are = satisfied: (1) that the violation was inadvertent and not deliberate; = (2) that it did not involve a crime; (3) that the person has not been = found in an enforcement action to have committed a regulatory violation = in the past five years; and (4) that the person mails a report of the = incident to NASA within 10 days. The board refused to grant the waiver = of suspension under the ASRS because it determined that the deviation = was not "inadvertent and not deliberate." According to the board, the = pilot "flew the path that he wanted to." No "get-out-of-jail-free" card. ------=_NextPart_000_0029_01C908D5.92C52660 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: [LML] Anatomy of an ATC violation case (T Storm = Avoidance)
I once had a controler insist that I = maintain=20 altitude when I had reported engine problems.
(Dual engine surges and bangs above 70% = power).  When I said "unable" he still insisted.  Rather than = declare=20 an emergency, I asked to talk to his supervisor.
That solved the controler issue and at = reduced=20 power I was able to glide back to my training base runway.
 
Mark Ravinski
1444 still lucky hours
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 GT-Phantom
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, = 2008 9:48=20 PM
Subject: [LML] Re: Anatomy of = an ATC=20 violation case (T Storm Avoidance)

I'll=20 bet more than a few of us have visited Alamogordo, and probably driven = cross-country to "Lost Crew Chiefs" (Las Cruces) for a beer as=20 well.
 
I'm=20 the last person to claim to be a rules expert, so feel free to poke = holes in=20 this.  It is my understanding that all the pilot need have done = is=20 declare an emergency for violent weather and declare to RAPCON that he = was=20 deviating from the assigned flight plan FOR THAT REASON.  = Emergency=20 declared, no permission required to deviate as necessary for the = safety of the=20 aircraft - emergency to be terminated by the pilot once the = danger was=20 passed. 
 
Is=20 this not correct?
 
I=20 once had a RAPCON trainee repeatedly attempt to vector me East into a = violent=20 thunderstorm near Del Rio, TX (home of the Mexican Air Force, it is=20 said).  I avoided a similar fate to this pilot by simply refusing = the=20 instructions emphatically, and countering with, "I'll take North, = South, West,=20 or I'll cancel IFR.  If you want East, you'll have to shake the=20 stick!"  I was a nervous student at the time in a T-38, but my = sense of=20 survival just wouldn't let me say "yes" to unnecessary peacetime=20 risk.
 
Bill=20 Reister
N351E

From: John Hafen = [mailto:j.hafen@comcast.net]=20
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 11:48
To:=20 lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: Re: [LML] Anatomy of an ATC = violation=20 case (T Storm Avoidance)

The real question is why would anyone in = their right=20 minds ever want to fly to Alamogordo, New Mexico, unless they were = assigned to=20 Holloman AFB.

I guess the place has its high points. =  Aliens=20 visited there in April of 1963.  They did set a land speed record = for=20 railed craft in 2003 of 6,453 MPH.  It does happen to be the = perfect=20 place to learn to drop bombs, because however badly you screw up, you = are=20 never going to hurt anything (I=92ll tell you the story at the bar = sometime).=20  

John Hafen
LIVP N413AJ


On 8/22/08 6:51 AM, = "Jeffrey Liegner, MD" <liegner@embarqmail.com>=20 wrote:
Pilot departed IFR, given SID clearence, = saw=20 thunderstorms over VOR ahead, requested deviation (even discussed = it),=20 waited for ATC, and then deviated away from the storms.  He was = "violated" for deviating from an IFR clearence.

He could have = done it=20 differently (like declaring an emergency before changing course), = but he did=20 it this way.  Not an unreasonable pilot decision, but with=20 consequences.

Jeff L


http://= www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2008/pc0808.html

Pilot=20 Counsel: Anatomy of an ATC violation = case
John S. Yodice is the owner of a Cessna=20 310.
In my experience, pilots prefer gaining = insights=20 into the operational and flight rules that govern their flying from = actual=20 cases rather than from any dry academic discussion. That=92s true, = too, about=20 the FAA enforcement process. Here is a case that involves the rule = on=20 =93clearances=94 as it is applied to an IFR departure procedure, = about what=20 constitutes an emergency, when does the =93get-out-of-jail-free=94 = policy apply,=20 what is the likely punishment, and more.
A pilot lost his ATP = certificate=20 for 60 days for violating an IFR departure clearance. He was pilot = in=20 command of a Cessna Citation CE-560 on an IFR flight departing from = Buchanan=20 Field in Concord, California, destined for Alamogordo, New Mexico. = The=20 flight had been issued a standard instrument departure (SID) = clearance: =93the=20 Buchanan Seven Departure...PITTS transition.=94 The pilot = acknowledged and=20 read back the clearance. The SID requires a climbing turn direct to = the=20 Concord CCR VOR/DME, and from there to the PITTS intersection via = the=20 071-degree radial from the CCR VOR/DME. According to the FAA, the = pilot=20 deviated from this clearance and =93broke off from the instrument = departure=20 procedure route to proceed directly to PITTS intersection=94 and as = =93a result=20 [the flight] entered into airspace, under IFR, at an altitude lower = than the=20 minimum vectoring altitude.=94
There were several air traffic = control=20 facilities involved. The clearance was relayed to the flight by=20 Concord/Buchanan Field tower that received it from Travis Air Force = Base=20 RAPCON (Radar Approach Control). Within one minute after takeoff, = Concord=20 instructed the flight to contact Travis RAPCON. Within two minutes, = the=20 flight contacted Travis and was requested to transponder =93ident=94 = for radar=20 identification. The pilot then asked Travis for a deviation to = bypass the=20 weather over the VOR. Travis acknowledged, radar identified the = flight, and=20 said that the deviation request was pending (the request had to be=20 coordinated with the next control sector under Northern California = Terminal=20 Approach Control before Travis could authorize the deviation = request).=20 Travis then alerted the flight to high terrain. The pilot replied: = =93Sir, we=20 see the terrain, but we=92re not going to fly in that thunderstorm = over the=20 VOR.=94 Travis saw the aircraft enter NorCal=92s airspace and = =93pointed out=94 the=20 aircraft to NorCal. Travis gave the flight a low-altitude alert = because it=20 hit the MVA (the 5,100 feet MVA is 1,000 above a nearby 4,100 foot=20 mountain).
According to the FAA, the flight would never have = entered the=20 MVA if it had stayed on the SID as cleared. The Travis RAPCON filed = a=20 Preliminary Pilot Deviation Report, stating that the flight=92s = penetration=20 into NorCal=92s airspace was without coordination, and that the = flight entered=20 a minimum vectoring altitude area at an altitude below the limit. As = a=20 result, the FAA suspended the pilot=92s license for 90 days for = violating the=20 =93clearance=94 rule, FAR 91.123(a), and for being =93careless or = reckless=94 in=20 violation of FAR 91.13(a) (automatically charged in every = operational=20 violation case). The pilot appealed the suspension to the NTSB, as = was his=20 right. In such an appeal a pilot is entitled to a trial-type hearing = at=20 which the FAA has the burden of proving the violations by a = preponderance of=20 =93reliable, probative, and substantial evidence.=94
At the NTSB = hearing the=20 FAA produced as witnesses the civilian and military controllers = involved as=20 well as the Flight Standards Inspector who investigated the case; = the FAA=20 introduced into evidence tape recordings of the air traffic control=20 conversations with the pilot, the SID chart, the departure clearance = strip,=20 the pilot deviation report, the weather report for Concord, and the = sanction=20 guidance table. The pilot testified in his own behalf and presented = a=20 receipt evidencing the timely filing of a report to the National = Aeronautics=20 and Space Administration under the Aviation Safety Reporting System = (ASRS).=20 Based on the evidence, the NTSB law judge sustained the FAA charges = but=20 reduced the period of suspension from 90 days to 60 = days.
FAR 91.123(a) provides that: = =93When an=20 air traffic control clearance has been obtained, no pilot in command = may=20 deviate from that clearance unless an amended clearance is obtained, = an=20 emergency exits, or the deviation is in response to a traffic alert = and=20 collision avoidance system resolution advisory. However, except in = Class A=20 airspace, a pilot may cancel an IFR flight plan if the operation is = being=20 conducted in VFR weather conditions. When a pilot is uncertain of an = ATC=20 clearance, that pilot should immediately request clarification from=20 ATC.=94
The law judge concluded that the pilot deviated from his = departure=20 clearance without obtaining an amended clearance and that no weather = emergency existed. The pilot also lost in his appeal to the full = five-member=20 NTSB. The board did not believe the pilot=92s defense that a weather = emergency=20 required him to deviate from the departure clearance.
Under the = ASRS,=20 certificate suspension may be waived, despite a finding of a = regulatory=20 violation, if certain requirements are satisfied: (1) that the = violation was=20 inadvertent and not deliberate; (2) that it did not involve a crime; = (3)=20 that the person has not been found in an enforcement action to have=20 committed a regulatory violation in the past five years; and (4) = that the=20 person mails a report of the incident to NASA within 10 days. The = board=20 refused to grant the waiver of suspension under the ASRS because it=20 determined that the deviation was not =93inadvertent and not = deliberate.=94=20 According to the board, the pilot =93flew the path that he wanted = to.=94
No=20 =93get-out-of-jail-free=94 = card.

------=_NextPart_000_0029_01C908D5.92C52660--