X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:55:49 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from fmailhost04.isp.att.net ([204.127.217.104] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.6) with ESMTP id 3097845 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 09:35:49 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=204.127.217.104; envelope-from=dskeele@bellsouth.net Received: from fwebmail14.isp.att.net ([207.115.9.154]) by isp.att.net (frfwmhc04) with SMTP id <20080828133511H040098j2ae>; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:35:12 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [207.115.9.154] Received: from [65.0.153.49] by fwebmail14.isp.att.net; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:35:11 +0000 From: dskeele@bellsouth.net X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Anatomy of an ATC violation case (T Storm Avoidance) Disposition-Notification-To: dskeele@bellsouth.net X-Original-Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:35:11 +0000 X-Original-Message-Id: <082820081335.4309.48B6A98E000593B6000010D522230650629B0A02D2089B9A019C04040A0DBF0A040A0A059C0B@att.net> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: AT&T Message Center Version 1 (Jul 16 2008) X-Authenticated-Sender: ZHNrZWVsZUBiZWxsc291dGgubmV0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_4309_1219930511_0" --NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_4309_1219930511_0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Gang, When at all possible, I flew VFR ON TOP .. I admit this was on the West = Coast mostly between OR and CA. The best of both worlds and few hassles wi= th controllers and my 235/320 did very well at 10,000' or below. Regards = Don Skeele -------------- Original message from "Mark Ravinski" : -= -------------=20 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 st= ill insisted. Rather than declare an emergency, I asked to talk to his sup= ervisor. That solved the controler issue and at reduced power I was able to glide ba= ck 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 hol= es in this. It is my understanding that all the pilot need have done is de= clare an emergency for violent weather and declare to RAPCON that he was de= viating from the assigned flight plan FOR THAT REASON. Emergency declared,= no permission required to deviate as necessary for the safety of the aircr= aft - emergency to be terminated by the pilot once the danger was passed.= =20=20 Is this not correct? I once had a RAPCON trainee repeatedly attempt to vector me East into a vio= lent thunderstorm near Del Rio, TX (home of the Mexican Air Force, it is sa= id). I avoided a similar fate to this pilot by simply refusing the instruc= tions 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 wou= ldn'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 19= 63. 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 h= owever badly you screw up, you are never going to hurt anything (I=E2=80=99= ll tell you the story at the bar sometime).=20=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 clearenc= e. He could have done it differently (like declaring an emergency before chang= ing course), but he did it this way. Not an unreasonable pilot decision, b= ut 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 f= light rules that govern their flying from actual cases rather than from any= dry academic discussion. That=E2=80=99s true, too, about the FAA enforceme= nt process. Here is a case that involves the rule on =E2=80=9Cclearances=E2= =80=9D as it is applied to an IFR departure procedure, about what constitut= es an emergency, when does the =E2=80=9Cget-out-of-jail-free=E2=80=9D polic= y 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 f= light departing from Buchanan Field in Concord, California, destined for Al= amogordo, New Mexico. The flight had been issued a standard instrument depa= rture (SID) clearance: =E2=80=9Cthe Buchanan Seven Departure...PITTS transi= tion.=E2=80=9D 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. A= ccording to the FAA, the pilot deviated from this clearance and =E2=80=9Cbr= oke off from the instrument departure procedure route to proceed directly t= o PITTS intersection=E2=80=9D and as =E2=80=9Ca result [the flight] entered= into airspace, under IFR, at an altitude lower than the minimum vectoring = altitude.=E2=80=9D There were several air traffic control facilities involved. The clearance w= as relayed to the flight by Concord/Buchanan Field tower that received it f= rom Travis Air Force Base RAPCON (Radar Approach Control). Within one minut= e after takeoff, Concord instructed the flight to contact Travis RAPCON. Wi= thin two minutes, the flight contacted Travis and was requested to transpon= der =E2=80=9Cident=E2=80=9D for radar identification. The pilot then asked = Travis for a deviation to bypass the weather over the VOR. Travis acknowled= ged, radar identified the flight, and said that the deviation request was p= ending (the request had to be coordinated with the next control sector unde= r Northern California Terminal Approach Control before Travis could authori= ze the deviation request). Travis then alerted the flight to high terrain. = The pilot replied: =E2=80=9CSir, we see the terrain, but we=E2=80=99re not = going to fly in that thunderstorm over the VOR.=E2=80=9D Travis saw the air= craft enter NorCal=E2=80=99s airspace and =E2=80=9Cpointed out=E2=80=9D 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 mountai= n). 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=E2=80=99s penetration into NorCal= =E2=80=99s airspace was without coordination, and that the flight entered a= minimum vectoring altitude area at an altitude below the limit. As a resul= t, the FAA suspended the pilot=E2=80=99s license for 90 days for violating = the =E2=80=9Cclearance=E2=80=9D rule, FAR 91.123(a), and for being =E2=80= =9Ccareless or reckless=E2=80=9D in violation of FAR 91.13(a) (automaticall= y charged in every operational violation case). The pilot appealed the susp= ension 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 vio= lations by a preponderance of =E2=80=9Creliable, probative, and substantial= evidence.=E2=80=9D At the NTSB hearing the FAA produced as witnesses the civilian and military= controllers involved as well as the Flight Standards Inspector who investi= gated 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 Concor= d, and the sanction guidance table. The pilot testified in his own behalf a= nd presented a receipt evidencing the timely filing of a report to the Nati= onal Aeronautics and Space Administration under the Aviation Safety Reporti= ng System (ASRS). Based on the evidence, the NTSB law judge sustained the F= AA charges but reduced the period of suspension from 90 days to 60 days. FAR 91.123(a) provides that: =E2=80=9CWhen an air traffic control clearance= has been obtained, no pilot in command may deviate from that clearance unl= ess 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 f= light plan if the operation is being conducted in VFR weather conditions. W= hen a pilot is uncertain of an ATC clearance, that pilot should immediately= request clarification from ATC.=E2=80=9D The law judge concluded that the pilot deviated from his departure clearanc= e without obtaining an amended clearance and that no weather emergency exis= ted. The pilot also lost in his appeal to the full five-member NTSB. The bo= ard did not believe the pilot=E2=80=99s defense that a weather emergency re= quired 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 boar= d refused to grant the waiver of suspension under the ASRS because it deter= mined that the deviation was not =E2=80=9Cinadvertent and not deliberate.= =E2=80=9D According to the board, the pilot =E2=80=9Cflew the path that he = wanted to.=E2=80=9D No =E2=80=9Cget-out-of-jail-free=E2=80=9D card. --NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_4309_1219930511_0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_4309_1219930511_1" --NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_4309_1219930511_1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Gang,
   When at all possible, I flew VFR ON TOP .. I admit this w= as on the West Coast mostly between OR and CA.  The best of both world= s and few hassles with controllers and my 235/320 did very well at 10,000' = or below.  Regards  Don Skeele
-------------- Original message from "Mark Ravinski" <mjr= av@comcast.net>: --------------

I once had a controler insist that I maint= ain altitude when I had reported engine problems.
(Dual engine surges and bangs above 70% po= wer).  When I said "unable" he still insisted.  Rather than decla= re an emergency, I asked to talk to his supervisor.
That solved the controler issue and at red= uced power I was able to glide back to my training base runway.
 
Mark Ravinski
1444 still lucky hours
----- Original Message -----
= From: GT-Phantom
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 9:4= 8 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 p= oke holes in this.  It is my understanding that all the pilot need hav= e done is declare an emergency for violent weather and declare to RAPCON th= at he was deviating from the assigned flight plan FOR THAT REASON.  Em= ergency declared, no permission required to deviate as necessary for the sa= fety of the aircraft - emergency to be terminated by the pilot once th= e danger was passed. 
 
Is this not correct?
 
I once had a RAPCON trainee repeatedly attempt to vector me East int= o a violent thunderstorm near Del Rio, TX (home of the Mexican Air Force, i= t is said).  I avoided a similar fate to this pilot by simply refusing= the instructions emphatically, and countering with, "I'll take North, Sout= h, West, or I'll cancel IFR.  If you want East, you'll have to shake t= he stick!"  I was a nervous student at the time in a T-38, but my sens= e of survival just wouldn't let me say "yes" to unnecessary peacetime risk.=
 
Bill Reister
N351E

From: John Hafen [mailto:j.hafen@comcas= t.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 11:48
To: lml@la= ncaironline.net
Subject: Re: [LML] Anatomy of an ATC violation ca= se (T Storm Avoidance)

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

I guess the place has its high points.  Aliens vi= sited there in April of 1963.  They did set a land speed record for ra= iled craft in 2003 of 6,453 MPH.  It does happen to be the perfect pla= ce to learn to drop bombs, because however badly you screw up, you are neve= r going to hurt anything (I=E2=80=99ll tell you the story at the bar someti= me).  

John Hafen
LIVP N413AJ


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

He could have done it differently (like= declaring an emergency before changing course), but he did it this way. &n= bsp;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 an= d flight rules that govern their flying from actual cases rather than from = any dry academic discussion. That=E2=80=99s true, too, about the FAA enforc= ement process. Here is a case that involves the rule on =E2=80=9Cclearances= =E2=80=9D as it is applied to an IFR departure procedure, about what consti= tutes an emergency, when does the =E2=80=9Cget-out-of-jail-free=E2=80=9D po= licy apply, what is the likely punishment, and more.
A pilot lost his AT= P 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 fro= m Buchanan Field in Concord, California, destined for Alamogordo, New Mexic= o. The flight had been issued a standard instrument departure (SID) clearan= ce: =E2=80=9Cthe Buchanan Seven Departure...PITTS transition.=E2=80=9D 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 inters= ection via the 071-degree radial from the CCR VOR/DME. According to the FAA= , the pilot deviated from this clearance and =E2=80=9Cbroke off from the in= strument departure procedure route to proceed directly to PITTS intersectio= n=E2=80=9D and as =E2=80=9Ca result [the flight] entered into airspace, und= er IFR, at an altitude lower than the minimum vectoring altitude.=E2=80=9D<= BR>There were several air traffic control facilities involved. The clearanc= e was relayed to the flight by Concord/Buchanan Field tower that received i= t from Travis Air Force Base RAPCON (Radar Approach Control). Within one mi= nute after takeoff, Concord instructed the flight to contact Travis RAPCON.= Within two minutes, the flight contacted Travis and was requested to trans= ponder =E2=80=9Cident=E2=80=9D for radar identification. The pilot then ask= ed Travis for a deviation to bypass the weather over the VOR. Travis acknow= ledged, radar identified the flight, and said that the deviation request wa= s pending (the request had to be coordinated with the next control sector u= nder Northern California Terminal Approach Control before Travis could auth= orize the deviation request). Travis then alerted the flight to high terrai= n. The pilot replied: =E2=80=9CSir, we see the terrain, but we=E2=80=99re n= ot going to fly in that thunderstorm over the VOR.=E2=80=9D Travis saw the = aircraft enter NorCal=E2=80=99s airspace and =E2=80=9Cpointed out=E2=80=9D = 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 moun= tain).
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 Prelimin= ary Pilot Deviation Report, stating that the flight=E2=80=99s penetration i= nto NorCal=E2=80=99s 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=E2=80=99s license for 90 days for = violating the =E2=80=9Cclearance=E2=80=9D rule, FAR 91.123(a), and for bein= g =E2=80=9Ccareless or reckless=E2=80=9D in violation of FAR 91.13(a) (auto= matically 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 =E2=80=9Creliable, probative, and sub= stantial evidence.=E2=80=9D
At the NTSB hearing the FAA produced as witn= esses the civilian and military controllers involved as well as the Flight = Standards Inspector who investigated the case; the FAA introduced into evid= ence tape recordings of the air traffic control conversations with the pilo= t, the SID chart, the departure clearance strip, the pilot deviation report= , the weather report for Concord, and the sanction guidance table. The pilo= t testified in his own behalf and presented a receipt evidencing the timely= filing of a report to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration un= der the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS). Based on the evidence, the= NTSB law judge sustained the FAA charges but reduced the period of suspens= ion from 90 days to 60 days.
FAR 91.123(a) provides that: =E2=80=9CWhen an air traffic control= clearance has been obtained, no pilot in command may deviate from that cle= arance 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 cance= l an IFR flight plan if the operation is being conducted in VFR weather con= ditions. When a pilot is uncertain of an ATC clearance, that pilot should i= mmediately request clarification from ATC.=E2=80=9D
The law judge conclu= ded 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=E2=80=99s defense that a weather emergency required him to deviat= e from the departure clearance.
Under the ASRS, certificate suspension m= ay be waived, despite a finding of a regulatory violation, if certain requi= rements are satisfied: (1) that the violation was inadvertent and not delib= erate; (2) that it did not involve a crime; (3) that the person has not bee= n found in an enforcement action to have committed a regulatory violation i= n the past five years; and (4) that the person mails a report of the incide= nt to NASA within 10 days. The board refused to grant the waiver of suspens= ion under the ASRS because it determined that the deviation was not =E2=80= =9Cinadvertent and not deliberate.=E2=80=9D According to the board, the pil= ot =E2=80=9Cflew the path that he wanted to.=E2=80=9D
No =E2=80=9Cget-ou= t-of-jail-free=E2=80=9D card.

--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_4309_1219930511_1-- --NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_4309_1219930511_0--