Airspace violation
 

I know of a training flight that got into class B without clearance. The instructor and student had just departed an airport and then got flight following, but in the time between the tower and approach frequency change got into the Bravo. The controller tersely "suggested" they leave the bravo. Nothing of violation or phone numbers to call over the radio was mentioned.

Are they in the clear? Or does the controller use the tail number and the FAA N number registry to look up folks and send them a letter? I have heard the tower ask for people to call them and I have heard the words pilot deviation over the radio before. In this case neither occurred- but are they in the clear? A NASA report was filed.

It's likely that the issue is over... doesn't sound like it created a separation hazard. A NASA report was filed so their bases are covered.

Only other way to know would have been a call to the ATCC after landing to apologize for the deviation.

80% chance you'll never hear about it, but the NASA form should protect you from certificate action since it was an honest mistake.

Note that ASRS will save your certificate, but will NOT prevent a violation from being entered in your record. However, when a NASA form has been submitted the FAA may not bother with the investigation/violation process since they know they can't punish you. But that's a for-sure thing.

I agree with the others that said the chances are that's the end of it. When there is a pilot deviation, ATC is supposed to inform you right away. The standard language is The ATC handbook says "workload permitting" but there are a couple of NTSB cases suggesting that failure to give the advisory when ATC can means no penalty (that doesn't mean no violation).

The standard pretty much means that in most situations, if a pilot doesn't hear it at the time of an incursion or other deviation, it's unlikely that he'll hear about it later.

Thanks for your time and help.

Best

Yes, ATC started saying this phraseology in the early 1990's. Many things are "workload permitting".

If the controller didn't say that, I doubt seriously that they turned it in for a violation. They'd get themselves in a little hot water for not issuing the "possible pilot deviation".

File the NASA, have a beer, and maybe send the tower a pizza. It works for Southwest Airlines.

The use of a deviation notice is earlier. I have no idea how much but there's a 1987 NTSB case that deals with the failure to give it.

Maybe why it was something "new" at our facility (ZOA) around 1990. Little cards were made with a magnetic back, and stuck to the metal equipment with the "new" phraseology.

Maybe new phrasing for an older concept? My reference to the 1987 case comes from a later case; it just talks about the 1987 case in terms of failure to give "a" deviation notice - it could have been talking about it in another context or before the language was standardized.