Go Back   Airline Pilot Central Forums > Pilot Lounge > Aviation Law
Register FAQ Advertising Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Aviation Law Legal issues, FARs, and questions

 

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums

    Already registered? Login above

OR
 
To take advantage of all the site's features, become a member of
the largest community of airline pilots in the U.S. and beyond.

The advertising to the left will not show if you are a registered user.

Join the Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 08-18-2010, 05:25 AM   #1 (permalink)
Gets Weekends Off
 
block30's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Regional FO, tips the van driver
Posts: 2,200
Default 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.
__________________
2013 FAA original certificates; Student-49,566 Private-15,776 Commercial-8,140 ATP-8,346.
block30 is online now   Reply With Quote
Advertising above will not show if you are a registered user.
Old 08-18-2010, 07:21 AM   #2 (permalink)
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2009
Posts: 307
Default

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.
PW305 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2010, 01:51 PM   #3 (permalink)
Prime Minister
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: CRJ
Posts: 16,050
Default

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.
rickair7777 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2010, 04:27 AM   #4 (permalink)
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Posts: 826
Default

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
Quote:
(Aircraft ID). Possible pilot deviation. Advise you contact (facility) at (telephone number)
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.
NoyGonnaDoIt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2010, 06:12 AM   #5 (permalink)
Gets Weekends Off
 
block30's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Regional FO, tips the van driver
Posts: 2,200
Default

Thanks for your time and help.

Best
__________________
2013 FAA original certificates; Student-49,566 Private-15,776 Commercial-8,140 ATP-8,346.
block30 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2010, 08:39 AM   #6 (permalink)
Gets Weekends Off
 
TonyWilliams's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: Airline Captain
Posts: 3,042
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoyGonnaDoIt View Post

ATC is supposed to inform you right away. The standard language is....

The ATC handbook says "workload permitting"

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.
TonyWilliams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2010, 11:07 AM   #7 (permalink)
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Posts: 826
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyWilliams View Post
Yes, ATC started saying this phraseology in the early 1990's.
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.
NoyGonnaDoIt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2010, 03:36 AM   #8 (permalink)
Gets Weekends Off
 
TonyWilliams's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: Airline Captain
Posts: 3,042
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoyGonnaDoIt View Post
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.
TonyWilliams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2010, 04:14 AM   #9 (permalink)
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Posts: 826
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyWilliams View Post
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.
NoyGonnaDoIt is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
 

 
Reply
 



« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Question in uncontrolled airspace? unemployedagain Aviation Law 7 12-14-2009 11:07 PM
Mode C question pagey Flight Schools and Training 26 05-01-2009 05:24 PM
IFR in G airspace OperatorError Aviation Law 9 02-09-2009 10:41 AM
Alaskan airspace FR8K9 Cargo 4 09-26-2008 01:37 PM
Far 135.77 Violation Aileron Aviation Law 7 09-09-2008 06:05 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:50 AM.


vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1
Copyright 2000 - 2012 Internet Brands, Inc.