Notices
Aviation Law Legal issues, FARs, and questions

Airspace violation

Old 08-18-2010, 05:25 AM
  #1  
Bracing for Fallacies
Thread Starter
 
block30's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: In favor of good things, not in favor of bad things
Posts: 3,543
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.
block30 is offline  
Old 08-18-2010, 07:21 AM
  #2  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2009
Posts: 392
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  
Old 08-18-2010, 01:51 PM
  #3  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,097
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 offline  
Old 08-19-2010, 04:27 AM
  #4  
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
(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  
Old 08-19-2010, 06:12 AM
  #5  
Bracing for Fallacies
Thread Starter
 
block30's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: In favor of good things, not in favor of bad things
Posts: 3,543
Default

Thanks for your time and help.

Best
block30 is offline  
Old 08-19-2010, 08:39 AM
  #6  
Gets Weekends Off
 
TonyWilliams's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: Self employed
Posts: 3,048
Default

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  
Old 08-20-2010, 11:07 AM
  #7  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Posts: 826
Default

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  
Old 08-21-2010, 03:36 AM
  #8  
Gets Weekends Off
 
TonyWilliams's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: Self employed
Posts: 3,048
Default

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  
Old 08-21-2010, 04:14 AM
  #9  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Posts: 826
Default

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  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
unemployedagain
Aviation Law
7
12-14-2009 11:07 PM
pagey
Flight Schools and Training
26
05-01-2009 05:24 PM
OperatorError
Aviation Law
9
02-09-2009 10:41 AM
FR8K9
Cargo
4
09-26-2008 01:37 PM
Aileron
Aviation Law
7
09-09-2008 06:05 AM

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


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices