Airspace violation
08-18-2010 | 05:25 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Bracing for Fallacies
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,543
Likes: 0
From: In favor of good things, not in favor of bad things
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.
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.
08-18-2010 | 07:21 AM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 398
Likes: 1
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.
Only other way to know would have been a call to the ATCC after landing to apologize for the deviation.
08-18-2010 | 01:51 PM
#3
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 44,846
Likes: 653
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
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.
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.
08-19-2010 | 04:27 AM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 826
Likes: 0
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.
(Aircraft ID). Possible pilot deviation. Advise you contact (facility) at (telephone number)
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.
08-19-2010 | 08:39 AM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,048
Likes: 0
From: Self employed
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.
08-20-2010 | 11:07 AM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 826
Likes: 0
08-21-2010 | 03:36 AM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,048
Likes: 0
From: Self employed
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.
08-21-2010 | 04:14 AM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 826
Likes: 0
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.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
