flight violation to mishear ATC instrctions?
 

I was on landing rollout and misheard a tower "turn off at xxx switch ground" call. We read back the incorrect taxi way and turned off there and switched to the ground frequency. After our incorrect read back, to my knowledge, we were not contacted again until we called ground and ground told us to call tower by phone and then gave us our taxi clearance. after shut down i called the tower and he made it seem as though we had committed a gross violation and that i was going to be flight violated.

I was under the impression that the landing aircraft had the right of way over any traffic behind them, even on roll out. I was also under the impression that a tower cannot stop you from using the whole runway (this was not LAHS operations). Once cleared to land isn't the entire runway "mine" until i taxi off at a point i deem to be safe? Where can rules regarding this be found?

Is missing a directed turn off a runway a flight violation? If so what FAR/AIM or regulation did it violate? I looked at FAR 91.123 and saw: "(b) Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised." does this apply to me and some how over ride PIC decision making on roll out? Am i under ATC control on landing roll out?

Is the fault with us for mishearing or with the controller for not correcting us? Does this count as a runway incursion? Does the controller maintain responsibility for maintaining separation until we taxi clear? Are we allowed to switch from tower to ground on landing roll if directed, but still on the runway ( we didn't i'm just curious)?

Is it a good idea to call the local FAA office and see if they have opened an investigation?

I posted this question in another forum and didn't get any definite replies

AIM 4-3-20:
Exit the runway without delay at the first available taxiway, or on a taxiway as instructed by ATC. Pilots must not exit the landing runway onto another runway unless authorized by ATC. At airports with an operating control tower, pilots should not stop or reverse course on the runway without first obtaining ATC approval.

Taxi clear of the runway unless otherwise directed by ATC. An aircraft is considered clear of the runway when all parts of the aircraft are clear of the runway...

Immediately change to ground control frequency when advised by the tower, and obtain a taxi clearance.

[QUOTE=andykraven;2118548]

Is the fault with us for mishearing or with the controller for not correcting us? Does this count as a runway incursion? Does the controller maintain responsibility for maintaining separation until we taxi clear? Are we allowed to switch from tower to ground on landing roll if directed, but still on the runway ( we didn't i'm just curious)?
[/QUOTE

]If you give an incorrect readback, ATC is not responsible for correcting you, and you are responsible for adhering to the clearance you were given. You are responsible for adhering to the clearance you were given, if you've accepted the clearance, regardless of how you read it back.

No, it is not.

When it comes to pursuing you in enforcement action, 90% of what can be used against you is what comes out of your mouth. Keep it closed. Don't call, don't volunteer.

If in doubt, confer with an aviation attorney first.

If you have the AOPA legal services plan (which you should), avail yourself of a consultation, free of charge. It's in your best interest.

File a NASA report if you
haven't already.

http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"If you give an incorrect readback, ATC is not responsible for correcting you, and you are responsible for adhering to the clearance you were given. You are responsible for adhering to the clearance you were given, if you've accepted the clearance, regardless of how you read it back."

John....I have to humbly disagree with you on this. That thought process has been how the FAA wants the NTSB to interpret CFR 91.123 during any enforcement investigations. However, NTSB case law during those [past] investigations tended to give benefit of a doubt to the pilot, when the pilot made a incorrect read back which was not corrected by ATC. Those case laws then made the FAA issue an "Interpretive Rule" in April 1999 in order to get the NTSB to do things and enforce things their [FAA] way.

See the AOPA link below:

Regulatory Brief -- FAA interpretive rule places the responsibility for compliance with ATC clearances and instructions squarely on the pilot - AOPA

I can't find anything more recent on this so I'm not sure if AOPA was successful with getting that ruling rescinded. My guess is NO. But I also believe NTSB doesn't agree with it.

Also according to the ATC Manual JO-7110.65W and AIM controllers do have a responsibility to ensure read backs are correct:

FAA JO-7110.65W
2−4−3. PILOT ACKNOWLEDGMENT/READ BACK
Ensure pilots acknowledge all Air Traffic Clearances and ATC Instructions. When a pilot reads back an Air Traffic Clearance or ATC Instruction:
a. Ensure that items read back are correct.
b. Ensure the read back of hold short instructions, whether a part of taxi instructions or a LAHSO clearance.
c. Ensure pilots use call signs and/or registration numbers in any read back acknowledging an Air Traffic Clearance or ATC Instruction.

AIM 5−5−2. Air Traffic Clearance
a. Pilot.

1. Acknowledges receipt and understanding of
an ATC clearance.
2. Reads back any hold short of runway instructions issued by ATC.
3. Requests clarification or amendment, as appropriate, any time a clearance is not fully understood or considered unacceptable from a safety standpoint.
4. Promptly complies with an air traffic clearance upon receipt except as necessary to cope with an emergency. Advises ATC as soon as possible and obtains an amended clearance, if deviation is necessary.
b. Controller.
1. Issues appropriate clearances for the operation to be conducted, or being conducted, in accordance with established criteria.
2. Assigns altitudes in IFR clearances that are at or above the minimum IFR altitudes in controlled airspace.
3. Ensures acknowledgement by the pilot for issued information, clearances, or instructions.
4. Ensures that readbacks by the pilot of altitude, heading, or other items are correct. If incorrect, distorted, or incomplete, makes corrections as appropriate.

I think ultimately you will be just fine but as John suggested and I 100% agree, talk with AOPA legal services if you can.

Good Luck

For practical purposes, JB is correct. The FAA will hold the pilots accountable and let you fight it out in court if you don't like it.

For practical purposes - the FAA isn't going to pursue such an incident and elevate it to such a level that anyone needs to take something like this to court - certainly not in present times.

Oh, ATC wants to play that game huh. Seems like a pretty simple solution then:

Flight crews no longer answer an ATC call until coming to a complete stop on the runway when 100% focus can be directed to a radio call.

What "game" was ATC playing in this scenario?

It sounds like ATC gave a direction, the pilot misunderstood, and did not comply with the direction; and as the previous posts indicate - the pilot is not to come to a complete stop on the runway without ATC permission.

To the OP, per Pilots Bill of Rights, you are entitled to receive a copy of the communications data file and transcript. If you read back the instruction incorrectly, and ATC did not catch it and correct it, then this could be re-characterized as an OE (operational error) on ATC instead of a pilot deviation.

Also, if the Brasher Warning was not issued to you over the VHF, then that is another technicality in your favor.

File the NASA report, and wait. If you are an AOPA member, sign up for their Legal Services Plan.

It's a hot topic at my airline and we keep getting warned about it. SOMEBODY is elevating it, and recently. Maybe the new FAA is going to lighten up on stuff like this.

ASAP should work great in a situation like this.

Maybe your airline isn't in tune with the new philosophy of Flight Standards via the Administrator.
It isn't a 'maybe', it is already in place and operating.
It is overall good news.

This incident is not going to result in any type of action that so many might have feared in the past. ASAP is perfect for this situation I agree.

If anything comes from this I bet you there is a letter issued to the operator and individual to conduct remedial runway incursion or ground safety training. I've seen this a few times with the new flight standards philosophy.

I wouldn't worry too much about it. A couple of years ago, we had a lost comms situation going into MDW where we couldn't hear anything on 130.00 MHz or lower. We immediately squawked 7600 and proceeded VFR towards a different airport that was more practical than MDW. We reestablished comms after being NORDO for about 15 minUtes by using the satellite phone to call ATC and getting a higher VHF frequency that worked. During that 15 mins, we descended and turned off of the airway towards the other airport. When we landed, we had to call the ATC facility manager at MDW. He wasn't happy and said that this would be reported as an altitude deviation to the local FSDO. I told him that we were VFR after losing comms. He said that it didn't matter and that we were to maintain our last assigned altitude. He seemed pretty adamant that our "deviation" would be investitgated to the fullest extent. Long story short, we never heard a peep from anyone...

To the OP:

IMHO you've done nothing wrong. If you read back the wrong taxiway, it was the tower's job to correct you. Separation with traffic landing behind you is not your problem. If I had to guess, the tower was hoping you'd get off the runway sooner than you did, and maybe he/she had to go plan B, and maybe even send someone around. It still isn't your problem.

File a NASA form. Don't lose sleep!

Personally on my aircraft do not reply to atc taxi instructions on rollout till we are close to taxi speed. If atc wants a certain turnoff tell me on final not while I am still at 100 kts on rollout.

If Flight Standards investigates it and determines there is no violation, often you won't hear about it. ATC doesn't determine if it's a violation, that's up to Flight Standards. Of course, if there's an issue with the aircraft, they do want to know why it happened, either due to faulty maintenance or a flawed piece of equipment, so it wouldn't be strange to hear from them either.

Controllers have the responsibility to ensure accuracy of read backs (was trying to get the 7110.65 reference but this computer isn't playing along). If the pilot acknowledges with "roger" and deviates from the clearance, the pilots at fault, if the pilot reads back the clearance and it is not corrected by the controller, the controller is at fault. That said, if ever in doubt about it controllers will submit an ATSAP and pilots should submit ASAP (or NASA, etc). In the enroute environment, deviations get researched by the regional office and the course of action taken is initiated, normally, outside the facility.