What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

"Safety" or "Snitching?"

S

Sig600

Well Known Member
I had no idea this system had been implemented. I have to say having been a full time CFI for a number of years, this article is spot on. Lord knows how many pages of 'reports' my students would have generated as I let them dig their hole, then climb back out.

This has me worried about operating an RV too. Guys that fly for a living now have to worry about something menial on a joy ride now risking their bread & butter job.

http://www.flyingmag.com/pilots-pla...ore/faa-‘safety-culture’-or-snitching-program

Discuss.
 
and the FAA will react....how?

So the feds are trying to capture every errant radio call. Great. Then how are they going to improve safety with this mountain of paper & data?

I know at my home field, there are pilots in training, for whom English is not a first language. .....probably 50% of the radio calls result in another call to clarify what was mis-understood in the first call!
The controllers will have to book off 3 hours early to log and report each of these occurrences!
I suppose eventually it will become self-regulating, much like it is now, where the actual DANGEROUS mis-communications are noted and responded to as appropriate.
Guys who have an accent, or just sloppy radio procedures, or are flying into unfamiliar and/or complex airspace are going to get written up every flight. Does this mean they are going to end up in remedial radio skool? I doubt it.

sounds like more 'big brother is listening', ......be afraid!
 
Ok... So should pilots can keep a log of all the ATC induced errors they witness and report those to the local FSDO too...

Wanna play games... bring it!

Doesn't serve anyone but we can at least bury the FAA so deep in reports they'll scrap the program...
 
RV8R999 said:
Ok... So should pilots can keep a log of all the ATC induced errors they witness and report those to the local FSDO too...

Wanna play games... bring it!

Doesn't serve anyone but we can at least bury the FAA so deep in reports they'll scrap the program...
Click to expand...

Then they will just use this to justify more manpower and larger budgets.
 
I fly at an airport with a training tower. Couple of the controllers are good buddies of mine. No one has even mentioned this new reporting system. Is it active or is it going to be implemented slowly over time? Sheesh, our student controllers make a ton of mistakes. Enough that it really keeps US on our toes as pilots. In fact we tend to educate THEM much of the time to how to better "control" us in "their" pattern and on "their" tarmacs. For the most part I think this all works VERY well, and it's a lot of give and take. Fortunately, our airport isn't hugely busy and the pace is sedate. I don't get too worried about it.

However, having said that here's a link to the NASA ASRS form:

http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/report/mail.html

You can now submit an OOPS form online, too.

http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/report/electronic.html

:D
 
Well the last time I turned somebody in to the FSDO* The tapes got Mysteriously "lost".. Thats right a 15 minute hole in the time stamp. I told the guy they couldn't miss it.. Excitable english accent claiming that a BIG RED HELICOPTER appeared 100feet in front of him. Oh and here is my fuel receipt 20 mins after the incident.

I'm keeping that one for the judge if ever I'm turned in.





(this was a professional heavy lift helicopter crew that decided to go flying in IMC through a published departure procedure...While I was using it!!!..Can we say near death experience?)
 
curtis said:
Here is an interesting audio clip with controller mistake
Click to expand...

I am on dial up so may never hear that tape but it is a shared responsibility. Why would I "bust" a controller for making a mistake if I can query him and get it right? It ought to work the same way with pilots.

One reason that I use flight following, especially near commercial airports, is to try to "play nice" and minimize the chance that my presence might interrupt commercial flights. That is a two-way street as well. If I get negative feedback from ATC, the Pavlovian response is to not work within the system.
 
Last edited:
Ron Lee said:
I am on dial up so may never hear that tape but it is a shared responsibility. Why would I "bust" a controller for making a mistake if I can query him and get it right? It ought to work the same way with pilots.

One reason that I use flight following, especially near commercial airports, is to try to "play nice" and minimize the chance that my presence might interrupt commercial flights. That is a two-way street as well. If I get negative feedback from ATC, the Pavlovian response is to not work within the system.
Click to expand...

I'm a VFR only private pilot, but I feel like in low IFR (or any IFR, or in a plane with limited visibility like a big jet) it's really NOT shared responsibility. It's the controllers responsibility to ensure the runway is not in use before clearing a/c across it, period. If we want to say the pilots are responsible for knowing everything going on at a big airport then ATL, JFL, etc needs ONE CTAF frequency, not 3 ground, arr and dep tower for each few runways, etc....
 
article bias?

Seems like the program they might be talking about has been around for a while. It's called ATSEP, we, as controllers, use this program as pilots do to cover ourselves when something happens which is not quite right, IE when an aircraft breaks his clearance, or a controller makes a mistake. The program does not assign blame and is designed to help understand the type of mistakes made that may normally not be brought to someones attention. I believe the data also goes into a NASA database.

The FAA is and has been having problems with foreign pilot controller communications, believe me I know all about that!

Perhaps the article is in reference to something else, but both professional pilots and controllers use this program. I think any pilot can use this program.

Hope this helps ones perception of the ATSEP program... We as controllers were very hesitant to use this program, but once the report is made then the FAA can't go after us unless it was determined negligent. Now it seems like controllers are using this program on a regular basis. It is not about snitching but covering our butts. I was talking to my neighbor who is an A319 driver and he said he broke an assigned altitude and he was worried about it, I told him to atsep it and he did. To be honest 9 times out of 10, things that happen well, stay in Vegas, but when it becomes a separation issue, or deviation, our hands are tied. We all work together but it seems like there are a few pilots and controllers who miss the whole team concept. I hope I don't offend anyone but this is the truth as I know it.....
 
RV8R999 said:
Wanna play games... bring it!

.
Click to expand...

Are you worried about something?


I am not sure why they have such a program but they do. They try to keep all sorts of data. I think it is mostly to generate or justify BS jobs but who am I to throw stones. In ATC there is a computer CONSTANTLY watching every move on the RADAR screen and it reports ANY suspicious activity even if it is purely legal. If you are not a "criminal" these types of programs shouldn't scare you.

Also, don't believe everything you read. I have not been instructed to "snitch" on every abnormality. There are a million rules that are bent DAILY in every aspect of life. Nobody is investigating it all.
 
Last edited:
tkatc said:
In ATC there is a computer CONSTANTLY watching every move on the RADAR screen and it reports ANY suspicious activity even if it is purely legal.
Click to expand...

Tony, could you be more specific as to what defines "suspicious activity"?

I think we're all aware that radar is recorded. A flight track through a prohibited area is not suspicious...it's a clear violation. A flight track other than as directed in Class B is likewise not "suspicious". So what are we talking about here?
 
Dan, this computer I speak of is watching ATC for separation errors and such. Not so much pilots violating airspace (although there is someone watching that also). Every aircraft the comes in close proximity to another is recorded and reported for further evaluation. We actually call it a "snitch" machine and before now was only used in the center facilities. Now they've adapted it to terminal facilities and it will report, for example, when a VFR target and an IFR target come within 3 miles or 1000 vertically. Do you know How many reports this will generate? THOUSANDS! It would be MORE than a full time job for someone to investigate each report (1 person per sector).

My point is, the greatest job justification for the FAA is more traffic. In this poor economy/higher gas price era, the last thing the FAA wants is less traffic. They want to foster a collaborative pilot/controller environment. They definitely do not want to pit one against the other.

Yes, they gather data, it's their latest NEXGEN "thingy" but they are not out to scrutinize pilots for the minute mistakes being made on a daily basis.
 
50 + years ago, a brilliant idea to have dual missions for the FAA was created. One was to promote aviation, the other to regulate the safety thereof. This was a true stroke of genius to set it up this way. In the mid 90's, the promote aviation part of the mission was quietly removed. The logical progression of removing the promotion mission will be an ever increasing enforcement mentality as the "old" culture is replaced by the "new" one. Alas, this seems to be starting.
 
AlexPeterson said:
50 + years ago, a brilliant idea to have dual missions for the FAA was created. One was to promote COMMERCIAL aviation, the other to regulate the safety thereof. This was a true stroke of genius to set it up this way. In the mid 90's, the promote aviation part of the mission was quietly removed. The logical progression of removing the promotion mission will be an ever increasing enforcement mentality as the "old" culture is replaced by the "new" one. Alas, this seems to be starting.
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you. The FAA for years was nothing more than a rebranded CAB. It's a long read but "Hard Landings" is quite insightful to just how non-civil aviation friendly the FAA is.

If you need more proof, look at the latest rest rules imposed on part 121 operators that FedEx and UPS were able to lobby their way out of.
 
Not to hijack this thread, but that book (Hard Landings) is an amazing read if you are interested in how the airline industry has evolved over the last 30 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top