Altimeter VS Squawk

[Xscaliber]

I'm making a similar trip under the Tampa class bravo shelf at 1200' for the first time next Monday KBOW - KSPG
I think I'll be double checking my altimeter !

 

[Velocity173]

I don't like counting on a controller, or anyone for that matter, ignoring a policy .

Never said you should count on a controller to ignore a policy. You can expect them to comply with policy but plenty of times it's handled with a phone call. Like I said, who cares if you call? If there is fault and an ASRS is filed, you've already admitted it. If it's a radar issue, the tapes don't lie. If it's a runway environment issue, the tower has multiple witnesses and they have the comm tapes to prove their side. Call the tower, explain your case, file the ASRS and wait for the FSDO to give you a scolding. Maybe a letter of caution.

I'll give a perfect example of controllers being more than reasonable when it comes to reporting pilot errors. Earlier this year a friend of mine was working a helo doing closed pattern work. He noticed a pedestrian standing near the runway. He informed the helicopter and the student replied "that's my instructor." Apparently the instructor got out in the runway and walked over to the grass. The instructor then walked back on the runway and got into the helo and taxied into parking. My friend told the instructor to call tower. Even though it was a flat out PD, he just wanted to talk to the CFI and let him know you can't be walking around on the runway. The CFI was irate on the phone and asked "what is this? The rookie crew working today." He said he was going to call the airport manager. My friend, called the manager first and explained the situation. Airport manager said "write his a$$ up." My friend was going to handle it with a civil conversation but because the CFI chose not to, it ended up being a PD sent to the FSDO.

In the OP's case, they probably didn't even file a PD (8020.17). Most likely it started as a mandatory occurrance report. Barely even meets the need for that since no ATC or alternate air crew course of action was needed for the OP's transponder.

 

[bradg33]

Never said you should count on a controller to ignore a policy. You can expect them to comply with policy but plenty of times it's handled with a phone call. Like I said, who cares if you call? If there is fault and an ASRS is filed, you've already admitted it. If it's a radar issue, the tapes don't lie. If it's a runway environment issue, the tower has multiple witnesses and they have the comm tapes to prove their side. Call the tower, explain your case, file the ASRS and wait for the FSDO to give you a scolding. Maybe a letter of caution.

I'll give a perfect example of controllers being more than reasonable when it comes to reporting pilot errors. Earlier this year a friend of mine was working a helo doing closed pattern work. He noticed a pedestrian standing near the runway. He informed the helicopter and the student replied "that's my instructor." Apparently the instructor got out in the runway and walked over to the grass. The instructor then walked back on the runway and got into the helo and taxied into parking. My friend told the instructor to call tower. Even though it was a flat out PD, he just wanted to talk to the CFI and let him know you can't be walking around on the runway. The CFI was irate on the phone and asked "what is this? The rookie crew working today." He said he was going to call the airport manager. My friend, called the manager first and explained the situation. Airport manager said "write his a$$ up." My friend was going to handle it with a civil conversation but because the CFI chose not to, it ended up being a PD sent to the FSDO.

In the OP's case, they probably didn't even file a PD (8020.17). Most likely it started as a mandatory occurrance report. Barely even meets the need for that since no ATC or alternate air crew course of action was needed for the OP's transponder.

The ASRS is stripped of all identifying information, so it's irrelevant whether you admit fault or not, it can't be used in any enforcement proceeding. As has been pointed out, read any article written by an attorney on this subject (or talk to one). Most, if not all, recommend NOT making the call to the ATC facility.

 

[Velocity173]

The ASRS is stripped of all identifying information, so it's irrelevant whether you admit fault or not, it can't be used in any enforcement proceeding. As has been pointed out, read any article written by an attorney on this subject (or talk to one). Most, if not all, recommend NOT making the call to the ATC facility.

Attorneys who don't understand the ATC system. Nothing in the phone call is meant to be incriminating. It's just to notify the pilot of the suspected error and to inform them how it's going to go from there. You can tell the controller that you do not wish to make a statement. There's a block on the form for that. you can even ask to talk on a non recorded line. We had both lines at my facility.

You don't make the call and I assure you, things will end up being worse for the pilot. FSDO gets word you are resisting or trying to hide when all the evidence is in ATC favor, look out.

 

[bradg33]

Attorneys who don't understand the ATC system. Nothing in the phone call is meant to be incriminating. It's just to notify the pilot of the suspected error and to inform them how it's going to go from there. You can tell the controller that you do not wish to make a statement. There's a block on the form for that. you can even ask to talk on a non recorded line. We had both lines at my facility.

You don't make the call and I assure you, things will end up being worse for the pilot. FSDO gets word you are resisting or trying to hide when all the evidence is in ATC favor, look out.

Here's the problem: while it may not be "meant" to be incriminating, most people can't keep their mouths shut in those situations. They're almost always going to say something that incriminates them, just like when talking to the cops.

Further, and perhaps a bigger point, in some cases ATC may not actually know the identity of the pilot who was flying the plane. If you're not on an flight plan, all ATC has is a tail number. By making the call, you'll be providing evidence of your identity to ATC, either via caller ID, or by giving the controller your info. All that does is make it easier for the FSDO to move forward with an investigation or violation.

Your suggestion that refusing to call is "resisting" or trying to "hide" ignores the fact that there is -zero- obligation on the part of the pilot to call the facility. That's a very law-enforcement type attitude (where exercising your rights is seen as a bad thing, e.g., "why won't you let me search your car if you have nothing to hide?").

 

[Velocity173]

Here's the problem: while it may not be "meant" to be incriminating, most people can't keep their mouths shut in those situations. They're almost always going to say something that incriminates them, just like when talking to the cops.

Further, and perhaps a bigger point, in some cases ATC may not actually know the identity of the pilot who was flying the plane. If you're not on an flight plan, all ATC has is a tail number. By making the call, you'll be providing evidence of your identity to ATC, either via caller ID, or by giving the controller your info. All that does is make it easier for the FSDO to move forward with an investigation or violation.

Your suggestion that refusing to call is "resisting" or trying to "hide" ignores the fact that there is -zero- obligation on the part of the pilot to call the facility. That's a very law-enforcement type attitude (where exercising your rights is seen as a bad thing, e.g., "why won't you let me search your car if you have nothing to hide?").

http://teterborousersgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/TUG-Meeting-Notes-5-16-12.pdf

I guess there are two distinct plans of action here. Try and hide your identity or facts, or just own up to the mistake and take a scolding. I'm going with the later.

The OP's situation is minor. Even if the MOR goes to the FSDO, he'll get nothing more than a talking to by the safety inspector to make sure the equipment problem is resolved. The MOR process that implemented years ago is just a data collecting system. It's a yawn for the FSDO. Far more worse things controllers and inspectors deal with than just a transponder issue. I probably had a dozen PDs as a controller and only wrote up one. Only reason why I wrote him up was it was military vs civilian.

 

[MAKG1]

Here's the problem: while it may not be "meant" to be incriminating, most people can't keep their mouths shut in those situations. They're almost always going to say something that incriminates them, just like when talking to the cops.

Further, and perhaps a bigger point, in some cases ATC may not actually know the identity of the pilot who was flying the plane. If you're not on an flight plan, all ATC has is a tail number. By making the call, you'll be providing evidence of your identity to ATC, either via caller ID, or by giving the controller your info. All that does is make it easier for the FSDO to move forward with an investigation or violation.

Your suggestion that refusing to call is "resisting" or trying to "hide" ignores the fact that there is -zero- obligation on the part of the pilot to call the facility. That's a very law-enforcement type attitude (where exercising your rights is seen as a bad thing, e.g., "why won't you let me search your car if you have nothing to hide?").

No, here's the problem. Safety is not an adversarial problem. This makes it into one. The point -- ALL of it -- is to keep airplanes from banging into other airplanes and objects on the ground. Not to nail someone. Hiding is not at all consistent with that. Even if it might be your "right," it's both counterproductive and astonishingly stupid. If it doesn't work, you're screwed. If it DOES work, you're out one phone call -- it fits within ASRS guidelines for dismissal of sanction (if there were going to be one, which is highly doubtful). And you lose that if you don't cooperate. Lots to lose, little to gain.

Not to mention, an ethical human owns up to mistakes, just like the OP did. I don't want to share airspace with someone who would try to get out of it.

Let the myths go. It's terrible advice. The OP did EXACTLY the right thing.

 

[Lindberg]

http://teterborousersgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/TUG-Meeting-Notes-5-16-12.pdf

There's a Stephen Pope how was the editor of Flying magazine, which is who I assume wrote that article, because I can't find an attorney in NJ with the same name. So again, we've got an aviation expert opinion on a legal issue. But you'll note that he says AOPA and ALPA give the same advice: call a lawyer, not the tower.

I guess there are two distinct plans of action here. Try and hide your identity or facts, or just own up to the mistake and take a scolding. I'm going with the later.

Is that what you do when you get pulled over for speeding? "Officer, please tell me the maximum fine and where to send it, and I'll have a check in the mail tomorrow." Certainly nothing wrong with that strategy if you're prepared to take the full force of possible punishment, irrespective of how unjust you think it might be under the circumstances. OTOH, if you've adopted that strategy because you think its likely to win you leniency or justice, that would be very foolish. Heck, for all you know, you might be thinking you got the number for something minor that you know you did, but the controller saw something else entirely, maybe something major. Or maybe he's just having a bad day and he going to make an example of you and **** you all the way to Washington.

The OP's situation is minor. Even if the MOR goes to the FSDO, he'll get nothing more than a talking to by the safety inspector to make sure the equipment problem is resolved. The MOR process that implemented years ago is just a data collecting system. It's a yawn for the FSDO. Far more worse things controllers and inspectors deal with than just a transponder issue. I probably had a dozen PDs as a controller and only wrote up one. Only reason why I wrote him up was it was military vs civilian.

The irony is that you're the one who brought into this thread an example of a pilot making the call because he thought he'd done nothing wrong and getting ****ed by it. Sure, the same thing might have happened if he hadn't made the call, but maybe it wouldn't have. And it definitely wouldn't have been worse.

 

[Velocity173]

Everything written on FSDO actions pertaining to enforcement action stress honesty and attitude on the part of the suspected violator. You're not going to hide your identity and ATC has all the evidence they need anyway.

This isn't a crime being commited. It's a simple occurrance. One that the FSDO has some latitude with based on the attitude of the pilot. I know R&W has stressed this before as well. Be honest and courteous.

As far as the pilot calling ATC in the example I gave, if he just would have apologized my friend wasn't even going to write him up for a PD. He got an attitude and that made things go south for him. As I said, they yield the power and have the evidence and more witnesses than the violator. Just own up to it and you'll either get completely off the hook or get a lesser punishment.

Some of the stuff I've brought up from POA to controller friends. They just laugh. "Got a lot of paranoid pilots on there." If you were to actually research how many pilots get any real enforcement action taken from these minor occurances & PDs, it would be a small number. Pilots scared of the FAA and naive to how they operate is all it is.

Edit: oh yeah, I have had a speeding ticket reduced drastically by pleading no contest in court also.

 

[bradg33]

Just own up to it and you'll either get completely off the hook or get a lesser punishment.


Edit: oh yeah, I have had a speeding ticket reduced drastically by pleading no contest in court also.

These two things are inconsistent. So you think other people should "own up to" their mistakes, but it's cool for you to plead "no contest" to a ticket? While "no contest" is effectively a guilty plea, why didn't you just plead guilty and pay the fine like a good, honest, moral citizen?

 

[bradg33]

So again, we've got an aviation expert opinion on a legal issue. But you'll note that he says AOPA and ALPA give the same advice: call a lawyer, not the tower.

Funny how some seem to think the legal professionals don't know what they're talking about, and instead should just lay themselves at the mercy of the FAA, because being "honesty" is the best policy.

 

[Velocity173]

These two things are inconsistent. So you think other people should "own up to" their mistakes, but it's cool for you to plead "no contest" to a ticket? While "no contest" is effectively a guilty plea, why didn't you just plead guilty and pay the fine like a good, honest, moral citizen?

I had no problem pleading guilty. I even told the judge that. He said "how about no contest and $99." I'm a moral person but I'm not going to try and over rule a judge.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

I'm making a similar trip under the Tampa class bravo shelf at 1200' for the first time next Monday KBOW - KSPG
I think I'll be double checking my altimeter !

And don't assume that just because someone at an FBO says that approach wants you to call that you are the actual person they are asking for.