Pilot Deviation Career Ending?

[Groundpounder]

OP, did you fill out a NASA report? If not, do it RIGHT NOW.

It's unfortunate that too many tower controllers are anxious to find any mistake, by a pilot, like a cop in a speed trap small town. That's one reason that, when I can, I try to avoid airports with control towers and use uncontrolled fields. It is possible that he didn't report this to higher up the FAA chain or maybe he gave it to the supervisor and it may have ended there. I wouldn't count on it however, don't know if there is a quota of pilot violations that controllers have, but some act like it.

Moving out on the runway without clearance is serious, but you weren't on the runway. And clearance or not, always look before pulling out.
I think the advice to listen politely and co operate with any letter you get from FAA is the right advice. Good luck.

I once was taking off at my home airport on a not busy day, only one other plane beginning to taxi down as I was at the hold line. I got clearance and took off. Immediately the air cop said, "possible pilot deviation, call this number". Now legal people tell us not to make those calls, and I cant recall if I did or not. But finally I found out the major violation in his mind was when he cleared me for takeoff,that is what I did and he claimed I didn't repeat his clearance, just took off. Im not sure I said my N number or not, the jet was talking on the frequency, Anyway, he also made a mistake , used to wrong N number referring to me. When I talked to the supervisor about it , I asked the recording be preserved, and I pointed out the "possible controller deviation", At that point they dropped it and I didn't hear any more, except not long after I aborted a takeoff and they demanded to know the reason.
The guys at Oshkosh are 99% nice as well as competent, but sadly its not that way everywhere and every controller. A long time ago it used to be friendly here.

The runway starts at the hold short line, so yes he was on the runway. Don't do nothing dumb, and you won't get in trouble. If you do something dumb, own up to it and cooperate and graduate. Barring something blatant, the worse you'll get is a 709 ride.

Hell, Jerry W does dumb things every flight, and puts it on video. He appears to still be flying.

 

[Velocity173]

I've heard that said before but I couldn't find any documentation to support it. I can't find in the order you quote any specific reference to crossing a hold short line, nor can I find anything specific in what I looked through about ASDE or AMASS (although I suspect the details may be contained in that system). I don't know that every towered airport has ASDE or AMASS equipment, so in the OP's case that could also be relevant.

Can you point out the specific language about crossing the hold short line? I suspect it's there somewhere but I just don't see it, and I do know one airline pilot who was busted for letting just the nose cross the line, but that may have been in conjunction with an actual loss of separation. So I'm not questioning that crossing the line is "reportable" as a violation. I'm just looking for the specific language that makes it "mandatory" under the MOR program without a loss of separation.

A6. I imagine they didn’t have to cancel takeoff clearance or send another aircraft around so E is out. But, They probably wrote it up under A6A because the OP is in an area of the movement area that’s not expected / intended by ATC.

They could also use the broad definition of “safety of operations” and just report the PD itself (91.123).

 

[dbahn]

I'm not disputing the violation aspect of the any part of the event. In fact, the OP admits he was all the way onto the displaced threshold part of the runway. It's absolutely clear that it is a violation.

So unless there is something in the ASDE or AMASS equipment that alerts the controller to the violation it seems to me that the simple presence of the incursion doesn't make the reporting mandatory. So it also appears to me that unless there was an actual ground alert from that equipment (if the airport had that equipment) or an actual loss of separation then the reporting of the event is not mandatory, but can be up to the controller to report or not report.

I'd be curious to know if the airport involved in the OP's situation had that equipment or not. It appears that not all towered fields do, and as far as I know our local class C airport (Burlington, VT) does not have it.

 

[kkoran]

I've heard that said before but I couldn't find any documentation to support it. I can't find in the order you quote any specific reference to crossing a hold short line, nor can I find anything specific in what I looked through about ASDE or AMASS (although I suspect the details may be contained in that system). I don't know that every towered airport has ASDE or AMASS equipment, so in the OP's case that could also be relevant.

Can you point out the specific language about crossing the hold short line? I suspect it's there somewhere but I just don't see it, and I do know one airline pilot who was busted for letting just the nose cross the line, but that may have been in conjunction with an actual loss of separation. So I'm not questioning that crossing the line is "reportable" as a violation. I'm just looking for the specific language that makes it "mandatory" under the MOR program without a loss of separation.

A-6. Airport Environment.
a. The presence of an aircraft, vehicle, or pedestrian on any movement area or runway safety area not expected/intended by ATC.
The hold line marks the boundary of the runway safety area.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

A-6. Airport Environment.
a. The presence of an aircraft, vehicle, or pedestrian on any movement area or runway safety area not expected/intended by ATC.
The hold line marks the boundary of the runway safety area.

I don’t think that answers the question Dave is asking. He is asking what makes a report by ATC mandatory in this scenario.

 

[kkoran]

I don’t think that answers the question Dave is asking. He is asking what makes a report by ATC mandatory in this scenario.

Dave said he couldn't find any specific reference to crossing a hold short line. I referenced the reporting criteria regarding the presence of an aircraft, vehicle, or pedestrian in the runway safety area and explained that the hold line denotes the boundary of the RSA. I the question is where does it say reporting is mandatory:

2-1. Introduction. This chapter describes the specific occurrences that must be reported and the methods used to report them. Under the following procedures, it is possible that one occurrence will generate multiple reports, which is preferable to missed reports. ATO Safety is responsible for reconciling all duplicate reports.​

 

[dbahn]

I don’t think that answers the question Dave is asking. He is asking what makes a report by ATC mandatory in this scenario.

Thanks. I'm glad someone understands the question.

No one including the OP has questioned that crossing the hold short line without a clearance is a violation, and we all should have learned that prior to solo. When I go directly to the referenced document, (JO7210.632.pdf, which is from the FAA web site and I presume current) this screenshot shows what appears about mandatory reporting of surface area events:

That document does not include the reference to simple presence on the runway unless it involves alerting by ASDE or AMASS. It is not the same as the A6a reference posted earlier, so I'm wondering where that document comes from and whether it has anything to do with mandatory reporting. (The red highlighted sentence above simply describes the elements of the following section but doesn't mean that everything in it is mandatory.)

 

[kkoran]

The problem is that you are only looking at events that involve a loss of surface separation (paragraph A-3).

In Appendix A paragraphs A-2 through A-10 list the various criteria. Therefore, events that meet the criteria listed under paragraph A-6 (Airport Environment) must be reported.

​

 

[dbahn]

The problem is that you are only looking at events that involve a loss of surface separation (paragraph A-3).


In Appendix A paragraphs A-2 through A-10 list the various criteria. Therefore, events that meet the criteria listed under paragraph A-6 (Airport Environment) must be reported.

OK. That answers my question. Thanks. I was focusing on the surface separation part.

 

[Jaybird180]

Part of the OPs self-directed (or CFI directed) plan should be a revisit to the airport. Spend time while there observing the area, documenting the signs and markings and talk to the locals. If possible, try to meet the airport and tower staff and speak with them about safety concerns in addition to the mistake that was made.

In this way, if he’s “standing tall before the man” then he’s well prepared to speak intelligently about the airport environment in question- and for all we know he may discover some idiosyncrasy that he can talk about and it may help his case.

At worse, he can remove much of the “facts not in evidence” being speculated in this PoA thread.

In the words of Forrest Gump, “That’s all I have to say about that.”

 

[murphey]

Mark, for those of us who are a little behind on our Lodge dues, and therefore don't have the secret handshake, what is a "Brasher" report? I have never had any tower file any formal complaint against me, but in 40 years of flying I've had one major and 2 or 3 minor disputes with them, never heard the term.

Years ago, the tower guys were friendly, we knew one controller who had been there so long that he now has an intersection named after him. We, as well as school groups used to visit the tower and got to know some of the people. Sadly, that changed and they are like a foreign clique, they don't come into the FBO, I only know one of them and they just stay separate from the rest of us. It's not the best situation. I have never had a formal compliance action against me, but in one case of a big dispute they were on their way down that path when they realized the recording showed a controller error, and they dropped it.

You need to get away from the thin air over there on the other side of the hills and visit FTG. Not only do we know the controllers by name, they also know many of us by name....(which is not always a good thing, but that’s another story.) There’s always an invite to visit and our EAA chapter has taken them (and many of the offspring) on Young Eagle rides. That’s not to say they are less lenient. In fact the airport has at least one often 2 meetings a year for tenants and the tower staff to discuss incursions and other matters of import to all sides. It’s a learning experience for everyone in a non-hostile environment.

 

[N1120A]

Agreed on the part 61 nonnery. As to your second posit, they did fire the Envoy FO over the ORD wrong vector incident with impunity. The CA was reinstated after firing largely because he was not on probation. That was a one-mistake punishment for the FO that the cat will never recover from. I base that on the notion he wasn't intending on making Envoy his final destination in the first place.

He had to return to the military with his tail between his legs and an overseas deployment to put food on the table. Not pretty, don't know the guy so hope his marriage is still intact. Some people think he'll be able to get re-hired at a different regional. Perhaps, but I find that at best, a plausible but Pyrrhic outcome in nature. At worst case an outright inaccurate prognosis. One mistake. Some "career".

Did ALPA have anything to say about it?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Mark, for those of us who are a little behind on our Lodge dues, and therefore don't have the secret handshake, what is a "Brasher" report? I have never had any tower file any formal complaint against me, but in 40 years of flying I've had one major and 2 or 3 minor disputes with them, never heard the term.

Sorry, Bill. I didn't see this until Murphy recently responded to the post.

The "Brasher warning" is the advisory ATC gives a pilot when there is a deviation. It's the "possible pilot deviation; advise you contact [phone number]" we hear about. It's called a "Brasher warning" for the same reason as "you have the right to remain silent..." is called a "Miranda warning." There was a case involving a pilot names Brasher in which the NTSB held it was a requirements and the pilot got off the hook because it wasn't given.