"Please call the tower..."

deyoung

deyoung

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Nov 13, 2014
Messages
508
Location
Tucson, AZ
Display Name
Display name:
Chris
Listening through various LiveATC recordings marked as interesting, just for fun (I know, it's an illness), and one was a Piper pilot who landed on a taxiway at Oakland -- oops!

As you might imagine he got a phone number and was asked to call the tower when able, but that made me wonder, how does that call usually go and what happens after that, usually? I realized I have no idea how the process usually goes from there, if there even is a "usually."

Just curious how this works. :)
 
Landing on a taxiway, I'd imagine next would be a call to the FSDO, that's kind a big oops for a day VFR flight into OAK.
 
Starts with a guy/gal yelling at you followed by asking for your name. They have your tail number so all they need to do to complete the picture for the FSDO report is the name of the pilot. If you do not call, they do not know who was flying the plane (not suggesting that you do not call BTW).

A NASA ASRS report would be in order.

Oh, and landing on a taxi way is obviously a problem. I received one of those requests to call the adjacent Class C tower. The rant was five minutes long followed by threats of having my ticket pulled and telling me they had already contacted the FSDO. Funny thing is that they do not apologize when they are confronted with proof that they have their heads up their rears and do not understand FARs. As with most interactions with authority, crap only flows one direction.
 
lolachampcar said:
Starts with a guy/gal yelling at you followed by asking for your name. They have your tail number so all they need to do to complete the picture for the FSDO report is the name of the pilot. If you do not call, they do not know who was flying the plane (not suggesting that you do not call BTW).

A NASA ASRS report would be in order.

Oh, and landing on a taxi way is obviously a problem. I received one of those requests to call the adjacent Class C tower. The rant was five minutes long followed by threats of having my ticket pulled and telling me they had already contacted the FSDO. Funny thing is that they do not apologize when they are confronted with proof that they have their heads up their rears and do not understand FARs. As with most interactions with authority, crap only flows one direction.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes2:

The number of holes in this little tale you could drive a truck through...:nonod:
 
deyoung said:
Listening through various LiveATC recordings marked as interesting, just for fun (I know, it's an illness), and one was a Piper pilot who landed on a taxiway at Oakland -- oops!

As you might imagine he got a phone number and was asked to call the tower when able, but that made me wonder, how does that call usually go and what happens after that, usually? I realized I have no idea how the process usually goes from there, if there even is a "usually."

Just curious how this works. :)
Click to expand...

Aside from perhaps taxiway W paralleling 11-29, is there even a taxiway that a pilot could mistake as a runway at OAK? Certainly none of the taxiways on the north GA side of the airport would confuse anyone. Guess I'm wrong though.
 
I'm no expert on this, but my understanding is it depends how ****ed off the controller is and whether it's one of the magic things that has to go to the FSDO regardless. (And I'm sure the list of magic things changes over time.)

I can tell you that this happened to me (sort of) several years ago. As a new private pilot, I was taking a long-ish-to-me (200nm) weekend trip across the state. The trip out was uneventful. On the way back, I had planned to fly up at 7500 MSL. After departure, there was one class B that I had to skirt around, but then could go direct home from there. I hadn't flown much in this cardinal direction from my home base so while there was nothing complicated about the area, I wasn't very familiar with it (and again, very new PPL; this was probably my second serious XC -- not that that makes anything I did less dumb).

Anyway, on the return flight all was well; I skirted around the Bravo as planned and pointed it home with nothing between me and the destination. But then there were some high-level clouds, and I descended to 5500, and then 3500 (still about 2500 AGL) to stay well under them. And just continued my plan of flying straight home fat dumb and happy. I wound up clipping a class C that topped out at 5000, and was paying little enough attention that I didn't even notice. (Yep; dumb on many levels. Won't happen again.)

Anyway, I landed at my home (small, uncontrolled) field, and while I was tying down, the airport manager walked out and said that ATC wanted me to call a phone number, and that was all he knew. I called, we established that yes I was the one who flew in from the west; it wasn't until the controller asked "and what altitude were you flying at" that I grasped what had happened. I was very apologetic and pretty horrified at myself. The controller emphasized the importance of airspace and approach corridors, said I was very lucky that I hadn't made him move any traffic (slow day, apparently), and that I should consider the call to be correcting education. I thanked him very much.
 
deyoung said:
Listening through various LiveATC recordings marked as interesting, just for fun (I know, it's an illness), and one was a Piper pilot who landed on a taxiway at Oakland -- oops!

As you might imagine he got a phone number and was asked to call the tower when able, but that made me wonder, how does that call usually go and what happens after that, usually? I realized I have no idea how the process usually goes from there, if there even is a "usually."

Just curious how this works. :)
Click to expand...

The call is to tell the pilot there may be a possible violation, ask him what happened and gather some information.

If the controller goes further, he files a 8020-17 in the computer system detailing the event and preserves the ATC tapes and radar. He may also provide a written statement (his) on what happened.

Now the 8020-17 goes to the local FSDO and is assigned to an operations Inspector. He looks over the forms, does a background check on the pilot (certificates, any pending or previous problems) looks at the radar report and listens to the ATC tape. Then he calls the pilot, discusses the event and gathers information for a questionare for a system called ATQA (Air Traffic Quality Assurance).

Next step is to determine action. Typically it ends with "informal counseling" where the ASI and the pilot talk about the event, discuss ways to keep it from happening again and so on. Then the file is closed out with "no action".

The next step up would be "remedial training" where the ASI feels the pilot would benefit from additional training. The ASI writes up a training plan, gives to the pilot and has him go to his CFI of choice, accomplish the plan, have the pilot and CFI sign it and return to the ASI.

Next step up from that is "Administrative Action" which is a written notice (Warning Letter) detailing the regulations violated and this goes on the pilot's record for two years.

Above that is either a 44709 evaluation or a full enforcement, again depending on what happened.

Most pilot deviations are settled with informal counseling or a warning letter.
 
It's a pilot deviation so the tower is required to inform the pilot and call the tower after landing. In this case you're looking at a surface incident. "Possible pilot deviation, advise you call OAK tower after landing. Phone number."

Most likely you'll talk to the tower sup. Depending on how egregious the violation was, you might get a talking to or they might inform you that a PD has been filed. If it's been filed then yes, they'll want your personal information. If you fail to give it, it doesn't matter anyway. They can mark the block "unknown information" and still send it in its way.

At the end of the week, their QA will review all PDs and decide if they warrant sending them to the FSDO. FSDO gets it and decides what enforcement action, if any, will occur. Most likely a letter of caution.

Edit: what R&W said above
 
deyoung said:
Listening through various LiveATC recordings marked as interesting, just for fun (I know, it's an illness), and one was a Piper pilot who landed on a taxiway at Oakland -- oops!

As you might imagine he got a phone number and was asked to call the tower when able, but that made me wonder, how does that call usually go and what happens after that, usually? I realized I have no idea how the process usually goes from there, if there even is a "usually."

Just curious how this works. :)
Click to expand...

Happens to the best of us (AIRLINE PILOT IN BLUNDER LAND – TOUCHES DOWN ON NEWARK TAXIWAY). What passes for a taxiway at Oakland would probably be more than adequate as a runway for any other airport a Piper might get into. That doesn't mean it will be any better for the pilot however. I don't have the sanction chart in front of me, but when it shakes out I'd guess maybe a 90-120 day suspension, if there was no ASRS and/or FAA legal disputes the applicability of the waiver.
 
Velocity173 said:
It's a pilot deviation so the tower is required to inform the pilot and call the tower after landing. In this case you're looking at a surface incident. "Possible pilot deviation, advise you call OAK tower after landing. Phone number."

Most likely you'll talk to the tower sup. Depending on how egregious the violation was, you might get a talking to or they might inform you that a PD has been filed. If it's been filed then yes, they'll want your personal information. If you fail to give it, it doesn't matter anyway. They can mark the block "unknown information" and still send it in its way.

At the end of the week, their QA will review all PDs and decide if they warrant sending them to the FSDO. FSDO gets it and decides what enforcement action, if any, will occur. Most likely a letter of caution.

Edit: what R&W said above
Click to expand...

...and refusing to identify yourself will likely cause the ops inspector to skip over the easy options, like traing or counseling, and head down the path of enforcement action once he figures out who you are. Rental records, fuel receipts, voice on the radio, etc. make that a rather trivial effort for the inspector.
 
R&W,
Holes on purpose as the info was not relevant to the discussion....

But since you seem to be detail oriented-
Three TCAS RAs issued as I was changing altitude rapidly from 2K to 6K (aerobatics)
One of two legal aerobatic areas is to the NW by about 14 miles of adjacent Class C
Lots of traffic that day and C was landing such that they were extending downwind into my box (legal space, not declared arco box)
Controllers on duty could not figure out that I was not in their airspace and route traffic a few miles North as the more capable controls have done time and again in the past (as in, I have been doing this acro work three to four times a week for the past two years).
Manager on duty was a hopped up type A muscle man just looking for a tree to **** on.

A perfect mix and results were predictable...... Still no apology and several attempts to alter my behavior to solve their problem. I finally met with the regional ATC manager and we agreed to talk to each other (controller and me) on my way out. Most times I get a squawk code and am happy to participate in resolutions. Newbies often have a hard time understanding why I am calling given I'm out of their airspace. I explain that I can help in keeping things clean if we are talking. Most get the hint but the operation lacks the ability to retain institutional knowledge on change of management. When it breaks down, it seems to be my fault.

For everyone else, sorry for the deviation. R&W thought it was important. I did not.
 
Last edited:
If you get a number, wouldn't it be best to call a legal team such as aopa or an aviation attorney first to make sure you don't answer any incriminating questions that could be used against you? Or is it better just to cooperate and "go with the flow"?

When talking to police, we have the 5th Amendment to protect us from answering incriminating questions. When it comes to FAA inspectors or controllers, do we have a similar right to not answer questions?
 
Last edited:
lolachampcar said:
R&W,
Holes on purpose as the info was not relevant to the discussion....

But since you seem to be detail oriented-
Three TCAS RAs issued as I was changing altitude rapidly from 2K to 6K (aerobatics)
One of two legal aerobatic areas is to the NW by about 14 miles of adjacent Class C
Lots of traffic that day and C was landing such that they were extending downwind into my box (legal space, not declared arco box)
Controllers on duty could not figure out that I was not in their airspace and route traffic a few miles North as the more capable controls have done time and again in the past (as in, I have been doing this acro work three to four times a week for the past two years).
Manager on duty was a hopped up type A muscle man just looking for a tree to **** on.

A perfect mix and results were predictable...... Still no apology and several attempts to alter my behavior to solve their problem. I finally met with the regional ATC manager and we agreed to talk to each other (controller and me) on my way out. Most times I get a squawk code and am happy to participate in resolutions. Newbies often have a hard time understanding why I am calling given I'm out of their airspace. I explain that I can help in keeping things clean if we are talking. Most get the hint but the operation lacks the ability to retain institutional knowledge on change of management. When it breaks down, it seems to be my fault.

For everyone else, sorry for the deviation. R&W thought it was important. I did not.
Click to expand...

My response was for this:

lolachampcar said:
Starts with a guy/gal yelling at you followed by asking for your name. They have your tail number so all they need to do to complete the picture for the FSDO report is the name of the pilot. If you do not call, they do not know who was flying the plane (not suggesting that you do not call BTW).

A NASA ASRS report would be in order.

Oh, and landing on a taxi way is obviously a problem. I received one of those requests to call the adjacent Class C tower. The rant was five minutes long followed by threats of having my ticket pulled and telling me they had already contacted the FSDO. Funny thing is that they do not apologize when they are confronted with proof that they have their heads up their rears and do not understand FARs. As with most interactions with authority, crap only flows one direction.
Click to expand...

No one in ATC can "pull your ticket". This can only be accomplished by an ASI from Flight Standards after he completes an investigation.

As far as contacting the FSDO, the procedure for ATC is to do it with the 8020-17 through ATQA. The tower could call (as in your instance) but the controller still has to follow procedures.

As far as ATC personnel "yelling" at people, I find that a rare occurrence at best. If someone did act in an unprofessional way there are remedies to that.
 
Agreed.
I think it was the "hopped up type A muscle man just looking for a tree to **** on" factor.

Oh, I did do an outreach by posting an offer to take any controller out for a hop. That manager's ex-wife (also an ATC manager) took me up on the offer. She is a very nice lady and seemed to enjoy herself.
 
Last edited:
JC150 said:
If you get a number, wouldn't it be best to call a legal team such as aopa or an aviation attorney first to make sure you don't answer any incriminating questions that could be used against you? Or is it better just to cooperate and "go with the flow"?

When talking to police, we have the 5th Amendment to protect us from answering incriminating questions. When it comes to FAA inspectors or controllers, do we have a similar right to not answer questions?
Click to expand...

Your pilot certificate falls under Administrative Law.

You certainly have the right to refuse to answer any questions, but the FAA has the right to proceed with the investigation with or without your information.

As far as needing a lawyer for a Pilot Deviation, your choice. However most deviations are handled with minimal action. By being reluctant or out right non cooperative could potentially escalate what was a minimal situation to something much larger. But again, your choice.
 
I had occasion once to be taxiing back to my spot and I there was a solo student in the pattern that was really blundering things badly. After he landed, the tower said, "After you park your plane, let me give you a tour of the tower." I saw the student later (he was parked near my plane) and he said the controller just bitched him out for a while but didn't file any paperwork.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Your pilot certificate falls under Administrative Law.

You certainly have the right to refuse to answer any questions, but the FAA has the right to proceed with the investigation with or without your information.
Click to expand...
Just as the criminal process can proceed without your information.
 
Brad Z said:
Aside from perhaps taxiway W paralleling 11-29, is there even a taxiway that a pilot could mistake as a runway at OAK? Certainly none of the taxiways on the north GA side of the airport would confuse anyone. Guess I'm wrong though.
Click to expand...

There is a lot of construction going on the North Field right now. 28R is NOTAMed closed, and that's the usual runway for GA arrivals. Could be lots of confusing lights and equipment. I'll speculate that Twy C can look like a runway at a normal airport…if 28R is covered in equipment. It's still a mile long, straight, and lighted (though not with the correct color).

Edit: Checked NOTAMs. It's been a lot worse than that for the past three days.
!OAK 03/063 OAK RWY 10L/28R CLSD 1503171430-1503210100
!OAK 11/134 OAK RWY 10R/28L CLSD 1412012300-1507080001
Click to expand...

BOTH the regular GA runways on the North Field runways are closed. That leaves the seldom used 15/33 or the South Field.
 
Last edited:
JC150 said:
If you get a number, wouldn't it be best to call a legal team such as aopa or an aviation attorney first to make sure you don't answer any incriminating questions that could be used against you? Or is it better just to cooperate and "go with the flow"?
Click to expand...
Your question assumes the two - speaking with an attorney and going with the flow - are mutually exclusive. They are not.

There are pilot deviations that will result in a talking to with no action or one of the minor administrative actions like a warning notice. There are others that will head toward formal enforcement action no matter how contrite you are. The purpose in speaking with an attorney is not to yell and scream impotently at the FAA but to assist the pilot in determining which it is and the best course of action to take.

On self-incrimination, while the 5th Amendment does not apply to FAA enforcement proceedings, there is a similar protection in the Pilots Bill of Rights.
 
Years ago, I had to talk to Socal TRACON because we flew through an altitude restriction during a departure from ONT. The supervisor I spoke to couldn't have been nicer. He just wanted to know if we understood the procedure, as apparently pilots miss that restriction all the time. I told him we did, and we briefed it thoroughly - we just didn't execute it properly (my FO was flying, but I allowed myself to get distracted and went heads down at the wrong time). I fell on my sword, apologized profusely, he said no harm, no foul, and that was the end of it.

I never heard another word.
 
Are a member of AOPA Legal Services? If so, call them or call an aviation attorney for advice. Generally if you are contrite and cooperative then it won't go to a 709 ride.
 
30 years ago I landed on the parallel taxi way at Fresno Air Terminal. I was on my solo cross country for my PPL. The controller asked me to write down a phone number and then depart from the intersection and immediately leave his airspace.

2 hours later when I called he was very nice, reminded me that I was a hazard for his helicopter ops and wished me well.

I knew how to fly from part 103 ops but I didn't know much about airspace and big airports. Since the local instructors knew I could fly they wouldn't take my training seriously.
 
JC150 said:
If you get a number, wouldn't it be best to call a legal team such as aopa or an aviation attorney first to make sure you don't answer any incriminating questions that could be used against you?
Click to expand...

I'm sure it depends a lot on the individual situation, but in general this would probably not be my first thought, personally.

In my experience dealing with law enforcement (which is not extensive, admittedly), it seems that the way the encounter goes is heavily influenced by the results of that first, informal attitude test you get at the beginning. I wouldn't expect it to be much different with FAA folks.

Assuming the encounter will be confrontational may make it so when it wouldn't have needed to be otherwise, seems to me---again, depending on the details.
 
I got a phone number once.......just after landing........on my PPL Checkride.

The details are kind of irrelevant, but basically I didn't do anything that violated any FARs, the controller on duty was just in a bad mood and left a message for the controller that followed him. The one I talked to on the phone was polite, told me what happened and asked that I take note of it for the future. I apologized and said I'd keep it in mind and was polite in response. I did this on speakerphone with the DPE sitting next to me. I dont think they even asked for my name. After hanging up the DPE said I was fine and that I still passed.
 
kayoh190 said:
Years ago, I had to talk to Socal TRACON because we flew through an altitude restriction during a departure from ONT. The supervisor I spoke to couldn't have been nicer. He just wanted to know if we understood the procedure, as apparently pilots miss that restriction all the time. I told him we did, and we briefed it thoroughly - we just didn't execute it properly (my FO was flying, but I allowed myself to get distracted and went heads down at the wrong time). I fell on my sword, apologized profusely, he said no harm, no foul, and that was the end of it.

I never heard another word.
Click to expand...
This is how I would imagine it going. As long as you are respectful, own up to what you did, and learn from it I think the FAA will give you the benefit of the doubt.
 
lolachampcar said:
Starts with a guy/gal yelling at you followed by asking for your name. They have your tail number so all they need to do to complete the picture for the FSDO report is the name of the pilot. If you do not call, they do not know who was flying the plane
Click to expand...
There are folks who believe that, but I don't think any of them are practicing aviation attorneys. If you dig through the NTSB reviews of FAA enforcement actions, you'll see that the FAA is very good at establishing the identity of the pilot to the required standard of proof even when the pilot doesn't admit to it.

(not suggesting that you do not call BTW).
Click to expand...
Good, because failure to call is taken as evidence of a noncompliant attitude, and that can turn an administrative response like counseling (which disappears from your record in two years) into an enforcement action (which stays on your record forever).

A NASA ASRS report would be in order.
Click to expand...
Probably, as it might waive the sanction even if it won't prevent a violation from being entered on your record. And the filing of an ASRS report can help show a positive attitude towards safety and compliance.
 
jordane93 said:
This is how I would imagine it going. As long as you are respectful, own up to what you did, and learn from it I think the FAA will give you the benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...

I'd expect it matters what happened.

If I blasted over the Bay at 3000 feet and made airliners scatter every which way, I'd expect things might not go so well even if I owned up to it.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Just as the criminal process can proceed without your information.
Click to expand...
The big difference between an FAA action and a criminal action is not whether those Constitutional protections apply (they do in both cases), but a) whether they have to advise you of your rights before questioning, and b) whether they have to provide an attorney if you cannot afford one yourself.
 
midlifeflyer said:
On self-incrimination, while the 5th Amendment does not apply to FAA enforcement proceedings
Click to expand...
I know you're a lawyer and I'm not, but I'm pretty darn sure your 5th Amendment right to refuse to answer on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate you still applies to an FAA enforcement proceeding. As I understand it, you can certainly refuse to answer an Inspector's questions.

Of course, refusing to answer has several downsides (like not providing any counter to the FAA's information so the FAA's evidence is assumed accurate, and also creating an impression of a noncompliant attitude), but I'm pretty darn sure you can keep your mouth shut (although you can't refuse to produce your pilot documents on request by an authorized agent such as a law enforcement officer or an FAA Inspector).
 
JC150 said:
If you get a number, wouldn't it be best to call a legal team such as aopa or an aviation attorney first to make sure you don't answer any incriminating questions that could be used against you? Or is it better just to cooperate and "go with the flow"?
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with calling and taking notes on what they tell you so you can properly brief your "brief" (bloke talk for your attorney). Just be cautious about answering their questions in a way which admits wrongdoing.

When talking to police, we have the 5th Amendment to protect us from answering incriminating questions. When it comes to FAA inspectors or controllers, do we have a similar right to not answer questions?
Click to expand...
Yes, you do have the right to remain silent, but as stated above there are downsides to taking that position. OTOH, you have no 5th Amendment protection to avoid handing over your pilot documents, including your pilot logbook, as required by regulation, and that has been tested all the way to the US Supreme Court.
 
MAKG1 said:
I'd expect it matters what happened.

If I blasted over the Bay at 3000 feet and made airliners scatter every which way, I'd expect things might not go so well even if I owned up to it.
Click to expand...

It also depends on the reasons for the enforcement, which may not exactly be righteous, and also may not be disclosed (particularly if not quite righteous). I've seen far lesser violations than that draw more enforcement attention than the circumstances warranted. Unfortunately, the airman never really knows until after s/he shows the FAA their throat. At that point, if the FAA wants to be hard-assed (to make some enforcement activity quota, or to make some perceived 'point', whether to the airman and/or others), the cooperative airman has already given away the store.
 
You can keep your mouth shut in either type of proceeding. Main difference is that in a criminal case, no adverse inference can be drawn based on your refusal to testify. In admin matters, your failure to respond may be construed as evidence against you. The standard of proof in admin matters is a mere preponderance of the evidence, much lower than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard (or the intermediate "clear and convincing evidence" standard in, for example, child neglect cases). Admin cases have much looser rules on discovery, exclusion of evidence, use of hearsay, etc. Constitutional guarantees are limited in admin cases, since the government is not depriving you of life or liberty. Less "process" is "due."
 
DJTorrente said:
It also depends on the reasons for the enforcement, which may not exactly be righteous, and also may not be disclosed (particularly if not quite righteous). I've seen far lesser violations than that draw more enforcement attention than the circumstances warranted. Unfortunately, the airman never really knows until after s/he shows the FAA their throat. At that point, if the FAA wants to be hard-assed (to make some enforcement activity quota, or to make some perceived 'point', whether to the airman and/or others), the cooperative airman has already given away the store.
Click to expand...

So the FAA has enforcement quotas? Do you have any evidence of this?
 
I once heard someone in the tower ask a female pilot to call him after some back and forth lighthearted conversation. It wasn't busy. He said something like "Call XXX-XXX-XXXX and ask for Tim and let's talk more about this".

:goofy:

Some may have been infuriated to hear this but I thought it was pretty cool. She did have a sexy voice. I hope the visuals corresponded with the voice for Tim's sake :lol:
 
Ron Levy said:
I know you're a lawyer and I'm not, .
Click to expand...

image.jpg1_zpssegur5rk.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top