Possible Pilot Deviation

Velocity173 said:
Yeah but you have to draw a line here.
Click to expand...

The line is drawn in 14 CFR 91.3. The pilot in command thought he was in danger of a collision, and took evasive action per 91.3(b).

You just can't have pilots deviating around when applicable seperation already exists.
Click to expand...

According to the OP, he was not informed that separation already existed. I've noticed that the controllers in my area are consistent about saying that traffic is restricted above or below, as the case may be, but from the OP's description of events, that may have been missing in this situation.

That deviation can make the situation even worse.
Click to expand...

It does sound like the evasive action he took made things worse instead of better, but we can't assume that pilot-initiated evasive action will always make things worse. I don't think it's a wise idea to discourage pilots from responding to dangers that they see out the window. I mentioned that if there was time, the appropriate thing to do was to query the controller, but if there wasn't, then the priority has to be "aviate, navigate, communicate," in that order.

If this was a wake turbulence deal then I could understand. Judging by the OP's description, ATC had the situation under control, his inexperience lead him to take a course of action that wasn't necessary. If you fly VFR around Class B & C on a regular basis, aircraft passing with 500 ft vertical is the norm.
Click to expand...

Since one of the pilots thought there was danger of a collision, it sounds like ATC did not have the situation sufficiently under control.
 
^^^One pilot did not judge the situation safe=ATC did not have situation under control.

If he would have barreled into the 737 or vis-versa we would be saying, he shouldn't rely solely on ATC.
 
ATC is required to ensure positive separation in Class B airspace. Unless wake turbulence separation minima requires, that would be 1.5 NM/500 FT between VFR and IFR aircraft. At no point is the controller required to inform you that the controller is performing his/her required duties.

To the OP. Without seeing radar replay coupled with audio, the advice given here is done on the assumption of facts not present. If the FAA doesn't call you, then you have nothing to worry about. If separation was lost as a result of the deviation, then there might or might not be a call. The advice to fill out an ASRS form, coupled with a proper attitude should you receive a FSDO call appears to be the most sound advice to follow.
 
Palmpilot said:
According to the OP, he was not informed that separation already existed.
Click to expand...
This was in Class B airspace, in which by definition separation between all aircraft is provided by ATC. Traffic advisories in Class B are only that -- advisory, so the pilot knows the controller knows about both aircraft and is keeping them separated without the pilot's help. In Class B airspace, either the controller must err or the other pilot must deviate before there can be any loss of separation, so you must be convinced that you really are on a collision course before you take avoidance action -- no altering heading or altitude just as a precautionary measure.

Of course, once you are so convinced, 91.3 allows you to do what you must in order to avoid a collision. Since that is apparently what happened with the OP, if the FSDO calls, that's what he should tell them. It's hard for the FAA to second guess one's perception of an impending collision, and as I said above, if the FSDO does get involved, I see the most likely outcome being some counseling on this issue, not any sort of enforcement action, and maybe not even a Warning Notice (the actual term for what someone above called a "letter of caution"), which would be an administrative action, not enforcement.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
...In Class B airspace, either the controller must err or the other pilot must deviate before there can be any loss of separation, so you must be convinced that you really are on a collision course before you take avoidance action -- no altering heading or altitude just as a precautionary measure...
Click to expand...

I think of it the opposite way. I think that if the pilot is not convinced that a collision will not occur, then the pilot should take whatever action is necessary to become convinced, for example, by querying ATC if there's time, or initiating evasive action if there is not. As always, my goal is to survive long enough to attend the hearing.
 
Palmpilot said:
I think that if the pilot is not convinced that a collision will not occur, then the pilot should take whatever action is necessary to become convinced,
Click to expand...
I don't think positive control could function with that sort of thinking -- too anarchical within Class B airspace.
 
Nick, it's great that you're posting and learning from this. It sounds like 3 issues were at play:
1) you didn't have good situational awareness regarding the separation plan for you and the 737. If you listen closely to the instructions being given to the traffic around you, you can build a picture of what's going on. Or, you might get lucky and the controller will just spell out what's going on, ie, "the 737 will remain below you."

2) you didn't have working knowledge or confidence in the fact that ATC separates ALL traffic in the Bravo. Unless you heard, "maintain visual separation from the 737" after you reported in sight (which would remove ATC's obligation to provide separation), you can rest assured that your current heading and assigned altitude will not result in you hitting anything.

3) you should probably try to get more experience with what traffic looks like when it passes with minimum separation. 500-1000ft sounds like a lot...but to the untrained eye, it can look/feel like you're going to hit.

It's great that you took what you thought was emergency authority to avoid a situation from developing, but if you were at 3500 and the 737 was restricted to 3000, a descent just makes no sense. Had the above issues not existed, you would've had the info you needed to say, "this is going to look worse than it is, but I'm good here at 3500", then I would've watched the 737 like a hawk.

Try to build a better practical understanding of the separation afforded to traffic in Class B/C airspace, and lastly, if you think there's a chance the controller is missing somethin, or the other plane isn't doing what he's supposed to, or for ANY other reason, don't be afraid to speak up, "What's the altitude on that 737?" It matters not if the controller is testy in his/her reply, you'll get the info you need to feel confident that separation is being actively maintained if you don't have it already.

As for not flying again, that's probably an over reaction. Fix the issues that exist, and then go back to enjoying flying. There are worse ways to learn lessons than this. You didn't bend any metal, nobody got hurt, and you built valuable experience. Don't make it more than it is.
 
Coma, be aware that it's not unusual for departing traffic in Class B to be on a different frequency from arriving or transitioning traffic. The 737's radio calls may not be available.

And I'm not to comfy telling someone to just trust ATC, as I've been vectored to clouds and told to turn base while on the ground a few too many times. But, questioning ATC's intent rather than presuming a climb was called for.
 
Last edited:
MAKG1 said:
Coma, be aware that it's not unusual for departing traffic in Class B to be on a different frequency from arriving or transitioning traffic. The 737's radio calls may not be available.
Click to expand...


That has been my experience when maneuvering in the bravo around CLE and DTW.
 
I hope you have AOPA's legal service plan. If you do, don't say anything until you talk to them. Keep details of the PD to yourself and don't post anything publicly on the net. FAA is always monitored pilot forums looking to burn people.:rockon:
 
Last edited:
I've actually never flown in class B, but it seems like ATC should be a little more informative about the traffic, and the young fellow should have called and asked for more information. However, even in the Class C that I have flown in regularly, it can be quite difficult to get a word in at times. I can't imagine the radio traffic in Class B. Sounds like the young man didn't have a whole lot of time to get his call in and have a discussion. I can tell you this, I have had a controller put me and a T-6 Texan within about 100-200 feet of each other in an airspace with only about 4 planess in it. It appeared that the Texan actually leveled off out of his climb to avoid me, and frankly, I don't think the controller even knew it was going on. I was with a CFI, and we were where the controller told us to be.

Sounds to me like there is a little fault on both the controller and the pilot, but not severe enough to get anyone into trouble. Hopfully it all blows over without too much hassle.

Heck, I'm not all that much more experienced than this young man, but that's my $.02.
 
Velocity173 said:
I hope you have AOPA's legal service plan. If you do, don't say anything until you talk to them. Keep details of the PD to yourself and don't post anything publicly on the net. FAA is always monitored pilot forums looking to burn people.
Click to expand...
You forgot the sarcasm emoticon.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Based on a a very unscientific survey the most common type of enforcement action, at least in the IFR world, is an altitude deviation. They can be completely accidental (misunderstanding or incorrect number entry), the result of an emergency (loss of altitude during an engine out); or an intentional act by the pilot (which could be for a number of reasons).

IFR or VFR, if the deviation from ATC instruction involves a loss of separation, it's common to go further than the initial discussion, although how much further is always a question.

McFly makes the point.
Click to expand...

How much further it goes is all up to your attitude. How do you come across? Have you given thought and reflection? Have you accepted the error as your own?

Here is the real biggie they are looking for: Is it likely to happen again? That is determined by your attitude and remedial education. . The OP doesn't sound like he has a bad attitude and openly accepts that he made an error, and now know the correct procedure to follow in any future similar circumstance. Really and truly, that's all the FAA really wants out of you at this point.
 
First things first for the OP, seeking clarification from the controller would have been the prudent course of action (if possible). I fly fairly routinely through Bravo airspace and I know that the radio can sometimes be busy though, so a timely call isn't necessarily possible.

Secondly, while controllers have that duty to provide separation, I fully believe they also have the duty of firmly communicating plans of action. The other traffic was in on the plan, but you were not (as you remember it). For example, one time ATC was bringing in a faster plane with an emergency while I was headed back to land at SLC. The controller clearly told me that the other traffic would be passing 500 ft below, and for me to maintain altitude. It's simple, and it keeps us all to be operating on the same page.

You might want to consider recording audio on your flights so you can go back and see if you missed something. I plug in a voice recorder into the intercom system for nearly every flight. Usually I delete the recordings after, but if something interesting happens you have a ready record of it.
 
Exactly, if you are under a clearance from ATC, if you have a question about what is supposed to be happening, you ask before you act unless you are in extremis.
 
Flying in class B is like being half IFR. Being a new pilot once and being a controller now I'm taking a wild guess and imagining if the tapes are replayed it went something like this. Traffic 12 O'Clock 5 miles ::holy cow thats a huge jet:: ...ee. Even the laziest controllers with the worst phraseology I've met will tell you Boeing seven three leveling 500 feet below. And yeah, a narrow body commercial jet looks frightening at 500 vertical.

I'd suggest asking (like so many here have) before evading if time permits. Because on my end even in flat country, jets off the main airport climb to 5, props to 3. If I HAVE to I can shut down tower to 3,000 on initial climb out on jets too. I read that the initial post and frankly had a nightmare situation where a Cessna dive bombs a Boeing who RA's below my MVA cascading into another departure.
 
Henning said:
How much further it goes is all up to your attitude. How do you come across? Have you given thought and reflection? Have you accepted the error as your own?

Here is the real biggie they are looking for: Is it likely to happen again? That is determined by your attitude and remedial education. . The OP doesn't sound like he has a bad attitude and openly accepts that he made an error, and now know the correct procedure to follow in any future similar circumstance. Really and truly, that's all the FAA really wants out of you at this point.
Click to expand...
Pilot attitude is always an important factor in how far any viiolation goes,just as it is in everything from a traffic stop to murder. In the case of an FAA deviation, there are quite a number of steps from "call this number" to ALJ hearing where attitude becomes a factor.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
You forgot the sarcasm emoticon.
Click to expand...
Why sarcasm? That was hardly "lawyer up and say nothing." if it was than I guess my post very early in the thread said it long before the comment.

Interesting thread. Giving me a lot of ideas for the next iteration of an enforcement seminar for pilots I give periodically.
 
Last edited:
OP, some good comments in this thread. Lots of good advice, and obviously you learned something. The first time you see another airplane out your window, it looks HUGE, I don't care how far away it is.

I haven't seen this mentioned, so I'll briefly address it: If something is going to hit you it's not going to be moving in your windscreen...but it's going to look like it's getting bigger. That's called constant bearing, decreasing range (CBDR). The other plane doesn't have to have it's nose on you, you may be on a collision course that intersects somewhere out in front of you. The rate at which it is getting bigger will give you an idea of how long it's going to be until it hits you.

If the other plane is moving across your windscreen even a little bit (i.e., fore to aft, up, down, etc.), then your planes are not going to collide...unless you change course to make it happen.

Finally, the biggest lesson here is that you saw the other plane. If you can see it, and it hasn't hit you yet, then you have time to make a determination on how to avoid it. 99 times out of 100, planes that see each other don't hit each other, even if only one pilot has a visual. I think you've got big balls to take on Class B in a prop, without a cloud card, and <100 hours. Next time give it a couple of potatoes, talk to ATC, and then finally maneuver to avoid if necessary.
 
Last edited:
nickporter15 said:
My memory is a bit foggy on exactly what the controller said because it just happened fast. I do know that he did not state the 73's altitude. I believe he said "n12345 traffic 10 o'clock 2miles" I responded that I had the traffic in sight. Nothing on its altitude. Like I said I know it was departing traffic and to me he appeared to he climbing which is why I made the decision to make an avoidance maneuver. I will post if I here from the faa but after talking to an older pilot friend who knows a lot of the guys at that tower, it doesn't sound like anything serious should come from it.
Click to expand...

Nothing here makes much sense. Traffic advisories and merging target procedures both call for stating the altitude. Those procedures are not actually required in your situation but IME most controllers call traffic even when it's not actually required. If a controller is going to call traffic he oughta make a complete call, include the altitude.

What was the purpose of asking you if you had the 737 in sight? It doesn't appear that it was for use of visual separation as he continued use of vertical separation after you reported it in sight.
 
MarkZ said:
ATC is required to ensure positive separation in Class B airspace. Unless wake turbulence separation minima requires, that would be 1.5 NM/500 FT between VFR and IFR aircraft. At no point is the controller required to inform you that the controller is performing his/her required duties.
Click to expand...

True, the controller was not required to mention the other aircraft at all. But he did, he called attention to an aircraft that was not a threat. Why? Making the call in the manner that he did suggests there's cause for concern.
 
My only comment(s) to the OP (who has been ragged on pretty thoroughly) is that next time consider turning away rather than diving as an evasive maneuver.

The reason here is that oncoming traffic, under ATC control, is likely to be coming at you 500 foot up or down from your assigned altitude. It is less likely to be coming at you at the same altitude. Most of the ATC directed planes at your altitude will be moving in roughly the same direction.
And 500-1000 foot up or down will likely be the other direction.

If a wild aircraft goes blasting through the B, scattering airplanes like a fox just walked through the hen house, likely every single evasive maneuver will be to turn away - rather than "jump the median into the other lane" (i.e. change altitude)

Now, as some have mentioned, ATC is not infallible. One wild and dark night departing after a fuel stop the departure controller sent me on a vector towards the invisible mountain and promptly forgot me. Well, we were heavy and it was hot and the climb rate was soggy at best. Finally when my watch said the mountain had to be nigh (before the days of GPS moving maps) I called ATC and at the same moment began to turn away. He came back to me instantly and in a voice two octaves higher urged me to turn right "right now"
So ATC can mess up (they usually don't) so you need to, as Goose Urged Maverick, "do some of the pilot ****" sometimes.

Me last comment: that big iron looks really BIG when it is coming right at you, eh!

cordially
 
Question:
If he had had an ADS-B in like a stratus or Gdl39 would that have told him what the 737 was doing?
 
TIS would say he was level, but frankly, it's easier just to ask. A potential collision is an extraordinarily bad time to go heads down, even for a moment.
 
woodchucker said:
You might want to consider recording audio on your flights so you can go back and see if you missed something. I plug in a voice recorder into the intercom system for nearly every flight. Usually I delete the recordings after, but if something interesting happens you have a ready record of it.
Click to expand...
If you don't mind, would you mind giving more details on what you use and how do you use it?
 
midlifeflyer said:
Pilot attitude is always an important factor in how far any viiolation goes,just as it is in everything from a traffic stop to murder. In the case of an FAA deviation, there are quite a number of steps from "call this number" to ALJ hearing where attitude becomes a factor.
Click to expand...

The prime route to an ALJ hearing is to call an aviation attorney when you did something wrong.:rofl:
 
The recording of the whole event might be in the archives on liveatc.net. I would suggest looking for it so you can refresh your memory of exactly what happened.
 
Rigged4Flight said:
If you don't mind, would you mind giving more details on what you use and how do you use it?
Click to expand...

Just a digital voice recorder, with the adapter that plugs inline with the headset. Records all cockpit communications (with pax and atc). I really got a lot of use out of it during training. I could review everything my CFI said when I was busy trying to keep the plane in the air, as well as review radio calls that were made. Now, like I mentioned, I still typically record my flights, but rarely listen to them. I guess in the unfortunate case of an accident it can give investigators a CVR to hear the screaming. :D
 
roncachamp said:
There must have been something said prior to that; direction, distance, altitude, type of aircraft?
Click to expand...

nickporter15 said:
... I'm a 17 year old with just 55 hours and I've never had a plane that close especially one that large. ...
Click to expand...

Probably the traffic was called properly but the OP's nervousness and inexperience did not allow him to parse out "level 3,000." We've all missed calls or incompletely registered them, including the ever-popular "Was that for us?" Credit to him for apparently handling the phone call well, for coming here to learn, and for filling the NASA report.

I have a friend who has like 30,000 hours and typed in pretty much everything. His definition of "a flight" is this: "A series of small mistakes."
 
So we have three pages of advice and speculation and no one has asked the question "did you call the number they gave you yet?" If you would have called soon after you landed the controller you talked to would have probably been there and you could have probably worked out the problem. Now its been three days and the longer you wait I imagine they will get more ****ed off from not having heard from you. Don
 
Not a controller, but since aircraft move faster horizontally than they do vertically, I've got a hunch that altitude is the main method of separation? :dunno:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top