Possible Pilot Deviation

nickporter15

nickporter15

Pre-Flight
Joined
Aug 24, 2014
Messages
32
Display Name
Display name:
Nick
Today I was flying within Bravo airspace. I was assigned to fly a 340 heading at 3500 feet. While flying I noticed a 737 on my 9 o'clock flying directly at me. The controller asked if I had the traffic insight I responded that I did, but as the seconds went by and the large jet was closing in I began to get pretty freaked out. Keep in mind I'm in a Piper warrior and I knew the traffic was departing so I figured it was climbing. This is when I panicked and immediately descended to try to get some space. I was completely unaware If the 737 pilot had me in sight and it seemed like the best thing to do. After 10 minutes or so I was given a phone number to call. It turns out the 737 was flying 3000 to avoid me, but I thought he was climbing. Im a 17 year old with just 55 hours and ive never had a plane that close especially one that large. I've felt horrible about my decision all day. Thinking about flying again just makes me nervous. Anyone know anything about this? Will my license be suspended?
 
What happened when you called the phone number?
 
It's hard to say for sure what will happen. Since you did make the requested phone call, and you provided your explanation of why you took emergency evasive action in response to what you perceived as an immediate threat, the odds are it won't go any further. You might receive a call from an FAA Inspector at the FSDO to discuss this further and counsel you on the importance of doing what the controller says in situations like this, but the odds are against any sort of enforcement action as long as you demonstrate a positive attitude towards safety and compliance in your phone conversations with ATC and (if it happens) the FSDO -- and it sounds like that's where your thinking is at this point.

You should also consider filing a NASA ASRS report about the event, and it's important that you do that within 10 days from when it occurred. This will help educate others about the lesson you learned as well as provide waiver of any certificate action (like a suspension) in the unlikely event the FSDO chooses to pursue an enforcement action.
 
In addition to Ron's advise, consider touring ATC facilities to learn about their jobs and how to work with them. A simple radio call expressing your concern with the traffic would have resolved your valid concerns.

ATC is generally great and they work with pilots very well - it's their job but you also have to work with them.
 
Did you call them as you descended, or did you just descend and hang out with out saying anything?

nickporter15 said:
Im a 17 year old with just 55 hours
Click to expand...

It'd be best to get out of that mindset now. You're a pilot, that's a big responsibility, with big consequences. The airplane doesn't care about your age or hours.
 
Last edited:
First, are you a student pilot or private?
If student, do you have your class b endorsement?

Either way, start by talking to your CFI. You really need to have an experienced adult involved. There are a lot of follow on questions, such as: did the controller inform you that the traffic would be passing under you at 3000? Get your instructor involved now, since there's a good chance the FSDO inspector may want to talk to your instructor about the training you received. You may also wish to file a ASRS report.

You may want to voluntarily receive ground and flight instruction regarding class b operations. There's a chance you may be asked to do a "709 ride", basically an abbreviated check ride associated with the type of operation in question.

As far as getting your licenses suspended, there's a good chance youth and inexperience will work in your favor. Either way, go into things with a good attitude, and you should be fine. Take responsibility for your actions, and remember whether you're 17yo and 55 hours, or 57yo and 5,500 hours, your responsibilities are the same.
 
ATC will tell you had a PD and the case will be referred to the local FSDO inspector. FSDO calls, be nice and don't try and hide anything. ATC has the proof of the violation anyway so it doesn't do any good to lie. FSDO will most likely give you a letter of caution. Just be polite and take your medicine.

In the future, listen carefully to what ATC is telling you. The aircraft was at 3,000, you're at 3,500, you're good. If there's confusion, ask them what the plan is.
 
The controller did not aware me he would be flying under me, so I descended just after descending I got a little earful and climbed back up. When I called I gave him my info, name, license number etc. And explained my side of the story. I also filled out a NASA report as soon as I got home.
 
nickporter15 said:
The controller did not aware me he would be flying under me, so I descended just after descending I got a little earful and climbed back up. When I called I gave him my info, name, license number etc. And explained my side of the story. I also filled out a NASA report as soon as I got home.
Click to expand...

What was the traffic call ATC gave you?
 
Two questions.

Did ATC specifically notify you on the frequency about a possible pilot deviation when the controller issued you a phone number?

Was your clearance in the Bravo to maintain VFR at or below/above 3500, or to maintain 3500 and fly heading 340?
 
You had time between when you saw the 73, and when you dove... that would have been a good time to get clarification from ATC about the traffic.
 
nickporter15 said:
The controller did not aware me he would be flying under me, so I descended just after descending I got a little earful and climbed back up. When I called I gave him my info, name, license number etc. And explained my side of the story.
Click to expand...
Relax. It's out of your hands, and unless they said they were filing a Pilot Deviation report, they probably aren't -- controllers hate paperwork as much as the rest of us.
I also filled out a NASA report as soon as I got home.
Click to expand...
Good.

Now go, and sin no more.
 
Traffic call was: "...ND Do you have traffic insight?" I responded that I had it insight. That was all. I was assigned to stay at 3500. Descending was just my initial reaction in attempt to avoid the traffic.
 
nickporter15 said:
Traffic call was: "...ND Do you have traffic insight?" I responded that I had it insight. That was all. I was assigned to stay at 3500. Descending was just my initial reaction in attempt to avoid the traffic.
Click to expand...

I'm referring to the initial traffic call they gave you. Example- "N12345, traffic 9 o'clock, 5 miles eastbound, 737 level three thousand." What did the controller issue you?

Either way it doesn't matter. If they did tell you it was a PD on the phone, like I said, FSDO will most likely get a hold of it and you'll just get a scolding. What's in your favor is that you had visual before descending out of your assigned altitude.
 
When you fill out the NASA report do not put anything about a violation in the title field - leave it generic - "Class B Separation" or something.
 
Re-read 91.3 and leave it at that. Every single flight review I give goes over 91.3 specifically for this reason. "For reasons of safety aboard my aircraft, I blah blah blah..."

Take it for what it is worth, a guy on the internet telling you about duties and responsibilities as PIC. I think you did what you thought was prudent and applicable to the situation at hand with the information available.
 
nickporter15 said:
Traffic call was: "...ND Do you have traffic insight?" I responded that I had it insight. That was all. I was assigned to stay at 3500. Descending was just my initial reaction in attempt to avoid the traffic.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was poor communication on the part of the controller. "...traffic at your 3 o'clock (wherever) 3000' will pass below you, remain at or above 3500'" should have been his call. The "do you have traffic in sight?" Isn't particularly clear as to where to go with that, makes it sound "see and avoid".
 
Henning said:
Yeah, that was poor communication on the part of the controller. "...traffic at your 3 o'clock (wherever) 3000' will pass below you, remain at or above 3500'" should have been his call. The "do you have traffic in sight?" Isn't particularly clear as to where to go with that, makes it sound "see and avoid".
Click to expand...

That, and issue a "caution--wake turbulence" to the 737! lol

Wells
 
nickporter15 said:
Today I was flying within Bravo airspace. I was assigned to fly a 340 heading at 3500 feet. While flying I noticed a 737 on my 9 o'clock flying directly at me. The controller asked if I had the traffic insight I responded that I did, but as the seconds went by and the large jet was closing in I began to get pretty freaked out. Keep in mind I'm in a Piper warrior and I knew the traffic was departing so I figured it was climbing. This is when I panicked and immediately descended to try to get some space. I was completely unaware If the 737 pilot had me in sight and it seemed like the best thing to do. After 10 minutes or so I was given a phone number to call. It turns out the 737 was flying 3000 to avoid me, but I thought he was climbing. Im a 17 year old with just 55 hours and ive never had a plane that close especially one that large. I've felt horrible about my decision all day. Thinking about flying again just makes me nervous. Anyone know anything about this? Will my license be suspended?
Click to expand...

Did the controller tell you that traffic was at 3000?
 
nickporter15 said:
Traffic call was: "...ND Do you have traffic insight?" I responded that I had it insight. That was all. I was assigned to stay at 3500. Descending was just my initial reaction in attempt to avoid the traffic.
Click to expand...

There must have been something said prior to that; direction, distance, altitude, type of aircraft?
 
Last edited:
MarkZ said:
Two questions.

Did ATC specifically notify you on the frequency about a possible pilot deviation when the controller issued you a phone number?
Click to expand...
The title of the thread suggests he did.

Might go further; might not. You are asking because you know that those words are a prelude to a possible enforcement action. Might be time to discuss with someone knowledgeable other than SGOTI who has no skin in the game.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
The title of the thread suggests he did.



Might go further; might not. You are asking because you know that those words are a prelude to a possible enforcement action. Might be time to discuss with someone knowledgeable other than SGOTI who has no skin in the game.
Click to expand...


Yes, that was my point. Thank you.
 
Nick, get back to us in a couple of weeks or however long it takes? We'd be interested to hear how it all plays out.
Thanks.
 
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.
 
I could understand why they were upset. You're at 3500' the 73 is at 3000' and your avoidance maneuver was to descend toward the 73's altitude.
 
If this was recent you can find it on the LiveATC archives. You'll need the time of day to find the archive.
 
Next time VERIFY before changing anything.

We all have been there, but don't go just changing altitudes when given a close proximity pointout.

With modern systems, a pile up can happen because you descend, the airliner gets an RA (TCAS tells them to change altitude, and they do, and HAVE to report it) and if there is other close traffic, other RA's ca happen and its a big mess.
 
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...

You may be able to listen to the conversation by checking the archive on this Web site:

http://www.liveatc.net
 
Henning said:
Yeah, that was poor communication on the part of the controller. "...traffic at your 3 o'clock (wherever) 3000' will pass below you, remain at or above 3500'" should have been his call.
Click to expand...
Not in Class B airspace. The controller had already assigned 3500, and in Class B, there is no more that need be said. Separation is the controller's responsibility, and the traffic call is merely advisory. If in that situation you're actually on a collision course, then (assuming you're where you belong), either the other pilot or the controller has already made a big mistake, and you can no longer rely on what the controller said, so what the controller said wouldn't matter much at that point and you must maneuver as you see necessary to avoid that impending collision.
 
Last edited:
I understand I am the one at fault here. I am taking at as a learning lesson. Another question is should I even fly again until I here from the FAA? Or IF I hear from them?
 
nickporter15 said:
I understand I am the one at fault here...
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure. You did what you did because you were concerned about safety, specifically, you thought you were in danger of a collision. That meets the definition of an emergency. And if, as you say, he did not tell you the 737's altitude, that means that the only thing you had to go on was what you saw out the window. Of course, if there was time, it would have been beneficial to tell the controller about your concern, so that he or she could resolve it by telling you what the plan was.
 
Palmpilot said:
I'm not so sure. You did what you did because you were concerned about safety, specifically, you thought you were in danger of a collision. That meets the definition of an emergency. And if, as you say, he did not tell you the 737's altitude, that means that the only thing you had to go on was what you saw out the window. Of course, if there was time, it would have been beneficial to tell the controller about your concern, so that he or she could resolve it by telling you what the plan was.
Click to expand...

Yeah but you have to draw a line here. You just can't have pilots deviating around when applicable seperation already exists. That deviation can make the situation even worse. 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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top