Possible Pilot Deviation

[Fearless Tower]

I don't think the problem was that he started the turn at 700' instead of 400'. The problem was that he didn't turn to the 190 heading and intercept the radial.

It isn't really clear. According to the original post, he said he DID turn, but he 'waited' until he was at 700' to start the turn. But then when queried by ATC about the DP, he told them he wasn't familiar. So, I'm not sure if he didn't really understand the turn or he was just caught off guard and fessed' up when he shouldn't have?

 

[Fearless Tower]

I agree I think I put my foot in my mouth when I said I was not familiar with the DP after I already accepting it and was on climb out. My intentions were to gain some altitude then do a climbing right turn to intercept my course, however the DP indicates I should have turned sooner.

Is that all you did wrong: delay the turn slightly? The DP doesn't say turn at 300', 400' or 700'. It just says turn. It is up to you as the PIC to initiate the turn when it is safe and reasonable to do so. Now. there is a climb gradient specified, so the only thing that I can think that ATC thought was odd was if you were in a very shallow climb and thus going farther out on runway heading than expected. If you were in a VY initial climb, I seriously doubt that ATC would have even questioned the delayed turn at 700'.

Now telling ATC that you accepted a DP and were not familiar with it....that seems more likely the reason they gave you a number to call.

 

[coma24]

Fearless Tower, one of his posts said, "
This is essentially how I flew it, granted I was vectored after I acknowledged that I was not familiar with the DP"

His graphic shows an initial turn to the east, not the south. The fact that ATC questioned it, combined with the graphic, implies that he didn't turn to a 190 heading. That was what the got the ball rolling. I'm still curious what the plan was after takeoff. What heading were you intending to fly, and/or what fix were you heading towards?

 

[Everskyward]

Even when there is an initial turn involved in a DP, they are designed so that you climb straight ahead until 400 AGL before starting the turn. If you are in a slow climbing airplane, it might take a while to get to 400', let alone 700', but I can't see that this in itself would be a reason for ATC to question it.

 

[ARFlyer]

And people say honesty with ATC will never get you in trouble....

The few times I've screwed up I was honest with ATC and they let it slide with a good tongue lashing.

 

[mscard88]

The few times I've screwed up I was honest with ATC and they let it slide with a good tongue lashing.

Yeah that's been my experience too. Especially in the airline world ATC knows the pain a pilot would experience if their ticket was suspended. Referring to minor incidents, not serious ones.

 

[MAKG1]

Fearless Tower, one of his posts said, "
This is essentially how I flew it, granted I was vectored after I acknowledged that I was not familiar with the DP"

His graphic shows an initial turn to the east, not the south. The fact that ATC questioned it, combined with the graphic, implies that he didn't turn to a 190 heading. That was what the got the ball rolling. I'm still curious what the plan was after takeoff. What heading were you intending to fly, and/or what fix were you heading towards?

The graphic also shows a nearly 6 mile climb to 700 feet. I hope it's just not to scale, but GLI VOR is 4 miles from the airport.

The DP also has a minimum climb rate of 317 feet per mile, so that 700 feet should have occurred around 2 miles out, not 6.

 

[mscard88]

The graphic also shows a nearly 6 mile climb to 700 feet. I hope it's just not to scale, but GLI VOR is 4 miles from the airport.

The DP also has a minimum climb rate of 317 feet per mile, so that 700 feet should have occurred around 2 miles out, not 6.

This is what I'm thinking may have caused his problem too. Too far out on runway heading before turning.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Of course an attorney is going to tell you to seek out an attorney, it's business.

In my time on the other side of the fence I can tell you that some of the times the "aviation attorneys" got involved they only made the situation worse. Not all attorneys are created equal, and not all "aviation attorneys" a true aviation law expert. Some of those guys hold no more than a private license and have about the same knowledge as your average pilot.

Fact is today the FAA has few resources and most pilot deviations end with a phone counseling or maybe a letter of warning. Under the new compliance philosophy the airman will usually be offered remedial training unless he shows an attitude of non compliance.

Whatever you do, don't take a stick and poke it at the rattlesnake.

Of course someone with FAA connections is going to tell someone not to seek advice before deciding to speak with the FAA and, if so, what to say.. It's good for the enforcement business.

Sorry you had bad personal experiences with some attorneys. So have I. I bet I can tell many more stories than you can about lawyers who have, have, knowingly or unknowingly, does immense disservices to their clients by acting as thought their job was to yell and scream impotently. And in situations far more important than a simple deviation.

I can also relate experiences involving FSDO inspectors who made mountains out of molehills and created problems for pilots and mechanics they should not have. I assume you can also - so is that reason not never speak to a FSDO?

 

[ARFlyer]

Yeah that's been my experience too. Especially in the airline world ATC knows the pain a pilot would experience if their ticket was suspended. Referring to minor incidents, not serious ones.

I always double check if I'm at all in-doubt about what was said by ATC.

Only time I'm quiet is on the ground at O'Hare. You just listen and try your best to follow...

 

[midlifeflyer]

I did not read Mark's post as self-serving. I'm not an attorney, and I'm certainly no expert in this area, but as someone who's very passionate about aviation and has spent a lot of time, money, and effort to become a good pilot, I would absolutely go talk to a professional who can help me mitigate the risk of losing my flying privilege.

For all his knowledge and experience, R&W has a blind spot. He's sees attorneys solely as obstructionists and ignores statements like

Yes. This is the time to consult with a lawyer. No. That's not for the purpose of having a mad dog barking impotently at the FAA. It's for the purpose of having someone evaluate the situation and guide you through the process so you don't spend unproductive time beating yourself up about it.​

I obviously can't speak for anyone else but, unless the case goes to the level of a Notice of Proposed Certificate Action - that's when the legal enforcement process begins - it is rare for the FAA to even be aware I am involved. My goal is to avoid that Notice when I can.

 

[RotorAndWing]

For all his knowledge and experience, R&W has a blind spot. He's sees attorneys solely as obstructionists and ignores statements like

Yes. This is the time to consult with a lawyer. No. That's not for the purpose of having a mad dog barking impotently at the FAA. It's for the purpose of having someone evaluate the situation and guide you through the process so you don't spend unproductive time beating yourself up about it.​

I obviously can't speak for anyone else but, unless the case goes to the level of a Notice of Proposed Certificate Action - that's when the legal enforcement process begins - it is rare for the FAA to even be aware I am involved. My goal is to avoid that Notice when I can.

98% of the attorneys make the other 2% look bad.

In the case of the OP IMO is a case of overkill, but hey, make the call and throw the money away, or better yet hope Joe Ace, Esq. "Aviation Attorney" doesn't turn what would have been one phone call and over into a larger event. Remember, attorneys bill by the hour, so if your case escalates, well you get the rest.

Sorry, I've seen some real buffoonery when it comes to "aviation attorneys". And yes, I've seen my share in the government service as well.

 

[Harold Rutila]

My $.02: There is an admission of guilt on record. The pilot deviation process was started as indicated by the account of the controller's "Possible pilot deviation" phraseology, meaning there is a report going to the FSDO. This deviation will carry more weight than a newly-minted VFR pilot screwing up. (I've seen plenty of those.) Just because there's a "new compliance philosophy" as nearly every aviation e-magazine has pointed out for months on end (when will it stop?), this doesn't mean the inspector is going to let you off easy. It is a fairly serious mistake as you have already indicated, despite the lack of conflicting traffic.

I'd be making changes to my departure checklists, receiving and logging some training on SIDs as others have mentioned, and at least consulting with an aviation attorney for additional guidance. You don't want anyone shooting off letters to the FSDO, but you want someone who is familiar with the handling of recent pilot deviations.

 

[drgwentzel]

Hello,


I completed a NASA report within 24hrs and felt like I learned a lesson and won't repeat it again.

In your opinion, what is the likelihood that I am violated and get a call from the FSDO in the upcoming days? And if I am contacted, should I consult with an aviation lawyer first? Naturally my fear is a 709 ride or a suspension...etc. I've been beating myself up all day thinking about the unknowns.

I didn't read through all the posts, I'm not a lawyer, and did not research this, so take this for the off the cuff comment it is:

I believe standard wisdom in the non-towered IFR world is to climb runway heading until at least 400' AGL before turning because that is your guaranteed protected area. The DP didn't specify an altitude other than a climbing right turn to 190 degrees and intercept the GLJ R-130. So you were 700' when you turned right, but you were in uncontrolled airspace until you were 700' AGL (inside the fuzzy magenta area). Hmmmm....

I don't think anyone wants to make trouble for you if there was no loss of separation. You filled out a NASA form and that's the best you can do. I also don't think you need a lawyer unless someone at the FSDO dials you up <--- hey! Not trying to show my age, but do we still "dial people up"? Is that phrase still in use? Ok, another post for that conversation.

Lastly, if you do get a call and they ask you to write a simple email describing what happened, tell them you will, but then contact an attorney and TOGETHER you will compose said email, to make sure your second foot does not enter your mouth.

In conclusion, don't sweat it, they have bigger fish to fry and learn from the situation....and thanks for sharing so we all can learn!

Gene Wentzel - CFII

 

[N801BH]

I didn't read through all the posts, I'm not a lawyer, and did not research this, so take this for the off the cuff comment it is:

I believe standard wisdom in the non-towered IFR world is to climb runway heading until at least 400' AGL before turning because that is your guaranteed protected area. The DP didn't specify an altitude other than a climbing right turn to 190 degrees and intercept the GLJ R-130. So you were 700' when you turned right, but you were in uncontrolled airspace until you were 700' AGL (inside the fuzzy magenta area). Hmmmm....

I don't think anyone wants to make trouble for you if there was no loss of separation. You filled out a NASA form and that's the best you can do. I also don't think you need a lawyer unless someone at the FSDO dials you up <--- hey! Not trying to show my age, but do we still "dial people up"? Is that phrase still in use? Ok, another post for that conversation.

In conclusion, don't sweat it, they have bigger fish to fry and learn from the situation....and thanks for sharing so we all can learn!

Gene Wentzel - CFII

I agree.....
That DP needs some additional work / specifications from the FAA.. IMHO...

 

[John Collins]

Regs state that no turns should be made prior to 400 feet. Its hard to believe they would have busted you for starting your turn at 700 feet. My guess is you were OK until you admitted you were not familiar with the procedure. Oh well. Live and learn.

What regulation?

 

[John Collins]

IFR procedures are to climb to 400', and past the end of the runway, before turning unless the departure procedure specifies otherwise.

The AIM recommendation for VFR traffic patterns is to continue the departure/upwind leg until within 300' of the traffic pattern altitude before turning crosswind.

Do you have a reference for the "and past the end of the runway" portion of your statement?

 

[N801BH]

Depart Runway 30, Buelt Two DP then SBAN51 route.

This is essentially how I flew it, granted I was vectored after I acknowledged that I was not familiar with the DP

Look at the printed DP the OP posted....

I hope the drawing is NOT to scale since it suggests a 180 turn after departing from 30 and the radius of that turn is DAMN tight... IMHO..

 

[Everskyward]

The 400' before making a turn is not a regulation but has to do with how DPs are designed. From the FAA Instrument Procedures Handbook.

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_pol...ument_procedures_handbook/media/Chapter_1.pdf

Page 1-14

Unless specifed otherwise, required obstacle clearance for all departures, including diverse, is based on the pilot crossing the departure end of the runway (DER) at least 35 feet above the DER elevation, climbing to 400 feet above the DER elevation before making the initial turn, and maintaining a minimum climb gradient of 200 feet per nautical mile (FPNM), unless required to level off by a crossing restriction until the minimum IFR altitude is reached.

 

[ejensen]

It was easier before SMX got radar coverage