Should I Submit ASRS for this?

VWGhiaBob

VWGhiaBob

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
884
Display Name
Display name:
VWGhiaBob
On flight following, I was handed off to the tower today. The tower told me 3 times to land on 31L, which I acknowleged. Then the controller cleared me to to 3,500 feet. At some point, the controller amended the altitude to 4,500, which I didn't hear or acknowlege...maybe I was busy...maybe the transmission was not clear. Anyway, I didn't hear or respond to it.

At 3,500 as originally instructed, the controller got really angry and asked if I had not heard his transmission. He advised me of traffic I already had in sight (not a near miss).

Then the controller made a mistake...on final he asked me to switch to 31L...which is where flight following and he had already told me to land.

Anyways, I take responsibility for not hearing him amend the altitude instructions.

So should I ASRS this? The controller was fine after that, and I didn't get the dreaded "call the tower".
 
Base on what you said, no.

If that were me I wouldn't file.

You're fine, just be a little more on the ball next time
 
Do you think that sharing your experience could contribute to safety of aviation? If so, then send in the report. The "get out of jail" feature is an incentive for using the system, it is not its purpose. Here is the reason for ASRS:

Summary
The ASRS is an important facet of the continuing effort by government, industry, and individuals to maintain and improve aviation safety. The ASRS collects voluntarily submitted aviation safety incident/situation reports from pilots, controllers, and others.

The ASRS acts on the information these reports contain. It identifies system deficiencies, and issues alerting messages to persons in a position to correct them. It educates through its newsletter CALLBACK, its journal ASRS Directline and through its research studies. Its database is a public repository which serves the FAA and NASA's needs and those of other organizations world-wide which are engaged in research and the promotion of safe flight.
Click to expand...
http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/overview/summary.html
 
I wouldn't bother. He left it alone and didn't say anything about it afterwards, so you're fine.
 
If you did not hear it and did not acknowledge it...it is on the controller, NOT you. Controller should have made the call again to confirm you received the transmission as you did not provide a read back. Nothing you did would warrant the ASRS but not necessarily a bad idea to point out that there is a controller that does not confirm transmissions. Not to rat him out specifically but rater to show the importance a confirmation of a read back which in this case probably resulted in a loss of required separation of his IFR traffic.
 
Didn't even read your situation.... No need to. If you ever have to ask that question, the answer is yes. It costs you nothing. It's a free insurance policy.
 
Kritchlow said:
Didn't even read your situation.... No need to. If you ever have to ask that question, the answer is yes. It costs you nothing. It's a free insurance policy.
Click to expand...

Yikes...bad advise!!!:mad2:
:yikes:
 
You can, won't hurt anything, but what about the situation do you think could have been improved?
 
Report what?
You were not asked to call the tower therefore nothing happened.


A controller speaking firmly is meaningless and is not a regulation in the FAR- maybe his shorts were riding up or his coffee break was past due.:dunno:
 
Your last confirmed alt was 3500. You didn't hear another call and you didn't respond. 3500 it is. No need to "cover your six" at all.

If he really got snippy, you could have even cancelled FF and sputtered along!
 
When working as an LEO, one of the little catch phrases was,

"If in doubt, scratch one out."

It meant if you were wavering on whether to write a report, best to err on the side of caution and write it.

Best case, you're wasting paper, ink and time.

Worst case, you've documented your actions and what transpired.

Following that general dictum, I'd say file. Can't hurt and at the very least it's good practice and gives the system some data to chew on.
 
The way you describe the situation ,I wouldn't bother.
 
File, on the logic Fast Eddie stated. If you think the controller was snippy, wait till you meet the team at the FAA's regional counsel's office. I'm not saying that will happen, just that you'll kick yourself for not having filed if it does. I'd love to hear Sean expand on why he thinks its bad advice to file. :dunno:

Don't even need the paper, you can file online: http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov
 
FastEddieB said:
When working as an LEO, one of the little catch phrases was,

"If in doubt, scratch one out."

It meant if you were wavering on whether to write a report, best to err on the side of caution and write it.

Best case, you're wasting paper, ink and time.

Worst case, you've documented your actions and what transpired.

Following that general dictum, I'd say file. Can't hurt and at the very least it's good practice and gives the system some data to chew on.
Click to expand...

I agree with this.

On another note, what obligation (outside of common sense) does a pilot have to comply with controller instructions while on Flight Following? Would I be correct in assuming this incident occurred at an airport located in Class B or C airspace?
 
Turningfinal said:
On another note, what obligation (outside of common sense) does a pilot have to comply with controller instructions while on Flight Following? Would I be correct in assuming this incident occurred at an airport located in Class B or C airspace?
Click to expand...

Start here.

FAR 91.123 said:
(a) When an ATC clearance has been obtained, no pilot in command may deviate from that clearance unless an amended clearance is obtained, an emergency exists, or the deviation is in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory. However, except in Class A airspace, a pilot may cancel an IFR flight plan if the operation is being conducted in VFR weather conditions. When a pilot is uncertain of an ATC clearance, that pilot shall immediately request clarification from ATC.

(b) Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised.
Click to expand...

You can poke holes in a), such as you don't have or need a clearance if on FF in Class E airspace, you're merely receiving traffic advisories; the blanket provision of b) seems much more comprehensive. In any controlled airspace, if ATC says "no" (different than not saying "yes"), then 'thou shalt not', absent an emergency.
 
Thanks all for the advice. As far as what I could have done better? I consider myself near expert level on the radio. I fly everywhere in LA through Bravo, Class C, etc., every time I fly. Every instructor who I go up with (and I get recurrent training about once every two months) says my radio skills are great.

Why did I not hear the controller? Was I distracted? Maybe. Did the controller bury the iinstruction to me among others? Maybe. This is a head-scratcher... I'd say I'll try to listen better and I will.

I appreciate all the comments and learn so much from this site!!!
 
DJTorrente said:
Start here.



You can poke holes in a), such as you don't have or need a clearance if on FF in Class E airspace, you're merely receiving traffic advisories; the blanket provision of b) seems much more comprehensive. In any controlled airspace, if ATC says "no" (different than not saying "yes"), then 'thou shalt not', absent an emergency.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply. A little googling brought up the Karas letter:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org.../2013/karas - (2013) legal interpretation.pdf

"A pilot flying VFR in Class E airspace, which is controlled airspace, is not required to communicate with ATC; however, if a pilot is communicating with ATC and ATC issues an instruction, the pilot must comply with that instruction."
 
Turningfinal said:
Thanks for the reply. A little googling brought up the Karas letter:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org.../2013/karas - (2013) legal interpretation.pdf

"A pilot flying VFR in Class E airspace, which is controlled airspace, is not required to communicate with ATC; however, if a pilot is communicating with ATC and ATC issues an instruction, the pilot must comply with that instruction."
Click to expand...


I came across this flying into what was my home base in Hollywood, FL.

Miami Approach would start vectoring me westbound, way out over the swamp where I'd rather not be. By descending to below FLL Class C I could fly pretty much direct.

My approach was to comply with the first vector, then say...

1) If IFR in VMC: "Miami Approach, N1360C is canceling IFR. I'll be proceeding direct HWO and staying under FLL Class C. Do you want me to stay on this code or squawk VFR?"

2) If VFR with flight following: "Miami Approach, N1360C is going to go ahead and cancel flight following and going direct HWO. Thanks for your help. Do you want me to stay on this code or squawk VFR?"

In both cases you complied with the last ATC clearance. Once off frequency there should be no more for you to worry about.

Anyway, worked for me and no one ever had an issue with it.
 
VWGhiaBob said:
...Why did I not hear the controller? ...
Click to expand...

Could have been any number of things, you should stop assuming that it was your fault. The bottom line is that without your acknowledgement the directive is not valid. I think the title "controller" is a bit misleading, you are the person in control of the airplane. ATC is there to serve you, not the other way round and getting "snippy" is completely inappropriate..
 
Kritchlow said:
Didn't even read your situation.... No need to. If you ever have to ask that question, the answer is yes. It costs you nothing. It's a free insurance policy.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

It's good insurance, and your experience will help others. It's free, you don't even have to buy a stamp any more!!

In just a little more time it takes to post "Should I file an ASRS because...." you can just file the report.
 
can you get the audio from tower and approach on Liveatc?

If so - go listen - your memory might be correct. I had a controller tear me a new one for not being on a certain heading and never told me. I suggested that I never received the transmission and he immediately went into violation mode - I was certain I never received it and we listened to the tape together.

He got really apologetic all of sudden when we reached the point where I suggested he never gave me the heading.

Look - if you screw up admit to it immediately. Mea culpas work with the FAA. If you did not screw up and its no big deal you can take the rap for it or not - your choice. It keeps the controllers happy.

If someone cops a 'tude, again, your choice - make a big deal about it or not. Your choice - you'd best be right.

Silvaire is correct- absent confirmation of the directive, it does not apply until you confirm it.

Now - the other issue is whose airspace are you in. The controller can tell you to expect 31L but the tower controller runs his/her airspace and they are in charge of which runway you actually land on - so the approach controller can tell you expect anything - but the tower controller clears you to land . . .
 
VWGhiaBob said:
Thanks all for the advice. As far as what I could have done better? I consider myself near expert level on the radio. I fly everywhere in LA through Bravo, Class C, etc., every time I fly. Every instructor who I go up with (and I get recurrent training about once every two months) says my radio skills are great.
Click to expand...

For the case in question here, were you IN a class B or C?

Hint; this is why I rarely use FF. As it almost always devolves to FD(Flight Directing). And leads to issues just like this one.
 
Comanche...excellent advise. I listen to Live ATC all the time. Will go back and listen. I credit my radio skills to listening to ATC in my car as a hobby.

Regarding attitude, when the controller admonished me, I apologized and said it was my error (even though maybe it wasn't). My gut told me getting into an argument on downwind to base was not a good idea! The controller calmed down as soon as I uttered the apology, cleared me to land, and that was the last of it.

Probably will file an ASRS anyway.

Oh...and both ATC and the tower told me 31L. That was clearly their mistake. No big deal, but a mistake it was. I did notice they changed controllers between the 3,500 mistake and pattern entry. Maybe the other controller was a trainee and someone took over when that controller failed to get confirmation from me??

Going back to ATCLive to listen...
 
docmirror said:
For the case in question here, were you IN a class B or C?

Hint; this is why I rarely use FF. As it almost always devolves to FD(Flight Directing). And leads to issues just like this one.
Click to expand...

Yes have to agree. If I'm VFR I don't like being on FF because some controllers get all annoyed if you change altitudes or direction. Some don't care. If you're just going in a straight line from A to B, fine, but I like to look around, buzz some cows, etc, on occasion.
 
narchee said:
Yes have to agree. If I'm VFR I don't like being on FF because some controllers get all annoyed if you change altitudes or direction. Some don't care. If you're just going in a straight line from A to B, fine, but I like to look around, buzz some cows, etc, on occasion.
Click to expand...

Whew, thought I was the only one left who did his own nav. I learned my lesson well way back > 10 years ago. Took off out of RHV in SE San Jose, and headed mostly north enroute to Sonoma. I was on FF well below the B shelf and somewhere east of Oakland appr came on in an exasperated voice and said something like; 'Spamcan 12345 -- uh, where are you going?' To which I replied; 'Approach, spamcan 345 right now my heading is 335.' He responded with; 'Spamcan 345, turn right heading 360, remain at or below 3000 feet'. So I turned that direction, read back the instruction and cancelled FF. He didn't like that even more.
 
OK...so I listened to LiveATC. The controller cleared me to 3,500 feet. I confirmed and the controller re-confirmed. Then, as part of the next instruction on how to navigate to airport, she stated 4,500. She did not state she was amending the 3,500 clearance, and I didn't notice. Also, I did not confirm 4,500. All I confirmed was the route, as I didn't notice the new altitude. I guess it's my bad, but I would think:

1) The controller could have been more careful to state that my original clearance that was stated and confirmed was being cancelled.

2) The controller should have noticed I didn't confirm an amended altitude restriction, as I did the original clearance.

Again, no excuses for me missing her amended instruction. But it does seem this could have been handled better on both sides.

Also, I confirmed the controller error: I was always cleared for 31L. The instruction to "change to 31L" on base was therefore in error.

Maybe someone in training?

Again, no excuses for me either. Just will listen closer to instructions going forward, realizing that controllers may change clearances...and may not point out that they are changing an original clearance. It's up to me to figure that out when they don't point it out.

Thanks, all!
 
If you were on an approach to an airport, you were planning to descend. Her instruction included 4500 when you were at 3500 leads me to believe she got it wrong. Can you post the actual text used? It would be rare, but not unheard of for ATC/appr to climb you 1000' feet if they knew you were planning to land at an airport nearby.
 
Cowboy...the clearance was from tower. Don't remember the exact language, but she cleared me to 3,500. I confirmed 3,500 and she confirmed my response.

LATER, (2 - 3 minutes), she directed me to fly south of a highway at 4,500. I missed the 4,500 and flew to her original request. There's no doubt in my mind that she cleared me to 3,500, but then without saying she amended her original instruction, said 4,500. I take full responsibility for missing the fact that she changed her mind. I never would have missed it if she said, "amend original altitude restriction...stay at or above 4,500." But as the pilot, I'm still responsible for noting such discrepancies, even when I feel they could be (and usually are) clearer. Seems like something as important as a change in a cleared altitude should be called out and not just mentioned in passing.

As mentioned above, I never repeated 4,500 because I didn't notice it. Seems like she would have asked me to repeat it, as controllers usually do. This was followed by the controller 31L mistake as well.

Anyway, I ASRS'd this situation, so we'll see what happens. In answer to another post here, seems like there are ATC and personal lessons learned here. And because of the ATC lessons, the ASRS system will hopefully do its job.
 
Last edited:
Well, usually you'll hear "climb to xxxx" or "climb and maintain xxxx" which is why I wanted to hear the text of her transmission. If it was said "at xxxx", and you were on her scope currently "at" 3500' then I think the phraseology could have been much better. But, once it was said, you do have to get up there along with the restriction on the highway following. It doesn't sound kosher to me, but I don't know where you were, or what was below you either.
 
A piece of advice thats truthfull that use ASRS

Even if its possible that you F'd up file one..it ONLY covers your A$$




For those in the ASAP program
If you didnt get a "Brasher Warning" ...i.e. "I have a phone number for you to call as there is a possible pilot deviation"... the proverbial sword of ATC has not been drawn...have a beer at the overnight and forget about it.
 
VWGhiaBob said:
OK...so I listened to LiveATC. The controller cleared me to 3,500 feet. I confirmed and the controller re-confirmed. Then, as part of the next instruction on how to navigate to airport, she stated 4,500. She did not state she was amending the 3,500 clearance, and I didn't notice. Also, I did not confirm 4,500. All I confirmed was the route, as I didn't notice the new altitude. I guess it's my bad, but I would think:

1) The controller could have been more careful to state that my original clearance that was stated and confirmed was being cancelled.

2) The controller should have noticed I didn't confirm an amended altitude restriction, as I did the original clearance.

Again, no excuses for me missing her amended instruction. But it does seem this could have been handled better on both sides.

Also, I confirmed the controller error: I was always cleared for 31L. The instruction to "change to 31L" on base was therefore in error.

Maybe someone in training?

Again, no excuses for me either. Just will listen closer to instructions going forward, realizing that controllers may change clearances...and may not point out that they are changing an original clearance. It's up to me to figure that out when they don't point it out.

Thanks, all!
Click to expand...

This I would do an ASRS report. There was communication breakdown which could have led to a bad chain events. As aunt Peggy said the report is for safety of the industry. Too many people want to use it as the get out of jail card, which ismr the main purpose of the report.
 
teejayevans said:
Because he admitted to not reading the OPs post, any advice given without even understanding the situation is bad advice
Click to expand...

I think his point was that if you have to ask whether or not you should file an ASRS report, you might as well do it. I agree with that.
 
Shawn said:
If you did not hear it and did not acknowledge it...it is on the controller, NOT you.
Click to expand...
That is not legally correct. See the final outcome of Administrator v. Merrell.
Under the Administrator’s interpretation of the relevant regulations, however, an error of perception does not constitute a reasonable explanation for a deviation from a clearly transmitted clearance or instruction. Rather, inattentiveness or carelessness is presumed from the occurrence of a deviation unless, as we understand it, the misperception or mistake concerning the clearance was attributable to some factor for which the airman was not responsible, such as an equipment failure. The Court’s decision dictates that this approach should have been followed in this proceeding.​
​
Click to expand...
​
 
In answer to above, I was in Class C at the time.

And gosh, never heard negative comments about Flight Following. I use it even for 15 minute flights. I don't mind being vectored or assigned altitudes. Heck, they are helping me with separation in LA airspace (though I'm still responsible, of course). This service is free and supplements my eyeballs and my Cirrus TCAS.

The only downside for me is having to listen to the chatter while I'm flying. That said, safety trumps all - for me.
 
VWGhiaBob said:
In answer to above, I was in Class C at the time.

And gosh, never heard negative comments about Flight Following. I use it even for 15 minute flights. I don't mind being vectored or assigned altitudes. Heck, they are helping me with separation in LA airspace (though I'm still responsible, of course). This service is free and supplements my eyeballs and my Cirrus TCAS.

The only downside for me is having to listen to the chatter while I'm flying. That said, safety trumps all - for me.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty much the only one with a problem with FF, and not really with FF at all, but with FD(flight directing). It's also kind of important to note that directly above you, from Ron is the reason I have a problem. You are not only required to listen to that chatter, but you have to sort through it, and if your number is called, you have to comply, and then you have to tell them you complied. And if you don't do all that stuff, you can be violated, and face exactly the situation you find yourself in right now, potentially facing disciplinary action because - you had the radio tuned, and your txp set to an assigned code.

Is it worth it? Well, that depends. I have a pathological dislike of being told what to do, I think it stems from my service time, so for me the value of FF is not outweighed by the hassle and potential for penalty. Others have a different view and that's fine but pilots have faced a bust from this, and have been penalized for not playing in the system correctly. It's the contract you agree to when you make the call. If you are in class C or B, you don't have any choice, and when I go in there I play by the rules because it's being a good flying citizen. But far too many times I've been tootling along around a metro area and watch conflicting traffic get closer, and closer, and closer and never a comment from appr. I am concerned that pilots are deferring their outside scan for a tight focus on the pink line, and the guarantee of remote radar coverage. Maybe my concern is misplaced - but, I doubt it.
 
Cowboy...that does sound like a "pathological dislike". ;-) For the record, I was in Class C when this happened, not on FF.

For me, FF is not a substitute for looking out the window or monitoring my TCAS. It's another data point. As you stated, they sometimes miss traffic. But more than once, they have helped me avoid traffic.

I find their instructions (e.g., turn right 20 degrees for traffic) to be easy to follow and useful. I like another set of eyes on my flight. I'd say 95% of the time, I'm on "own nav" anyway.

I also feel I'm obligated to use all safety measures for my passengers. Regardless of the chatter and being told what to do, it's highly likely that FF makes my flights safer. To be honest, for me, not using FF is not an option. It's a personal obligation...the right thing to do.
 
You may think different when the 'obligation' decision is taken away from you, and handed to the FAA to sort out. I'm sure you will be ok with that, cuz it is 'the right thing to do', so it should be for everyone every flight every time. right?

Signed - your Friendly Aviation Association.
 
Holy cow...ASRS is there as a training tool, to get information out there to improve safety. Kind of like a one-way message board where we learn from others' mistakes. You are actually okay with submitting a report even if you aren't facing an action. The get-out-of-jail-free card is to get more people to use it, but you are perfectly fine using ASRS when you know that no violation occurred.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top