Urgent go-around instruction worthy of Brasher?

[Let'sgoflying!]

I heard this today at El Paso - someone got close to landing at Biggs AAF and was waved off by ELP tower.
However, no Brasher.
This was a military C130 that was planning a TnG rwy 22 KELP, got a bit off track (the runways are parallel and close to each other).
Maybe mil are exempt.

Would I get the phone number if it was me? (Civilian, pt 91) Seems like a pilot deviation full of potential hazard.

(ATC-Live did not capture; it appears to be a scanner with all frequencies dialed in and the first to be activated kills the other transmissions)

 

[RussR]

The Opposing Bases podcast covered this kind of question on a recent episode. Basically, every controller could issue dozens of Brashers every shift if they wanted to. But unless there is an actual loss of separation or hazard created, there is no reason to.

They gave the example of a pilot departing and being assigned heading 170, but they turn to 270 instead. Simple misunderstanding or knob twist. If there's nobody else out there, the controller will just reissue the correct heading, the pilot flies it and there's no issue. Happens all day long. Now, if that meant they turned toward another airplane, different story.

Did the C-130 narrowly avoid another airplane on the runway, or was it simply they lined up on the wrong runway, were told to go around, and did, with no impact on anything? If the latter, few controllers would bother to issue a Brasher.

The system would be inundated for no benefit if every missed ATC call or misheard instruction or other pilot mistake resulted in a Brasher.

 

[Kritchlow]

A military guy once told me the FAA cannot violate a military pilot.
There’s more to how it works, but he explained it many years ago….

 

[midwestpa24]

The Opposing Bases podcast covered this kind of question on a recent episode. Basically, every controller could issue dozens of Brashers every shift if they wanted to. But unless there is an actual loss of separation or hazard created, there is no reason to.

The system would be inundated for no benefit if every missed ATC call or misheard instruction or other pilot mistake resulted in a Brasher.

This^. As long as the mistake was caught early and didn't cause any harm, a Brasher is not necessary.

I know of at least once I've been in the wrong and wasn't Brashered by the controller. One time I recall specifically was while taxiing at a undisclosed Class C airport, to protect the guilty, me. Basically there were two routes to the FBO, Twy B to C to A, or C to B to A. I was assigned and read back the former, but due to excessive space between my ears followed the latter. The controller saw me turn the wrong direction and immediately called my tail number with updated taxi instructions. No other aircraft were involved, I did not cross any runways so no incursion. NBD.

 

[Velocity173]

There is no difference between a Brasher for military vs a Brasher for civilian. The military doesn’t get a free pass when violating FAA regs if indeed that occurred here. I’ve issued Brashers to military while in approach and I’ve looked the other way for military as well. It’s a required report but unless loss of sep occurs, it’s generally not reported.

How the report gets investigated is the primary difference. It’s done on a mandatory occurrence report. After the QA guy reviews it, it’ll get forwarded to the FSDO and if military, sent to the appropriate command in that branch. That command will decide what action to take after their own investigation. Never seen guys lose their wings for violations but seen a few PIC / flight lead / AMC suspensions. All the service regs when it comes to FAA violations are all similar wording to the Army.

 

[midlifeflyer]

You mean I should have been Brashered when I…

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

interesting!
thanks.

 

[Pinecone]

Military flies to their own rules. Which are mostly the same as the FAA regs, but may differ.

And different parts of each service may have slightly different rules. The rules for Air Training Command were different than Tactical Air Command (yes, I am that old ).

 

[Pinecone]

They gave the example of a pilot departing and being assigned heading 170, but they turn to 270 instead. Simple misunderstanding or knob twist. If there's nobody else out there, the controller will just reissue the correct heading, the pilot flies it and there's no issue. Happens all day long. Now, if that meant they turned toward another airplane, different story.

I had that happen. Heard heading 060 as part of take off clearance, read back 060. Was turning to 060 when Departure got testy that I should be on heading 360. No Brasher, but about 4 months later, I got a letter about it stating the situation had been reviewed it was a simple error and no action was taken.

I was thinking of asking for the tower tape, but decided to let sleeping dogs keep on sleeping.

 

[PastZTL]

As far as FAA Air Traffic is concerned, military and civil PDs are investigated the same. Once the AT investigation is done, the findings are given to the FSDO for civil or the military command for military. The Brasher warning would be appropriate for both.

 

[Doc Holliday]

As far as FAA Air Traffic is concerned, military and civil PDs are investigated the same. Once the AT investigation is done, the findings are given to the FSDO for civil or the military command for military. The Brasher warning would be appropriate for both.

ATC does not investigate PD's. They only supply the occurrence to the FSDO and it gets investigated by an ASI. Once the investigation is complete, it gets submitted to ATQA.

 

[PastZTL]

Air Traffic does an investigation to determine if a PD occurred. AT will gather the radar, voice, and flight plan data, get signed statements from the personnel involved, and create a summary of events. All this is forwarded to the FSDO (or the military command) for their action.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Air Traffic does an investigation to determine if a PD occurred.

Nope. They simply gather items and submit an 8020-18. ATC does not determine if a PD occurred, that is up to Flight Standards. Some allege PD's get terminated once Flight Standards determines insufficient evidence was submitted.

This can be found under FAA Order 8020.11

AT will gather the radar, voice, and flight plan data, get signed statements from the personnel involved, and create a summary of events. All this is forwarded to the FSDO (or the military command) for their action.

You are correct except ATC does not submit to the military. It is forwarded through CEDAR to he controlling FSDO and if a military PD the ASI investigating submits to the military.

 

[PastZTL]

Nope. They simply gather items and submit an 8020-18. ATC does not determine if a PD occurred, that is up to Flight Standards. Some allege PD's get terminated once Flight Standards determines insufficient evidence was submitted.

This can be found under FAA Order 8020.11



You are correct except ATC does not submit to the military. It is forwarded through CEDAR to he controlling FSDO and if a military PD the ASI investigating submits to the military.

Perhaps we are discussing semantics, but somebody has to determine whether the pilot made a mistake, the controller made a mistake, or both made a mistake. As far as whether the FSDO agrees with AT and pursues some sort of corrective action with the pilot is strictly up to their discretion.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Perhaps we are discussing semantics, but somebody has to determine whether the pilot made a mistake, the controller made a mistake, or both made a mistake.

Correct. This is done at the FSDO level, not ATC. ATC does not have any investigative ability.

As far as whether the FSDO agrees with AT and pursues some sort of corrective action with the pilot is strictly up to their discretion.

Correct. But it's not "agreeing" with ATC since ATC does not have investigative ability. ATC merely submits the alleged evidence, Flight Standards makes the determination.

 

[PastZTL]

Correct. This is done at the FSDO level, not ATC. ATC does not have any investigative ability.


Correct. But it's not "agreeing" with ATC since ATC does not have investigative ability. ATC merely submits the alleged evidence, Flight Standards makes the determination.

Ok.

 

[danhagan]

I heard this today at El Paso - someone got close to landing at Biggs AAF and was waved off by ELP tower.
However, no Brasher. This was a military C130 that was planning a TnG rwy 22 KELP, got a bit off track (the runways are parallel and close to each other).

If you listen on ATC Live, you'll hear most of the controllers give a "warning" to inbound traffic using 22-4 that Biggs runway 21-3 is less than 3 miles away on most landing clearances.

Returning from Austin on SWA a couple of years ago, our pilot lined up on approach for RWY 3 Biggs instead of RWY 4 El Paso resulting in a low go-around. Biggs had their REILs flashing bright, but no runway lights or taxi lights... El Paso runs ALL their lights on the lowest setting making it hard even for locals to see at times. I tell pilots friends to request maximum intensity inbound and they'll provide it ....

 

[Velocity173]

If the C-130 was AF, they’re required to comply with the FARs just as civilian aircraft. That applies to all branches. Said it a millions times on here.



And when they violate the FARs, a reporting process is done to the respective service.

 

[PaulS]

No

 

[flyingron]

A military guy once told me the FAA cannot violate a military pilot.
There’s more to how it works, but he explained it many years ago….

The FARs do not apply to military (or even civilian government) except when they voluntarily decide its in their best interest to follow them. The FAA indeed has no jurisdiction over these pilots and hence, no point in Brasher. They can gripe to the departments that they are in and allow those to pursue any action required.

We have more compliance after a few fun and games like the FAA crashing into the mountain by the Linden VOR or the MD State Police not maintaining their helicopters.

 

[Gilbert Buettner]

Military flies to their own rules. Which are mostly the same as the FAA regs, but may differ.

And different parts of each service may have slightly different rules. The rules for Air Training Command were different than Tactical Air Command (yes, I am that old ).

I was also in TAC (Traveling Air Circus).

 

[MajorTurbulence]

Brasher?
Never heard the term before. Is it short for something, but
obviously got its meaning from the thread.

 

[flyingron]

Brasher?
Never heard the term before. Is it short for something?

It was the name of an airline pilot caught up in an FAA enforcement action. The FAA pursued an enforcement action many hundreds of flight hours after the event occurred and neither Brasher nor his FO could remember the event and claimed that this prejudiced their defense.

The rule now is that if ATC is even thinking about an enforcement action, they have to tell the pilot at the time "Possible pilot deviation. Please call..."
It doesn't mean that an enforcement action is coming, but the FAA is leaving that door open.

Here's a longer discussion of it: https://www.aerolawcenter.com/complete-guide-to-pilot-deviation-2024/

 

[Jim_R]

Brasher?
Never heard the term before. Is it short for something, but
obviously got its meaning from the thread.

Type "Brasher" into Google (but don't hit enter), and the second suggestion it will make to auto-complete your query is "brasher warning". From there you can learn all about it.

 

[Timbeck2]

I bet it was one of the C-130s that I have to deal with on a daily basis.

 

[Pugs]

Military flies to their own rules. Which are mostly the same as the FAA regs, but may differ.

And different parts of each service may have slightly different rules. The rules for Air Training Command were different than Tactical Air Command (yes, I am that old ).

And there are always waivers as needed. We usually flew at 300 KTS + below 10K in formation since 250 KTS was where we put the gear and flaps down in the Prowler. That was an accepted waiver for safety of flight.

 

[Pinecone]

And there are always waivers as needed. We usually flew at 300 KTS + below 10K in formation since 250 KTS was where we put the gear and flaps down in the Prowler. That was an accepted waiver for safety of flight.

That was not a waiver for USAF, as our rules allowed any speed required by the Dash 1 (NATOPS) or MajCom rules.

So in training command, the T-38 was flown at 300 KIAS when gear and flaps up. In TAC, the AT-28B was flown at 350 KIAS indicated. It made the rejoins after take off sporting.

 

[kkoran]

That was not a waiver for USAF, as our rules allowed any speed required by the Dash 1 (NATOPS) or MajCom rules.

So in training command, the T-38 was flown at 300 KIAS when gear and flaps up. In TAC, the AT-28B was flown at 350 KIAS indicated. It made the rejoins after take off sporting.

There isn't a waiver for it because 91.117d says "If the minimum safe airspeed for any particular operation is greater than the maximum speed prescribed in this section, the aircraft may be operated at that minimum speed."

 

[Velocity173]

There is a general exemption (below) but sometimes a more detailed exemption is given such as at our facility. We had an FAA waiver for 2nd MAW aircraft to operate up to 350 KIAS below 10,000 ft. The exemption stated for icing conditions but they did that speed (and more) on a regular basis.

 

[flyingron]

Again 14 CFR 91 doesn't enforce any rules on the military (or public) aircraft unless the service voluntarily decides to comply.

 

[Velocity173]

Again 14 CFR 91 doesn't enforce any rules on the military (or public) aircraft unless the service voluntarily decides to comply.

Again, it doesn’t matter how many times you say that, I’ve posted the regs. Every service regs state to comply with the FARs unless they get relief from their own regs or waivers like the speed waiver above. To say that it’s voluntary for their pilots to comply with the FARs is like saying we voluntarily comply with speed limits while driving. If the DoD doesn’t need permission from the FAA to operate, why would the FAA send out a waiver specifically authorizing the DoD to exceed part 91.117 limits? Would make no sense.

Where the difference is, the FAA allows each respective service to investigate and if necessary, issue punishment. So if this C-130 busted 91.123 and if a Brasher was issued, and an MOR was done, his / her command should be notified.

Why would a reference to 91.3 and 91.13 be needed if a military pilot doesn’t fall under FAR 91?

 

[flyingron]

I didn't say it was voluntary for the pilots. I said it is only the service's decision to follow the FARs that makes it binding on them.

 

[Bob Noel]

Again, it doesn’t matter how many times you say that, I’ve posted the regs. Every service regs state to comply with the FARs

you guys are in violent agreement.

 

[Velocity173]

you guys are in violent agreement.

Well I wouldn’t say that. DoD has to comply with the FARs in the NAS because ALL aircraft must comply. The FAA is responsible for regulating rules for operating in the NAS.

It’s like the comments I hear about Public Aircraft don’t have to comply with the FARs. That’s only partially true. The majority of the FARs they don’t have to comply with, but a blanket statement like that is incorrect.

As I learned in the IE course in the Army, “show me your reference.”

 

[Bob Noel]

If DoD aircraft have to comply with the FARs in the NAS, then there would be no need for "Every service regs state to comply with the FARs"

 

[Velocity173]

If DoD aircraft have to comply with the FARs in the NAS, then there would be no need for "Every service regs state to comply with the FARs"

No, that’s just clarifying that as pilots serving in the military, there are rules outside of military regs you have to comply with.

It’s no different than the ICAO regs I was required to comply with when I flew in Europe. We had some relief (RNAV requirement) for their regs but other things (wx mins) were dictated by ICAO.

There are a myriad of rules / regs that a military pilot must comply with. For a typical POAer, they’ve learned about FAA rules and regs that are standard for the majority of their flying careers. I’ve had to learn and memorize rules and regs for service, FAA and host country ICAO rules. Not to mention local unit SOPs.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Gee, I wonder why military aircraft have to get waivers when doing fly bys and fly overs from the FAA?

Can’t they just do what they want, where they want?

 

[Pinecone]

When I flew in the military, each USAF Major Command had its own set of rules. Most of the rules were the same as the FARs, but many were not.

FYI, the T-38A and AT-39B are the same airframe with the same engines with the SAME FLIGHT MANUAL, but one was flown by Air Training Command at 300 KIAS when gear and flaps up and one was flown by Tactical Air Command at 350 KIAS when cleaned up.