You guys ever call in an airstrike using a signal mirror? It's been done. We heard about it the pages of SIGforum so it must be true.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffxjet:
From a legal perspective that is correct, from a go-along to get-along it is totally incorrect.

It's a legal issue. There's nothing go-along and get-along about legal. A lot of pilots get themselves violated because they open their trap, and they do so because just like the criminal who seeks absolution in confession, they think if they talk, it will somehow make things better.

The ONLY purpose of a recorded call is to be used against you. Read that twice.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffxjet:
You can smooth a lot of wrinkles with that phone call.

A lot of pilots mistakenly believe that. Same for those who choose to respond to their 10-day notice with a Letter of Investigation. Perhaps the single biggest error that pilots make, to put themselves in legal jeopardy (that, and citing their infraction in the unprotected title line of the ASRS "NASA" report--which is not protected-).

quote:

Originally posted by jeffxjet:
If the controller is angry and told you to call and you don't call, now you are on the list and have made him even madder because he has to track you down. Your problems are only going to get worse, not better.

Entirely untrue, and based on wrong guesswork.

ATC does not hold the ability to initiate enforcement action. That comes from the FSDO. The controller has neither the legal authority, nor the means to "track you down."

The ONLY thing that the controller can do, unless you've got a security violation such as flying into the DC flight restricted area or overflying a nuclear powerplant, is to document, and pass it on to the FSDO for investigation and/or enforcement. The FSDO initiates enforcement action (but doesn't have the authority to actually enforce, or to interpret the regulations...other common misunderstandings, including among FSDO inspectors).

You *might* placate an angry controller and convince him not to refer your matter to the FSDO, but the controller's anger isn't the issue. You're the issue: the legal issue is against you, not the controller, and it's not the controller that will initiate enforcement action, because he or she can't do that.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffxjet:
If you are going to get violated you are going to get violated, there are now two ways around it.

This is not true in any respect.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffxjet:
If you are polite and contrite and sincere you can (on the phone call) get that violation down to a verbal scolding.

Much like advising a rape victim to not fight back, in the hopes that the attacker will go easy? No.

"I'm sorry" is an admission of guilt. "I'm sorry" on a recorded line is a legal confession.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffxjet:
If you get told to call, you've already violated an FAR.

Absolutely false, and very dangerous thinking from a legal perspective. Make that call and open your trap and say too much (saying you were there is too much), and whether or not you violated anything, you just convicted yourself and shot down your appeal process.

Because you're told to call doesn't mean you violated anything. You can certainly escalate it to enforcement action, or give grounds for it, or provide information that makes it possible, however. You may not have violated any regulation at all. I've been asked to call the tower on several occasions when I did not violate a regulation. But they were hunting, or they were wrong, or they were seeking an admission.

Never assume. Certainly don't make the assumption that you've violated anything, and for God's sake, don't admit to a violation with that kind of wrong-headed thinking.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffxjet:
How far ATC wants to pursue that violation is now in your court.

Blatantly, dangerously untrue. Good God, no.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffxjet:
You can perhaps ease the pain by calling, You will almost certainly get a full investigation if you don't.

False.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
You guys ever call in an airstrike using a signal mirror? It's been done. We heard about it the pages of SIGforum so it must be true.

I've done a lot of fires from the air using mirror flashes from ground personnel. It's done all the time.

Well you seem to have all the answers so go ahead and call your lawyer first. I'm gonna call the Center first.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffxjet:

If you get told to call, you've already violated an FAR.

Not always. Case in point, I was contacted by a Good Guy whom I had trained for instrument rating.

He had flown from Our Little Airport (X04, Orlando-Apopka) to KHWO (North Perry, down near Lauderdale). He had filed IFR, was on an IFR clearance all the way even though the weather was severe clear.

After landing, he was given the phone number. He contacted me first. I took Colorado Hunter's advice (he is ex Air Traffic Controller) and I contacted KHWO tower to see what was going on.

The accusation was that my guy had flown in to a tower controlled field without talking to anyone, landed on RWY 28R with no clearance when runways 1L and 1R were in use.

My guy swore to me that he was on an IFR clearance, approach control turned him over to tower, tower cleared him to land RWY 1R, which he had requested for easy access to self service fuel after the landing roll-out.

It took a an hour or so on the phone, but it turned out that KHWO tower had falsely accused my guy, they confused him with a different Cessna 310 that landed wrong runway with no clearance. Tower finally admitted their error after I asked them to review the tape; my guy did have clearance and landed the proper runway.

So, it's not always true that "If you get told to call, you've already violated an FAR." ATC guys (and gals) can make mistakes, too.

You just proved my point. Ok maybe not the guy who got told to call, but someone violated an FAR thus the prompt for the phone call. And calling the tower managed to clear up the problem. Now Imagine if you had not called and just ignored it, what do you think would have happened to your pilot friend? The controller would have initiated a violation (mistakenly) against your friend. The FAA would have pursued it, because that's a big one. A letter of investigation would have been sent, then your friend would have ignored that based on advice in this thread. Then he would have to hire a lawyer and fight this problem all the way till his exoneration. Why? Call the tower and straighten it out. But, you know, go on and ignore the Feds, what do I know.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffxjet:
Well you seem to have all the answers so go ahead and call your lawyer first. I'm gonna call the Center first.

I don't have all the answers. That's why I'm going to call an attorney.

You've had to call Center? That's interesting. You're really going to call center?

Or did you mean to say something else?

I'm calling Center right now.

"Please listen carefully, as our menu options have changed. Your call is very important to us. Calls are answered in the order received.

Para espanol, marque ocho.

If your plane is crashing, please hang up and dial 911..."

Rich Little had a routine about that years ago, during the Reagan-PATCO controller strike. The pilot got a recording.

"You're reached Denver Center. We're not available right now, but if you'll leave your flight number, altitude, and last known heading at the sound of the beep, we'll get back to you as soon as possible."

Interesting discussion.
Not an aviation specific attorney, but can definitely see merits in both sides. I think as usual it comes down to "it depends."



That said landed a KHND today and the controllers there are super friendly.

The the pilot continues to be belligerent there is a good chance that he won’t get suspended. 90 days? Ha! That’s nothing. He might find himself revoked.

I’m curious as to any follow ups on this guy.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
I'm calling Center right now.

"Please listen carefully, as our menu options have changed. Your call is very important to us. Calls are answered in the order received.

Para espanol, marque ocho.

If your plane is crashing, please hang up and dial 911..."

Tower, say again. Message not getting through, please say again.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
"To return to the main menu, please press 6"

Senor, por que tu marque seis?

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffxjet:
Well you seem to have all the answers so go ahead and call your lawyer first. I'm gonna call the Center first.

I don't have all the answers. That's why I'm going to call an attorney.

You've had to call Center? That's interesting. You're really going to call center?

Or did you mean to say something else?

Yes, I've had to call center twice. Both were violations. I called the center immediately on landing. Both times the controller thanked me for calling and asked to hear "my side of the story". Both times I explained what happened, just the facts, no embellishments or story telling, no apologizing. Just explaining how the mistake happened. Both times the controller said they appreciated me calling in to clear it up right away and not to worry about it any further.
Of course I ASAP'd it, of course I knew I was being recorded, of course I knew not to incriminate myself. But there is nothing scary about telling the facts from our side of the door. The violation has already occurred, whether or not there is follow up or pursuit after that is still in the air. The facts are going to come out eventually, plus they have the radar plot, the verbal tape, the transpoder, the flight aware track, the airplane data transmitter. The amount of data they can gather is staggering, you know that. That's why I said if you are violated, you are violated. They are now in the gathering evidence stage to see how far they want to send it down the line. If they are angry enough already or the error is gross enough, the violation is coming whether you call or not. If they are just upset and want to hear a reasonable explanation, the phone call could potentially help, but not always.
To me, there is little downside to calling right away and huge downside to "let me call a lawyer" and get back to you.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
I'm calling Center right now.

"Please listen carefully, as our menu options have changed. Your call is very important to us. Calls are answered in the order received.

Para espanol, marque ocho.

If your plane is crashing, please hang up and dial 911..."

LOL, I wish it was that cordial. It's a direct line to the affected party. In my case it was a disgruntled New York Center controlled who answered with "Just what in the fuck were you doing up there?"

Honest question from a non-aviator to aviators: What's happening to commercial traffic in this airspace while Skippy the Flying Imbecile is careening through and ignoring ATC? Business as usual, or are the big guys being "steered clear" of the potential hazard?

quote:

Originally posted by DennisM:
Honest question from a non-aviator to aviators: What's happening to commercial traffic in this airspace while Skippy the Flying Imbecile is careening through and ignoring ATC? Business as usual, or are the big guys being "steered clear" of the potential hazard?

Yup, ATC is keeping an eye on said asshole and vectoring the rest of us around him. Horizontal and vertical separation from said offender. It's not really a problem, per se, it just makes a shit load of extra work for the controller. She denied him entry because she was too busy to accept him, now her work load just went way up for no reason. So now she's extra worked, extra stressed and extra pissed. He just brought a shit storm down on himself.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffxjet:
there is nothing scary about telling the facts from our side of the door.

There would be, if you only knew.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffxjet:
The violation has already occurred, whether or not there is follow up or pursuit after that is still in the air.

No, it hasn't, and you clearly do not understand that. The violation has not happened yet.

An alleged occurence may have happened. It may not have happened. The violation comes after the fact, and what you contribute not only serves to bolster that case, but more importantly, the case against your appeal, which is your first chance to fight it.

Hint: that phone call is NOT your first chance to fight it. Neither is the letter you're invited to write, as part of your ten day notice with a letter of investigation. Yours is a very, very common error.

You're casual about it. It can quickly become a career-ender.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffxjet:
The facts are going to come out eventually, plus they have the radar plot, the verbal tape, the transpoder, the flight aware track, the airplane data transmitter.

Flight aware? Are you a private pilot, by chance?

You said you "ASAP'd" it. That's an airline program for certificate holders. (You understand the concept of "single-source" reports, and what's not covered? You understand that having made a phone call, if you do an ASRS report, while the report is covered, anything you said in the conversation is NOT, and the FAA can proceed on the basis of the phone call and not the ASRS report?). You don't sound like you fly for an airline, or you'd have called a steward or union attorney first. When you say "airplane data transmitter," are you referring to ACARS, or is there something else that you think is being broadcast? ADS-B?

You sound like you have a thin understanding of what's involved, especially the enforcement process. Whether you're doing this as a hobby as a private pilot, or if you're doing it commercially, it will behoove you to seek out a better knowledge of the regulatory and enforcement process.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffxjet:
That's why I said if you are violated, you are violated.

Yes, you did say that. Incorrectly, and you're dead wrong, but you did say that.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffxjet:
They are now in the gathering evidence stage to see how far they want to send it down the line.

You DO understand that this is the reason that your phone call is on a recorded line, correct? Your phone call IS evidence.

Evidence is not needed to issue take enforcement or administrative action. It WILL be used against you in the appeal process, however.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffxjet:
If they are angry enough already or the error is gross enough, the violation is coming whether you call or not. If they are just upset and want to hear a reasonable explanation, the phone call could potentially help, but not always.

That's the rape victim mentality, right there, in the raw. You hope to placate them. Just give in, and hopefully they'll take it easy on you.

If the controller truly is angry, this is not the time to have a taped conversation that WILL be legally used against you. Not the time for the controller, and not the time for you.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffxjet:
there is nothing scary about telling the facts f
To me, there is little downside to calling right away and huge downside to "let me call a lawyer" and get back to you.

To you, that's probably true. Ignorance is bliss. Good luck with that bliss.

Hopefully you don't spread that bliss around and cost someone who might listen, their career.

Paul Harvey isn't here to tell us "the rest of the story." I have to wonder what happens when ATC screws up big time.

Back in the early 1970s I lived in the Chicago area. I owned a C-210 at the time, and made fairly frequent trips back to my former home area, the NY / NJ area.

A little background here for those who are not familiar with instrument flight rules, when traveling on a defined airway at low and medium altitudes, eastbound flights are generally assigned altitudes at odd thousands, such as 5,000', 7,000', etc., and westbound traffic flies at even numbered thousands. This is the default, but ATC (Air Traffic Control) can, and often does, assign altitudes that are not in accordance with this general rule.

Examples of exceptions include the eastern shore of the Florida peninsula, where this general rule is reversed.

Another exception is the heavily traveled route between the Chicago area and the NYC / NJ area. There is so much traffic there, that there are two parallel routes, V6 and V8. One of them is generally used for eastbound traffic at all altitudes; the other for westbound. It has been 45 years or so sice I flew that route, I don't remember which was eastbound and which was westbound.

The trip that sticks in my memory on this route, where ATC screwed up big time and could have caused the deaths of many people, was somewhere around 1973. My girlfriend at the time, and I, had gone to NJ to visit friends and family on a holiday weekend. We were returning to Chicago. I had file an IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) flight plan for the flight; the first portion was glorious, absolutely clear sunny weather, not a cloud in the sky, but weather for our arrival at Midway was forecast to be "oogy" (that's a technical term).

I had requested 6,000' for altitude and that is what I was cleared for. We were on the airway, V6 or V8, I don't remember which, but we were on the one that was generally used for westbound traffic. At that point of our flight, ATC should have provided appropriate separation, 1,000' vertically or 3 miles laterally, at a minimum, from any other IFR traffic. If flying in good visibility conditions, the pilot is required to see and avoid other traffic. So, the scene is set.

There we were, westbound at 6,000' great weather, so I was keeping an eye out for other traffic. I saw a dot in the sky ahead of me, the dot slowly increased in size and became a B727 -- an airline jet. It was traveling at my altitude, eastbound, on the centerline of the airway, heading directly toward me, our closing rate was on the order of ten miles every minute. That's a mile every six seconds. Think about that.

Normally, head-on traffic should pass with each airplane flying to the right, but the 727's position relative to me would have meant that I would have had to cross right in front of it to do that, so I eased over to the left a bit. At this point, the 727 was on the airway centerline, I had moved far enough to the left of center to avoid a collision. We were close enough that I could easily read the airline markings on the plane, I could (and did) read the N-number, and I could see that the co-pilot had red hair and was not looking through the windshield, he was looking at a piece of paper, most likely a navigation chart but could have been anything. I could not see the pilot, I was not on his (her?) side of the airliner, but it was pretty obvious that he was not looking forward through the windshield or he would have seen me and maneuvered to avoid.

I was really shaken up by this, realizing that we were both flying with IFR clearance and if weather and visibility had been "oogy," I would not have been able to see the 727 and there would have been a head-on collision. We would have been on the ten o'clock news, "Hundreds killed in air collision."

As soon as I calmed down a little, I made a radio call: "Cleveland Center, 99 Tango, do you have any traffic for us?"

The reply was "negative, 99 Tango."

I told them that I had just passed an airline 727, my airway centerline, my altitude, and I gave them the N-number of the airliner. The frequency went silent. Nobody spoke. Then, after a short delay I was given a new frequency that put me in direct contact with the supervisor on that shift. He did not discuss anything, he just asked me whether I was going to file a report, or if I would be satisfied if he initiated disciplinary action with the controller who had been working my flight. I told him that I was not particularly interested in discipline, I wanted to know what he would do to make sure that this situation never occurred again. He took my phone number and promised to let me know.

I never heard from him. I never found out "the rest of the story."

I was working an area just north of Basrah one night, about o'dark thirty, and saw an aircraft pass close, opposite direction. It was remarkable, because all flights were dark, no lights. Wings overlapped, and I estimated roughly 6' of vertical separation. It happened fast.

I contacted the Basrah controller, and asked if he had inbound from the north. He advised no. A moment later he returned and advised yes, he did have something, and wondered why I asked.

"Because I saw it," I said, which led to some uncomfortable radio silence while he contemplated how close the other aircraft had to be on a moonless night over southern Iraq, to see the other aircraft. Close. I told them I'd pay a visit when the sortie was over.

On the ground, I got a lift out to the approach facility, which was underground, and met three nervous-looking young people. We had a discussion about that, largely because were were having a LOT of near mid-airs (averaging four nightly, as I recall). Not something you'll hear about on the party line.

The military largely relies on the big sky theory and radar, which may or may not be present or available on the ground, and/or in flight, for various reasons (not all of which are under control).

The closest near mid-air I've had domestically was deep inside a TFR (flight restriction), low, coming off a drop in a C-130. The captain of the regional aircraft had Rayban Outdoorsman II sunglasses with the plastic bridge, and the curved ear pieces. Ask how I know. I didn't bother with ATC, though they should never have put an aircraft, let alone airline traffic, through the middle of an extremely active firefighting operation.

Pilots screw up. ATC screws up. The difference is that pilots don't violate ATC when they screw up, and ATC gets to go home at the end of the shift. The pilot might never get to go home, regardless of who screws up.

Again, you clearly have it all figured out. I'm not going to get into a dick measuring contest with you because in all your stories you seem to like and invite confrontation. You are obviously a big bad alpha dog and nobody can convince you otherwise. I should have remembered how the last flight thread went.