tjj@ssc-vax.UUCP (T J Jardine) (04/12/84)
Here in the Seattle ARTCC area we recently received a notice from the ARTCC manager regarding an ATC Operational Error Detection Program. The essence was that Seattle, along with several other ARTCC's, has recently implemented a capability in their computer software to monitor aircraft separation. The statement in the letter indicated that violations would be filed with the local FSDO/GADO office when a pilot deviates 300 or more feet from an assigned altitude. Since I'm fairly familiar with the accuracy of both computers and altitude encoders, I decided to ask the ARTCC manager for more details. It turns out that what is being filed is a notice of possible violation, and only when the altitude deviation results in less than required separation with respect to another aircraft. It's up to the FSDO/GADO Inspector to determine the cause of the deviation. Both the ARTCC manager and most of the Inspectors I know are aware of the fact that there are flight conditions which prevent a pilot of a light plane from maintaining altitude -- descending air mass with velocity that exceeds aircraft climb capability for one. I know we are all trying for safe piloting as a goal, but has anyone had any experience with this aspect of the ARTCC, either positive or negative? I can just see some pilot on a solo IFR flight in a Cessna 1x2 who deviates, is reported, and gets a GADO Inspector who won't accept any reasonable explanation. I'm not trying for paranoia, just the balance required to really make the system work. Ted Jardine CFI ASME Instruments -- TJ (with Amazing Grace) The Piper ...uw-beaver!ssc-vax!tjj
bl@hplabsb.UUCP (Bruce T. Lowerre) (04/13/84)
The moral when flying in this situation is to list your equipment as /T and turn off the encoder!
jackg@tekchips.UUCP (Jack Gjovaag) (04/15/84)
Of course, reporting your equipment as /T and not enabling mode C will keep you from being yelled at by ATC and might even prevent an after-flight explanation about altitude deviation. Of course, this will deny you (and other aircraft in adjacent airspace) a neat safety feature. I don't know why I am writing this. The author of the original article was just having a little :-) type fun. Ok, I'll lighten up.
tjj@ssc-vax.UUCP (04/16/84)
> From: bl@hplabsb.UUCP (Bruce T. Lowerre) > > The moral when flying in this situation is to list your equipment as /T > and turn off the encoder! Ah, yes! But what to do when filing IFR for airspace that requires an encoder? Such as SEA - SLC - DEN (Seattle - Salt Lake City - Denver). :-) -- TJ (with Amazing Grace) The Piper ...uw-beaver!ssc-vax!tjj
grahamr@azure.UUCP (Graham Ross) (04/20/84)
Seems generally good to know more about what is going on up in the air, especially for commercial flights. However, it's also good to encourage pilots to use /A whenever they can. I think the FAA should say something like this: We won't tattle on pilots of non-commercial flights not requiring /A who deviate from assignments unless the deviation is remarkably large (publish a figure here, possibly different for different airspace types and altitudes). We WILL talk to the controller of such flights. This attitude would encourage use of /A more than the current policy. I don't know how to make the rule apply to air taxi operators whose N-numbers look like a private pilot's. Offhand I don't remember anything in the flight plan that distinguishes a commercial C-172 flight from a private one. This is a harmless technicality though -- I'm sure of it. Graham Ross Tektronix tektronix!tekmdp!grahamr