Air Traffic Controller And A Pilot example essay topic

AMT 442 Nov 25th 2001. Case Brief Style: THE MATTER OF MICHAEL EDWARD WENDT Court: United States Department of Transportation, Federal Administration, 1992. Citation: FAA order No. 92-40. Docket No. CP 89 GL 0084 Facts: Michael Edward Wendt is appealing the ruling issued by Law Judge Burton S Koko on May 17 1991 that he violated sections 91.75 (b) and 91.9 of the Federal Aviation's Regulations (FAR). The law judge reduced the penalty from the requested $1500 to $1000.

On March 3rd 1988 the respondent was the pilot of Britt Airways flight 724, which had already landed on runway four left (4 L) at Indianapolis international airport at around 8: 00 a.m. The respondent taxied on taxiway alpha where he came into conflict with another aircraft on the same taxiway. After some confusion as to where he should go to avoid the aircraft, he was cleared to turn right on runway 4 L and hold short of runway 31. The air traffic controllers exact dialogue goes as follows, "Britt Air seven twenty four turn right on onto four left hold short of runway three one traffics on the roll for three one".

The instructions were acknowledged by the respondent, and he proceded to turn right and taxi in a northeasterly direction on runway 4 L. The respondent however did not stop short of runway 31, and as he began to cross the intersection between the runways the ground controller called and asked him to verify that he was holding short of the runway. The controller was unable to complete her transmission before the respondent crossed into the runway. The respondent realizing his error called and apologized to the controller for the mistake. Instead of stopping the respondent rolled through the intersection and held short of Taxiway Bravo. The respondent claims that he had mistaken Taxiway Bravo for Runway 31.

In the original case the judge ruled that that the respondent crossed an active runway in violation of section 91.75 (b) of the FAR. The judge also ruled that the respondent violated section 91.9 because it was careless and inherently dangerous. The judge rejected the respondent's arguments that the air traffic controller was to blame. The judge did note that those standard markers were not present because the respondent was taxiing on a runway rather than a taxiway. The judge then ruled that because of this the captain's error was understandable but not excusable.

On the appeal the respondent argued that the usual cues that would have enabled him to identify the intersecting runway were not present. His argument included that there was no yellow hold short line immediately proceeding the runway, there was no runway edge stripe crossing his path, there was no runway center line crossing his path; and there was no sign indicating his arrival at a runway intersection. All of these cues would have been directly in the respondent's path if he had been taxiing on a taxiway rather than a runway. The respondent also argues that because of the bad weather and the instructions issued by the air traffic controller, that the controller should have notified him of the intersecting runway.

Issue: The issue is whether the respondent should be found to have violated the regulations. The respondent has received a waiver concerning the civil penalty. All that is at stake by this appeal is the finding of a violation. Holding: No Law: The law according to part 91 of the FAR goes as follows. C.F.R. 91.75 (b) provides: "Except in an emergency no person may, in an area in which air traffic control is exercised, operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction". C.F.R. 91.9 provides: "No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another". Explanation: Safety depends on mutual trust between the air traffic controller and the pilot who is in command.

A certain pattern or understanding will develop when an air traffic controller and a pilot are working together and they have each other's confidence. In this case that confidence was not established, possibly because of confusing orders issued by the air traffic controller. Normally pilots are to be held accountable for their mistakes, but in this case because of the lack of visual cues that were available, intern with what may have been a confusing and ill managed line of communication between the controller and the pilot it would be out of order to put this violation on the respondents record. Judgment: The law judges finding that the respondent violated sections 91.75 (b) and 91.9 of the FAR has been reversed..