When these words travel through the air and land in your ears, the feeling of dread must be something you find in the writings of a Steven King novel. They send a frozen chill from your ears to your spine.
What if I told you it isn’t the end of the world? Well, here I am telling you it’s not the end of the world.
There are many ways a pilot can commit a pilot deviation, both inadvertently (and advertently); from airspace violations to noncompliance with ATC instructions. We’ve all heard one or two stories of mistakes made.
But I expect you know the rules of the sky, so we won’t bother with how you might commit a pilot deviation. Let’s focus instead on what happens if you do, the part that ATC plays, and the actions taken by the FAA when it happens.
Now You’ve Done It
Nobody starts their day and says, “Hey, let’s go flying and make bad decisions! I’m really in the mood to piss off the FAA today.”
I suppose I shouldn’t say nobody. In the words of Alfred Pennyworth, famous butler to Bruce Wayne, when reasoning about the unreasonable Joker in The Dark Knight, “Some people just want to watch the world burn.” But I think it’s safe to say we don’t have any nefarious comic book villains reading IFR magazine.
So working under the assumption that you aren’t all a bunch of old devils, let’s say you made a teensy weensy mistake and had an airspace violation or missed a crossing restriction or something like that. That’s common enough and usually an innocent mistake. So what happens now?
Well, first things first. You’re going to get a Brasher Warning, commonly known as a pilot deviation call. So let’s talk about that.
The Brasher
It’s important to understand what the Brasher Warning is in the first place. A Brasher is the common name for a pilot deviation call. “Give them the Brasher” is what we often say when it’s time to issue the warning.
Many years ago Captain Jack Brasher allegedly deviated from his assigned altitude. After several months had passed by, he received notification from the FAA of this deviation and was informed that they were investigating the event. Since several months and many flight hours had passed since the time of the incident, Brasher and his first officer couldn’t precisely remember the circumstances of the event.
This led the FAA to conclude that proper notification of a pilot deviation needed to be issued in a timely manner. This timely notification allows pilots to properly consider the event and the circumstances around it. The FAA mandated that ATC would notify the pilots as soon as practical that a possible pilot deviation had occurred:
“(CALL SIGN), POSSIBLE PILOT DEVIATION. ADVISE YOU CONTACT (FACILITY) AT (PHONE NUMBER).”
This is no time to panic. It’s entirely possible that you didn’t commit a pilot deviation at all. We will be looking at an example further along in this article where the fault was ATC’s.
So after you receive a Brasher Warning, calmly consider all events throughout your flight, from departure to the time of the call. Oftentimes the controller giving you the Brasher is not the controller you were talking to when the deviation occurred (or didn’t occur). Sometimes deviations occurred on the departure procedure or somewhere else along the line before the Brasher. The FAA will typically conduct a preliminary review of the event to determine if a Brasher even needs to be issued.
Basically, a Brasher Warning exists so pilots aren’t ambushed by the FAA with an investigation that they didn’t know was coming. It gives pilots a chance to contemplate their actions throughout the flight, get their story straight, and properly articulate their perspective and possible reasons for the deviation.
Safety Culture
Even though we’re talking about investigations and possible Flight Standards violations, it’s important to know that in the current way of doing business, the FAA isn’t actively out to get you. The FAA recognizes that mistakes can happen and it is more important to understand why mistakes happen than it is to punish people for making those mistakes.
Which is why, in the spirit of safety, the FAA has shifted to a more open approach to safety. This idea is evidenced by the FAA’s emphasis on “Safety Culture.”
Safety Culture refers to how safety is viewed, valued, and prioritized within an organization. It embodies the genuine commitment to safety at every level. The perspective focuses on how an individual acts when no one is watching and how an organization responds to safety events.
Safety Culture is cultivated through the interplay of Organizational Culture and Professional Culture. At its core, it reflects what individuals believe about the significance of safety, including their perceptions of how their peers, supervisors, and leaders regard safety as a priority. The idea is to create a culture where safety is the most important consideration.
The FAA has taken many steps towards creating a transparent and robust safety culture in aviation today. Their goal has been to shift the culture towards a place where we can openly discuss issues without the fear of repercussions when a safety event occurs. Punitive actions for mistakes, while still a possibility, are not the primary focus. The focus is on open communication and collaboration so that we can all contribute to a safer operation.
After the Brasher
Say you got The Brasher. Now you have a phone number to call and a pit in your stomach. Relax. As I mentioned before, the FAA has shifted to a safety culture in which they focus on why something happened; searching for opportunities to ensure that it doesn’t happen again. They focus on the facts and do everything they can to remain professional and objective about the situation.
After the Brasher, consider the event carefully. Be sure to have a solid grasp on what may or may not have happened. Be prepared to have the conversation before you call in. If you can’t think of anything that might have been considered a pilot deviation, go over everything you did during your flight. Do your best to recall every interaction that you had with ATC and every action you took. Take notes if you need.
Once you call in, keep in mind that this conversation isn’t supposed to be a place for debate or argument. The FAA should only discuss the event in a matter-of-fact way. On this point, the FAA has actually disseminated guidance to ATC facility managers to discuss the event in a non-accusatory manner. In an Air Traffic Procedures Bulletin published in March of 2021, they stated:
“Issuing the Brasher Notification, for even apparently minor or “no harm-no foul” occurrences, enables Flight Standards to establish a productive conversation with the airman regarding a situation that may have posed a risk to the NAS. When engaging an airman that is calling the facility pursuant to a Brasher Notification, remain neutral and stick to the facts. Do not provide your personal opinion, and do not minimize the situation or suggest or comment on the potential outcome of a Flight Standards investigation. This detached and professional approach is the best way we can support Flight Standards in conducting an investigation that leads to a positive, safety-enhancing conclusion.”
This initial conversation is mostly about fact finding and understanding the perspective of the pilot. Stick to the facts as you know them. Explain your knowledge of the event clearly and concisely. When explaining the facts, try not to embellish, conflate, diminish, or disregard them. Be transparent and honest about what you know of the event. It might be tempting to omit or alter information, but that’s definitely the wrong way to handle the situation. The FAA already has a wealth of knowledge about the event. Radar is recorded, frequencies are recorded, flight plans are recorded, ADS-B information is accessible, etc. Trying to manipulate anything about what happened is a quick way to get caught in a web of lies.
Depending on the severity of the event, there might be no need for investigation beyond that conversation. If it’s a no harm/no foul situation, like going NORDO for a prolonged period of time, oftentimes the manager that you speak with won’t elevate the matter any further.
There is a certain level of discretion given to the managers during that first contact with a pilot. If they determine that you understand the problem and will be diligent about avoiding that kind of situation in the future, that will be as far as things go. If you argue and push back, the odds are much greater that they will elevate things to the next level.
However, if there is a loss of separation (with another aircraft or with airspace) or an event of serious safety concern, then it is mandatory for the managers to elevate the event. The managers are required to file an MOR (Mandatory Occurrence Report). The event and all pertinent information will be forwarded to a Quality Control department and then eventually to the FSDO who will conduct the investigation.
It’s Not You; It’s Me
There are some occasions when you might get a deviation call and you didn’t do anything wrong. It’s entirely possible that we made a mistake. Each of us is human and there’s always risk in the human factor. ATC are people too (despite popular opinion). This is why the phraseology is “… possible pilot deviation.”
Maybe you are absolutely certain that the controller said “Turn 15 degrees right” when they meant to say left and that right turn put you into Special Use Airspace or standard separation was lost with another aircraft at your altitude. This has happened on more than one occasion and it really wasn’t your fault. The controller made the mistake and caused the issue.
This is where that first conversation is very important. You get the chance to explain what happened and at the end of it all you had no responsibility for the error.
That’s not to say that your responsibilities as pilot in command aren’t alleviated by control instructions. If you recognize an unsafe situation that a control instruction could create, never hesitate to tell the controller “Unable (state reason)” or question the clearance.
“Did you mean left? Because a right turn puts us into military airspace (or traffic we see on TCAS).”
The controller may have the situation under control and actually did mean to say right, but it never hurts to question something when you think it is unsafe. The controller might get a little snippy or irritated for being questioned about a control instruction (most of us are type A), but safety is always supported by double checking actions. We will usually swallow our pride when we’ve made a mistake, but oh does it hurt…
Here’s one example that recently occurred at a Center:
It was an extremely busy and complex period of traffic in a high altitude sector. The controller working the sector was swimming hard and struggling to keep his head above water. He had a radar assistant to help, but the radar assistant was training on the sector with a trainer behind him. Training always adds a challenging component to the work.
The aircraft involved in the event (we’ll call them N13PD) was requesting FL430 headed westbound. N13PD was stopped at FL360 for opposite direction traffic at FL370. There was also traffic at FL400 once N13PD was clear of the FL370 traffic. The controller saw the traffic and planned on climbing N13PD to FL380. He even put 380 as an interim altitude in the data-block (a tag of flight information associated with the aircraft that includes callsign, altitude, and ground speed).
He was dealing with many other climbing and descending aircraft in the sector. Needless to say, his mind was saturated with a multitude of requests and control instructions. So once N13PD was clear of the traffic at FL370, the controller thought he issued a climb to FL380 when, in fact, he issued a climb to FL410 (which happened to be a request from another aircraft in his list of tasks). The pilot read back FL410 but neither the radar controller, the trainee, or the trainer caught the mistake.
The controller handed N13PD to the next sector who was expecting him to climb to FL380 (as shown in the data-block) but, of course, N13PD climbed right through FL380 and nearly lost separation with the traffic at FL400. The second controller turned both aircraft away from each other and separation was never lost, but it was assumed that N13PD had committed a pilot deviation.
N13PD was issued the Brasher and called the facility once they reached their destination. By that time, the event had been reviewed and it was determined that they had actually been cleared to the altitude they were climbing to and they were not at fault. The facility manager apologized for the inconvenience and wished the pilot a good day.
Pilot deviations are a vast topic that can go on for pages. But just remember, they aren’t the end of the world. Keep your facts straight. The first call isn’t the place for argument or confrontation. And remember that we strive for a Safety Culture. We’re all doing our best and trying to do better.
Mac Lawler is a hopeless fishing addict and a lifelong nature enthusiast. He and his dog Niko are the only males in a house shared with his wife, three daughters, a female dog, and a female Maine Coon cat. But it’s great. Really.
