Mandatory Reporting: Fact vs. Fiction

Justin, a private pilot in Texas, writes: “There’s a lot of chatter online about Air Traffic Control Towers “having to” report any mechanical issue a pilot has to the FAA and pilots having to follow up on incidents with the FSDO. Is this new? Where does this come from? What rises to the level of being reported? And what should you do if the FAA calls or writes?”

So I poked around several pilot discussion boards and you’re right that there’s quite a lot of chatter — although not too many facts — and a whole lot of heat over this “issue.” The chatter and the heat have been going on for a number of years, so it’s not “new” — at least not in the new car-smell sense of new.

And I haven’t been able to locate any specific requirement that forces ATC to report mechanical issues with GA airplanes to the FAA (for commercial operators and repair stations that’s another story), so I can only assume this comes from the MOR, or Mandatory Occurrence Report, requirements that are largely laid out in FAA Order JO 7210.623A, which was last updated in April 2022.

This order is a rather long document (27 pages) that deals with a wide range of stuff ATC is supposed to report to the FAA, all which are listed in Appendix A. Most are pretty serious occurrences like loss of separation of aircraft, total communication failures, wrong runway landings, and wake turbulence encounters. Altogether, there are 40-plus reportable “occurrences.” I say “plus,” as one category — Emergency or In-flight hazard — has the catch-all wording, “The following are provided as examples and are not intended to be all-inclusive.”

It’s the second item on that not-all-inclusive list that could be the source of all this online angst: “Inflight equipment malfunction requiring special handling.”

Under that heading, if you got a CAS warning on takeoff, and prudently decided to request a return to the field, would it be reportable under this category? Apparently so — it’s at least happened a few times. One pilot, venting online, wrote that he had an electrical glitch on takeoff and radioed the tower he’d like to return to the field. He didn’t declare an emergency or ask for priority handling. The next day, he got a call from the FSDO, when he learned that apparently his return triggered an “occurrence” report.

This, kid you not, led to wide-ranging rants about government overreach, @#$&% bureaucrats, and pilots saying they would — in the future — never report mechanical issues to ATC, but instead just fly to somewhere where there was no tower.

Okay… wow… uh…

Well, let’s start with the alleged overreach and look at that calmly. Then I’ll address the issue of quietly flying a broken aircraft elsewhere to avoid talking to the FAA.

The stated purpose of mandatory reporting is to “identify risks in the system,” rather than “determine who is at fault.” ATC staff are specifically instructed that “the simple act of reporting an occurrence should not automatically trigger quality control functions; e.g., corrective action plans or service reviews.”

That said, the order does suggest that, for a controller, there’s hell to pay for NOT reporting what they see.

All of that being said, I can see where someone in a tower might report an incident that a pilot would feel is no big deal — say a minor equipment issue resulting in a prudent, non-priority return — because from the controller’s perspective, while the pilot won’t get in any trouble if it’s reported, the controller sure as heck can get in trouble for not reporting it, so why not just report it and be done with it? Perhaps, tied in with this, is the heightened awareness that mechanical causes of crashes are making up a larger percentage of GA accidents, as other causes continue to drop.

But if you seriously think a tower controller is a bureaucrat, you probably need to schedule a tower tour and spend some time up there with them. I guarantee you there’s not another group of people in the world who less want to add to their workload with silly paperwork than air traffic controllers.

And what about the people at the FSDO? Do they want extra paperwork? Not any of the ones I’ve ever met.

In terms of having to deal with the FAA as a pilot, I’ll be the first to admit that an unexpected envelope in the mail from the agency increases pulse rate and raises blood pressure enough to make an AME frown. Once, one of my colleagues got an unexpected letter from the FAA, and got so agitated she couldn’t even open it and asked me to open it for her. As with most FAA mail, it wasn’t cause for panic. She had simply been invited to participate in the annual GA survey.

As to a call from the FSDO, my experience (and I’m sure we’ll get contrary experiences in the comments) is that most FAA folks are reasonable people with a job to do. If you are respectful in dealing with them, they will be respectful in dealing with you. I’ve known and worked with a lot of FAA people over the decades, and can only think of one who was a total and complete asshole. And I’ll bet if you review your mental checklist of pilots you know, you have at least one of those in your own personal roster too.

All of that aside, in this particular case, what on earth is there to fear? If something mechanical went wrong in your aircraft, it’s hardly your “fault.” Equipment failures are typically deeply buried in the machine and outside of either your control or your responsibility. So if the FAA wants to know more, just tell them what they want to know. Perhaps it will help identify a trend that can prevent a similar failure happening to someone else, perhaps under worse circumstances.

As to those people who say they’d proceed on a flight with a known mechanical failure to avoid the possibility of interacting with regulatory authorities, can I just say…really? That’s moronic beyond all comprehension. You’d put your aircraft, your personal safety, your passengers’ wellbeing, and the safety of innocent bystanders on the ground at risk, all to avoid talking to the FAA?

That’s a mind-blowingly selfish and arrogant act — one that violates every dictate of aeronautical decision-making, long-standing professional ethos, and PIC responsibility of pilots since the dawn of flight. I can understand people whining and venting about perceived regulatory overreach, but to even suggest treating our safety culture so lightly… is… well, I’m never at a loss for words, but I’m having a hard time composing a response that doesn’t entail a long string of unprintable profanity.

So I’ll just say this: If you really feel that way, then I feel aviation isn’t right for you. Please go find some other self-destructive activity. One where your actions won’t put bystanders at risk or damage a larger community of people who are striving to do the right thing.