Narrative:

We departed day at approximately PM00 local time on 2/fri/90. Our clearance was radar vectors to the cvg 020 degree radial, cvg, then direct destination, initial heading 090 degree. Prior to takeoff both pilots' VOR receivers were tuned to the cvg VOR and both HSI's were set for the cvg 020 degree radial inbound. The latitude/longitude for the cvg VOR were also put in the RNAV. We departed runway 6R and turned to heading 090 degree. The copilot was flying the aircraft. We were handed off to departure where we were given a subsequent climb clearance and heading 240 degree to intercept the cvg 020 degree radial. We turned to the assigned heading and continued our climb. When we were about 5-7 degree short of intercepting the assigned radial, the controller told us to 'turn now to heading 180 degree'. We immediately turned to the newly assigned heading. At this point we were about 55 NM north of the cvg VOR. Both HSI's showed us 5-7 degree short of intercepting the 020 degree radial. In addition the RNAV showed us on the 205 degree bearing inbound to cvg. At our range we were about 5 mi east of the radial. The controller then asked 'didn't I give you the heading to intercept the cvg 020 degree radial?', implying that we had crossed the assigned radial. I replied that he had, but that we hadn't reached the radial yet. He told us to continue heading 180 degree and gave us a traffic advisory concerning an aircraft that we apparently were in potential conflict with. There is a good deal of course scalloping north of the cvg VOR, however, all 3 of our navigational instruments agreed, showing us east of the assigned radial in accordance with our clearance. I believe that the controller gave us a heading to intercept the radial at a point that put us in potential conflict with another aircraft. When he realized the problem he gave us a new heading and then tried to shift the blame on us by implying that we had flown through the 020 degree radial. One of the problems with the FAA's 'zero tolerance' policy is that both pilots and controllers are put in a position where when a problem arises you must divide your attention between dealing with the problem, and at the same time attempt to slough as much blame as possible on other parties, or conceal information that may tend to bring blame upon yourself. This has given rise to the adversarial relationship that is developing between pilots and controllers, and exists between pilots and the FAA. I can't believe that the benefits of 'zero tolerance' outweigh the disadvantages. Instead of promoting air safety is it an impediment.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMT CPR JET PIC DISPUTES POSITION AND NON COMPLIANCE WITH ATC CLRNC FROM DEP CTLR.

Narrative: WE DEPARTED DAY AT APPROX PM00 LCL TIME ON 2/FRI/90. OUR CLRNC WAS RADAR VECTORS TO THE CVG 020 DEG RADIAL, CVG, THEN DIRECT DEST, INITIAL HDG 090 DEG. PRIOR TO TKOF BOTH PLTS' VOR RECEIVERS WERE TUNED TO THE CVG VOR AND BOTH HSI'S WERE SET FOR THE CVG 020 DEG RADIAL INBND. THE LATITUDE/LONGITUDE FOR THE CVG VOR WERE ALSO PUT IN THE RNAV. WE DEPARTED RWY 6R AND TURNED TO HDG 090 DEG. THE COPLT WAS FLYING THE ACFT. WE WERE HANDED OFF TO DEP WHERE WE WERE GIVEN A SUBSEQUENT CLIMB CLRNC AND HDG 240 DEG TO INTERCEPT THE CVG 020 DEG RADIAL. WE TURNED TO THE ASSIGNED HDG AND CONTINUED OUR CLIMB. WHEN WE WERE ABOUT 5-7 DEG SHORT OF INTERCEPTING THE ASSIGNED RADIAL, THE CTLR TOLD US TO 'TURN NOW TO HDG 180 DEG'. WE IMMEDIATELY TURNED TO THE NEWLY ASSIGNED HDG. AT THIS POINT WE WERE ABOUT 55 NM N OF THE CVG VOR. BOTH HSI'S SHOWED US 5-7 DEG SHORT OF INTERCEPTING THE 020 DEG RADIAL. IN ADDITION THE RNAV SHOWED US ON THE 205 DEG BEARING INBND TO CVG. AT OUR RANGE WE WERE ABOUT 5 MI E OF THE RADIAL. THE CTLR THEN ASKED 'DIDN'T I GIVE YOU THE HDG TO INTERCEPT THE CVG 020 DEG RADIAL?', IMPLYING THAT WE HAD CROSSED THE ASSIGNED RADIAL. I REPLIED THAT HE HAD, BUT THAT WE HADN'T REACHED THE RADIAL YET. HE TOLD US TO CONTINUE HDG 180 DEG AND GAVE US A TFC ADVISORY CONCERNING AN ACFT THAT WE APPARENTLY WERE IN POTENTIAL CONFLICT WITH. THERE IS A GOOD DEAL OF COURSE SCALLOPING N OF THE CVG VOR, HOWEVER, ALL 3 OF OUR NAVIGATIONAL INSTRUMENTS AGREED, SHOWING US E OF THE ASSIGNED RADIAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR CLRNC. I BELIEVE THAT THE CTLR GAVE US A HDG TO INTERCEPT THE RADIAL AT A POINT THAT PUT US IN POTENTIAL CONFLICT WITH ANOTHER ACFT. WHEN HE REALIZED THE PROBLEM HE GAVE US A NEW HDG AND THEN TRIED TO SHIFT THE BLAME ON US BY IMPLYING THAT WE HAD FLOWN THROUGH THE 020 DEG RADIAL. ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WITH THE FAA'S 'ZERO TOLERANCE' POLICY IS THAT BOTH PLTS AND CTLRS ARE PUT IN A POSITION WHERE WHEN A PROBLEM ARISES YOU MUST DIVIDE YOUR ATTN BETWEEN DEALING WITH THE PROBLEM, AND AT THE SAME TIME ATTEMPT TO SLOUGH AS MUCH BLAME AS POSSIBLE ON OTHER PARTIES, OR CONCEAL INFO THAT MAY TEND TO BRING BLAME UPON YOURSELF. THIS HAS GIVEN RISE TO THE ADVERSARIAL RELATIONSHIP THAT IS DEVELOPING BETWEEN PLTS AND CTLRS, AND EXISTS BETWEEN PLTS AND THE FAA. I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT THE BENEFITS OF 'ZERO TOLERANCE' OUTWEIGH THE DISADVANTAGES. INSTEAD OF PROMOTING AIR SAFETY IS IT AN IMPEDIMENT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.