National CAA policies around Europe on busting pilots who bust controlled airspace (and danger areas)

Cub wrote:

I speak from very personal experience, but our mental health is an extremely fragile thing and I believe that we all should at least try to be respectful and conscious of the potential for really damaging somebody’s health by what we say.

If only those sort of thoughts were applied to pilots facing totally unfair infringement penalties for minor lapses of concentration. Hardly just culture.

I’ve never been a fan of people hiding behind faceless corporations. There has to be someone (or group) behind this policy, and someone should be able to take responsibility for what’s going on.

It hardly fosters trust when there has been difficulty in actually getting the data which shows what’s going on, then when it’s discussed legal threats start being thrown around demanding name removal. Perhaps like the questions being raised about Barton’s non-ATC clearance control, one has to question if it’s a push of power beyond what should be the case?

This is a fairly important GA topic as it appears to fly in the face of common sense. If someone in a relatively senior position can’t handle their fee fee’s getting hurt by just being mentioned online and their actions questioned maybe they’re not a good fit for the role.

Cub wrote:

The reason for me posting now is to ask you as one pilot to others to please stop targetting individuals in this debate.

I think this forum is quite tightly moderated such that personal attacks get squashed pretty quickly, however, if someone posts with a particular position on a topic, I do think it is not unreasonable for that person to possibly be asked to explain further if asked about it by others – that is debate and differentiating between the two if many others are asking the same question may be hard, but at the same time the fact that it is happening should tell you something too….

Cub wrote:

None of us are solely responsible for policy or procedures – that is simply not how any safety based operation can function, so for better or worse, what we do or say in our professional lives is corporately owned and supported until such time it is modified or amended by the same collective structure.

I think I must mis-understand you here, because I know from my industry that organisations, businesses and corporations dont “just happen”. They are driven by a culture that is very much a result of how corporate management (often one person) want their policies implemented. Even within the same company I have seen huge differences in the way different areas of business or countries are run due to the person in charge and his ideas about “how things are”. This can be especially so in a Safety context because usually to change a “way of doing things” really does mean someone has to steer the organisation in the new direction and make sure a new safety policy is implemented, because people generally like “The Status Quo” (and Im not talking about an ageing Rock band here )

I wont be offended if you dont reply to my post. I also wont be offended if you tell me Im wrong in what I say, especially if you can give me a reason.

Regards, SD..

Cub I have found it difficult to arrive at an appropriate response to your heartfelt post; there is much that could be written, especially as you make a point often read.

I will say this.

I think we will all relate to an increasing trend for no one to take responsibilty. More businesses when you speak with them will refuse to give you their name, or if they do only their Christian name, or staff number. The thrust is to hide behind the corporate veil. It has some merit. First line employees merely reflected the policy of their employer. Never the less we all know this, and, I suspect the company would gain far more respect if the company accepted they were accountable for the actions of their employees (at least to some degree).

I think we all take a different view when it comes to CEO’s, directors, owners, and department heads. If they are not accountable, then there is no accountability, because the organisation can have no persona other than that which it projects through its management. In that sense, they should take personal responsibility for policy and be prepared to deal with the flack that might ensue. Of course there is a line between abuse and robust flack, one often crossed. While the line should not be crossed, in reality, if you do the job you should understand when people feel strongly about a particular matter they may cross that line.

The consequence of not accepting responsibility is frustration. Situations that could be easily diffused were responsibility accepted, become entrenched and more personal because most of us dont respect people who hide behind the corporate veil.

In this matter, we have seen those in charge do nothing to communicate the CAAs and their position on the matter, even though there are numerous routes through which they could have done so, and which are used when it suits them to do so. We have seen them engage in uninvited private correspondence which we can only conclude was intended to suppress debate, as their is clearly no intention of pursuing the offers to meet on anything other than a very closed agenda, if even at all.

Cub, in short I feel that those concerned, and the CAA have brought this reaction entirely on themselves, and it is they that have failed to consider the mental health of their staff by definition, it is the head of department that must take responsibility. Matters could have been addressed very differently, and have not. For those that do, and I am not one of them, I can symphasise now with the suggestion that there is a conspiracy to perpetuate a policy that cannot be justified on any reasonable basis.

As to the post by Timothy, elsewhere, I shall be more blunt. It is nonesense. Of course the lawyers would council against legal action. They know there are no grounds so far as the wider allegations made. Timothy is doing nothing more than defend his friends and associates and, as is often the case, is so closely involved that it becomes difficult to understand others frustration. Timothy’s judgement is clouded.

What we should do is put to one side the crocodile tears over individuals feelings, which the cynic would say are nothing other than to divert attention from the real issues, and have the CAA engage in a meaningful debate withh those they claim to represent – and I mean represent, because without us pilots they have no purpose. What we shouldnt do is let this spill over into direct personal attacks that go way beyond the matter under dsicssuion, and on that point, Cub, we are in agreement, BUT, while inexcusable, their actions (or lack of) had brought that upon those concerned. I make that point not with any satisfaction, but becasue it is the simple reality of the human condition.

Fuji_Abound wrote:

Timothy is doing nothing more than defend his friends and associates and, as is often the case, is so closely involved that it becomes difficult to understand others frustration. Timothy’s judgement is clouded.

Many years ago, I was responsible for airspace and ATS questions at the Royal Swedish Aeroclub. In that position I attended many discussions and airspace user meetings with the Swedish CAA, commented on draft rule/airspace changes etc. I tried to always be well briefed and argue for our position with an understanding of the position of other stakeholders.

Another Swedish GA organisation had a quite different approach of making their frustration known by the way of attacks and exaggerations particularly in written comments. Maybe I shouldn’t judge myself but in my opinion my organisation achieved considerably more good for GA in the regulation/airspace area are than the other one. (Which didn’t prevent the other organisation from taking credit for my work.)

My situation wasn’t quite the same as Timothy’s but it is worth considering if a head-on attack is always the best strategy.

Ibra wrote:

Which ones? appart from that “cheque has been chased and story closed”

You must be new around here ;-)

I thought there was a thread on here, but I can’t find it now, so this quality piece of reporting will have to do.

tmo wrote:

You must be new around here ;-)

I know the story but the case is closed
You can’t do anything fun these days without getting a low quality video into the gutter press

From here

JasonC – as far as I am aware transgression in the States (at least of the less than very serious nature) are dealt with my time spent with an instructor – am I misinformed. What’s woring with that? It surely has to be more productive than GASCo, if you are truly trying to improve safety. Iand I know there are some poor instructors, just as there are poor judges, but hey ho).

Fuji_Abound wrote:

JasonC – as far as I am aware transgression in the States (at least of the less than very serious nature) are dealt with my time spent with an instructor – am I misinformed. What’s woring with that? It surely has to be more productive than GASCo, if you are truly trying to improve safety. Iand I know there are some poor instructors, just as there are poor judges, but hey ho).

That isn’t true. You bust airspace in the US and you get licence action. Either mandatory retraining or full on suspension. The US is far less forgiving that Europe on infringing airspace.

Peter wrote:

That’s grossly disingenuous, Jason. Class D and two-way radio contact, anyone????

Peter, please explain rather than just exclaim. Whatever the rules, if you don’t follow them in the US, you are always in serious trouble.