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

Please let me try and sum up.

We have read that for exactly the same infringement, the penalty handed down can be completely different.

We have read that the reason for this, are factors of which the pilot had no knowledge at the time, could not reasonably have had any knowledge at the time, and for all we know, will not be told after the event. Its elevance will never be questioned other than behind closed doors.

This action is the policy set out in CAP 1404.

CAP 1404 and the process it sets out is therefore fundamentally flawed. The penalties it prescribes are not proportionate and cannot be considered as having any part of a just culture. It is incumbent on the Regulator to set the highest standard.

For these reasons there will be those that feel let down and feel this is an abject failure to set out a process that is open and fair.

Comparisons are frequently attempted between this, and formal proceedings. These comparisons are false. Where the proceedings are informal, the test should be even higher because there is no independent scrutiny. I accept that many simply either dont care or cant be bothered to “do anything about it”. In fact that is probably true of the majority. “I have got off lightly, why would I want to go to Court, etc”. Pragmatically that rational is sound. Unfortunately, as I have said, it is the reason the bar must be set higher, simply because the underlying trust of many pilots will be lost. Of course most of those pilots will say nothing.

The process is then compounded by not allowing any discussion during the course which partially defeats the whole purpose of the course and smacks of a regulator who does not wish to engage and whose ears are totally closed to any criticism.

This is heralded as a fair, open engagement, intended to re-educate and reflect a proportionate response to an infringement.

The request is then made that data is published to enable the wider community to assess whether the process is having an impact on infringements. The regulator refuses to provide that data, and it takes a Freedom of Information appeal to force them to do so. The data that is finally produced, is neither adequate, nor is it a reliable basis to draw any reasonable conclusion as to whether the policy is effective. Once again the cards are stacked so that there can be no independent scrutiny, because the data which has obvioulsy been gathered, is withheld.

I do not believe that any barrister given comprehensive instructions would provide an opinion to support this process, and, if there is one, I would ask the regulator to publish that opinion so we can all see that proper advice has been sought.

To conclude, the other charge that is commonly made, is would we rather see a more draconian response and / or dont we trust the regulator and the various A B C organisations that may be involved. The answer, is the charge is irrelevant. These are not choices that the community should ever be asked in the first place, and in their asking, there is an abject derogation of responsibiity. The responsibility is to promote a policy that is open, fair and just, the result of which can be assessed by all in due course to establsih that it is producing the result that is desired.

That is all that many are asking. If that is paranoia, which is an irrational feeling that people are out to get you, then I am at my wits end. Cleary society must be suffereing the most extreme case of paranoia lest it should have any expectation of open governance, and lest we should ignore so many examples when precisely this charge has been made, but eventually the paranoid were those that refused to be open with those they sought to have oversight.

Finally, as many have said, the regulator seems to think one method of dealing with the problem is right and proper for one group of users of the airspace (CAT) and a different solution for another group (GA). CAT deal with the matter using CAA authorised instructors more often than not during recurrent training, GA is not permitted to do so. For GA the solution is derogated to a charity, who are entrusted with a considerable amount of private and confidential personal data, in respect of which there is no policy statement as to what measures they take to protect this data (at least of which I am aware and available via their domain, which is the usual standard these days), and which is not subject to all the empolyment rules that protect employees of CAT operators, and for that matter ATCOs. Industry wide standards exist for a very good reason, but GA has been discriminated against in the application of these standards, and this should be called as unacceptable.

Cub wrote:

Graham. I challenge you to deliver that level of detail in relation to every infringement event and retain a Just Culture!! It is exactly that reason that EU legislation prevents the routine sharing of MOR reports, these days.

Actually the detection, tracking and identification of infringements is relatively straight forward with modern surveillance systems. If you start from the premise that you are trying to determine a level of risk associated with the event then the identity of the pilot is irrelevant other than that their contribution to the investigation by way of a Pilot Infringement Questionnaire is important in identifying the causal factors which led to the event.

What I can assure you is that pilots involved in incidents judged as high risk events or causing significant delay are not routinely going unidentified. I think the published statistics reflect that.

I don’t disagree with anything you say but it doesn’t counter the point I made.

I didn’t ask for detail in relation to individual infringements, but rather whether the powers that be would be prepared to declare that the infringements they list (the monthly totals) are all ‘actionable’ in at least a theoretical sense, i.e. the pilot is known for sure and there is solid evidence that could be used against them. This is the same disingenuous reply received from the CAA time and again – people ask for different statistics or whatever and are told that they are asking for personal data, when clearly they are not.

The fact that not everyone is squawking mode S and not everyone is working an ATSU means that there must be at least some cases where the pilot’s identity is very difficult to establish and the case itself very difficult if not impossible to prove. I want to know where these cases are going (not the detail of each one!) and I think they’re going into the ‘no further action’ bucket to support an impression of leniency & proportionality.

You are of course right that the serious stuff will not go undetected. When some idiot shuts down Luton for 45 minutes the various parties involved are going to go to the ends of the earth to establish who it was, even if that means following a non-talking non-squawking aircraft home via primary radar returns and then leaning on some flying club, syndicate or farmer to disclose who landed at time X. Rightly so. But it’s disingenuous to focus on these incidents, because no-one here is disputing that they’re incredibly serious and that almost no regulatory action is too strong in these cases.

There is not going to be the same level of investigation when a FISO complains that an unknown aircraft might have touched his ATZ.

AA has it nailed though. A truly just culture would recognise almost at a stroke that the problem is systemic failings in airspace design and lack of a joined-up ATC system. What causes this situation is that taking action against pilots (pilots who were trained in a system overseen by the CAA!) is the one thing the CAA actually has the power to do.

Fuji_Abound wrote:

…not allowing any discussion during the course which partially defeats the whole purpose of the course

As a professional educator, I agree completely! I would go so far as to say not only “partially” but “mainly”.

Oh, and I should add, that various attempts have been made to take this discussion behind closed doors through personal invitations. I have no doubt this is with the best of intent. However, the right we all have to discuss, yes criticise, hopefully influence and ultimately call out policy is fundamental to the way in which we conduct ourselves and it is far better that such discussion takes place in this way, unless of course it involves matters of security, which this does not. To take the discussion behind closed doors is part of what we are discussing, and would be as wrong in this forum, as that.

Airborne_Again wrote:

Fuji_Abound wrote:
…not allowing any discussion during the course which partially defeats the whole purpose of the course
As a professional educator, I agree completely! I would go so far as to say not only “partially” but “mainly”.

I would imagine they took some learnings here from the early years of speed awareness courses.

You can’t allow discussion and divergence, because it only takes one or two people who are considerably smarter than the presenters (in a group of say 20 this is almost certain) and the presenters will lose control of the whole thing. This is a perennial problem whenever one is trying to keep something ‘on message’.

Thus GASCO attendees remain ‘under the sword’ until the CAA writes to them afterwards to confirm that their participation was satisfactory and the matter of their infringement is closed. They know this, so they play the game.

There was no such sword hanging over people at speed awareness courses (at least not then, there may be now) so people used to rip them to pieces just for the fun of it and to watch some rather dim policeman trying to argue black is white.

@Cub, I would also thank you for taking part here – especially the examples of “bigjet”. . It certainly gives a different perspective even if it isnt always one some like to hear. I also work in what is regarded as a “dangerous” industry with the premis of “Just Culture” as the backdrop to safety at work even if I dont fly much in the UK anymore, so I take a keen interest when someone says “Just Culture” as what happens in one industry has a habit of moving to another.

I think that the problem many have with the CAA starting to go after individual pilots in the way it appears to be doing, is that they are not looking at the whole system and trying to fix that first – You only had to have looked at the flyontrack maps over the last few years that plotted infringements across the UK, to see that there are certainly places where the airspace isnt easy/clear and that is a probable cause infringements. BTW The Flyontrack website (which showed this info to effect and used to show 10 odd years of infringement data) appears to not exist anymore, it seems to have been replaced/re-directed to the very site that many are complaining isnt giving the whole picture!!! I also think that it is most unfortunate that individual cases cant be made public because the very concept of honest and open reporting is a bedrock of what aviation is supposed to be about such that we all learn from other’s mistakes. Can you understand why there are questions being asked? Can you see why many suggest there is an “agenda” to infringement reporting? What starts to happen when the system isnt trusted is that those “pilot reports” that the CAA want filled out regarding an infringement, will not be filled out honestly and that means that the very data they want to prevent re-occurrence isnt forthcoming (I have seen this happen in my industry in the middle east). And this really worries me, not that pilots will turn off transponders, but that they will not tell the truth for fear of self incrimination and what they perceive might happen.

Regards, SD..

Cub wrote:

What I can assure you is that pilots involved in incidents judged as high risk events or causing significant delay are not routinely going unidentified. I think the published statistics reflect that.

What, high risk events to CAT? High risk events to who?

An ATZ penetration with no radar support is potentially of far higher risk that a CAS infringement, where every CAT has traffic and the airspace is activelyy controlled.

Safety is of the paramount importance, but we should recognise that in the vast majority of cases there was no risk of a collision; this is about eliminating any possible disruption to CAT. (and before the obvious is said, I am NOT saying the disruption of CAT is acceptable), but I am saying that the Sun style paranoia that this is costing CAT billions is in very bad taste.

Fuji. You have your view and I have my opinion. Actually neither matter unless you wish to influence change. I have tried to explain my rationale and why I am very comfortable with the procedure as established in the UK and therefore obviously not particularly interested in influencing change, right now. It’s not my job and I have no formal involvement with the process.

I think I have tried to help you to engage with the people who are actually involved in the delivery and procurement of this stuff (although you seem to avoid acknowledging multiple pseudonyms and the fact that proper engagement has been suggested). You continue to play the person and not the ball except if you really wanted to change the process you are engaging with the wrong person. I repeat, I am a fellow GA pilot, very content with the application of a Just Culture in this case and have no requirement to take any notice of your view other than to share my counter view and relevant experience with other GA pilots.

Airborne_Again wrote:

Airborne_Again
24-Jul-19 08:19
913

Fuji_Abound wrote:

…not allowing any discussion during the course which partially defeats the whole purpose of the course

As a professional educator, I agree completely! I would go so far as to say not only “partially” but “mainly”.

Thank you. I actually thought of using “mainly” but held back because I do not have your experience to make a judgement.

I am told by a number of attendees, that absolutely no discussion is permitted at all.

A little tongue in cheek, but I am told the attendees, even at lunch, sit at tables policed by the teacher, who makes it very apparent the delegates should stick with the weather.

What a sad day, that pilots are treated as if they were school kids, albeit these days I know even at school this culture no longer exists. I said before in a professional enviroment everyone would be gone in 10 minutes, and the lecturer left with an empty room – of course that isnt possible given the “rules” applied to the course. You can see why this rule was required and thought necessary when educating pilots who are usually, if not always, educated and intelligent people. Sadly, it is beyond contempt, and if I was one of the lecturers, I could not in all conscience deliver a course with this prescript. I would refuse to do so.

Do we know what educational training or qualifications the lecturers employed by GASCo who deliver these courses have? They maybe pilots, but one does have to wonder if they have the other necessary skills if the accounts (numerous) are accurate (and therefore I believe they are).