UK participants sought for a CAS infringement study

LeSving wrote:

MikeE wrote:
But there are only two explanations for a pilot infringing: the first is that he or she made a mistake (or more correctly erred) and the second is that he or she did it deliberately. I do not see any other possible factor.
Then you should open your eyes Doing research blindfolded, never leads to good results

I would welcome your views on other factors that may provide an explanation.

LeSving wrote:

MikeE wrote:
I am looking at pilot error in the GA context as this is a very under-researched subject

According to who?

According to me. I have spent a lot of time researching the literature. Are you suggesting it is well-researched?

LeSving wrote:

and under which circumstances do these pilot errors occur that is under-researched?

My research is seeking to find out and address the circumstances in which pilot error occurs. This is because it is under-researched.

Again, if anyone who has infringed CAS would like to take part in my research, aimed at helping pilots avoid errors, then please contact me entirely confidentially and anonymously (contact details in my post above).

Regards

Mike

Thank you 172driver. I certainly wouldn’t argue that airspace design in the UK is anything but poor for GA pilots, but there are areas in the UK where there is very little CAS, yet pilots still infringe. People extol the design of airspace elsewhere, including Europe and the US. But pilots still infringe that airspace.

Nor would I argue that ATC in the UK is very joined up for GA pilots. Yet people point to ATC elsewhere, France for example, where it is said there is good joined up ATC. But pilots still infringe there and, indeed, elsewhere. I have the European research that demonstrates that.

So I repeat my question, amended accordingly. Where the airspace is not ‘idiotic’, where ATC is competent and available, what apart from pilot error or deliberate action leads pilots to infringe that airspace.

And let’s not forget that infringements are not just about controlled airspace and ATC. What about infringements of prohibited and danger areas, TMZs and RMZs. They are clearly defined, usually small in area, and ATC are not involved in providing clearances. I am interested in how your top two factors would apply there?

Training is a real issue, covered in my interviews. Where are the gaps? Should there be more emphasis on the use of moving maps rather than chart and stopwatch? What else is needed? How do we know if we aren’t prepared to ask the questions.

I must say that the responses to a simple request for participants in themselves are a real insight, and for which I am grateful.

Again, anyone who has infringed and wishes to make a confidential and anonymous and positive contribution to pilot safety is invited to contact me on my email in the above posts.

Best wishes

Mike

Peter wrote:

Pilots will “always” infringe, at some statistical rate

I agree, because pilots are human and humans will make errors.

Peter wrote:

but they will cause a huge amount of grief to many pilots before this is realised.

I know, and some of my interviewees have also made this point.

Peter wrote:

This is why any study needs to evaluate the system as a whole

Another study perhaps. My study is into pilot error ie why do pilots make mistakes. Clearly this includes issues around infringements and is discussed in the context of the system, but the focus is on trying to find out why pilots make mistakes.

skydriller wrote:

The only airspace infringement I know of committing to date occurred because the FIS I was talking to told me that a restricted area was “not active” when in fact it was active, as I found out when I contacted its controlling authority about crossing its adjoining CTR. I was the third aeroplane that afternoon to have done exactly the same thing.

That is interesting and it is, indeed, may be a factor additional to the two I posited. It was, of course, an error but perhaps one on the part of the FIS. I wonder how it would have panned out if it had been taken to court, given that I assume the FIS did not have the authority to clear you into the RA. An interesting point, thank you.

skydriller wrote:

I fear you will not get much joy from the pilot community if you approach your “research” with the pre-conceived idea that accidents and infringements are due to pilot error.

I am in very good company. Most if not all authorities take the view that some 70-80% of GA (and other aviation) accidents and incidents are due to pilot error. See for example https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2019/october/11/nall-report-ga-fatal-accidents-continue-to-decline

AF wrote:

That would have been another “Pilot Error”.

I am interested in why you think this. It was clearly mechanical failure, a cause of some 17% of accidents and incidents as discussed in the Nall report (link above). The only issue around pilot error I believe was the decision to land in the river rather than try to reach the (probably unreachable) nearest airport. It was a brilliant piece of piloting, as you say, but what would the public and official response have been if he had done exactly as he did but something in the water had caused the aircraft to somersault, with the loss of all or some of the souls on board. An interesting question.

This is all very interesting and a good learning experience and I am most grateful for all your thoughts.

As always, grateful if anyone who has infringed and wants potentially to contribute to pilot safety could contact me on my email, set out in my previous post.

Best wishes

Mike

skydriller wrote:

You work for the CAA infringement dept, dont you…

I seriously suggest you re-think what you said above, and I am surprised at your attitude to infringements (and accidents) if you are a pilot as you claim to be.

The only airspace infringement I know of committing to date occurred because the FIS I was talking to told me that a restricted area was “not active” when in fact it was active, as I found out when I contacted its controlling authority about crossing its adjoining CTR. I was the third aeroplane that afternoon to have done exactly the same thing. Please explain what my “pilot error” was?

Regards, SD..

Thanks SD. I missed your post from earlier today, sorry. I note the smiley.

I do claim to be a pilot because I am. I am interested in why saying that should raise doubts. And I am interested in why you are surprised at my attitude to infringements; indeed I find myself wondering what attitude can be inferred from my statement. You have provided an example of an infringement that may be a third factor, albeit possibly a rare one although I stand to be corrected. I have addressed this in my earlier post.

Put simply I am researching why pilots make mistakes in order, hopefully, to make flying safer. I am interviewing pilots who have infringed to gather data. If a pilot shows that he or she did not make any errors then that is fine, but of no use to me because I want to interview pilots who have erred so we can learn from them. Up to now I have interviewed a number of pilots (and had discussion with many more) and have yet to find one who says they did not make a mistake. Many have said they found the experience useful as the discussion helped them to understand what had happened. Some have even suggested that taking part in the discussion was something of a cathartic experience. Not sure how all that fits in with a negative attitude, as implied, but more than happy to be enlightened. Clearly your infringement was different.

As always, anyone who has infringed and wishes to participate in my research please do get in touch (contact details in my first post).

Best wishes

Mike