Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

UK participants sought for a CAS infringement study

Thank you all for your interesting thoughts and thank you Qalupalik for the link to Dekker’s article, which I do of course have already along with many others. And thank you LeSving for your good wishes. And, AF, I am here to find pilots who have infringed CAS and are willing to talk about it in order to use their experience to help others in the future. I am not sure what your ‘something’ is, but it is misplaced. I agree Maoraigh that cockpit design is a feature in distractions. Is that what you meant?

And as always, if anyone is interested in taking part in my research then please do get in touch.

King regards

Mike

United Kingdom

Considering CAS busts to be pilot errors seems wrong to me. Let’s say I’m flying with some montains under a CAS starting at 3000’ and some couds here and there already in contact with the appropriate ATC but not requesting a climb into the C-class thinking at that moment that I can stay under. Turing around a montain, I find a cloud a bit further topping around 3300’. Are you saying that, if my first action is to set my airplane to climb to avoid going IMC I’m making a mistake? I’ve been told many times that you aviate first, communicate last. I personaly, in this type of situation will always bust the airspace (which by your definition is to make a mistake) rather than taking the chance of being in IMC (I’m only a VFR pilot and I know tha IMC with montains in the vincinity is not a great idea). This is only one scenario but I guess you can find quite few other similar ones where, if you want to survive as a pilot, you will and should bust CAS, in this case because it is more penetrable than a montain :-)

Again many accidents showed that a pilot should aviate first, putting such a big emphasis on CAS bust tends to go against it and would push pilot to first try to fiddle with their radio to check with ATC and get the clearance to enter the CAS leading to an accident.

ENVA, Norway

WingsWaterAndWheels wrote:

in this type of situation will always bust the airspace (which by your definition is to make a mistake)

Thanks WW&W. I have not said that all CAS infringements are all pilot errors. I have already pointed to some infringements being the result of deliberate action. Some of those may be the result of similar factors to those you mention, although some people may suggest that proper planning should take account of wx conditions but I recognise that these can change in unexpected ways.

The ones I am interested in – I believe the majority – are those where the pilot did not intend to infringe but nevertheless did so. In those cases there is evidence that human factors are, well, a factor. It is those factors I am interested in because they are poorly researched and not necessarily well understood. Better understanding will hopefully lead to a further tool to help pilots recognise, understand and mitigate those factors that can lead to mistakes, not just infringements but others that can really spoil your day.

Is there anyone on this forum interested in talking about their infringement(s)? It’s quite painless and may help others and, indeed, themselves. My contact details are in my first post.

Kind regards

Mike

United Kingdom

MikeE – I will obviously be honest and say that I think you have approached your study with so many misunderstadnings and preconceptions that I suspect you have not warmed yourself to those with who you wish to engage.

I read a science at Uni.; and you should be well aware that good science requires an open mind from the outset. Having carefully read, and reread this thread, I dont think you have embraced that philosphy.

Fuji_Abound wrote:

06 34
MikeE – I will obviously be honest and say that I think you have approached your study with so many misunderstadnings and preconceptions that I suspect you have not warmed yourself to those with who you wish to engage.

I read a science at Uni.; and you should be well aware that good science requires an open mind from the outset. Having carefully read, and reread this thread, I dont think you have embraced that philosphy.

If you don’t mind I would be interested in some examples of my misunderstandings, please. And some examples of my preconceptions. And examples that demonstrate a closed mind. Two or three of each would be most useful for my education. Thanks.

Not sure if I should bite, but I am not clear what you mean by not warming myself to those with whom I wish to engage. That may be true of some but the pilots I have already interviewed do seem to have a different view. I should be interested to know on what your suspicions are based?

Best wishes

Mike

United Kingdom

The last para of your last post is example enough. You asked for 20 volunteers, you have obviously had some, and are already drawing conclusions from a population that is clearly not random, and, even were it the total sample of 20, a sample so small, as to have no value.

MikeE wrote:

And some examples of my preconceptions

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

This thread has 36 posts. Most of them are reactions to this preconception of yours. The way you (apparently) haven’t noticed this, only strengthens this image.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Don’t feed the troll.

I am sure Mike is not a troll. I am sure he is a real researcher who picked the same terms of reference which the CAA is using in their new “bust them all” campaign.

The various forms of distraction can be listed on the back of a fag packet, and as Dekker explains over and over, nothing much can be done about them. There is nothing to research. The system has to be organised to deal with minor infringements. The big ones are prob99 much less than 1% of the total and they can be handled with some appropriate process involving training.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

MikeE wrote:

The title of my research is actually ‘why do pilots of light aircraft make mistakes

I also think this is worst title that you could have conceived, because it is confrontational and emotive.

What are the causes of controlled airspace infringement or something similiar, would have been far more on song.

There are many factors that are at play – even the Regulator acknowledges that one of the most significant factors is the failure to use a GPS moving map. Is that a mistake? Well it is hardly a mistake when the very training to obtain a pilot licence contains almost no content on the use of a GPS based map.

If you are going to conduct a study for goodness sake look at all the reasons that contribute to airspace infringements, not what will be perceived as a polarised study that starts from the premise of blaming pilots and plays into the hands of those who would say that GA pilots are mistake ridden and unsafe.

I think your study could be very useful, but is misconceived in its brief and content and becasue the limitations you have set will do nothing to improve our overall understanding of the factors involved. Worse, it will distort our understanding of the factors because it will appear to point to pilot error being the sole or largest factor involved. Rather like the Regulator, if you move from a regime of reporting few infringments, to reporting all infringements, it is not surprisng that you will create the impression infringements are rising and are a cause for significant concern – sadly this approach is the most dreadful con a true scientist can commmit – to distort the data to suit your argument.

There are also many useful comments that have been made here, but you have really not embraced a single one, rather defended your position. This suggests a very blinkered approach to your study which is dangerous, and suggests your mind is already closed. An open mind and rejection of preconceived ideas is what is required.

Sign in to add your message

Back to Top