Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

UK participants sought for a CAS infringement study

Peter wrote:

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.

If only the UK CAA would embrace this as the way forward.
Unfortunately even the latest Airspace proposals dont seem to reflect the basic concept of KISS.

Regards, SD..

I agree.

and the “problem” is compounded by research projects of this nature which potentially give some credability to the concept that the “problem” is with pilots making mistakes and re-enforces a blame culture.

I would be much happier with some research that seeks to shed light on the real causes.

MikeE wrote:

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.

As a final thought, I think it should be apparent from the thread. Much as your population, this is just a snap shot of those that have replied on this thread, but for those who have, surely you would realise that the reception is not “warm” for the reasons contributors have given?

Forgive me for being harsh; I wish you the best of luck – it is just disappointing to me that what could be a useful project, appears to have got off on such a misconceived footing, and, I can well imagine, will eventually be “used” as yet another reason to place responsiblity firmly at the door of GA pilots, which, I honestly believe, could not be more wrong.

My only wish is you could embrace the views expressed and at least use the project to examine whether or not the reasons go well beyond pilot error. If people in any walk of life make mistakes that arise because their training is inadequate or the support they receive is inadequate, I feel very strongly it is incredibly naive to suggest that they have made a mistake, even though many might accept this judgement, when in fact if you are given a recipe that doesnt work, even in the most experienced of bakers hands, the cake will still not be pleasant to eat.

172driver wrote:

Don’t feed the troll.

Peter wrote:

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.

Thank you Peter. Indeed I am not, but since coming on here with a simple request for pilots to contact me if they had infringed controlled airspace and would be willing to help with my research on pilot error which is seeking to promote safety, there are four, now five, pages not asking for further information about my research but rather telling me that I am wasting an opportunity, been misquoted to suggest that I call infringements ‘accidents’, been accused (twice) of working for the CAA, had my attitude questioned, had my integrity questioned (my claim to be a pilot), had my background research questioned, told I am proceeding with my eyes closed, told to ‘pull my head out’ whatever that is meant to mean, told that I have a pre-conceived idea that pilot error leads to accidents and incidents with the implication that it isn’t, had ignored my repeated assertion that I am not researching infringements, told I am basing my research on an unspecified assumption or a hunch or an opinion and have an unspecified agenda, told that my research will produce no usable results, accused of using rhetoric about my (unspecified) assumptions, told I have made no plausible reasoning, told that I think pilots fly around with a hidden urge to commit errors, told that I have lost perspective completely, told that what I am saying is nonsense, told I am here only to regulate people, told that I have many misunderstandings and preconceptions, been lectured on what makes good science and told I haven’t embraced that philosophy, had my sample set questioned and told it is too small to be valid, been quoted out of context several times, told my research title is the worst that could have been conceived, told many times that my research is based on blaming pilots, told my research is misconceived, told that I haven’t embraced any comments when clearly I have, told I have a blinkered approach, a closed mind and that this research will reinforce a blame-culture.

I have offered to discuss my research with anyone who is interested, or wishes to know more. Only one person has responded to that. I have answered all post politely and as comprehensively as I can do so on an internet forum. I have defended my research with facts. I have also taken on board what has been said and that can be demonstrated, for example recognising a third factor that may lead to infringements (even though my research is not about infringements) as raised by SD. I have also made known my own views about the current situation in the UK regarding infringements, based on my experience although that is irrelevant to my research.

Yet I am the troll?

I will respond separately to the further posts since that one.

Regards

Mike

United Kingdom

Fuji_Abound wrote:

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.

So that’s a no, then.

Regards

Mike

United Kingdom

MikeE – I shall look forward to your further response.

I am sorry you have received a robust response, which is indeed unusual in this place. You touch on an emotive topic.

However, I really do believe there is much beneift you could take from the response, and I would have thought it would be far better to incorporate these ideas in your project, rather than narrow the scope, because, otherwise, for the reasons I have given you, the conclusions will be easily misrepresented.

Plesse dont get upset, I very much doubt that was anyones real intention.

Edit – as to your last post which crossed – I didnt want to analyse everything you wrote – I hope that I had summed up my concerns in a better way and I accept to some extent these were the conclusions I reached from the tone of your previous posts, which to be fair, more than suggest a rather one sided examination of the causes. Of course if that is the aspect (andf the only aspect) you wish to examine so be it, but I think it would be virtually impossible for the results to do anything other than mislead.

Last Edited by Fuji_Abound at 22 Oct 13:44

LeSving wrote:

LeSving22-Oct-19 04:4837
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

Thank you LeSving. Selective quoting. Below one example of my learning from this thread…

MikeE wrote:

SD: thinking further about your infringement I do now think there is a third factor along the lines of or related to what happened to you which cannot or should not be attributed to either pilot error or deliberate action. And that is where the mitigating circumstances are such that it should be deemed that no error occurred, such as in your case, or where there is some force majeure that leads to an infringement through no error on behalf of the pilot. I am thinking about a mechanical failure that may lead to a rapid descent or perhaps smoke or fire when all bets are off. I am grateful for your really helpful contribution.

I did ask what other factors there were. It was suggested complex airspace and poor ATC (I summarise) were other factors. I asked about infringements in DAs and other areas that were not complex airspace, nor were ATC involved. I also asked about other countries with less complex airspace and better more joined up ATC and what explanation could be offered for pilots infringing. I was hoping to be enlightened.

Regards

Mike

United Kingdom

Fuji_Abound wrote:

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.

Perhaps I should repeat yet again that I am not looking at causes of infringements in controlled airspace. The causes have been looked at enough. We have a good idea of the causes which include many of the things people here and elsewhere are very concerned about. These include complex airspace, uncoordinated ATC, communications difficulties and so on. I have details of research from at least six major studies on the causes. Causes are the ‘what’ question. I am interested in the ‘why’ question. Why do pilots press on into bad weather, why do pilots fly their aircraft into the ground, why do pilots infringe controlled airspace, why do pilots do all the other things they don’t mean to do. The why question is blind to the outcome, be it infringement or crash. The ‘what’ question has been asked. The ‘why’ question hasn’t, not much and certainly less so for GA. This question was asked by Eurocontrol as long ago as 2007 (see my comments on that thread) yet hasn’t been addressed. I am seeking to address it now. What I am not doing is asking about the causes of infringements of controlled airspace. If someone else wishes to that then that would be excellent. But it’s not me.

Regards

Mike

United Kingdom

The Q of “why pilots bust CAS” is simple: it just happens. It happens accidentally.

Nobody does it deliberately – despite outrageous suggestions spread by certain persons not a million miles distant from the “CAA/NATS/exRAF/Gasco” contingent which runs the policy from the CAA HQ (example posted in the long thread, IIRC).

Looking at the human factors, the only fairly sure way to avoid a bust is to fly only on autopilot, at a single level all the way (that may mean an extra 30% perhaps on the distance), altitude hold of course, allow a few miles and at least 300ft vertically, and minimise talking to passengers, while watching the GPS almost constantly. That is how I now fly.

Many others just turn off the transponder, which is a while lot easier.

The only absolutely sure way is to not fly. I am reliably informed that many in the above contingent would be ok with that, too. The CAA is generally pro-GA, but in this case they are chucking the baby out with the bathwater.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Fuji_Abound wrote:

and the “problem” is compounded by research projects of this nature which potentially give some credability to the concept that the “problem” is with pilots making mistakes and re-enforces a blame culture.

I would be much happier with some research that seeks to shed light on the real causes.

F_A this is not about problems or blame. If anyone had asked for the information sheet they would have seen included:

“This is not about blame or criticism of action(s) taken by pilots, but rather seeks to learn the lessons from the stories of those who have infringed.
The aim of the research is to understand better why pilots continue to make errors, from a psychological and behavioural aspect, and to make recommendations for future training or practice. This is to help pilots recognise the factors that may lead to mistakes with the aim of reducing error-related accidents or incidents, such as infringements.”

It is the very antithesis of reinforcing a blame culture. It is looking for insights into why pilots behave why they do when errors occur. It recognises bounded rationality and provides an opportunity to find out from the pilot who crashed/infringed or whatever why they thought their actions were correct and why it made sense to them at the time.

Regards

Mike

United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top