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.
Maybe, Peter, but research carried out by Wiegmann et al in 2005 involving over 14,000 GA incidents and accidents found that some 79% were associated with skill-based errors (associated with distraction and memory), 29.7% involved decision errors (procedural or problem-solving errors) and 13.7% were violations. 5.7% involved perceptual errors. Distraction is important and the mechanisms not fully understood. These conclusions are confirmed by other research and summarised by Skybrary, in advice for pilots on behalf of Eurocontrol and the Flight Safety Foundation among others, which records that the omission of an action or taking an inappropriate action, that is a slip or lapse, is the most frequent result of a distraction or interruption in take-off and landing events, with loss of situational awareness occurring in over 50% of reports. They record that such distractions can lead to major incidents or accidents, including course deviations and infringements of controlled airspace. My previous research includes a long list of potential distractors, more I think than will go onto a fag packet (unless it’s a big one).
Distractions need to be understood and managed because, among other things, they kill pilots. It is not good enough to say that nothing can be done about them. As with everything we need to question why. My research aims at addressing that. Your question about minor and major busts and their consequences is another matter with which my research is not concerned. Pilots I interview do have views about that and these are of course fed into the analysis. I also have views, but my research is inductive and data-driven. As such I am not starting with any hypothesis and must ensure that my views or prejudices do not become data or affect it. As with all good research I will, of course, discuss my own thoughts and prejudices in the final product so readers will be able to understand my conclusions in context (a process known as reflexivity).
With best wishes
Mike
They record that such distractions can lead to major incidents or accidents, including course deviations and infringements of controlled airspace
I disagree there is any connection between accidents (which are a highly fertile research area) and CAS busts, against the spectrum of pilot skills.
Making that connection is like that outrageously misleading and dishonest Gasco poster, here. Anybody who believes that is not just not on the same page. They are on a different planet!
The solution is to reduce the impact of distractions through competent airspace design. The UK competes at a high level in having the worst airspace design in the world and the lowest level of ‘big picture’ mindset among regulators.
The issue of airspace busts is not one that gets a tremendous amount of attention in my US area, despite the heaviest GA traffic density in the world and lots of CAT. The reason is good airspace design.
Peter wrote:
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.
Thanks Peter. I don’t agree that pilots crash their aircraft or infringe CAS simply because it just happens. Yes, they may be ‘accidents’ in the sense of being unintentional, but I do not believe they are accidents in the sense of there being no cause. If that was the case we would not need the AAIB. And yes, some do it deliberately. I have heard anecdotally of pilots who have flown into CAS without permission because that was not convenient for them and there are recorded cases of emergency services flying into CAS without permission. Very few, though. And any suggestion that pilots generally are too casual and/or complacent about doing so were firmly scotched in my earlier research into the same question.
I take your point about the impact the policy on infringements has on flying. This has been said by others, including those not on this forum. My interest is in those cases where even if you are flying on autopilot and focusing on your moving map, even if you have planned to the nth degree, you still infringe, because people will. My question is ‘why’. I have interviewed pilots with many more than your brilliantly high number of hours, with an extraordinary wide range of experience, who have planned to the second, yet who have still infringed. They did this because of factors they hadn’t anticipated. My question is ‘why’.
And yes, I fully agree that it would be a real shame if people were put off flying because of concern over the consequences of an infringement. I have heard that from elsewhere, too.
Kind regards
Mike
Peter wrote:
I disagree there is any connection between accidents (which are a highly fertile research area) and CAS busts, against the spectrum of pilot skills.
But the research suggests otherwise. A distraction, say, leading to loss of situational awareness could lead to either an accident or an infringement depending on where the distraction occurred. The distraction – that is ‘why’ it happened – is the same. It is only the outcome that is different.
Regards
Mike
Peter wrote:
Making that connection is like that outrageously misleading and dishonest Gasco poster, here. Anybody who believes that is not just not on the same page. They are on a different planet!
Ah yes. That poster…!
Regards
Mike
Silvaire wrote:
The solution is to reduce the impact of distractions through competent airspace design. The UK competes at a high level in having the worst airspace design in the world and the lowest level of ‘big picture’ mindset among regulators.The issue of airspace busts is not one that gets a tremendous amount of attention in my US area, despite the heaviest GA traffic density in the world and lots of CAT. The reason is good airspace design.
I think there may be an argument that complex airspace could amount to a distraction and not just a cause of infringements. I haven’t seen statistics for infringements in the US and would be interested in seeing those (I will have a look) to see what the causal factors are given the better airspace design, as well as any analysis of the reason(s) why pilots infringe such airspace in those circumstances.
Thank you
Regards
Mike
Fuji_Abound wrote:
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
F_A – The population cannot be random, it needs to be pilots who have erred, and more importantly, it does not need to be random. What is important is that claims are not made about the population that are not true.
For qualitative research, which this clearly is, research has established (for example see Guest et al (2006), and it is generally accepted, that a sample size of between 12-20 is often sufficient – but what is important is reaching data saturation, beyond which no further useful data can be extracted. So there is no figure that defines what has value or not. In some circumstances (eg difficulties encountered living with an extremely rare illness) a sample of one may be sufficient. In others, 50 or more may be needed. So no generalisations can or should be made. I am aiming at 20 and if useful data continues to be available I will seek more.
Unfortunately, no-one from this forum seems to be interested in participation so my search has to continue elsewhere.
Regards
Mike
MikeE wrote:
But the research suggests otherwise. A distraction, say, leading to loss of situational awareness could lead to either an accident or an infringement depending on where the distraction occurred. The distraction – that is ‘why’ it happened – is the same. It is only the outcome that is different.
That seems to be clutching at could and depending. But I’d be interested to read what you come up with.
Distractions occur all the time when flying and probably not possible to exhaustively quantify. Is it your hypothesis that there is a common reason why for those that lead to CAS busts?
I must admit the focus does seem to be on pilots rather than the system which is making VFR GA in the south a bit of a pain. It seems to me that aiming at pilots is an easy soft target for those that believe as the poster says that infringements are a significant cause of fatal and serious accidents.
I learned to fly in Canada (Boundary Bay CZBB), which in 2018 had 200,000 aircraft movements. This would make it similar to the fourth busiest airport in the UK. This is located in the very crowded airspace of Vancouver and the lower mainland of British Columbia
Insignificant infringements are just that. They are not considered particularly relevant, let alone worthy of research (I don’t think they are even published?). The controller tells you off, you offer an apology and you are on your way. A moderate infringement and you get a phone call with ATC. Something grievous and you get tea without biscuits with the Transport Authority, in a couple of cases of year a penalty is awarded (perhaps $200 to $2k). The penalty recipients are anonymously published in the transport monthly/quarterly newsletter. Amongst my colleagues (and instructors which I have spoken with) we always wonder who gets the penalty, because they are so rarely handed out (e.g. there must be some back story, the offender has done it many times at the same airfield??). This system seems to work well in the US and Canada. I am not sure why the UK needs to be different?
In my experience the controllers just want to get the immediate issue sorted out and everyone on a safe trajectory rather than penalise.
I used to think Peter was going on a tangent talking about people turning their transponders off in the UK. Now, having lived here for six years, I get it. For example on a VFR flight in Vancouver I might want to cross a small airfield in the lower mainland. Simply ask the controller (even without a wake-up call), ‘Langley Tower, C-ABCD 2 miles to the west of your zone, 2500 feet, request eastbound transit’. The response is ‘C-ABCD, Langley Tower, transit approved, not below 2500’. There is none of this ‘pass your message’, ‘destination’, ‘souls on board’, life story crap. For my first flights in the UK, I asked for transits, but now I can’t be bothered unless I really want it. I am instead flying around the controlled zone rather than communicating with ATC (certainly this is the start of a deviant process which could lead to an infringement..). I always fly with my transponder on, but as this thread illustrates, once you have one black mark you are at risk of attending a GASCO course (I don’t have any yet :-))… and after two black marks at risk of license suspension. The question is then, if I had a black mark or two, would I continue to fly with the transponder on, or would I turn it off? Food for thought.
Another differences is the responsiveness of airspace design. You used to get approved for Vancouver airport (306,000 movements per year) transits at 1000 feet, over the tower. Perhaps there were too many stray pilots, so instead of banning or penalising the pilots, the altitude was increased (can’t recall, but maybe 2k or 2.5k feet). Job done, fewer worries. No penalties.
IFR clearances in Canada are considered very serious and pilots are cognisant of not making a mistake, but the system really works for you. You are cleared end to end before you take off and handed off seamlessly to each controller as you go. The UK is crazy with the non-joined up controlled airspace and being dumped out of controlled airspace when on an IFR flight plan (although I do appreciate the freedoms of class G!). What do you think is going to happen by doing this… an infringement!
It is clear many minor airspace infringements are made due to distraction or other causes. Sheesh, there are no multi coloured lines painted in the sky, occasionally a pilot might stray over the line when dealing distractions. I made many errors today. My shoelaces weren’t tied properly when I left my house. I splashed water on my trousers when I washed my hands. Soup spilled on my shirt at lunch. None of these are worthy of penalty or research.
It might be more relevant to research ‘significant’ airspace infringements, and I mean not just into a zone, but into the approach or departure traffic at a major airfield.
