UK participants sought for a CAS infringement study

Ah yes. That poster…!

Yes – it says the same as

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.

While there is a belief that pilots crash planes using the same mechanisms with which they infringe CAS, no progress will be made.

But by lumping all (significant and insignificant) infringements into one bucket identified as ‘pilot error’ it is not possible to differentiate between significant and insignificant errors. I would have thought only significant errors would warrant further consideration (e.g. nobody wants to know why I spilled my soup, or nipped a corner of some airspace).

It is all a bit philosophical, in terms of how one believes the system should work. In Vancouver, I owned shares in two planes and used them in a manner similar to my car. I would check NOTAMS and weather and head off to my destination. I might use one airplane to fly to the other one based at another airfield (a floatplane). These flights used my skills from pilot training, map reading, airspace navigation, etc, but the flights are not planned the day before with a plog. They are a practical implementation of an experienced pilot flying and working within the rules. Of course, if one does this long enough, occasionally a minor error might be made, but if one is aware of major pitfalls it is unlikely to be ‘significant’. Bringing this back to the car analogy and considering all infringements as significant errors, it would be like loosing your driving license after several errors which might be insignificant, for example changing lanes on an empty road several times without signalling (without actually having affected traffic or had an accident).

If the goal is zero errors as a result of superior pilot skills and training, then we end up moving to a system where every flight is heavily scripted. Of course one can plan days in advance and strictly adhere to a plan, but this is not how I want to fly VFR. The military might do this because the pilots are paid to know and plan every detail in advance. Airlines on IFR plans might do this because it is their job, similarly private flights on IFR plans will have a script. But for VFR flying it is all a bit much. Peter has alluded to the fact that he won’t fly VFR sightseeing anymore. This is a shame and is contrary to the beauty and freedom of flight.

I am willing to work within the system, but am reluctant to engage with the concept of identifying minor infringements as serious errors. I don’t want to write the conclusion of the proposed research in advance, but it is not a stretch to imagine a reader taking away the thought, “75% (or whatever the number might be) of infringements are a result of pilot distraction”. This can then easily be used by regulatory bodies to say, look how bad those pilots are, better make the penalties bigger or ban them all.

In the other thread, Silvaire provided a comment which strikes a chord and to me is a reminder that as citizens we should all have a right to fly through the air and not to be penalised unnecessarily. Good luck telling that to the CAA.

Silvaire wrote:

Re airspace and VFR: the existence of controlled airspace is a burden on VFR traffic and a benefit to money making commercial businesses (the airlines). At the very least, given that VFR has to carry the burden of compliance with ATC, access should be granted and the airlines should pay for whatever services they and few others require.

MikeE wrote:

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.

I didnt mean that.

I meant you have asked for volunteers from the population of pilots that have infringed. By definition asking for volunteers will attract certain pilots to respond. That means the sample is neither radomn or representative.

Mike,

May I ask who is funding the study?

MikeE wrote:

which is pilot error and not infringements:

But the thread title says “CAS infringement study”

MikeE – you say you are researching pilot error, but, as I have explained, I believe you are doing nothing of the sort.

A pilot qualifies, decides to fly from lets say Popham to Elstree. He doesnt use a GPS moving map because he was taught to read a CAA chart. He hasnt negotiated the complex airspace around Farnborough before. His training is dreadfully deliquent with regard to listening squawks, negotiating transits etc. I could go on. He has been on the GASCo course and will probably say that his planning should have been a lot better, his navigation more accurate, and he should have used the services available more proactively, doubtless all of which you will dutyfully record.

You will capture that as pilot error and report on the reasons given by the pilot.

In fact the error is with the training the pilot received which fell dreadfully short of that required for this task. Thats the elephant in the room which no one is willing to acknowledge.

In my professional field, the vast majority of “errors” are neither deliberate or attributable to human factors. They are attributable to a lack of relevant training.

There will be some infringements caused by the pilots genuinely being distracted for one reason or another, but the reasons for and the causes of distraction are well researched. I would challenge you to produce any new revelations in that department!

I could give lots of other reasons why your research is flawed, but I suspect you have already made up your mind, and, with respect, I would be wasting your time.

My conclusion stands, which is that you have placed limits on your brief which will result in the research having limited value and likely to dangerously misrepresent GA.