UK participants sought for a CAS infringement study

RobertL18C wrote:

I realise from collective experience there are many plausible factors (airspace design, poor training, poor graphical dissemination of airspace NOTAMS, lack of understanding of ATC services in the UK, poor planning, etc) which may lead to an infringement. But there may be cognitive biases worth identifying – I believe this is the purpose of the research, MikeE will correct if I have over simplified the interpretation

Thanks Robert, that is certainly part of it. My approach is psychological and behavioural, why do we do what we do, why does it make sense to us at the time and what can we learn from it? The other factors you mention are really to do with causation and the system, but are fully taken into account in the analysis.

Regards

Mike

Fuji_Abound wrote:

I beleive it does need to be random.

We will have to disagree, then. I have research papers and several senior academics who confirm what I posted and that, as I said, is fine by me.

Regards

Mike

AF wrote:

Here is a good example of how to approach this subject.
Why Smart Pilots Crash

Thank you for that example. It makes my point admirably. Among other things -

“What is interesting is that even though pilots make mistakes, they make them in a different way than do laypeople. Pilots have undergone a degree of training and education and may be considered experts. Experts, when faced with a task for which they have been trained, will perform the task with almost 100-percent reliability in routine conditions; much more accurately than a layperson. But, pilots, being human, make mistakes.”

Dismukes’ research is really interesting. This article concerns commercial aviation and assumes that it will apply to GA pilots too. But that may not be the case. Commercial pilots usually have a second pilot as well as sophisticated automatics that act together as a ‘cognitive whole’ (see Hutchings), something most GA pilots do not have. It is easy to say that commercial aviation research applies to GA, but that does not mean it is correct. My research is doing what Dismukes and others have done in the commercial context, but replicating it to some extent in the GA context. Thank you for supporting what I am trying to achieve, although I suspect that was not your intention!

Best wishes

Mike

Peter wrote:

I think Mike you are not aware of what the CAA has been doing over the last couple of years

Believe me, I know.

Regards

Mike

Off_Field wrote:

Thanks for answering Mike.

Given this is your own choice on what to research, perhaps it may be more useful to others to research some of the more pertinent points if ultimately wanting to see how to identify ways to increase safety reasonably.

Thank you O_F. Yes, it has struck me that many people want different research. If they don’t think mine meets their aims, an I think that’s part of the problem here, then of course they are welcome to pursue their own. If they do so then I would be more than happy to discuss possible overlaps and share some of my background research. They will need to be aware, though, that research at PhD level is not cheap!

Kind regards

Mike

AF wrote:

I have no clue what you’re so fixated on

There is certainly a lot of evidence of fixation here…

Fuji_Abound wrote:

I did ask earlier, when, where and how will your work be published?

I think this is important for us to know if you are asking us for our help.

It will be a thesis, although I hope to publish results in the flying media as I go along as the thesis is likely to take 2-3 years. I will post a link here after putting my tin hat on!

I have accepted that help from here is not forthcoming.

skydriller wrote:

I have actually been reading your responses and I think that the main problem you are having with the responses on this forum is with your thread title and the first few posts you have made.
Thread Title: “UK participants sought for a CAS infringement study

I know – did you see my response to that a few posts ago where I said I used that title on (well meaning) advice (sorry, I can’t go back to find the one because this draft response disappears when I navigate away from this page)?

skydriller wrote:

but you keep banging on about Infringements

Me? I keep saying that I am researching pilot error. I am doing that by finding pilots who have infringed as a result of error. I said this many pages ago.I am not researching infringements. There is a lot of banging on about infringements, but not by me.

skydriller wrote:

Having read the link from AF, I hope what you are trying to do is similar to this, but for GA – I think it is, but you arent articulating this to us

I’m sorry, but I did…

MikeE wrote:

My research is doing what Dismukes and others have done in the commercial context, but replicating it to some extent in the GA context.

skydriller wrote:

So, to sum up: You need to ditch the whole infringement thing completely because its getting in the way, especially when you talk about “pilot errors leading to infringements and aircraft accidents”, because most of us know that infringements are not linked to aircraft accidents…

So how do you suggest I find pilots who have made an error? Genuine question. Do I go online and say ‘pilots: have you made a mistake? Please take part in my research.’ So how do I separate out those who made a mistake when buying their chart when they ordered the French version rather than the UK version? Do I compare errors made by pilots who have forgotten to put their battery on charge with those who land with their undercarriage up? And what about all the errors pilots make without realising it – referred to by another poster? I have been criticised, unfairly, for not using a random population, and I discussed then the need to find a population that is representative. If I asked for pilots who had made any type of error I will almost certainly need a lot more than the 20 I am asking for. By asking for pilots who have infringed I am looking for common errors among that population; because those pilots were followed up they will remember the circumstances and will almost certainly mull over what happened and as a result they will be able to provide better and more useful data than someone who trots up to say they forgot to set the altimeter. Another important point to come out of the research linked to above (Dismukes et al) is that these things are rarely the result of a single something – there is often a swiss cheese element, with more than one, sometimes many, factors leading to the error. That is, in my research, certainly true of errors leading to infringements. That is not necessarily something I will get by talking to someone who dialled in 7002 rather than 7000.

skydriller wrote:

because most of us know that infringements are not linked to aircraft accidents…

That really is a mindset people should question. Infringements are linked to accidents but not causally as suggested by ‘that’ poster. What I am saying is that the errors to which we as humans are prone can lead to all sorts of outcomes. When factors coincide, as they do, we become prone to error. That error may have a consequence. It may not. If it does, that consequence will depend on the circumstances. I mentioned in an earlier post dropping a pen leading to distraction. Let me use another example. An alarm goes off in the cockpit. The pilot looks at it and inadvertently the aircraft descends 100 feet. If the pilot is flying 50 feet above CAS, s/he will infringe. If the pilots is away from CAS, then nothing will happen. If the pilot is 90 feet above the runway, s/he will crash. The circumstances leading to the error and the error are exactly the same. The only difference is the outcome. I am looking at pilot error. There is no reason to suppose that the errors described to me at interviews that led to the infringement could in other circumstances have led to a crash, or to nothing remarkable at all. So the focus is on error, not the outcome (in this case infringements).

I do hope this helps, SD, I have tried my best. I accept that I am not going to get any volunteers from here so will try elsewhere. It’s a shame really that people who potentially have so much to offer simply want to criticise (I am not necessarily talking about you, but rather generally) because they want someone to research the airspace and all its faults, the CAA and its policies and suchlike. I am sorry if they felt they were misled by me in the heading, but the devil is always in the detail and I have tried to explain that. I did expect better of fellow pilots.

Anyway, I have spent many hours on here, many more than I can afford, so I do hope people will understand that I have done what I can to explain what I am doing and why. There is little point asking for volunteers, but I do say thank you to those who have offered constructive comments, which have been taken on board. Perhaps Peter can close this thread now as I believe there is little to be gained by keeping it open.

Best wishes

Mike