Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 18
#1560107
Thanks for pointing that out Dave.

Just to reinforce your point about promulgating changes. Even if I click on the link where you know that transponder information is held I (or anyone else) still wouldn't know.

If I click on that link it takes me to this page:

Image

Nothing there that tells me that I should read on but if I follow the links it takes me this page

Image

Again, nothing without further looking for something (the page has 15 links!) I don't even know I'm looking for!

A truly just culture would recognise these barriers to behaviour change and work to improve them. Hopefully we'll get there. It will of course need PPLs to be open minded and work with the system whilst it is not perfect.
#1560108
Dave W wrote:I think there are two camps here: 1. Those whose daily lives bring them to understand as a matter of course the concept of a Just Culture, and who now live it without really thinking much about it any more, and; 2. Those whose lives do not operate naturally in that culture, who do not see it working and who therefore may be suspicious about "the establishment".

Camp 2 is, I think, an area for focussing information and education. It takes time to build trust; those of us in Camp 1 had that time taken some years ago in many cases, so we forget how long it can take to embed. Some of us (in either camp) can also forget how easily trust can be lost, and once lost how much harder it is to regain.

Solution: Open mind, everybody - and don't automatically think the worst of "the other". And accept - and continually remind yourself to accept - that the solution is not going to be an overnight affair; keep plugging away.


I don't think I'm in either camp. I think most people who work for organisations like the CAA, NATS and similar are genuinely well intentioned. However, that doesn't mean that I'm always going to agree with them on that best way to skin each and every cat. I can be in total agreement with the official line on some things, and throw my arms up in dismay at others.

We are all influenced by our experience, but it is important to think carefully before extrapolating that experience. As an example, some have suggested that the infringement courses are a money making exercise. To an extent, that thinking might be driven by our experiences of speed awareness courses where many people, myself included, think that the economics has overtaken the safety imperative. Even then, it isn't a binary issue - it is a bit of both. It isn't a big step to extrapolate that direct experience that many of us share to the infringement courses, but as the economics are so massively different it just isn't reasonable or logical to do so. Whether they will prove to be a cost effective decision is another thing, but in this case I'm more than happy to accept the intentions are good.

I don't think the CAA are out to get me. I think the individuals within it mostly want what is best for aviation of all types in the UK. That, of its very essence, though, means trading off the interests of some airspace users against others. That isn't an easy task.

Naturally, my own bias is going to be to look to my own personal flying interests first. So, there are always going to be times when I don't see eye to eye with decisions taken. The practical reality, though, is that the world doesn't revolve around me and what I want, but my own view is always going to influence how I think I'm being treated. Just culture is a nice buzzword, but when you break it down, whether I think I'm being treated justly depends to a great extent on what I want in the first place. It can't ever be all things to all men.

As Dave says, being open minded is the key thing here. Sometimes we have to accept that societal choices don't fall our way. We have to be open minded enough to accept that as being reasonable and fair, even when it hurts what we want or appears to infringe on our own personal freedoms.
Dave W, seanxair, MikeB and 1 others liked this
#1560116
Josh wrote:... The USAF is similar - were pilots there to write up safety reports for the equivalent of Air Clues, their careers would be seriously harmed. ...


Is there no USAF equivalent of CONDOR/ILAFFT ? Or (in FAA-land) CHIRP ? Asked as ever, in genuine curiosity ..

When I was (the only foreign member) in a US Army Flying Club at an Army Air Field, US Army rules specified that there must be a Safety Meeting every month, and any pilots (of any military rank or civil flying status) who missed two successive ones must have a checkride with the CFI before being allowed to fly P1. The safety meetings had to be taken by the Club Safety Officer or deputy. The former was an ex-Vietnam helo pilot, Major, who addressed the meeting as he would the gospel church at which he also preached: entertaining but not always enlightening. But it ticked the DoD box. I had also volunteered to edit the (also mandatory) monthly newsletter, as no one else seemed to want to do it. For its (also mandatory) safety column I included ILAFFTs from my own experience or from remembered Air Clues items. Other members seemed to like them.

I think that part of the Just Culture problem in UK is societal: the media (especially the press) tend to be punitive in tone and especially in headlines, without any concomitant obligation or tendency to consistency, fairness or even accuracy. Social workers are disgracefully negligent when a child has been abused by mendacious and secretive parents or carers, and disgracefully meddling when they investigate a household without finding anything amiss (sometimes the same household, earlier). Ordinary people may have had a punitive outlook instilled until, suddenly and unexpectedly, they are cast (fairly or not) as malefactors. Presumably, many in GA start with all the ordinary attitudes of wider society.

And no, I have no ueful suggestions, As another Forumite said, GASCO meeting attenders are self-selecting. So are CONDOR/CHIRP submitters (I have done both).
Stu B liked this
#1560121
So in English

Mistakes good

Hooliganism bad


Think I have it.

I mean my friend..
#1560122
[quote="Paultheparaglider"..I think most people who work for organisations like the CAA, NATS and similar are genuinely well intentioned. However, that doesn't mean that I'm always going to agree with them on that best way to skin each and every cat. .. As an example, some have suggested that the infringement courses are a money making exercise. To an extent, that thinking might be driven by our experiences of speed awareness courses where many people, myself included, think that the economics has overtaken the safety imperative. Even then, it isn't a binary issue - it is a bit of both. It isn't a big step to extrapolate that direct experience that many of us share to the infringement courses, but as the economics are so massively different it just isn't reasonable or logical to do so. Whether they will prove to be a cost effective decision is another thing, but in this case I'm more than happy to accept the intentions are good...[/quote]

I've been on what Gloucs Constab then called a 'safety awareness course' after an 'incident' whose causes were disputed (no, I don't know if the other road user was offered one). I found it very good value, and doubt it made any money for the Constabulary, but probably saved them a lot of money and time in preparing papers for CPS (to decide whether to prosecute either of us) and court time if they had to. I found the course very useful, and cost me far less than comparable day courses from comparably highly qualified training professionals. I believe it made me a better-informed, and certainly more cautious, driver. I went on it with an open mind, but some of my fellow-students were openly resentful at having to do it. The instructors seemed used to this.

[it ended with an 'observed drive' with instructor - retired senior police driving instructor/examiner - in front, with fellow-students in back; latter were encouraged to take notes and provide feedback. So I drove once and observed twice. Instructor was intrigued why, when just moving in the provided school car, I tested the brakes .. :) ]
#1560130
kanga wrote:Is there no USAF equivalent of CONDOR/ILAFFT ? Or (in FAA-land) CHIRP ? Asked as ever, in genuine curiosity ..


There is, but chatting to several USAF pilots you are punished for your mistakes so if you aren’t “caught” there is a strong incentive not to report, even if doing so would help your colleagues elsewhere.

Contrast that with the FAA where if you infringe or have issues and file a NASA ASPS report promptly enforcement action is exceedingly unlikely.
User avatar
By flybymike
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1560145
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:
MercianMarcus wrote:I'm concerned enough that there might not be a just culture, that I hardly ever do PFLs in case I'm persecuted for low flying. I'd like to trust the CAA, but I don't.

MM


Fear is a poor guide.

It is much more likely that people will come to harm from not being current and fluent in doing a FL due to not practising PFLs than as a result of a prosecution by the CAA for doing a PFL.


Surely fear, or at least apprehension, is entirely understandable and justified.
How does an observer form an opinion as to whether the low flying is deliberate or merely a PFL? and what is to stop anyone threatened with prosecution for low flying then claiming they were doing a PFL as a defence?

There will obviously be cases where a PFL being conducted by an instructor on a specified part of the training syllabus can easily be shown to be genuine, but ad hoc PFLs and low flying may well amount to the same thing to an outside observer, particularly a lay observer, and apprehension about doing such a PFL is therefore completely reasonable.
User avatar
By dublinpilot
PFMS Team
#1560159
As many have pointed out "Just Culture" isn't part of PPL training. However I think that most PPLs who have been around for awhile know about it and support it.

The difficulty that has arisen is that it's insufficient for something to be just; it must also be seen to be just.

In the recent thread about infringements, the regulator and some ATC personnel didn't see a £200 airspace infringement course (plus travel costs and time off work) as being punishment. Some pilots did feel it was punishment. Those who felt it was punishment say that someone was being punished for "actions, omissions or decisions taken by them that are commensurate with their experience and training".

Some felt that such a course (and expense) was the default, predetermined, outcome unless the case was particularly serious in which case a more serious outcome could be expected. Hence the default outcome was (in their view but not the regulator's view and not some ATC member's view) a punishment and outside the philosophy of a just culture system.

Most (if not all) seems to agree that the published flow chart seems fair and just, but only if operated as shown, which didn't match the impression of an expensive course being the default outcome.

Many offered that publishing some statistics (some requested more detailed reviews of all individual cases once the identity was removed) could being balance to the issue and hopefully being clarity to the fact that the course wasn't a default outcome and was only applied, as learning aid, where it was suitable and likely to have a positive impact.

The regulator didn't like the idea of detailed reviewed, and offered some hope of statistics at some point in the future and then refused to engage any further with those whom he regulates (though in fairness he did promise that he'd still read the thread).

I honestly thing that most people, on both sides of the argument, believe in just culture. But some thought that the outcome was in fitting with the philosophy of a just culture as the airspace awareness course wasn't punishment, and not a default outcome. Others felt that the outcome wasn't in fitting with the philosophy of a just culture as the airspace awareness course was punishment and was a default outcome. Both sides thought the process should have been part of a just culture, and were aware and supportive of a just culture!

Personally, I'm still amazed at the thought that there may be many pilots out there who have infringed, but because it was minor, they weren't identified and don't know that they infringed. Surely this is denying the pilot a major learning opportunity and as a result these pilots are more likely to be a future serious infringer as they haven't had the opportunity to learn from their mistakes.

In fairness, NATS has done a lot to help, in conjunction with others. The stats show that few pilots using a GPS and planning properly actually infringe. Now a days this can be really cheap. Planning your flight on SD light, so that you have a proper plog takes no time at all. You can transfer this to EasyVFR basic (and possibly Airbox Aware...not sure on that), and follow that plan in flight and get a warning before you enter airspace. All this for free (apart from the cost of the tablet...or totally free if you have a smart phone). But it would seem (if we accept the regulators argument that many exit the flow chart at a ‘no further action’ stage), that many pilots are being denied the opportunity to learn that they made a mistake and that using these free tools could make them less likely to do it again. That seems an amazing opportunity lost.
kanga, cockney steve liked this
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 18