Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 18
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1560165
dublinpilot wrote: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).


Good post and summary.

One thing, which (despite it being from me) isn't just pedantry - I think it's extremely important to clarify.

You refer to the "regulator" in the paragraph I quote. The poster you refer to isn't the Regulator - he is a self-acknowledged (very recently) retired ATCO who has a personal opinion as we all do. He was attempting to provide a viewpoint from the professional Air Traffic domain, which was an important contribution to the discussion in that thread.

However it is important to note that he is not a policy maker, and opinions and statement that he won't engage any further are his alone.

He is NOT the Regulator and does NOT represent the Regulator.
#1560170
It is equally important to point out that dublinpilot is actually referring not to me but to someone else entirely.

You seem to be fixated on me for some reason given the number of times you've brought me up in posts recently, maybe it's time to give it a rest now.

Dave W wrote:
dublinpilot wrote: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).


Good post and summary.

One thing, which (despite it being from me) isn't just pedantry - I think it's extremely important to clarify.

You refer to the "regulator" in the paragraph I quote. The poster you refer to isn't the Regulator - he is a self-acknowledged (very recently) retired ATCO who has a personal opinion as we all do. He was attempting to provide a viewpoint from the professional Air Traffic domain, which was an important contribution to the discussion in that thread.

However it is important to note that he is not a policy maker, and opinions and statement that he won't engage any further are his alone.

He is NOT the Regulator and does NOT represent the Regulator.
By avtur3
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1560172
My experience of just culture in other industries is that it requires, amongst other things, a significant amount of trust to work successfully. The trust element is not balanced two way traffic; much more trust is required by the workforce, those who 'do', than by those who 'regulate and manage'.

Trust is very hard to build up and very easily lost. The workforce have to be convinced that buy-in goes all the way up the organisation, individuals need to believe that every person in line between themselves and the person at the top of the organisation is totally committed to the process.

In my experience the process has mixed success. It is middle management level where trust is broken, members of the workforce and first levels of supervision/management will buy in only to find that someone further up the management line 'breaks the chain of trust' and the man at the top never gets to know about what has happened.

I buy into the process, but having witnessed failure I can understand why some would be cynical of it. It is for management of the most senior level to ensure that everyone buys in to ensure the process works.

The analogy may not be 100% the same for GA pilots engagement in the process but I believe the similar enough to make the point. It is all won, or lost, on trust.
JoeC, cockney steve, Stu B liked this
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1560176
Mike Tango wrote:It is equally important to point out that dublinpilot is actually referring not to me but to someone else entirely.


Apologies - you're not the first to point that out, I was misremembering. You did say you were withdrawing, though, which I think is what tripped me up.

It was indeed ratman, however it's still important to say that he wasn't going to stop engaging at all - he was going to stop engaging here. Which given the abuse on that thread is not really a surprise but is a shame. :(

Mike Tango wrote:You seem to be fixated on me for some reason given the number of times you've brought me up in posts recently, maybe it's time to give it a rest now.


The reason I have mentioned you recently was to make a point regarding the way the discussions have gone recently i.e. to illustrate how easily an important message can be lost - people stop listening - if the delivery isn't right.

Unfortunately you did provide a couple of good examples of that, even though there was equally a problem at the receiving end in most cases. It's nothing personal.
#1560177
Dublinpilot's summary is excellent. I'd just like to add to one of his points:

dublinpilot wrote: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).


This was the point of my little essay on regulatory theory and rule-making legitimacy. Most regulators have a fair understanding of this because they recognise that to secure voluntary compliance they need to engage with those they are regulating. The exceptions are like the FCA, which in theory rules the banks with a rod of iron, but in practice is still in constant dialogue with them.

I think the CAA's problem is that it knows how to engage with 90% of its activity, commercial aviation, but has never thought about how different its relationship with GA is. So it sees it as one of command/obedience, which the theory (backed by empirical work) on regulation shows it never can be.

I hope the CAA thinks about this, and decides that it needs to offer transparency and justification rather than pure assertions about fairness. It really isn't costly to do, and if a dialogues identifies defects in the system which can be fixed, that's a good thing, not a bad thing. If it shows that the system is perfect, that's a good thing too!
User avatar
By flybymike
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1560180

It was indeed ratman, however it's still important to say that he wasn't going to stop engaging at all - he was going to stop engaging here. Which given the abuse on that thread is not really a surprise but is a shame. :(



Was there any "abuse" or just strongly held differing views?
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1560183
Paul_Sengupta wrote:They show a very human face to regulation and actually believe in engagement with pilots.


And appear on forums...

flybymike wrote:Was there any "abuse" or just strongly held differing views?


Well, put it this way. Most of us are here because it is our hobby and we (mostly) enjoy the place with all its foibles.

ratman was here because he wanted as part of his job to engage (in the manner Paul describes) with those for whom it is a hobby, and was essentially told - because people just knew - that he represented an organisation that was at best underhand and at worst malicious. Who goes to work wanting to get accused of that?
kanga, Jonzarno liked this
User avatar
By Full Metal Jackass
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1560189
I'd like to suggest that the attitudes of people in GA is a reflection of how we see society. I've often wondered why I am so negative towards 'the state' and would suggest those that are in my age bracket reflect back how life was in the 80s - I can recall driving into town, stopping directly outside the local branch of Dixons (on double yellows) to pick up the microwave I'd just bought. The traffic warden saw me, asked what I was doing parking there, I explained that I was doing, would be gone in 2 minutes and that would be that. The traffic wardens knew Dixons in the town centre didn't have parking where you could collect your goods so if you wanted to avoid lugging something across town, you 'bent the rules' somewhat and the traffic wardens would often listen and apply common sense and a little consideration for others.

However those days are gone. We've gone from a society which understands, had common sense and understanding for it's fellow mankind to one in which punishment is the first resort, the second resort and the last resort. No exemptions. You do something wrong and it doesn't matter, you WILL be punished. Nowadays the traffic wardens are issuing tickets before they even arrive at your car. Engine broken down? Doesn't matter. Fined. Someone knocked down and you're a nurse on the way to work, helping them? Doesn't matter. You're fined. And why? Because the government needs cash.

Unfortunately this attitude is pervasively prevalent in all manners of the public sector. Got a hospital appointment? Better hope your consultant is on time because you're only allowed an hour parking or you're fined. Miss your tax returns by a day? Fined. It doesn't matter that the government can hold onto your cash for months whilst they try to sort out the mess from their incompetence in tax coding, if you submit your returns late, you're going to be fined.

So, bearing all this in mind, why should the CAA be any different? And when I see the information in MORs being withheld so we CANNOT learn from others' mistakes, I just think - is there a hidden agenda here? They don't want us to learn? Ironically it's usually people from the same group, keeping the information restricted, who make claims that GA is 'resistant to education'.....

The only thing that does surprise me in this new system is that it doesn't resort to using 'Health and Safety' as a reason for keeping MORs confidential......
#1560190
Paul_Sengupta wrote:I think the CAA are trying very hard. They've attended most of the GA shows and exhibitions in recent memory, both with stands with the GA group present and also in seminars. They show a very human face to regulation and actually believe in engagement with pilots.


This shows they are listening. But a dialogue requires communication back, and that is what I see many posters arguing for.

And that communication needs to aim at persuading GA pilots that the CAA rules are fair, and are operated fairly. Doing so isn't an admission of failure, it's part of a strategy for success.

If the CAA is reading this they should note that no-one (I think) alleges the operation of the rules isn't fair. What they are saying is that they don't know, and can't find out, if their operation is fair. That can easily be remedied.
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1560193
PCR

The ratio of infringements/follow up/prosecutions/convictions shows overwhelmingly that most infringements/transgressions against the rules lead to a conviction.

Some in GA need to start to take some responsibility rather than just being shouty.

An acknowledgement that we(GA) have a problem would be a good start.
User avatar
By G-BLEW
Boss Man  Boss Man
#1560203
FD wrote:The ratio of infringements/follow up/prosecutions/convictions shows overwhelmingly that most infringements/transgressions against the rules lead to a conviction.


Don't you mean DON'T lead to a conviction?

FMJ wrote:However those days are gone. We've gone from a society which understands, had common sense and understanding for it's fellow mankind to one in which punishment is the first resort, the second resort and the last resort. No exemptions. You do something wrong and it doesn't matter, you WILL be punished. Nowadays the traffic wardens are issuing tickets before they even arrive at your car. Engine broken down? Doesn't matter. Fined. Someone knocked down and you're a nurse on the way to work, helping them? Doesn't matter. You're fined. And why? Because the government needs cash.

Unfortunately this attitude is pervasively prevalent in all manners of the public sector. Got a hospital appointment? Better hope your consultant is on time because you're only allowed an hour parking or you're fined. Miss your tax returns by a day? Fined. It doesn't matter that the government can hold onto your cash for months whilst they try to sort out the mess from their incompetence in tax coding, if you submit your returns late, you're going to be fined.

So, bearing all this in mind, why should the CAA be any different? And when I see the information in MORs being withheld so we CANNOT learn from others' mistakes, I just think - is there a hidden agenda here? They don't want us to learn? Ironically it's usually people from the same group, keeping the information restricted, who make claims that GA is 'resistant to education'.....


FMJ, I honestly don't recognise your description of life, either in the 80s or today. No wonder you are quick to believe the worst, I think I might be if I lived in that description.

Ian
kanga, Jonzarno liked this
#1560207
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:The ratio of infringements/follow up/prosecutions/convictions shows overwhelmingly that most infringements/transgressions against the rules lead to a conviction.


That wasn't my point. The uncertainty is about how fair the imposition of action short of prosecution is. And I don't know. I should be able easily to find out.

Flyin'Dutch' wrote:Some in GA need to start to take some responsibility rather than just being shouty.

An acknowledgement that we(GA) have a problem would be a good start.


Agreed. I acknowledge that as an individual and I've taken steps re my own flying to reduce the risk of infringement. I think most on the thread acknowledge there is a problem (or at least, no-one denied it).

But once we've done that, where next? GA's problem is that it's a bunch of disparate individuals, so we rely on individual initiatives. For example, I provide XC coaching at my gliding club, and advise on route planning and use of moving maps to avoid infringement. If the MORs were available electronically I could dig into them to discover why glider pilots tended to mistakenly enter airspace, and where the highest risk areas were. I could even share that with other gliding clubs. As it stands, I have maps and my own experience alone. That's another argument for transparency.

The only argument I can see against releasing the MORs in anonymised form is the cost of doing so. But I could lay my hands on a smart MSc student looking for a degree project who'd do the design and construction work for almost nothing, as could most universities. My office is 100 yds from the CAA in Kingsway, so I could even pop over and explain how to solve the data protection issues.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 18