Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 18
#1560053
Paul Sengupta wrote:No, we don't know this from the thread. There was a suggestion that a "busy ATZ" may have circuit and/or instrument traffic. We don't know what the actual situation was with this ATZ other than the OP's assertion that it was minor and no disruption was caused to anyone. There was a vague suggestion that the OP was an instructor teaching a student but that wasn't confirmed.



Page 13 of the other thread from Sapper

sapperkenno wrote:If there was a "direct safety impact" or "result in significant service disruption", then that would lead to where I am. As previously stated, I wasn't aware either applied, only that the visual circuit was active, and there was instrument traffic operating at the time, but no mention of loss of separation or safety in the MOR I recived from the unit.


I'm struggling to imagine a situation where an infringer in the ATZ with the Circuit active and instrument traffic operating as anything but serious.
By riverrock
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1560054
Let's not rehash the other threads again.

Firstly, how do the CAA / Euro control define it:
"Just Culture" is a culture in which front-line operators and others are not punished for actions, omissions or decisions taken by them which are commensurate with their experience and training, but where gross negligence, wilful violations and destructive acts are not tolerated


Noone should fall or plan to fall into the list after the "but", so it should be easy to embrace. However the impression (rightly or wrongly) is that simple mistakes are getting punished, leading to break down of it.
#1560056
Isn't an issue that a just culture needs to be demonstrably so, and that requires openness and transparency.

Some here (not all) rightly or wrongly, don't see openness or transparency.
#1560061
Look you lot

The CAA is exactly like the filth.
They are both now no more than business organisations that seek max revenue/results for minimum outlay.

So if they can get you to admit to an offense they can then throw the book at you for various other ones.
This is how people end up with Police cautions and in court for ridiculous offenses because they naively though that by being "helpful" would make the authorities see sense: no it only encourages them.

The authorities love nailing the middle classes as they have jobs to loose, mortgages to pay and have to be compliant. Even being arrested now without any charge being brought is enough to make travel to the USA only possible with a VISA. (not that one wants to visit the sh*theap)

The only two sectors the authorities stay well clear off are:
1. The gyppo type with no assets, and don't care attitude. Prosecuting them is a waste of time and money and just costs the authorities for no gain.
So this is why no "traveler" cars are ever clamped and no one is prosecuted for the 50 tons of waste they leave behind.

2. The super rich. They will tie the authorities up in paperwork and time wasting activities by the lawyers for years. It will be a lot of money for minimal gain at the end. This is similar to why as one policeman admitted on Radio 4 mothers and never sent to jail or sometimes even charged or arrested. This would result in the state picking up the bill for childcare and in the case of an arrest needing to find child care immediately.

The funniest one I ever saw was a person not short of the odd bob or two stopped as part of an investigation. Uncooperative to put it mildly. Police threaten arrest. Reply is "OK, let's go then" knowing that this is going to waste the police's time for the rest of the day and keeping him is custody for a day or so is no consequence to him but very costly for the Filth. The speed at which the Police decided to terminate the discussion and leave was remarkable: I think they declared it a civil offense - their usual excuse when they want nowt to do with it.

So in aviation terms prosecuting a PPL is easy money - prosecuting BA is not.
flyingeeza liked this
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1560067
leiafee wrote:
How could GA go about it?

.............

How do you reach the people who don't go to that stuff, operate outside a clb, aren't part of members organisations etc?

Or is the minority too small, albeit vocal, to worry about?


Part of the issue is the old adage that this is someone else's problem which would never happen to them/me.

Another that GA as a whole is populated with people who are on the more conservative/change resistent part of life/society's spectrum - for that I proffer the 'evidence' provided by the non GA discussions about life/politics etc

And I think that there is a small vocal part of the GA community who do think the best way forward is to try and block everything head on as dialogue would be seen to be weakness.

Whether the latter is a variant of the second observation I am not sure.
Dave Phillips, G-BLEW, GonzoEGLL and 1 others liked this
User avatar
By G-BLEW
Boss Man  Boss Man
#1560071
coolbeans wrote:
Paul Sengupta wrote:No, we don't know this from the thread. There was a suggestion that a "busy ATZ" may have circuit and/or instrument traffic. We don't know what the actual situation was with this ATZ other than the OP's assertion that it was minor and no disruption was caused to anyone. There was a vague suggestion that the OP was an instructor teaching a student but that wasn't confirmed.



Page 13 of the other thread from Sapper

sapperkenno wrote:If there was a "direct safety impact" or "result in significant service disruption", then that would lead to where I am. As previously stated, I wasn't aware either applied, only that the visual circuit was active, and there was instrument traffic operating at the time, but no mention of loss of separation or safety in the MOR I recived from the unit.


I'm struggling to imagine a situation where an infringer in the ATZ with the Circuit active and instrument traffic operating as anything but serious.


I'd also add from sapperkenno's posts in the thread…

MOR'd for entering an ATZ within a MATZ, while on a basic service (due to crappy radios and a "misunderstanding") during a training flight - is the gist of it.

I was training in today with a student


FTAOD I am not at all having a pop at sapperkenno

Ian
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1560082
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.
User avatar
By Cub
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1560084
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


That fear would appear irrational when you look at the prosecution figures and detail.
Dave W liked this
#1560088
Just Cultures are difficult. One action by a company or regulator can destroy years of work. There are plenty in professional aviation, particularly in the Middle & Far East who write it into their manuals but continue to operate in a punitive fashion. The USAF is similar - were pilots there to write up safety reports for the equivalent of Air Clues, their careers would be seriously harmed.

However, the benefits are very much worth it. You end up with a safer operation, lower mishap rates and a better understanding of the problems you encounter.

For GA pilots who don't work in safety critical industries their only interaction with policing of regulations will likely be the police and it's no surprise that attitudes carry over.
Dave W, G-BLEW liked this
By riverrock
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1560091
The CAA successfully prosecute a tiny number of people each year. From a prosecution stand point - either the CAA believes in a Just Culture or their prosecutors are terrible.

With infringements and the new system, we have no way of knowing whether this is still the case.

Also the CAA doesn't need to go through courts or prosecute for someone to have their licence revoked or suspended - I've never heard statistics on this.
#1560099
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.


It may be, but it is one shared by many including some examiners. On 2 occasions in recent years I have been with examiners at low level - one pfl and one autoroation - when people appeared from positions we could not have seen and were within 500' of us. On both occasions the examiners (2 different people) were concerned about a report to the CAA.

It would be easy for the CAA to address this and put safety first. The fact that they won't is a concern.

And the fact that few people are being prosecuted, may simply be that so few are doing PFLs, hence fewer reports from the public, hence fewer prosecutions.

MM
#1560100
There is not a "just culture"in GA. Unlike say, human factors, it is not spoken about in training, rarely on this forum and I have never heard anyone in a club house or airfield discuss it.

Indeed I attended a talk by Tudor Owen (before he became a judge) a few years ago (last ten years) when I was training whose whole talk was about not trusting the CAA when accused of a misdemeanour, that they would stitch you up and how to go about beating them.

This was not in some secret backroom but at a sponsored event at one of the biggest annual GA flyins!

This does not mean that we shouldn't strive for it nor that we shouldn't be naturally just in our behaviours and attitudes. Cultural change is not something that can just be said or hoped for it must have an implementation plan. I think (only from what I have read) that commercial flying has implemented a just culture - but this has been a concerted, consistent effort over time.

I assume that with commercial ops just culture is driven from the top. GA does not have a "top" or leadership other than the CAA or EASA.

Where I see just culture failing is not in PPLs attitude to the CAA but in the mass of confusion over licensing and new rules.

For example, lets take the new mandatory Transponder rule that starts on 17th October. If, as a conscientious pilot ,I check the CAA website regularly to make sure I play my part in just culture I would see this as the "hot topics":

Image

No mention of the new transponder rule

So I go to the Skywise website (heard of it?) to check any other updates from the CAA

Image

Again, nothing.

I have however read about it here so all is good but that is a terribly random way to create a just culture where it is recognised that the system is as much at fault as the person who now breaks a new rule because the system fails in communicating it in a reasonable way.

And yes, I have sent a note with my thoughts to the CAA GA dept!
davef77 liked this
#1560102
JoeC, it's there on your screenshot under SERA Implementation dated 13/09/2017. That said, I completely agree that the manner in which changes are promulgated, having mirrored the EASA route, is shocking. Anyway, a link to the latest consolidated version of SERA and the UK's interpretation/derogations (variances). The transponder bit is at 13001.

https://www.caa.co.uk/uploadedFiles/CAA ... dation.pdf
JoeC liked this
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 18