Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 19
By profchrisreed
#1704813
I don't think that works. I'll need a chat with gaznav too, and so will all the others who've expressed doubts. That's a lot of chats, and of course anyone who hasn't posted but feels doubts ought to have the chance too. That's not how justice works "We held the trial in secret, but the judge will have a confidential chat if you have concerns".

Why not invite IMCR to the course as an observer, then he can report back.

And I'd be happy to be invited to an ICG meeting and write them a confidential report on the fairness and justice of their policy and processes. But I'd disclose I'd done that here, and write the report so that ICG could publish it if they chose without revealing protected information, or revise it for publication if they decided to change how they decide.
By IMCR
#1704814
Surely this debate ended when Cub invited IMCR and supporters to go and discuss the “ins and outs” of the Airspace Infringements Awareness Course face-to-face?


It is post of the month, but dont let that put anyone off.

The debate is the debate, and I shall be happy to put forward my views.

It is so pleasing to see that the discussion has become very civil, and I think at least, it is just as worthy of discussion as anything else on here.
By PaulB
#1704822
AlanM wrote:
gaznav wrote:Surely this debate ended when Cub invited IMCR and supporters to go and discuss the “ins and outs” of the Airspace Infringements Awareness Course face-to-face?

Until this happens, surely everything else is just wasted electrons on the internet? :?: :?:


Can I vote this as “post of the month?”

Well said, sir.


.... but it's not.

A chat for a few with Cub is fine... for the recipients of the chat. However, the system/process needs to be just, and applied uniformly & fairly..... *and seen to be so*. Our learned colleague @profchrisreed made these points far more eloquently that I ever could.
User avatar
By gaznav
#1704823
PaulB wrote:
AlanM wrote:
gaznav wrote:Surely this debate ended when Cub invited IMCR and supporters to go and discuss the “ins and outs” of the Airspace Infringements Awareness Course face-to-face?

Until this happens, surely everything else is just wasted electrons on the internet? :?: :?:


Can I vote this as “post of the month?”

Well said, sir.


.... but it's not.

A chat for a few with Cub is fine... for the recipients of the chat. However, the system/process needs to be just, and applied uniformly & fairly..... *and seen to be so*. Our learned colleague @profchrisreed made these points far more eloquently that I ever could.


I am sure that many like me are already assured that everything is fine and dandy? So all it needs is someone who has that face-to-face chat to assure the doubters on here? Otherwise, you are setting up an impossible task of independently assuring every single licensed pilot?
User avatar
By gaznav
#1704826
profchrisreed wrote:I don't think that works. I'll need a chat with gaznav too, and so will all the others who've expressed doubts. That's a lot of chats, and of course anyone who hasn't posted but feels doubts ought to have the chance too. That's not how justice works "We held the trial in secret, but the judge will have a confidential chat if you have concerns".

Why not invite IMCR to the course as an observer, then he can report back.

And I'd be happy to be invited to an ICG meeting and write them a confidential report on the fairness and justice of their policy and processes. But I'd disclose I'd done that here, and write the report so that ICG could publish it if they chose without revealing protected information, or revise it for publication if they decided to change how they decide.


But surely that would just be your opinion Chris? In what capacity would you be assuring us as a Professor of E-Commerce Law or your BA? :?:
By AlanM
#1704839
@profchrisreed

Genuine Qs (and not goading you)

Moving away from the post infringement CAA actions; what are your thoughts on the ANO and the legal framework detailing the fact that entering CAS without a clearance is against the law?
By IMCR
#1704842
AlanM my opinion anyway is that it is against the law. Ive yet to read anyone say isnt against the law, albeit your question has been asked numerous times.

The discussion is not about whether its legal or not, its about how the law is enforced. The words of the moment are a proportionate response, a response that reduces the number of infringements, and a response that anyone receiving it would say, fair cop, thats what I expected, and its very clear in the publications that for the category of infringement everyone is treated the same.

A wider discussion concerns our views as to what can be regarded as proportionate.
By profchrisreed
#1704849
An infringement is an infringement. It's an offence under the ANO, and some sanction is appropriate.

All my dissatisfaction is about how the choice is made between the range of sanctions available. In particular:

1. The published policy on that choice doesn't seem to be followed.

2. The body which decides between the available sanctions doesn't explain well enough how it decides so as to give me, and others, confidence that it is acting fairly and justly. And my analysis, which no-one yet disputes, suggests it might not be.

Everyone is free to disagree, but if you do I'd be interested to know why. If it's because you have inside knowledge, that rather supports me. If it's because you just have faith in the decisions of well-meaning people, as I'm sure they all are, then I'd suggest you might have forgotten all the examples of well-meaning people making bad decisions which all of us must have come across. Gallipoli is a quite notorious example from history which I think is now uncontentious. But your reasons might be something I haven't considered. I just haven't read any other reasons yet.

I suppose some might think that a minor injustice doesn't really matter, and this is just a minor one in the big schemes. But they add up, and I've spent years now researching and explaining what that leads to. That's not for here, borrow the book from some library or I'll start writing footnotes!
User avatar
By gaznav
#1704852
profchrisreed wrote:The website linked to by gaznav is both helpful and not as informative as it needs to be in my view. To repeat the link: https://airspacesafety.com/facts-stats-and-incidents/

It appears that the brief explanation of actions taken and reasons for that action only began in January (or previous years explanations are no longer available, it doesn't say which). The policy being applied is not fully explained, but it's possible to induce some of it from what is explained there. I'm leaving out licence suspensions, which are clearly explained and obviously justifiable.

First, warning letters are only an option if the incident is not reported to the Infringement Coordination Group (ICG), or the Group decides it shouldn't have been reported to them. Warning letters are never given for an appropriately reported incident. Reportable incidents are:

"Loss of separation
Safety intervention measures implemented including, for example, avoiding action, radar vectors, cessation of departures, holding
Repeat infringement by registration/callsign
Repeat infringement by pilot-in-command"

From this I induce the following:

1. Repeat infringers never get a warning letter - this seems entirely appropriate to me.

2. If a different pilot in the same aircraft infringed (and how far back is this applied?) then a warning letter is not an option. This seems odd to me - there are court decisions in other areas which decide that basing decisions about an individual on the actions of other individuals is unfair, even if it can be shown statistically that the connection between them is relevant to the risk which the regulation deals with. I can't imagine why this is thought an appropriate policy, and in my view it needs justification if those in charge of the policy think it is appropriate.

3. If the incident caused loss of separation or some avoidance action by ATC then a warning letter is never the outcome. Again this seems to need justification - it focuses on the consequences of the incident, which are purely fortuitous, and not on the causes of it, which are potentially under the pilot's control. I can see that taking this approach cuts down the workload of assessing alleged infringement incidents, as it's a simply a yes/no criterion, but it doesn't seem to fit well with the aim of the regulation. The process of producing a justification might well lead the regulator to nuance this part of the policy.

Once an incident is fully considered by ICG there are three reasons for no further action:

1. No infringement.

2. Faulty transponder. It seems doubtful that this is where the pilot ought not to have realised the transponder was faulty but still infringed - I don't think transponders are used by pilots to avoid infringement. More likely it means that there was actually no airspace incursion, but a faulty transponder caused ATC to take action, which means that this is also non-infringement.

3. The pilot was a student. Do students automatically get a free pass on their first infringement? Or is there some other assessment, so that some students receive no action whilst others receive some form of regulatory action? I think students ought to know this.

Only one person was referred for training. The reason given doesn't explain why, it just repeats the reason why ICG reviewed the case. I accept that explaining an individual case could reveal protected information about the pilot, but there must be some ICG criteria for making a referral decision (otherwise it is completely arbitrary and a denial of natural justice), and these could be explained.

The online test is the second rarest of regulatory actions - 2 in January, 4 in February, 3 in March, 0 in April and May, and 1 in June. There is no explanation of why someone receives an online test. Is it rare because the test is useless, as some have suggested, or because only some pilot explanations of causes fit with what the test is supposed to correct? Again, this is something which could usefully be explained, and the process of explaining it would help ICG ensure that they were acting fairly and justly.

Finally, the reasons for requiring attendance at the AIAC course suggest that it is the default outcome. They just repeat the four reasons for referral to ICG.

So this is what the policy seems to look like:

1. If you didn't actually infringe or (sometimes?) if you were a student, then no action.

2. In a small minority of cases (reason unexplained) you are required to take the online test or undergo further training.

3. For everyone else, you have to take the AIAC course.

What I'd conclude from this is that all the focus of the ICG is on points 1 and 2, and that there is no consideration whether in the remaining cases the course is the appropriate action. I might of course be incorrect in this conclusion, but there is nothing in the explanations given to suggest otherwise. So from this analysis it seems to me as if IMCR's suspicions that the course is the default outcome are correct (though there is no evidence either way that this is done to make the course financially viable).

gaznav asked what the statistics and explanation failed to tell us, and I've tried to set that out here. The other thing which the website fails to tell us is (a) what ICG concludes about the causes of infringement (and it suggests that this might not be something they consider in much depth), or (b) why the regulatory system thinks the course is the best way to deal with infringements - if it is, the course should address the known causes to attempt to correct them, but we have no idea fro this website if it has been designed that way. I'm sure GASCO does its best, but if it is only guessing what its course is trying to correct then its best may not be very helpful. Of course, it might be that infringement causes are well-known from other work, and the course is based on that work, in which case the website might like to tell us that!

As I was writing Flyin'Dutch' asked Cub which legislation was at risk of being breached if more information was provided. So far as I can see, the only legislation at risk is data protection law, and that only in the single case of referral for further training. I explained above how that could be dealt with without breaching the legislation.


Everyone is free to disagree, but if you do I'd be interested to know why.


Chris

I’m afraid I disagree with your analysis above as it appears to be based upon your own feelings on the matter and what information you need is missing in the linked information. I would offer, that this missing information should not be used to support your thoughts on the matter - as surely that is then just conjecture due to the lack of missing information?

I also find the following somewhat patronising “I'm sure GASCO does its best, but if it is only guessing what its course is trying to correct then its best may not be very helpful.”. Do you know what training needs analysis was conducted prior to the course being delivered? Have you personally attended the course to know exactly what content is delivered? If you have not attended then I suggest that is again, conjecture, and you may wish to reconsider the phraseology that you have used?

From my own point of view I believe the most sound Legal opinion offered thus far is: “An infringement is an infringement. It's an offence under the ANO, and some sanction is appropriate.
I cannot disagree with that, whatsoever, and so surely that should be the starting point of the discussion? Trying to second guess what the ICG might have discussed, or what might have been involved, is surely just conjecture as well?

Finally, on sanctioning a registration/callsign, I can think of a good example. At the little airfield I used to run we had an errant aircraft syndicate (of around 6 members if I remember correctly) that continually failed to follow the Flying Order Book - after several transgressions by different pilots in the syndicate, we asked them to leave the airfield as we decided that as a syndicate their attitude to safety culture and ability to follow the Flying Orders was not up to the required standard. We had warned them several times before, but it seemed to make little difference. So I would suggest that a registration/callsign, when operated by a rogue and unruly syndicate, could be identified for consideration by the ICG, especially if there are several incidents in close succession by different individuals? But I offer that would need to be a judgement call, as we made on our airfield some years ago.

Anyway, that’s my two-penneth in response to another GA pilot from a GA Pilot - i.e. it is just my opinion too. :thumright:

Best, Gaz
By IMCR
#1704862
One pilot to another, you knew the workings of the group intimately and over a long period, are really suggesting the ICG could possibly have the same knowledge of any group that might have as many as 30 members based on a couple of infringements by that group? I find that would be an extraordinary stretch of your analogy, in which you gave the group multiple fair warnings as well.
User avatar
By skydriller
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1704868
gaznav wrote:From my own point of view I believe the most sound Legal opinion offered thus far is: “An infringement is an infringement. It's an offence under the ANO, and some sanction is appropriate.


Are you sure? Think UK Danger Area's.

AlanM wrote:What are your thoughts on the ANO and the legal framework detailing the fact that entering CAS without a clearance is against the law?

The ATC folk here may or may not know of the situation apparently going on in Switzerland right now where certain of their brethren are being prosecuted following loss of separation "near miss" incidents. Another topic perhaps, but does it affect your views of what is happening here? A knock on effect is that GA is being officially refused access to airspace and certain airports as a result.

Regards, SD..
User avatar
By Sooty25
#1704878
gaznav wrote:From my own point of view I believe the most sound Legal opinion offered thus far is: “An infringement is an infringement. It's an offence under the ANO, and some sanction is appropriate.


And to me, this sums up some of the problem.

3 x 7 second, 100ft height busts over 10 years and 2000hrs flying in a choke point and you are out. The airspace and hours flown appears to have no influence on the sanction, with little right of appeal.
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1704881
Sooty25 wrote:
gaznav wrote:From my own point of view I believe the most sound Legal opinion offered thus far is: “An infringement is an infringement. It's an offence under the ANO, and some sanction is appropriate.


And to me, this sums up some of the problem.

3 x 7 second, 100ft height busts over 10 years and 2000hrs flying in a choke point and you are out. The airspace and hours flown appears to have no influence on the sanction, with little right of appeal.


I think the original sentiment is right, the consequences are a more complicated discussion. Justice is served by having sensible interpretation of the impact of rule breaking. That why I said we need to separate the basic infringement (bad ....end of text) from the impact ( widely variable).

The critical issue is what mitigation of the risk was made available or undertaken by the pilot.

A limited infraction with no direct impact while talking to someone and squawking ADS-B may require a letter of warning to pay more attention in future and maybe stay a bit further away from boundaries, both horizontal and vertical.

Blundering through Heathrow zone in silence as only a primary contact is a whole different discussion and there are many shades in between these two extremes. The system needs to have a transparent process for dealing with this sensibly.
User avatar
By ThePipster
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1704885
I am not 100% sure but I understood that the AIAC was offered to infringers rather than forced upon them?

Is it not the case that should an alleged infringer not want to go on the course they can choose to follow the legal route through the CAA enforcement team, therefore being subject to all the checks and balances of the U.K. judiciary, including whatever statutory rights to appeal which may or may not exist at magistrates court?

Pipster
User avatar
By Sooty25
#1704902
ThePipster wrote:I am not 100% sure but I understood that the AIAC was offered to infringers rather than forced upon them?

Is it not the case that should an alleged infringer not want to go on the course they can choose to follow the legal route through the CAA enforcement team, therefore being subject to all the checks and balances of the U.K. judiciary, including whatever statutory rights to appeal which may or may not exist at magistrates court?

Pipster


Would you be brave (and flush enough) to roll that dice?

And would you be subjected to licence suspension in the 1,2,3 years it took to get through hearing and an appeal by the CAA if you won?
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 19