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.
Best, Gaz