Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1754518
It’s not ideal is it? Citing data protection is disingenuous at best.
The occurrence reporting blurb is hard going. Maybe I am missing it but I can’t see the bit where a “minor” infringement mandates an occurrence report.
johnm liked this
User avatar
By tomshep
#1754539
If you will not show me your evidence, I have done nothing wrong and that is exactly what my lawyer will say when the case comes to court. Then I sue you. Your move.
User avatar
By Dave W
#1754543
The going to court thing is potentially important for the individual pilot, yes - but to me it's not the critical thing for the community outside the individual pilot.

The real problem with the way things are currently done is that failing to exchange facts and consider them doesn't allow anyone to properly identify the underlying cause of infringements and stop them happening.

Simply saying "There was an infringement: Bring in the guilty party" does absolutely nothing to help understand the causes and hence put mitigation in place.

It potentially manages to do quite a bit against that aspiration, though... :(

Not only is it not inherently a Just Culture, it's not much of an element of a Safety Culture either.
Talkdownman, G-BLEW, Sir Morley Steven and 10 others liked this
User avatar
By Miscellaneous
#1754547
Dave W wrote:The going to court thing is potentially important for the individual pilot, yes - but to me it's not the critical thing for the community outside the individual pilot.

I follow your thinking, Dave, however I think if an individual pilot did take it to court it could be very beneficial to the wider flying community and the problem of infringing.
User avatar
By flybymike
#1754555
The 700 odd infringements at White Waltham last year before the OHJ was reduced to 1200' QFE seemed to have disappeared into the long grass and both the CAA and NATS have not made any public comment to it, to my knowledge.

When I queried at the time how it could be possible that at least 50% or more of the annual infringements were allegedly occurring at one location, I was virtually accused by a specific element of the forum that I was some kind of agent provocateur with some wicked motive in mind.
User avatar
By Miscellaneous
#1754556
Dave W wrote:Possibly, but there are other ways less dramatic and quicker ways of achieving an improvement.

I made that very suggestion on the Barton thread. I find it difficult to understand how the CAA can get away with it. I'm not knowledgeable enough to suggest how they could be challenged, but surely there's a protocol for such situations?
User avatar
By defcribed
#1754620
flybymike wrote:
The 700 odd infringements at White Waltham last year before the OHJ was reduced to 1200' QFE seemed to have disappeared into the long grass and both the CAA and NATS have not made any public comment to it, to my knowledge.

When I queried at the time how it could be possible that at least 50% or more of the annual infringements were allegedly occurring at one location, I was virtually accused by a specific element of the forum that I was some kind of agent provocateur with some wicked motive in mind.


It was completely obvious to anyone with half a brain that there were not, in fact, 700 infringements at White Waltham. It was quite obviously an issue with CAIT, but that cannot be admitted.
User avatar
By defcribed
#1754622
tomshep wrote:If you will not show me your evidence, I have done nothing wrong and that is exactly what my lawyer will say when the case comes to court. Then I sue you. Your move.


A fine plan with just three major drawbacks:

1. Your licence will be suspended as soon as you disengage from the process and invite them to prosecute you.

2. You will get the evidence per the requirements of the judicial system, but not until after the prosecution commences. At this point you may discover you're going to lose.

3. Even if you win, you won't get your costs back.
johnm liked this
User avatar
By rf3flyer
#1754630
None of what has been alleged in this thread seems anything like 'just culture'.
NATS, a public private partnership, makes an allegation against a pilot but offers nothing to substantiate the allegation.
If the alleged offender bows the knee and accepts punishment then NATS can allege whatever they like and get away with it, a situation wide open to abuse.
If the alleged offender chooses to challenge the allegation the CAA steps in and suspends his licence pending a court case. I may be wrong but I think even a car driver facing a DUI charge doesn't suffer that until he/she is found guilty.
What happened to the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty'?
Just culture my @r5e!

It may seem like a small thing but I think the CAA should be rebranded along the lines of the FAA. Drop 'Authority' and adopt 'Administration'. Civil Aviation Administration.
Last edited by rf3flyer on Mon Mar 23, 2020 4:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Kemble Pitts, tomshep liked this
User avatar
By Dave W
#1754633
@johnm, I think you're overstating things considerably.

The great majority of aviation operations and regulation in the UK runs a successful Just Culture (and a very successful Safety Culture) and has done for a long time.

This situation with the handling of infringing GA pilots is very much an outlier, which I believe is why it appears to be so prominent.

The main disappointment for me lies with why it is apparently taking so long to be recognised and gripped.
johnm, G-BLEW, Kemble Pitts liked this
User avatar
By PeteSpencer
#1754642
Would any kind person be able to scan/photograph the article and whats app or email it to me please? I tried to contact Matt but no joy so far.

I can pm contact details
.
Many thanks
Peter