[Dave W]

@defcribed: Baines-Simmons have quite a lot of stuff on this. What I wrote and quoted above is just a taster; they could have a really good discussion with you about what you say.

I've had professional dealings with them, and I know the wider CAA also rate them highly.

But the main point is that these things need considering properly; it's not Black and White.

It's even less likely to deliver the improvements we all want if some things are only ever addressed as if they were inherently Black & Black!

[IMCR]

DaveW a well set out post. Inevitably there is a but .. ..

A pilot routes through the corner of a CAS step at 2,700 instead of 2,400, thinking it was a 3,000 foot step. He misread the chart. His incursion into CAS was corrected as soon as it is brought to his attention. The pilot has never infringed before and takes his piloting very responsibly. There was no reason or intention behind the incursion such as intentional corner cutting because he was late or low on fuel.

Is this a mistake or an error and does it matter how you classify it?

The same scenario, but the pilot is trying to get home before his airport closes. He intentionally and deliberately cuts the corner having diverted from his planned route, but thinks he has stayed below the step.

Same question.

In assessing the decision you may also find that you are relying to an extent on the honesty and integrity of the pilot. Would every pilot fess up to the second scenario, if you would classify this differently?

I am making no more than the observation the difference between the two can be subtle, and even more so, it would place the Regulator in a difficult position to assess the evidence and it veracity.

I need to think about the answer, but I suspect the ATC tape would be the most revealing. In my experience in both these scenarios a great deal can be learned from how the pilot reacts and what he does in the immediate aftermath. I would want to listen to the tape. Moreover, combined with the track I think this would give a very good indication of whether or not the pilot made a substantial error, or not.

Perhaps you have a better idea how you distinguish between the two?

Perhaps also other than in the most heinous cases, there is a good reason why the regulatory consequence should be different.

[IMCR]

My solution would be along these lines.

First infringement; an automatic warning letter along the current lines with some detail of the alleged infringement and 14 days in which to set out any mitigating factors.

Judged on whether the infringement was brief with immediate action to correct, or prolonged with substantial ATC intervention, and any mitigating circumstances, the warning letter left to stand by itself, but with the caveat that another infringement within 12 months will result in further action or referral to a designated instructor.

For prolonged infringement and without appropriate action to correct, or for a second infringement within 12 months, referral to a designated instructor.

Designated instructors will have attended a GASCo style course and will be given the circumstances of the infringement. They will determine the extent of “remedial” training save that it will not be less than two hours, and will sign to say that the training has been completed to their satisfaction. The time, if deemed appropriate by the instructor can include a flight review which, if completed, will meet the requirements of a flight with an instructor within the last two years if appropriate, and from which time the clock will be set to zero. The costs to be met by the pilot but with a scale of designated charges.

In cases of repeat infringement, and those of a serious nature, the pilot will be required to attend before an independent panel of peers, who will examine the circumstances of the infringement and determine the appropriate “penalty” with the pilot to be responsible for their costs, but again set at a fixed amount.

Save to say in all circumstances the pilot may appeal to the independent tribunal at his cost, but the cost to be fixed. All relevant material will be made available to a tribunal and all tribunal members will be current and qualified pilots who sign an NDA.

Simple, clear, includes a right of peer review, places the re-training onus within the "industry" as well as the income from the courses, and almost entirely eliminates the concerns over the process not being transparent, or being run by the Regulator, whilst giving them oversight and scrutiny. It also reduces the CAA's costs and exposure to all the criticism they are currently subject to.

More to the point where a visit to the instructor is required, it becomes convenient for both parties, a genuinely inter active and exploratory one to one process which can concentrate on the specifc circumstances that relate to the infringement being reviewed and yet including some form of monetray and time penalty so there is also that incentive not to repeat the experience.

[Dave W]

My solution would be along these lines.

First infringement; an automatic warning letter along the current lines with some detail of the alleged infringement and 14 days in which to set out any mitigating factors.

Guilty until proven innocent, and no access to air traffic data or evidence to support your case?

That's no better than the current situation.

[patowalker]

My solution would be along these lines.

First infringement; an automatic warning letter along the current lines with some detail of the alleged infringement and 14 days in which to set out any mitigating factors.

Why a warning letter, if not a serious infringement? I infringed and learnt my lesson without the need of a warning letter. This was the extent of the correspondence with NATS:

As discussed, London ATC has submitted a safety report (MOR) concerning an infringement of the London City CTA by G-xxxxc on 31/08/13 at 1425 UTC. Although on this occasion no other traffic was affected, an infringement at this location has potential safety implications for traffic inbound to London City Airport.
(picture here)
I have inserted a radar picture that shows G-xxxx within the London City CTA with Mode C indicating 1900ft (CTA base 1500ft). Although this is an actual radar picture, I have annotated some key points. G-xxxx is highlighted in magenta as our radars will automatically detect the presence of unauthorised squawks within CAS. The callsigns of other aircraft have been removed.

The subject of infringements of controlled airspace is a major concern to NATS who view the matter as a significant safety issue. It is NATS current preference to work with pilots who have been responsible for an infringement of controlled airspace so that the reasons behind the infringement can be identified. Would you please provide some feedback regarding the circumstances surrounding this event by completing an infringement questionnaire which can be found online at http://www.nats.co.uk/infringements/. Information we collect from these forms will be collated and analysed statistically by NATS for the identification of common factors and trends. NATS will also share the form with the UK Civil Aviation Authority under the principles of the MOR scheme as detailed in CAP382.

I have attached details of the monitoring codes/listening squawks. London City and Gatwick share the 0012 squawk and this would have been more appropriate for the area in which the infringement occurred.
Regards

Please note: The radar picture is supplied for flight safety purposes only and should not be copied or distributed without the permission of NATS.

I filled in the online questionnaire and sent it off, forgetting to take a screenshot. I was wearing the Stansted conspicuity code, but was on the London City/Gatwick frequency. They called me on the Stansted frequency, as you would expect. I also had out-of-date Garmin mapping software, which showed a lapsed Damys Hall ATZ, which I was avoiding (on the wrong side, as it turned out).

The response was:

Thank you for the prompt and honest completion of the infringement questionnaire – now received.
Regards

That was the end of it. I may also have received notification of 'no further action' from the CAA.
It was a sobering experience, but I felt it was handled politely and fairly. A warning letter would not have made me any more careful about infringing than I have been since then.

[IMCR]

Guilty until proven innocent, and no access to air traffic data or evidence to support your case?

No certainly not, as I said, an easy peers based review process with a fixed cost accessible with the initial warning letter - which perhaps might be better called "notification of alledged infringement" or some such. As I said previously, I doubt many will wish to appeal the question of whether or not they infringed, a little like when you are caught on a radar camera.

Why a warning letter, if not a serious infringement? I infringed and learnt my lesson without the need of a warning letter. This was the extent of the correspondence with NATS:

As above, perhaps this would be a better title for the letter. However once it has been accepted by both parties an infringement occurred then it is probably not unreasonable that some record is made, otherwise there would be no mechanism for identifying repeat infringers. To be fair I think we all agree that infringements cannot be totally ignored, even in the old days you might get a good telling off from ATC when you got home and they had received a report that you had just flown through Heathrow!

We might all like to see no action at all, but I suspect we must be realistic. The world has moved and the parties involved will insist on some form of record. Going back to the days when it could be left totally to the discretion of ATC is a case of the horse having left the stable when we agreed that NATS should be privatised.

[patowalker]

[ warning letter - which perhaps might be better called "notification of alledged infringement" or some such.

The heading of the emails sent to me by NATS was even less confrontational: 'ATC event'.

[MikeE]

... the concept that in all safety critical systems you have to account for the fact that mistakes and errors occur...

As well as @skydriller's well-made wider point about successful safety systems, there's another relevant observation here - and that is the distinction between a "mistake" and an "error".

MISTAKE - Intended Action, Unintended Consequence.

• Mistake - Usually accidental. You know it’s wrong.

ERROR - Unintended Action, Unintended Consequence

• Error - Usually made due to the lack of knowledge. So, the action was wrong because it was different from the rules. The lack of knowledge may be due to ignorance, or it may be due to a misunderstanding. If the latter, it's very important to know why the misunderstanding occurred because lessons may need to be learned to avoid others misunderstanding it too.

When we talk about 'mistake' and 'error' we sometimes confuse the two. The definitions above are correct but there are some subtleties because errors can come in two different flavours. The generally used definitions are -

An error can be considered as:

“a planned sequence of mental or physical activity(ies) that fails to achieve its intended outcome”

They can come in two forms:
‘slip’ – incorrect execution of the plan ie where action is taken but it is not correct usually due to attentional or perceptual failures
‘lapse’ – failure to execute the plan, usually due to memory failure

Mistakes occur as a result of failure in the planning phase ie where a person intends to carry out an action, does so correctly but the action is inappropriate and the desired goal is not achieved

So when a pilot closes the mixture control lever instead of the throttle lever, that is a (error) slip. When they forget to select landing gear down, that is a (error) lapse. Where they wish to fly to airfield A but when planning enter airfield B into SkyDemon and then arrive at airfield B, that is a mistake.

So infringements may be the result of a mistake while planning or an error in flight due to a slip (such as descending too soon through the corner of CAS) or lapse (such as forgetting to change the altimeter from QFE to QNH on take-off). Incidents sometimes involve a mixture of mistake and error.

Best wishes

Mike

[IMCR]

[ warning letter - which perhaps might be better called "notification of alledged infringement" or some such.

The heading of the emails sent to me by NATS was even less confrontational: 'ATC event'.

If nothing else i think this demonstrates how difficult it is to come up with something that keeps the majority happy.

Someone said they needed the short sharp slap that GASCo is, and others debate how much the initial letter should be dumbed down. In all this the thrust is a more transparent and more simple system, and, from my point of view, one that is, were deemed necessary, accessible at your local airfield on a one to one basis, rather than after a 100 mile journey, a night in a hotel or, as is now, a rather cold Zoom presentation.

It may be that we dont really know what we want, or cant agree on a better alternative, in which case I guess we should stop complaining about what we have?

[MikeE]

.......

If nothing else i think this demonstrates how difficult it is to come up with something that keeps the majority happy.

Someone said they needed the short sharp slap that GASCo is, and others debate how much the initial letter should be dumbed down. In all this the thrust is a more transparent and more simple system, and, from my point of view, one that is, were deemed necessary, accessible at your local airfield on a one to one basis, rather than after a 100 mile journey, a night in a hotel or, as is now, a rather cold Zoom presentation.

It may be that we dont really know what we want, or cant agree on a better alternative, in which case I guess we should stop complaining about what we have?

That raises the interesting question about who 'the majority' actually are? Are they the majority of (20,000+) pilots or the majority of infringing pilots (c. 1300 pa) or even the majority of Forum members (how many?)? Or perhaps even the majority of the general public?

I don't think we do, or even can, know how many of any of these groups consider the current arrangements to be fair, reasonable and proportionate; how many are not happy with it or feel aggrieved but accept it with a shrug; and how many think it is really unfair, unreasonable and disproportionate. Or even how many, such as Matthew, who think it has worked but for an entirely unrelated reason.

Nor do we know if pilots' views change from when they consider it theoretically to when they themselves become subject to the procedure.

It is a difficult question and one that suggests 'agreeing on a better alternative' may be problematic, especially given that all options are not open given that an infringement remains a breach of legislation.

Best wishes

Mike

[IMCR]

Mike - I totally agree. A really good summary of the position.

Of course I am inclined to say this is exactly why we need AOPA or some equivalent who can canvass and put forward alternatives, if this is what is wanted.

This forum (as most) is a very small snapshot, and often the contributors on forums are very different from the rank and file.

[FlarePath]

If the CAA decided overnight to announce there would be no more actions taken against infringers, would they increase?

[flybymike]

They would remain as a continuous constant just as they are now, and will be forever more.

Unless for some perverse reason people started to deliberately infringe in the knowledge of there being no repercussions ( which makes one wonder why the CAA ever went down this avenue in the first place)

[flybymike]

So infringements may be the result of a mistake while planning or an error in flight due to a slip (such as descending too soon through the corner of CAS)

Please don’t confuse the issue by talking about slipping in the descent.

[defcribed]

So when a pilot closes the mixture control lever instead of the throttle lever, that is a (error) slip. When they forget to select landing gear down, that is a (error) lapse. Where they wish to fly to airfield A but when planning enter airfield B into SkyDemon and then arrive at airfield B, that is a mistake.

So infringements may be the result of a mistake while planning or an error in flight due to a slip (such as descending too soon through the corner of CAS) or lapse (such as forgetting to change the altimeter from QFE to QNH on take-off). Incidents sometimes involve a mixture of mistake and error.

Best wishes

Mike

Have you really seen infringements caused by a nav planning issue where the pilot selected the wrong airfield (or other waypoint) in SkyDemon?

If so, does anyone seriously think that remedial training in which one is reminded to select the right airfields/waypoints rather than the wrong ones has any merit? I doubt anyone found themselves on a GASCo course thinking "Ah-ha! Now I get it! If I want to fly to Goodwood then I have to select Goodwood rather than Lee-on-Solent!"