Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 20
#1803436
It does reassure me but the report seems to dismiss, or perhaps more accurately, fails to acknowledge many of the reasons that have been mentioned here and elsewhere that contribute to infringements and cause so much angst which includes and is not limited to a) far to complicated and restricted airspace which in some parts of the country is all but reducing navigation to narrow corridors, b) ATC effectively washing their hands of having any obligation to provide a pilot with a service outside CAS, c) ineffective pilot training during their initial training and subsequent training, d) a lack of tolerance for minor infringements, e) a lack of clarrity and uniformity with regards to ATZs.

As but one example you may be aware that in the States it is often possible to request a flight following service OCAS and ATC will ensure that you do not infringe. It is recognised in the States that it avoids many infringements that might otherwise occur. The same type of service is available in some European countries. For example Belgium Mil provides a very effective joined up service through almost all ther airspace that achieves the same objective. Why is this not referenced as an effective means of reducing the number of infringements?

I have to say that the report appears to place the entire blame on pilots when it is a commonly held and logical view that pilots rarely start out with the intention to infringing, and even if you argue many infringements arise as a consequence of poor planning, there are underlying reasons why the planning is poor (for example inadequate training) which you appear to have totally failed to acknowledge or address.

To be blunt there is also a rumour that you have a close social arrangement with those involved in the CAA with this policy (in an open forum it is right that I am no more specific than this). While this is none of anyone's business if this is the case it might be seen as this influencing your findings and I think it is therefore right an proper for you to set the record straight should you wish to do so.
#1803438
IMCR wrote:While this is none of anyone's business if this is the case it might be seen as this influencing your findings and I think it is therefore right an proper for you to set the record straight should you wish to do so.

In a personal capacity, I think this is underhand insinuation and innuendo. It demands that innocence is to be proven despite the absence of any actual accusation.

If it had been addressed to me I would ignore it - despite being aware that the OP would undoubtedly choose to draw negative conclusions from that.

I find this sort of personal smearing without evidence really quite unpleasant.
GrahamB, MachFlyer, patowalker and 9 others liked this
#1803450
MikeE wrote:Happy to explain further. My research is entirely independent of the CAA, and indeed everything and everyone else, as I explained earlier. One of the things about PhD level research is that it cannot be conducted in a silo. It is important to obtain as wide and as deep an understanding as possible from as many sources as possible. So my research includes interviews of pilots who have infringed. It also includes discussions with other bodies and individuals. And it includes a role in the sub-group who prepare the report.

As the introduction to the report says, the group is independent of the CAA.

Well, first, it says it is by a subgroup of the CAA's AIWG and as such, it cannot really be called independent in my opinion, i have personal experience of "what happens" in these cases when the AIWG sets up people to priduce a report, which you might not realise if you are reasonably new to it. The report, as you say, does then go on to claim independence but i personally just read this as "no good complaining to CAA about it, we will pretend nothing to do with us". I personally don't mind non-independent at all, i want other qualities - you personally may have these, i have no idea, i hope you do, and I normally assume the best on individuals until proven otherwise. As you might imagine, this attitude can lead to great teamwork with the majority of people i deal with, but severe disappointment in one or two individual cases, as has been the case in dealings within the AIWG in its later years.
And, importantly, I make no secret of my voluntary work on the group.
.....
I make my role on the committee clear to everyone I interview before the interview takes place and made sure they are content with that. Everyone.

By committee, do you mean AIWG? You PM'd me early week asking for opinions on infringements by saying you were researching for your PhD. You did not say you were involved with the AIWG, which two days later, the report says you are, in its subgroup. I bothered to answer with a fairly detailed email, but if you had said you were involved with the AIWG, i would probably have answered in just two words, "no comment", maybe with a reason why, i do not know. One or two other members of the AIWG would have had two other words!
AlanM, T67M, IMCR and 2 others liked this
#1803496
DavidW come off it would you prefer these things are said without the right to reply! That is why the right to set the record straight is so important and if someone in an official capacity is independent (or not) surely better that is clear rather than it be questioned without that opportunity. Sorry I disagree with you. There is nothing underhand quite the opposite, what is underhand is when this is said without the opportunity for the other party to comment and it is this that is in fact underhand!
#1803501
Patowalker I have no intention of tarnishing anyones reputation. I have made two points, one factual which is that anyone banished from most pilot forums however good they may be is not the ideal candidate to engage with the community and the other an invitation to address his position rather than pilots to tarnish his reputation without the right to reply. I have asked or said nothing that wouldn't be put to anyone how is accepting a role which requires them to be independent, and if these questions cannot be answered, then in fact or very faith in the report is diminished which is surely exactly what you seek to avoid.

Irv sets out so very well exactly the concerns of many others that I have heard said or written.
#1803503
IMCR wrote:DavidW come off it would you prefer these things are said without the right to reply!

Rubbish. You are demanding that a named individual defends themselves against hints and innuendo. It is low behaviour.

If you have facts, and are confident in your accusations, then lay them out - or choose not to. The middle ground is objectionable.
MikeE liked this
#1803509
I have made it very clear I dont so you are being unfair. You are saying it is better these things are not said openly. I disagree. If it was being suggested my view on any subject on which my position was independent could be tainted my goodness I would far rather either make clear it wasnt or acknowledge my interest. This is at the very heart of the integrity of our system and it is the very reason we ultimately have faith (or not) in a report such as this. To ignore the rumours is to have the opposite effect where many will say oh yes that report, well just look at the interests of those who wrote it.

It would seem Irv felt mislead and I know of others. This is exactly why these questions must be asked openly and why the right to reply is fundamental to the integrity of the process.
cockney steve liked this
#1803557
IMCR wrote:
........

To be blunt there is also a rumour that you have a close social arrangement with those involved in the CAA with this policy (in an open forum it is right that I am no more specific than this). While this is none of anyone's business if this is the case it might be seen as this influencing your findings and I think it is therefore right an proper for you to set the record straight should you wish to do so.


A few posts raising different issues needing a response so best I deal with them separately.

Let's start with the quote above. I genuinely have no idea what you mean by this and it can be difficult to defend rumour, insinuation and innuendo. Do I know anyone in the CAA socially? Yes, I think maybe one or two from the past. Are they involved in this policy? I have no idea, I have had little contact, but I don't think so. Is the relationship 'close'. What does this mean? How close is 'close'. Am I having an affair with them? No. Do I go on holiday with them? No. Do they come round for dinner? No. Have I seen them in the past year? I don't think so. I also know someone socially from the past who works for NATS. Is that relevant?

The one thing I am clear about is the purpose of saying it, which is to cast doubt on my credibility or even my integrity. That's actually fine as I am interested in motivation and what drives people to say or behave the way they do.

Let's start with me. My motivation with my research is to improve pilot safety. In all the discussions and research into pilot error over many years one thing has been missing: the GA pilot voice. This omission was recognised as far back as 2006 when Eurocontrol undertook research into infringements and more recently by aviation safety expert Sidney Dekker. My motivation then is to address this, talking to pilots to find their stories, their explanations of what happened when things went wrong and to synthesise these stories, and more, into something that may help pilots in future avoid falling into the same traps.

My motivation for volunteering to do some stuff for the CAA/AIWG is, as I have said, firstly to widen my knowledge of infringement matters for my research, but also, on reflection, to try to raise awareness of the contribution of human factors to pilot error. Everyone has a view about human factors, but I am not sure there is much widely known - particularly as there is little research. You will have seen a bit of that in the report.

Now I'm interested in your motivation IMCR. What motivates you to want to cast doubt on my research or even on me? Is there something about my research or my motives that you feel threatened by? You have suggested my research may be tainted by my relationship with the CAA and that is a valid point, but I have already addressed that by telling you that I am open about that relationship. That is how research works. Why do you feel that explanation is insufficient? Why do you feel unable to accept my oft repeated explanation that the CAA has no say over my research, nor does any of the other organisations or individuals I have spoken to. So what does motivate you to challenge my motives even to the point of innuendo in the face of all I have explained, at length?

Genuine question, although I do not really expect you to answer, but perhaps a bit of self-reflection.

With best wishes

Mike
Last edited by MikeE on Sat Oct 17, 2020 1:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
James Chan, Ben K liked this
#1803559
IMCR wrote:Patowalker I have no intention of tarnishing anyones reputation. I have made two points, one factual which is that anyone banished from most pilot forums however good they may be is not the ideal candidate to engage with the community and the other an invitation to address his position rather than pilots to tarnish his reputation without the right to reply. I have asked or said nothing that wouldn't be put to anyone how is accepting a role which requires them to be independent, and if these questions cannot be answered, then in fact or very faith in the report is diminished which is surely exactly what you seek to avoid.

Irv sets out so very well exactly the concerns of many others that I have heard said or written.


This states that I have been banished from most pilot forums. That's the first I have heard of it. I am not aware that I have been banished from any (and I am a member of five, including Flyer). Can you please give me a clue as to where this rumour has come from, or clear it up another way, because if allowed to continue unchallenged people will really begin to doubt my integrity - not that being banished from a forum casts any doubt on anyone's integrity. In some cases it may even be a badge of honour!

Thank you

Mike
Last edited by MikeE on Sat Oct 17, 2020 5:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
#1803567
Irv Lee wrote:
MikeE wrote:Happy to explain further. My research is entirely independent of the CAA, and indeed everything and everyone else, as I explained earlier. One of the things about PhD level research is that it cannot be conducted in a silo. It is important to obtain as wide and as deep an understanding as possible from as many sources as possible. So my research includes interviews of pilots who have infringed. It also includes discussions with other bodies and individuals. And it includes a role in the sub-group who prepare the report.

As the introduction to the report says, the group is independent of the CAA.

Well, first, it says it is by a subgroup of the CAA's AIWG and as such, it cannot really be called independent in my opinion, i have personal experience of "what happens" in these cases when the AIWG sets up people to priduce a report, which you might not realise if you are reasonably new to it. The report, as you say, does then go on to claim independence but i personally just read this as "no good complaining to CAA about it, we will pretend nothing to do with us". I personally don't mind non-independent at all, i want other qualities - you personally may have these, i have no idea, i hope you do, and I normally assume the best on individuals until proven otherwise. As you might imagine, this attitude can lead to great teamwork with the majority of people i deal with, but severe disappointment in one or two individual cases, as has been the case in dealings within the AIWG in its later years.
And, importantly, I make no secret of my voluntary work on the group.
.....
I make my role on the committee clear to everyone I interview before the interview takes place and made sure they are content with that. Everyone.

By committee, do you mean AIWG? You PM'd me early week asking for opinions on infringements by saying you were researching for your PhD. You did not say you were involved with the AIWG, which two days later, the report says you are, in its subgroup. I bothered to answer with a fairly detailed email, but if you had said you were involved with the AIWG, i would probably have answered in just two words, "no comment", maybe with a reason why, i do not know. One or two other members of the AIWG would have had two other words!


With apologies, I have yet to work out how to break up a quote in order to answer individual statements.

Firstly I am sorry, Irv, that you (and others) think the subgroup is not independent. I believe it is. The definition of independence is "not influenced or controlled in any way by other people, events, or things".

The three of us are given the MORs and we analyse them. We are given some questions to answer but that is the only 'influence'. The report is based on the data in the MORs and in the responses of the pilots who have given their time and effort to explain what happened. I very much believe the analysis does justice to the information they provided. Much of it is of course statistical together with conclusions drawn from it.

I am sorry to hear about the difficulties you have faced with AIWG in the past - and I had no knowledge of that - but in my view that is no basis to consider the sub-group report as other than 'independent'.

I am very concerned that you felt in some way deceived by me when asking your view on infringements as that was never the intention. I asked you for further details about a report you mentioned in a post on the forum. You replied and included an anecdote. I replied to that mentioning my research and asking for your views, especially as I knew you used to run Flyontrack. I had absolutely no idea that you had particular issues with AIWG.

I have had many online discussions with people about infringements and, when they become sufficiently detailed and usable for my research I always try to provide background to what I am doing including my role on AIWG. My request to you - even though it was in passing - was genuine as I have considerable respect for your views and very much wanted to hear what you thought. It was not a request for the AIWG or in any way made in connection with it. It was made purely in my role as a researcher.

I really am sorry that you feel that anyone with any association with the AIWG is not to be trusted, but clearly that is how you feel so please be assured that I have deleted our correspondence. This is a shame because you made some interesting and really valid points that could have contributed positively to the debate.

I do hope this addresses your concerns, Irv.

Best wishes

Mike
David Wood, Ben K liked this
#1803570
IMCR wrote:
...the report seems to dismiss, or perhaps more accurately, fails to acknowledge many of the reasons that have been mentioned here and elsewhere that contribute to infringements and cause so much angst which includes and is not limited to.......

...I have to say that the report appears to place the entire blame on pilots

...which you appear to have totally failed to acknowledge or address.



Apologies for chopping up the quotes.

The report makes clear that it is an analysis, some of it statistical, of the MORs with explanations by pilots who very helpfully give their time and effort in their questionnaire returns as to what happened when they infringed. The group look at these responses, summarise the statistics and draw out some conclusions from them.

That is what the report is for and that is what it does. It is not a different report looking at different things. It can only report on what the pilots say in their returns and I very much believe the report does justice to the pilot responses and provides some good and useful information.

Best wishes

Mike
#1803579
MikeE wrote:
IMCR wrote:Patowalker I have no intention of tarnishing anyones reputation. I have made two points, one factual which is that anyone banished from most pilot forums however good they may be is not the ideal candidate to engage with the community and the other an invitation to address his position rather than pilots to tarnish his reputation without the right to reply. I have asked or said nothing that wouldn't be put to anyone how is accepting a role which requires them to be independent, and if these questions cannot be answered, then in fact or very faith in the report is diminished which is surely exactly what you seek to avoid.

Irv sets out so very well exactly the concerns of many others that I have heard said or written.


This states that I have been banished from most pilot forums. That's the first I have heard of it. I am not aware that I have been banished from any (and I am a member of five, including Flyer). Can you please give me a clue as to where this rumour has come from, or clear it up another way, because if allowed to continue unchallenged people will really begin to doubt my integrity.

Thank you

Mike

I’m pretty sure IMCR not talking about you when he mentioned one of the authors as having been banned from various forums.
James Chan liked this
#1803585
I’m still unclear why anybody who allegedly happens to have fallen out with a couple of Internet forum owners/moderators should be automatically barred from having a role in such a group.

Going by some of the contributions that one reads here one might draw the conclusion that a noisy presence on forums should be the criterion for disqualification. :D

Seems like there are personal axes being ground here.
#1803588
flybymike wrote:I’m pretty sure IMCR not talking about you when he mentioned one of the authors as having been banned from various forums.


I think you're right, but that is not what is said in the post, at least not clearly. I suspect that many people reading the post would think it is me being referred to. Clarification is needed.

Regards

Mike
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 20