Mon Sep 28, 2020 2:23 pm
#1798945
Some will know that I’ve been interested in and peripherally involved with the matter of Infringements for some years. I’ve had spasmodic engagement with the CAA on this at a fairly high level following which, at the CAA’s request, I wrote the 2017 FASVIG paper proposing a proper strategy for dealing with the problem. Much of that is, in effect, water under the bridge since little has really changed and, therefore perhaps unsurprisingly, little has been achieved in terms of significantly moving the cursor on the problem. We are where we are.
In the meantime I watch the impassioned to-ing and fro-ing on the Flyer Forum with a sense of weary deja vue. Aside from occasional cat-calling, what I pick up is a number of really unhealthy themes that we should address.
The first is that there appears to be a strong and perhaps growing mistrust of the CAA and a lack of faith in the fundamental fairness of the processes for dealing with alleged infringements. This, it seems to me, it not helped by opacity on the part of the AIWG which itself fuels a sense of conspiracy in the minds of those predisposed to such theories. Nonetheless, whilst the opacity is disappointing, it is a mistake to think of the CAA as ‘the bad guys’. They have a job to do; this is a serious problem; and we can’t just wish it away. So demonising them isn’t the solution.
The second is that there appears in at least some quarters to be a real and slightly puzzling hostility towards GASCo who deliver the Infringement Awareness courses under contract to the CAA. It seems to me that that’s a bit like shooting the messenger. No fair-minded person can seriously criticise GASCo for running these courses. I attended the beta-test of the course whilst it was in development and felt that as a forum for fairly broad-brush re-training it was actually quite good. I have my own view on whether, as a matter of principle, the course is really a solution to the problem, but that’s another issue. That question isn’t fairly laid at GASCo’s feet.
The third is that there are at least some GA pilots who advocate completely ‘opting out’ of the system altogether by a) either not installing a transponder; or b) not turning it on near controlled airspace; or c) refusing to engage in any dialogue with the CAA or with ANSPs in the event that they are accused of an infringement. These courses of action seem to me to be fundamentally irresponsible (and of course in the case of deliberately not operating a fitted transponder they are actually illegal). But I recognise that they are borne of a sense of persecution and mistrust on behalf of those who advocate them. The solution is to tackle the sense of persecution and mistrust, not just to disengage.
So, should we not perhaps take a deep breath and approach this problem another way? Here’s an idea:
Let’s take as a start-point the assumption that no-one deliberately infringes controlled airspace or danger areas. OK, I know that there has been the odd individual who famously has, but they are very very few in number and, to be frank, they represent the lunatic fringe of GA which we can all do without. For you and me and almost everyone else who flies, an infringement is a mistake; almost always driven by some simple and easily recognised errors or omissions.
With that in mind, let’s also assume (and the evidence bears this out) that the huge majority of infringements are due to in-flight distraction/inattention on the part of the pilot, or unfamiliarity with the navigation aids in the aeroplane including the absence of (or incorrectly used) moving map equipment, be it fitted or carry-on. The great majority of such infringements could almost certainly have been avoided if the pilot had used a 3D moving map; adopted the Take 2 initiative; and, dare I say it, paid a little more attention to maintaining his or her track and level. If we all did these things all the time then I’d guess that 75% of infringements would simply not occur.
So far so good? Well I guess so. But some will argue that the problem arises from what they perceive as a heavy-handed response from the Regulator. It drives a sense of ‘them and us’; it is fuelled by distrust and opacity; it leads some people to disengage and obstruct; all of which further widens the gap between the Regulator and the Regulated. Both 'sides' of this issue are at fault.
So, why don’t we do a deal? Why don’t we take some ownership of the problem and set up a pilot-driven scheme in which we, the GA pilots, undertake to do some things in return for an undertaking from the Regulator that they will do some things? If we play ball; they play ball. If it works then everyone is happy and, if I’m right, the stats would go down.
So what I’m thinking of is this. We set up a voluntary scheme to which pilots individually sign up as, if you like, Infringement Ambassadors - on the basis that good practice can and should be contagious. A pilot subscribing to the scheme undertakes that he will:
1. Always use a moving map system of some sort;
2. Always plan to Take 2 when operating near controlled airspace;
3. Always use his transponder in Mode C/S (when fitted);
4. Always recognise and try to manage the risks associated with distraction and inattention in-flight;
5. Always engage constructively and honestly with any allegation of infringement.
In return the Regulator undertakes that, if dealing with an alleged infringement involving such an Infringement Ambassador, it will:
1. Make a presumption of innocence and good faith;
2. Seek, for the purposes of education not punishment, to establish the facts surrounding any alleged infringement;
3. Aside from the process of ascertaining the facts, take no further regulatory action in relation to an allegation of infringement;
4. Publish a quarterly update of all episodes of infringement involving such pilots, focusing on the learning points arising from them.
If I’m right that would both defuse the somewhat toxic relationship between the CAA and GA in this arena. It would also at a stroke promote best practice. And it would drive down the stats. What’s not to like about that?
I would sign up to such a scheme tomorrow if the Regulator would agree to play ball. Who would join me?
In the meantime I watch the impassioned to-ing and fro-ing on the Flyer Forum with a sense of weary deja vue. Aside from occasional cat-calling, what I pick up is a number of really unhealthy themes that we should address.
The first is that there appears to be a strong and perhaps growing mistrust of the CAA and a lack of faith in the fundamental fairness of the processes for dealing with alleged infringements. This, it seems to me, it not helped by opacity on the part of the AIWG which itself fuels a sense of conspiracy in the minds of those predisposed to such theories. Nonetheless, whilst the opacity is disappointing, it is a mistake to think of the CAA as ‘the bad guys’. They have a job to do; this is a serious problem; and we can’t just wish it away. So demonising them isn’t the solution.
The second is that there appears in at least some quarters to be a real and slightly puzzling hostility towards GASCo who deliver the Infringement Awareness courses under contract to the CAA. It seems to me that that’s a bit like shooting the messenger. No fair-minded person can seriously criticise GASCo for running these courses. I attended the beta-test of the course whilst it was in development and felt that as a forum for fairly broad-brush re-training it was actually quite good. I have my own view on whether, as a matter of principle, the course is really a solution to the problem, but that’s another issue. That question isn’t fairly laid at GASCo’s feet.
The third is that there are at least some GA pilots who advocate completely ‘opting out’ of the system altogether by a) either not installing a transponder; or b) not turning it on near controlled airspace; or c) refusing to engage in any dialogue with the CAA or with ANSPs in the event that they are accused of an infringement. These courses of action seem to me to be fundamentally irresponsible (and of course in the case of deliberately not operating a fitted transponder they are actually illegal). But I recognise that they are borne of a sense of persecution and mistrust on behalf of those who advocate them. The solution is to tackle the sense of persecution and mistrust, not just to disengage.
So, should we not perhaps take a deep breath and approach this problem another way? Here’s an idea:
Let’s take as a start-point the assumption that no-one deliberately infringes controlled airspace or danger areas. OK, I know that there has been the odd individual who famously has, but they are very very few in number and, to be frank, they represent the lunatic fringe of GA which we can all do without. For you and me and almost everyone else who flies, an infringement is a mistake; almost always driven by some simple and easily recognised errors or omissions.
With that in mind, let’s also assume (and the evidence bears this out) that the huge majority of infringements are due to in-flight distraction/inattention on the part of the pilot, or unfamiliarity with the navigation aids in the aeroplane including the absence of (or incorrectly used) moving map equipment, be it fitted or carry-on. The great majority of such infringements could almost certainly have been avoided if the pilot had used a 3D moving map; adopted the Take 2 initiative; and, dare I say it, paid a little more attention to maintaining his or her track and level. If we all did these things all the time then I’d guess that 75% of infringements would simply not occur.
So far so good? Well I guess so. But some will argue that the problem arises from what they perceive as a heavy-handed response from the Regulator. It drives a sense of ‘them and us’; it is fuelled by distrust and opacity; it leads some people to disengage and obstruct; all of which further widens the gap between the Regulator and the Regulated. Both 'sides' of this issue are at fault.
So, why don’t we do a deal? Why don’t we take some ownership of the problem and set up a pilot-driven scheme in which we, the GA pilots, undertake to do some things in return for an undertaking from the Regulator that they will do some things? If we play ball; they play ball. If it works then everyone is happy and, if I’m right, the stats would go down.
So what I’m thinking of is this. We set up a voluntary scheme to which pilots individually sign up as, if you like, Infringement Ambassadors - on the basis that good practice can and should be contagious. A pilot subscribing to the scheme undertakes that he will:
1. Always use a moving map system of some sort;
2. Always plan to Take 2 when operating near controlled airspace;
3. Always use his transponder in Mode C/S (when fitted);
4. Always recognise and try to manage the risks associated with distraction and inattention in-flight;
5. Always engage constructively and honestly with any allegation of infringement.
In return the Regulator undertakes that, if dealing with an alleged infringement involving such an Infringement Ambassador, it will:
1. Make a presumption of innocence and good faith;
2. Seek, for the purposes of education not punishment, to establish the facts surrounding any alleged infringement;
3. Aside from the process of ascertaining the facts, take no further regulatory action in relation to an allegation of infringement;
4. Publish a quarterly update of all episodes of infringement involving such pilots, focusing on the learning points arising from them.
If I’m right that would both defuse the somewhat toxic relationship between the CAA and GA in this arena. It would also at a stroke promote best practice. And it would drive down the stats. What’s not to like about that?
I would sign up to such a scheme tomorrow if the Regulator would agree to play ball. Who would join me?