Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 54
User avatar
By David Wood
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1836588
matthew_w100 wrote:A two hour debrief with an instructor would make bu66er all difference to my propensity to infringe in the future, nor would it highlight any lessons from the twice I got caught in the past.


With all due respect, I'm not sure that I agree. In the limited number of cases where I (acting as CFI/HoT) was involved in investigating cases of alleged infringement by 'my' pilots I think the process of a non-confrontational/non-condemnatory approach based on detailed inquiry and coaching was highly beneficial to the individual(s) and also very useful in informing the bigger picture of causal factors. I can't say with certainty that they never infringed again. But I do say that they left the process hugely less likely to do so.

I think that such an approach has the potential to make a BIG difference because, as I've said many times, the root causes behind an individual incident of infringement are particulary to THAT infringement (notwithstanding the fact that they may highlight more systemic issues).

After all, at the risk of being flippant, we don't address air accidents by sending survivors on an Accident Awareness Course, that despite that fact that many many accidents have common causal factors. Each is different in its detail and warrants individual attention if we hope to prevent similar incidents in future.
IMCR, kanga liked this
#1836655
With all due respect, I'm sure it does feel like that to a Head of Training dispensing wisdom. My experience of infringements and infringers is not so broad, and may well be skewed by the limited cohort of flyers with whom I am familiar. But they were all simple, brief, "oh bu66er" moments that no amount of non confrontational analysis would affect. And more than half of them were by Heads of Training.
flybymike liked this
#1836731
I think there are a fair few "oh bu**er* moments in the mix.

I also think this is why a one fits all approach is utter nonesense and why I put forward my alternative approach. I suspect a trained instructor / examiner will recognise the "oB" moment for what is and the time can be spent onthe elements that might have at least some value.

I suspect there is always some value to be had, I just cant imagine there is much value for some of the attendees of the current course.

The other element is I am still not sure who delivers the current courses. There are doubtless some who will say, what does it matter, and they may be very well qualified for all we know. However, there is a lot of value added that comes from an instructor / examiner who is current and dealing with real world PPL type pilots every day of every week.

More to the point, you will hopefully never go back to GASCo again. However, you probably operate from one airfield, very possibly rarely see any of the instructors / examiners and dont operate out fo a flying school. The establishement of a relationship with an instructor / examiner means that there is now a mentor to who you can turn should you find you need some additional help.

Finally you have the opportunity to analyses your own event, which does not happen at GASCo (because it cant). The instructor / examiner has the wisdom and knowledge to hear your story (perhaps compare it with the "tape" from the CAA) and deduce whether this was just one of those "oB" moments, or whether it is indicative of a pilot waiting for another infringement event to occur in the next few years. You also may have much to learn from simply vocalising what happened. In fact we know this works, and yet this is specifically not permitted on the current course.

Should the worst happen, and you have another event, I see no reason why you wouldnt be asked to see the same instructor / examiner again. A personal pride is now likely, and their scrutiny is going to be pretty intense, as well as the possibilty of requesting the CAA to require further training. How much better is this than the alternatives?
User avatar
By James Chan
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1836751
The French FIS regions are divided into ...


Indeed, you and I and some others here know what the solutions to the issues are.

This could be a great time to consolidate FIS and move forward with airspace redesign off a clean sheet given the lack of air traffic. Otherwise in 9-18 months from now air travel will roar back to life whilst refreshing controllers and pilots with air traffic procedures written from the last century.

And round and round the infringements problem we go again....
johnm, Rob P liked this
#1836792
Flying under a CAS base of 2,500 feet, at 2,300 feet with a passenger, and some immediate distraction with the passenger or another aircraft flying towards you or something similar, few minutes of loss of concentration, and a 50 foor incurusion, corrected almost immediately. Oh bu**er shouldnt have allowed my self to have been distracted by that aircraft!

Why is it different? I think there are infringements caused by lack of knowledge, lack of ability to navigate when the plan goes to pot (weather or whatever), and various other skill issues, and infringements that occur when the pilot knows exactly what he is doing and where he is, but a moments inattention as a result of some unexpected event causes a very brief incurusion. The result is the same, but the underlying cause is different, although I know some would want to muddle it up with lack of pilot discipline and planning as well, but in the real world I dont suppose most pilots are as completely isolated from human factors as some would like us to believe. :lol:
#1836793
James Chan wrote:
The French FIS regions are divided into ...


This could be a great time to consolidate FIS and move forward with airspace redesign off a clean sheet given the lack of air traffic. Otherwise in 9-18 months from now air travel will roar back to life whilst refreshing controllers and pilots with air traffic procedures written from the last century.


I think there would be wide agreement with you. My concern is we must be realistic, in that I dont think this is going to happen any time soon. Well worth trying for it, but it is just I wouldnt hold my breath. The response to an infringement could however be improved for the benefit of us all without too much hassle or cost.
johnm liked this
User avatar
By David Wood
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1836812
IMCR wrote:Flying under a CAS base of 2,500 feet, at 2,300 feet with a passenger, and some immediate distraction with the passenger or another aircraft flying towards you or something similar, few minutes of loss of concentration, and a 50 foor incurusion, corrected almost immediately. Oh bu**er shouldnt have allowed my self to have been distracted by that aircraft!

Why is it different? I think there are infringements caused by lack of knowledge, lack of ability to navigate when the plan goes to pot (weather or whatever), and various other skill issues, and infringements that occur when the pilot knows exactly what he is doing and where he is, but a moments inattention as a result of some unexpected event causes a very brief incurusion. The result is the same, but the underlying cause is different, although I know some would want to muddle it up with lack of pilot discipline and planning as well, but in the real world I dont suppose most pilots are as completely isolated from human factors as some would like us to believe. :lol:


I would agree, and I think that a huge number of infringements fall into that category. Which is why I've long argued for controllers to be allowed to 'deem' that such a transitory event is non-threatening and consequently the controller should be excused from what I understand is currently an obligation to report such an event which to any sane observer is just 'one of those things'.

That issue aside, however, when such minor lapse have happened to me (and they happen to all of us, that's for sure) there have always, on reflection, been things I could/should have done better. Life is about learning from our mistakes, however minor.
johnm, IMCR liked this
#1836814
David Wood wrote:..
..there have always, on reflection, been things I could/should have done better. Life is about learning from our mistakes, however minor.


:thumright:

I reckon that is likely to have been true of every flight I've made as P1 over ~50 years! In the last decade or so of my active flying I tried consciously to think back over every sortie soon after landing to identify what I could and should have done 'better'. One of my reasons for deciding to hang up my headset was that I was retrospectively aware of at least one such lapse almost every time. None had been 'safety critical' (in my, possibly flawed, judgement :oops: ), but I was equally aware that the next one might be. I decided it was better to give up too soon than too late! I hope I have similar judgement when the time comes to give up driving ..
David Wood liked this
#1836822
Slight thread drift I know, but that is very interesting.

A little bit of me says, that if you fly solo in something light, the actual risks to which you refer are potentially less of a risk than a driving a car. OK, you might kill yourself, but what I mean is the collateral damage is almost certainly a lot less and will not involve anyone else.

I am of course playing devils advocate, and you are clearly both very wise and sensible.
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1836829
IMCR wrote:OK, you might kill yourself, but what I mean is the collateral damage is almost certainly a lot less and will not involve anyone else.

Of course, we're talking about infringements, where the limit hazard is taking a packed A380 with you.
#1836903
Firstly my remark was not meant within this context. It was in response to Kanga and I was envisaging a potter along the coast in the dark but sunny depths of Devon and Cornwall or some such thing, not a parry with CAS. :lol: So sorry if that wasnt clear.

Minor infringements are potentially serious, on that we all agree. Whether an infringement is minor or major has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was seeking to make, which was focused entirely on the response to infringements.

Moreover even the CAA seem to recognise there is a distinction to be made between infringements, reflected in whether you receiving a warning letter or an on line trip to GASCo.

I have to say I find it odd that this topic causes such controversy, and with all the usual suspects on here throwing all their toys out. :D I cant help feeling there are a lot more vested interests than we realise at work.

The trouble is we are left with a system that is not effective (in my opinion, and for the reasons I have set out), but it is difficult to even have a discussion about what COULD be done to make things better. I also recognise perhaps I am wrong, and we have a good system at the moment with the exception to actual airspace, but which I think it is fair to say is unlikely to see any changes any time soon.

It has taught me, that someone who said a while ago, GA is its own worst eneny and it deserves all it gets, because it isnt capable of working as a team were absolutely correct. I find this such a shame, but I think this thread demonstrates they were correct.
  • 1
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 54