Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 10
User avatar
By Cub
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1846048
skydriller wrote:There are two different answers to that :

a) A Corporate Just Safety Culture, where you are an employee.
b) The CAA, a regulator, applying its own interpretation to private individuals.


I don’t believe there are two different answers at all. The commonly accepted definition within the aviation community is;

A culture in which front-line operators or other persons are not punished for actions, omissions or decisions taken by them that are commensurate with their experience and training, but in which gross negligence, wilful violations and destructive acts are not tolerated.

I think and believe it is equally possible for this to be applied by a employer, a flying club, an aerodrome manager or indeed a Regulator.
#1846051
@A4 Pacific You are of course correct in what you write about how she was found out.

We have already talked about flying under bridges in the Would you, if you could? thread and despite looking wistfully on a few occasions I have never succumbed. Largely because of the near omnipresence these days of cameras and the near certainty of being featuring on Facebook or YouTube.

I have no idea if she did or did not switch something off to avoid detection and posting the video was simply intended to highlight the ease with which people or organisations can snoop on what you doing whether illegal or innocent. Some here like the idea of mandatory EC and all that might follow. I don't.
#1846053
Cub wrote:A culture in which front-line operators or other persons are not punished for actions, omissions or decisions taken by them that are commensurate with their experience and training, but in which gross negligence, wilful violations and destructive acts are not tolerated.


Read your own quote again and tell me the CAAs infringement policy this last 3-4 years bears any resemblance to this at all.
Stampe liked this
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1846055
Well, I'd agree that there have been two answers in play but I'd put it slightly differently. There is:

(a) The Industry-wide commonly accepted definition that Cub gives, and;
(b) "It's a Just Culture because I tell you that it is"

Of course, only one is the right answer.

The other is not only wrong, it is highly dangerous.

As Baines-Simmons say to the CAA:


PS 5 pages in, and nobody has addressed in the challenge I set in the OP. Perhaps it doesn't exist.
User avatar
By Cub
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1846059
skydriller wrote:
Cub wrote:A culture in which front-line operators or other persons are not punished for actions, omissions or decisions taken by them that are commensurate with their experience and training, but in which gross negligence, wilful violations and destructive acts are not tolerated.


Read your own quote again and tell me the CAAs infringement policy this last 3-4 years bears any resemblance to this at all.


Why would I tell you anything about the CAA’s Infringement Policy and it’s relevance to a Just Culture? I am simply suggesting that there is just one accepted definition and it is equally applicable and deliverable by Regulator’s as well other aviation groups.
A4 Pacific, skydriller liked this
#1846063
Dave W wrote:
PS 5 pages in, and nobody has addressed in the challenge I set in the OP. Perhaps it doesn't exist.


I think in the open FIR I think your are correct à mandaté is probable difficult to justify. It’s all about people’s perception and comfort factor in seeing others as well as been seen. that might be been seen by some kind of FIR FISO providing some kind of Flight Following service.

In controlled airspace where you are required to be seen then that’s a different ballgame. Therefore TMZ, TDA, class D or E would come into play for some kind of mandate and in reality we already have for TMZ.

The difference is adding a suitable ADS-B device as an alternate to a conventional transponder for those situations. That may also end up been included in the “if you have it you need to have it operating” criteria as for a transponder.

Of course the one elephant in the room is where will drones fit in to the various scenarios and what will be the mechanism to support BVLOS.
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1846075
In Controlled Airspace or TMZ, transponders already fulfil the "requirement to be seen" (from ATC) I suggest. Which weakens any case for mandating additional equipment.
User avatar
By Cub
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1846089
There is no mandate for transponder equipage in Class D or Class E, at present in the U.K. So long as Class D is serviced by primary radar and the requirement to have a positive clearance to enter then non emitting aircraft operating VFR can probably continue to be accommodated. Conversely, it is difficult to imagine deploying large areas of Class E in lieu of Class D for low complexity/low density IFR operations with no contact mandate for VFR traffic without enabling the ACAS safety net via a coincident TMZ.

What we do need to be working towards is a situation where a standalone ADS-B device is sufficient to enable access to TMZs but I am not convinced this is achievable with the current family of CAP 1391 devices.
#1846103
Dave W wrote:In Controlled Airspace or TMZ, transponders already fulfil the "requirement to be seen" (from ATC) I suggest. Which weakens any case for mandating additional equipment.


Unless that device was a credible alternative that offered Price and Power requirements against a full transponder, aircraft with out electrical systems perhaps, and had the performance spec that was credible for probability of detection that an ANSP might determine.

As CUB says perhaps not the current portables.
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1846107
My point was, for aircraft that already carry transponders, there would be no logical reason to also require ADS-B (however that is output).

A transponder is EC.
#1846108
Marvin wrote:
Dave W wrote:In Controlled Airspace or TMZ, transponders already fulfil the "requirement to be seen" (from ATC) I suggest. Which weakens any case for mandating additional equipment.


Unless that device was a credible alternative that offered Price and Power requirements against a full transponder, aircraft with out electrical systems perhaps, and had the performance spec that was credible for probability of detection that an ANSP might determine.

As CUB says perhaps not the current portables.


Use of low power ADSB devices for airspace (beyond just an ATZ or maybe small danger area/drone zone) is probably going to very dependent on investment in ground infrastructure. It appears that a single ground antenna setup is only reliable for a radius of maybe 5-10nm - although whether commercial kit would improve this I dont know. For any sizeable airspace you would need a network of ground stations & for CAS this would need to be (presumably) certified to some accepted standard.

It would be interesting to know how the Project Marshal setup works with the low power devices or maybe what the Australians are doing ?
User avatar
By Cub
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1846109
Dave W wrote:My point was, for aircraft that already carry transponders, there would be no logical reason to also require ADS-B (however that is output).

A transponder is EC.


On the basis that there is no separation requirement between VFR and VFR and between VFR and IFR traffic inside Class D and E airspace, I would suggest that the imperative to emit ADS-B Out from your transponder is the same as in Class G, in relation affording myself protection from other traffic or making myself conspicuous to others.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 10