[gaznav]

A lot more detail on the Airspace Infringement process has been put in a revised CAP1404: https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalappli ... il&id=7389

To me, it sounds pretty reasonable...

[IMCR]

Sorry, where is all this extra detail and what has changed?

The statement about just culture is interesting. It will be equally interesting to see how this is actually put into effect. Just culture would seem to require the ability for a pilot to seek the evidence, put forward his explanation and argue his case after an infringement occurs, without resort to the Court or a one sided exchange with the regulatory department. It will be revealing to see exactly how the CAA's interpretation of just culture works.

[gaznav]

@IMCR - the last version was 6 pages long: link still live here: https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CA ... 8%20E3.pdf

The latest is 18 pages long: https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalappli ... il&id=7389

That is over twice as long and nearly 3 times if I exclude the cover pages - I’d offer there is more detail in that??

[JAFO]

@IMCR - just culture is not about finding evidence, putting forward explanations or arguments. Just culture is the recognition that mistakes occur and that they occur for a reason. It is about uncovering the reasons so that the likelihood of mistakes re-occurring is reduced. It is about learning and improving.

[AlanM]

I was just going to comment on the inability of so many people (incl some ATCOs) on what Just Culture actually says and means.

“Just Culture is a culture where 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, willful violations and destructive acts are not tolerated”

My italics. The bit that people often forget.

[skydriller]

And AGAIN it needs to be said that the concept of "Just Culture" is about employees working for a company whereby the company is not held responsable for instances "in which gross negligence, willful violations and destructive acts are not tolerated” and an employee can show that "actions, omissions or decisions taken by them that are commensurate with their experience and training" as a defence againt punitive action - such that it is in the interests of the company to pay for employees additional training to avoid accidents if incidents are flagged to avoid liability. It is therefore very hard for a regulator to apply "Just Culture" in the way it was intended to work with respect to private individuals who are expected to pay for everything themselves...

[IMCR]

I was just going to comment on the inability of so many people (incl some ATCOs) on what Just Culture actually says and means.

“Just Culture is a culture where 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, willful violations and destructive acts are not tolerated”

My italics. The bit that people often forget.

All very well, but all these definitions require the opportunity for the distinction to be drawn and which AlanM sets out so well, is it a or b, and in order to decide is it a or b the evidence needs to be considered by both parties as well as both parties having the opportunity to present their case, and usually with some form of peer review. Just culture is hardly just culture if determined from one parties perspective. We all know where this gets us, automatic regulatory action without much or any evidence of process. It does seem the process is better set out, but I am not sure this wasnt the idea in the past. The reality was you could write something up and you could ask for the evidence, but that was about it. Perhaps this process will now be more robust and which I suspect we would all welcome.

Pivotal to the action would seem to be what "if safety infringement measures were taken". I wonder what exactly this is intended to mean and why it is necessarily significant?

[CloudHound]

At the large international airport I helped to run in the 1990s Just Culture meant -

"Just give me their name"

[IMCR]

@IMCR - the last version was 6 pages long: link still live here: https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CA ... 8%20E3.pdf

That is over twice as long and nearly 3 times if I exclude the cover pages - I’d offer there is more detail in that??

You may well be right. The cynic in me might also think there are a lot more words, but is there three times the substance?

[AlanM]

@IMCR - the last version was 6 pages long: link still live here: https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CA ... 8%20E3.pdf

That is over twice as long and nearly 3 times if I exclude the cover pages - I’d offer there is more detail in that??

You may well be right. The cynic in me might also think there are a lot more words, but is there three times the substance?

Perhaps you could review it and report back?

Saves the cynicism.

[AlanM]

And AGAIN it needs to be said that the concept of "Just Culture" is about employees working for a company whereby the company is not held responsable for instances "in which gross negligence, willful violations and destructive acts are not tolerated” and an employee can show that "actions, omissions or decisions taken by them that are commensurate with their experience and training" as a defence againt punitive action - such that it is in the interests of the company to pay for employees additional training to avoid accidents if incidents are flagged to avoid liability. It is therefore very hard for a regulator to apply "Just Culture" in the way it was intended to work with respect to private individuals who are expected to pay for everything themselves...

I respectfully disagree.

If you have flown 45 hours in your life and infringe, it would be ridiculous to unfairly penalise an individual. If you have flown 450 hours, turn your transponder off as you infringe and then be duplicitous then you have less of a defence.

This is not purely about corporate liability. We are all liable for our actions. We speak and encourage defensive controlling. I hope and guess that you fly defensively too.

We have to accept the elasticity of any argument.

[IMCR]

@IMCR - the last version was 6 pages long: link still live here: https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CA ... 8%20E3.pdf

That is over twice as long and nearly 3 times if I exclude the cover pages - I’d offer there is more detail in that??

You may well be right. The cynic in me might also think there are a lot more words, but is there three times the substance?

Perhaps you could review it and report back?

Saves the cynicism.

I did actually read it.

My problem is I couldnt decide whether it was just a lot more words, or added much to what we already knew (albiet not previously set out as fully but from various discussion), or advanced the position.

Some parts reminded me of Yes Minister and Prime Minister when Humphry got into his stride for 5 minutes, and Hacker ended up saying, so you mean "no".

What do you think?

[AlanM]

What do you think?

I think I am less cynical

[IMCR]

Yes, to be fair, I have just read it through again slooowly, and there is much good detail and description in there, and anyone coming to it afresh will have a better idea of how the process is intended to work.

I think I am also less cynical.

[AlanM]

From an overriding view; I think people (as in the Competent Authority and the Stakeholders) are rightly trying to engage together and make it better. It may take time, yet we have to embrace and hope thst the change is for the best and positive.

I deal with EASA and our own DCA and the UK CAA almost weekly - whilst never working as a regulator I do see their perspective.

I don’t think they are out to get people. I really don’t (and I have to deal with these organisations in an auditory sense)