ANALYSIS
constantly refreshed skills of professional controllers save the day when it comes to some infringements, pilots, perhaps aware of the instant consequences (the delays to passengers and the environment and social impact when commercial flight departures or arrivals are held back), often have little idea of the post incident effects, and these need to become more generally known in GA. Behind the scenes, after an infringement
incident a controller is often taken off-station, effectively put ‘out of action’ for a short time after the incident. There are peer and management reviews of the incident and analysis of the actions taken by the controller, plus reports to be written. In the meantime, the infringer may well be at their destination enjoying the legendary bacon sandwich, blissfully unaware of the after-effects. Let’s take the instant environmental and social effects of an infringement as ‘understood’. What of the long term effects for the controller? The stress during a particularly risk- loaded infringement can be immense and, although controllers deal with incidents calmly and professionally at the time, the health effects can build up. Even worse, should the actions taken not be deemed to be full and proper, the infringement can easily be ‘career limiting’ for the controller, a phrase that covers
BASICS OF THE 2016 STUDY
Reports analysed from pilots infringing NATS airspace 2013-2015 represented around 20% of total infringements in that period. Data from 530 was analysed objectively. One hundred from a chosen six-month period were analysed in detail (e.g., the free text also analysed), and for the likelihood of known solutions working in such a situation. Many infringements had no pilot report, it is impossible
to say that the information analysed is completely typical of the others. A recommendation is made to require pilots to supply information after an infringement. The headings below show just a small number of facts gleaned from the reports, plus recommendations. However, many more are available in the main report found under ‘Statistics’ at FlyOnTrack
flyontrack.co.uk
WHO ARE THE MAIN INFRINGERS (OF THOSE THAT REPLIED)? Almost all reports were VFR flights, 75% were GA SEP; 60% of pilots did not belong to any aviation organisation thus not receiving information from those sources. Instructors (FI, CRI, etc) were in charge in 15% of infringements, students alone 6%. As for experience,
65% of infringers had a private licence, and overall 35% had more than 1000 hours. GLIDERS In the six-month period analysed in detail by FASVIG, not one glider report was received (but note, not all infringements were traced or, if traced, not all surveys are returned).
GPS Nearly 90% of pilots did not have, or were not using a GPS, but the free text suggested that another 5% had GPS ‘on’ but were not using it in a way that would have helped avoid the infringement. The study recommends a serious attempt to educate and encourage pilots, especially students during training, on safe and proper use of moving map GPS.
TRANSPONDERS
86% of infringers had a transponder with ALT (Mode C) increasing the potential for wider use of listening squawks for solving infringements more quickly.
If you could see... ... The airsapce in 3D
termination of employment in the worst case. It’s my opinion that if all hobby pilots knew that their infringement could affect a controller’s long-term health or career, there would be a measurable drop in the numbers of incidents. Shortly before the FASVIG study, a subset of the CAA’s Air Infringement Working Group (containing industry and regulatory personal) met and examined a number of typical reports to see how the larger task could proceed, and to experience the standard of the survey returns. At this earlier meeting (attended by me and the pilots eventually assigned to the FASVIG study), 29 reports were examined and discussed for root causes. As a general comment while looking at the 29 incidents, one experienced GA pilot remarked that it seems that whatever the specific infringement cause, the idea of avoiding an infringement is generally way too low down the priority list of many of
the infringers in normal (non-emergency) operations. Three years ago, as the original Clued Up
article pointed out, the five main root causes of infringements at that time were perceived to be: ■ Inadequate pre-flight planning ■ Mis-identification of land features on chart
■ Pilot workload ■ Misreading of the chart ■ Pilot complacency The examination of the 29 reports,
confirmed within the main FASVIG formal study of many more, suggests that a new root cause was emerging – ‘cockpit distraction’. This manifested in a number of forms, but each meant that the pilot’s attention was for far too long on something not absolutely necessary, and didn’t warrant such attention at the expense of keeping track of position and airspace
28 CLUED UP Autumn/Winter 2016
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36