Airprox Reporting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airprox Reporting
Just a question for you. Are there any ATCOs out there who have filed an aiprox in the normal way who have not been interviewed by the Airprox board (by telephone or in person) before an assessment has been reached?
I find myself in the situation of appearing to be the only party in a particular airprox who hasn't had the 'right of reply'. Moreover, other party's opinions have been stated in the report, which strikes me as fundamentaly wrong in, what is essentially report of the facts, followed by 'expert' analysis and assessment.
Don't get me wrong, this isn't sour grapes over the conclusions of the report (although I do have disagreements with it), it's the fact that all other parties seem to have had a chance to give their opinions on the incident, while I only have had my factual report considered.
Any comments?
I find myself in the situation of appearing to be the only party in a particular airprox who hasn't had the 'right of reply'. Moreover, other party's opinions have been stated in the report, which strikes me as fundamentaly wrong in, what is essentially report of the facts, followed by 'expert' analysis and assessment.
Don't get me wrong, this isn't sour grapes over the conclusions of the report (although I do have disagreements with it), it's the fact that all other parties seem to have had a chance to give their opinions on the incident, while I only have had my factual report considered.
Any comments?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only airprox report I've filed, I wasn't contacted in any way bar getting a pre-publication copy of the report. I wasn't invited to comment on said report in any way as far as I remember, it was a while ago.
I also wasn't "responsible" for the airprox though, don't know if that makes any difference in the grand scheme of things
I also wasn't "responsible" for the airprox though, don't know if that makes any difference in the grand scheme of things
Guest
Posts: n/a
As Roffa, I've never been contacted over any airprox that I've been involved in (but I wouldn't want you to read too much into that). No opportunity to comment either. Haven't always agreed with the report of the investigation and sometimes wondered whether my input might have given a fuller picture but I can't get too uptight about it.
In each case I have always done what i thought was the best in the circumstances. In those situations where, in retrospect, I could have done something different with a better outcome I have learned from the experience and been happy to share it with others. Where my actions didn't make any difference I read the report with interest to see if there is something useful to store away and that might help in the future.
Don't know what UKAB's policy on who to speak to when analysing an incident is but there are plenty of other investigations that should, but in my experience don't always happen - CAA has an ATC expert investigation team, if the law is involved they've also got another team of investigators and, of course, the unit should do its own investigation. Don't know how much of this can end up as input to UKAB.
BTW, my personal sample size is seven or eight over 30 years - but it's just part of everyday life when the services are provided outside CAS much of the time!
In each case I have always done what i thought was the best in the circumstances. In those situations where, in retrospect, I could have done something different with a better outcome I have learned from the experience and been happy to share it with others. Where my actions didn't make any difference I read the report with interest to see if there is something useful to store away and that might help in the future.
Don't know what UKAB's policy on who to speak to when analysing an incident is but there are plenty of other investigations that should, but in my experience don't always happen - CAA has an ATC expert investigation team, if the law is involved they've also got another team of investigators and, of course, the unit should do its own investigation. Don't know how much of this can end up as input to UKAB.
BTW, my personal sample size is seven or eight over 30 years - but it's just part of everyday life when the services are provided outside CAS much of the time!
Difficult one this. The Secretariat are only a small team (Director plus 3) and they have to trawl through about 20 Airprox a month. When you write your initial report, it should contain as much information as possible, including human factors and other influences that may have led to the Airprox. Remember the UKAB is not a court of law and it is not an investigatory body. The UK AAIB investigates very serious incidents.
The UKAB's purpose is to, without applying blame, to get to the core facts of the matter, identify and publish the events that led to the situation. The process is supposed to be open and honest and does depend on honest input from those that file reports, those that investigate them and higher authorities that comment on them.
If you feel strongly about the outcome of a report, you have the right to write to the Director with your comments on matters of fact. The aim of the game is to get an accurate and truthful picture of what happened to try and prevent any recurrence.
The UKAB's purpose is to, without applying blame, to get to the core facts of the matter, identify and publish the events that led to the situation. The process is supposed to be open and honest and does depend on honest input from those that file reports, those that investigate them and higher authorities that comment on them.
If you feel strongly about the outcome of a report, you have the right to write to the Director with your comments on matters of fact. The aim of the game is to get an accurate and truthful picture of what happened to try and prevent any recurrence.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: England
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have been invovled in two. Both not my fault.
First, over 10 years ago, was interviewed and given the chance to give my input.
Second, more recently, filed the report, heard nothing for 6 to 7 months then saw the pre publication report.
On the AIRPROX report I just reported the facts and was expecting at least to be interviewed or spoken to on the phone about it.
Instead the civil and mil representatives came up with slightly differing views about my role without even speaking to me.
I would have been happy at the very least to just see the pre publication report then be invited to comment on it before it gets published.
There a few things I would like to have discussed but its probably too late now.
First, over 10 years ago, was interviewed and given the chance to give my input.
Second, more recently, filed the report, heard nothing for 6 to 7 months then saw the pre publication report.
On the AIRPROX report I just reported the facts and was expecting at least to be interviewed or spoken to on the phone about it.
Instead the civil and mil representatives came up with slightly differing views about my role without even speaking to me.
I would have been happy at the very least to just see the pre publication report then be invited to comment on it before it gets published.
There a few things I would like to have discussed but its probably too late now.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Widger
If you feel strongly about the outcome of a report, you have the right to write to the Director with your comments on matters of fact. The aim of the game is to get an accurate and truthful picture of what happened to try and prevent any recurrence.
In my experience and this seems to be shared by others with whom I've spoken, the reports published by UKAB have a tendency to reflect specific views held by those on the Board - this is not surprising, we all base our decisions on our own experience. But, sometimes, these views appear to be blinkered to other possibly equally valid viewpoints - perhaps those views held by the people involved in the incident. On one occasion I recall (not one of mine but I was in the tower at the time), the UKAB made assumptions about the decision process followed by the controller which were rather wide of the mark. These assumptions were based on one line of the report and then, presumably, extrapolated by the Board members into what they would have been thinking at the time and would probably have given a slightly misleading impression to readers of the report.
By giving an opportunity to those involved in the incident to comment before publication it is possible that some additional benefit may be gained, both by improving the accuracy of the report and by permitting gaps in the factual elements that the reporters did not know would become key to the report to be filled in. Of course, the downside is that inevitably some of those given such an opportunity would seek to record a revisionist view of the events or to skew it with their personal perspective. Nonetheless, I can't help feeling that if it were managed properly then such a step could address some of the weaknesses in an otherwise very valuable and professionally operated reporting and analysis scheme.
I was involved in one in in what is now called class G airspace where they concluded that it happened 10nm east of where it actually was, in spite of myself and the pilot of one of them saying otherwise!. All very well but that put it in Rule 21 aka class A airspace, so although they were only FIS and had 500ft vertical, there was greater impact as they implied both aircraft had infringed. Once again, no contact and I had no recourse; the conclusions were published as they said!!
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An Airprox is a situation in which, in the opinion of a pilot or a controller, the distance between aircraft as well as their relative positions and speed have been such that the safety of the aircraft involved was or may have been compromised.
Spitoon,
You coments are valid however, the onus is on those investigating the incident, to provide a concise and balanced detail of events including all human factors. The MOD and NATS have a very good system on the whole and you will have seen from some of the Civil Area reports, that they go into quite a lot of detail.
This is not necessarily the case at some terminal airfields both licensed and unlicenced. It is also the case at some airlines. If you look at some of the past UKAB reports you will see that information is at times, sparse with only the controllers/pilots brief reports. Often there is no information other than..."we saw it late, we avoided, it was close". How long had these people been on duty, were they distracted by issues within the cockpit/tower, troubles at home, under pressure from the company, worried about their fuel load, was the R/T busy, was the R/T clear, what was the weather like? ETC ETC.
It is good that the system does not apportion blame, because it then encourages open and honest reporting but the members of the board can only make an assessment based on the evidence presented to them.
You coments are valid however, the onus is on those investigating the incident, to provide a concise and balanced detail of events including all human factors. The MOD and NATS have a very good system on the whole and you will have seen from some of the Civil Area reports, that they go into quite a lot of detail.
This is not necessarily the case at some terminal airfields both licensed and unlicenced. It is also the case at some airlines. If you look at some of the past UKAB reports you will see that information is at times, sparse with only the controllers/pilots brief reports. Often there is no information other than..."we saw it late, we avoided, it was close". How long had these people been on duty, were they distracted by issues within the cockpit/tower, troubles at home, under pressure from the company, worried about their fuel load, was the R/T busy, was the R/T clear, what was the weather like? ETC ETC.
It is good that the system does not apportion blame, because it then encourages open and honest reporting but the members of the board can only make an assessment based on the evidence presented to them.
