New CTAF rules show gross CASA incompetence
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
after that post Scurvy..... you and Dick would make a good team!
.
.... you'd best wash yee keyboard out Jaba ... you very naughty boy
Last edited by Scurvy.D.Dog; 30th Oct 2008 at 12:28. Reason: .. syncax's
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Culture !!
CASA have made no attempt to identify the cultural issues in any of these (or past) proposed changes to procedures.
Any change, repeat ANY CHANGE, must be managed as a formal change management process - this has never been done (by CASA, AsA, Dotars), otherwise we may have seen a better level of acceptance of previous change!
As one previous scribe commented, there are still many pilots that will continue to use the procedures they grew up with as they see the change/s as unnecessary and/or dont' (or don't want to) make the effort to change. If it aint broke......!
The real issue here is that like all previous attempts to change procedures, the management of the change has failed, partly because the proponent of the change did not or did not want to understand the cultural inertia that exists within our industry. Of course this is avoided, as when it is identified, the level of education required to process the change would not be in CASA or anyone else's budget - read that as too expensive.
Yes, you are right - they don't understand the industry!!
T
(and yes, I agree with Dick on this one)
Any change, repeat ANY CHANGE, must be managed as a formal change management process - this has never been done (by CASA, AsA, Dotars), otherwise we may have seen a better level of acceptance of previous change!
As one previous scribe commented, there are still many pilots that will continue to use the procedures they grew up with as they see the change/s as unnecessary and/or dont' (or don't want to) make the effort to change. If it aint broke......!
The real issue here is that like all previous attempts to change procedures, the management of the change has failed, partly because the proponent of the change did not or did not want to understand the cultural inertia that exists within our industry. Of course this is avoided, as when it is identified, the level of education required to process the change would not be in CASA or anyone else's budget - read that as too expensive.
Yes, you are right - they don't understand the industry!!
T
(and yes, I agree with Dick on this one)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Triadic
Well put and one ponders on the urgency to push this BEFORE the Ambidji report is analysed and responses made. As usual, the change is made before the consultation is complete.
Having said that, I believe somewhere around NAS time the requirement to make ANY call on a CTAF vanished from the rules and the requirements only applied to CTAF R. I believe there should be SOME requirement specified for CTAF.
SDD's point on Strict Liability is excellent. Until CASA retains SL for offences that warrant it instead of the broad base, it cannot expect support for mandates. Imagine if a Government tried to implement SL on the motoring public for failing to use indicators, etc.
Well put and one ponders on the urgency to push this BEFORE the Ambidji report is analysed and responses made. As usual, the change is made before the consultation is complete.
Having said that, I believe somewhere around NAS time the requirement to make ANY call on a CTAF vanished from the rules and the requirements only applied to CTAF R. I believe there should be SOME requirement specified for CTAF.
SDD's point on Strict Liability is excellent. Until CASA retains SL for offences that warrant it instead of the broad base, it cannot expect support for mandates. Imagine if a Government tried to implement SL on the motoring public for failing to use indicators, etc.
Dick,
I'm basically with you on this one.
Just another badly managed change. I thought we had learnt our lesson with some of the NAS changes, but obviously not.
You are correct ... unenforceable rules ... EXCEPT, when something hits the fan, they'll drag these rules out and crucify a poor pilot, because he technically broke the rules. For example .... say, midair at Ballina ... "Sir, you called at 6 minutes out instead of the prescribed 8 minutes out .. therefore you are culpable and guilty of manslaughter!" ... extreme perhaps, but I bet that's the only time the rules will be trotted out.
I'm basically with you on this one.
Just another badly managed change. I thought we had learnt our lesson with some of the NAS changes, but obviously not.
You are correct ... unenforceable rules ... EXCEPT, when something hits the fan, they'll drag these rules out and crucify a poor pilot, because he technically broke the rules. For example .... say, midair at Ballina ... "Sir, you called at 6 minutes out instead of the prescribed 8 minutes out .. therefore you are culpable and guilty of manslaughter!" ... extreme perhaps, but I bet that's the only time the rules will be trotted out.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there
Posts: 141
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
The scenario you highlighted in the first post of this thread would not have posed any problem prior to the NAS 2c changes of Nov 2005. Remember those changes, they were the ones you championed that, among other things, removed the explicit boundaries associated with non-controlled aerodrome radio procedures.
To all,
The first recommendation of the Ambidji report to mandate radio use if carried in CTAF is long overdue correction of, I believe, an unintended consequence of the wonderful
NAS changes that Mr Smith authored and championed. Thank the almighty one that certain barriers have been put between the remaining NAS characteristics and implementation.
The second recommendation, I agree will cause some initial difficulties.
However, the mandating of certain calls will at least remove a sword of damocles that could hang over a pilots head should he/she be deemed to have caused a danger to other aircraft in the vicinity of an aerodrome (refer CAR 166 (2) (b)) for not having made a recommended radio call.
There is prosecutorial discretion for CASA in the current regs, at least the proposed changes will add a little more black and white to a very grey area.
The scenario you highlighted in the first post of this thread would not have posed any problem prior to the NAS 2c changes of Nov 2005. Remember those changes, they were the ones you championed that, among other things, removed the explicit boundaries associated with non-controlled aerodrome radio procedures.
To all,
The first recommendation of the Ambidji report to mandate radio use if carried in CTAF is long overdue correction of, I believe, an unintended consequence of the wonderful
NAS changes that Mr Smith authored and championed. Thank the almighty one that certain barriers have been put between the remaining NAS characteristics and implementation.The second recommendation, I agree will cause some initial difficulties.
However, the mandating of certain calls will at least remove a sword of damocles that could hang over a pilots head should he/she be deemed to have caused a danger to other aircraft in the vicinity of an aerodrome (refer CAR 166 (2) (b)) for not having made a recommended radio call.
There is prosecutorial discretion for CASA in the current regs, at least the proposed changes will add a little more black and white to a very grey area.
Last edited by GaryGnu; 31st Oct 2008 at 09:46. Reason: clarify last sentence
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Strathallan, Relaxed, Scotland
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is the proposed rule?
This is an interesting debate. But what exactly is being debated?
At www.casa.gov.au/oar/papers/CTAF_report.htm there is a vague statement of intent - no more than the latest Friday Afternoon bright idea from Fort Fumble.
But where is the precise wording of the proposed rule?
At www.casa.gov.au/oar/papers/CTAF_report.htm there is a vague statement of intent - no more than the latest Friday Afternoon bright idea from Fort Fumble.
But where is the precise wording of the proposed rule?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: inner suburbia
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the devil is going to be in the fine-print detail
And
is a nice catchall clause, which as Mr Smith pointed out, will be difficult or impractical to fully comply with, at places where there are several closely spaced CTAFs, eg the Sydney basin.
Just to complicate the issue, are helicopter landing sites classed as aerodromes ?, The ERSA shows the hospital landing sites as having a (usually non 126.7) CTAF frequency.
A Notice of Final Rule Making (NFRM) will be issued as soon as legal drafting can be completed, with the expectation that the new rules will be introduced in early 2009.
This rule will apply not only to aircraft that are inbound to the aerodrome, but also to aircraft that are overflying the aerodrome or simply transiting through this airspace, if the aerodrome is depicted in the aeronautical charts and the aircraft is flying at a height that could put it in conflict with aerodrome traffic.
Just to complicate the issue, are helicopter landing sites classed as aerodromes ?, The ERSA shows the hospital landing sites as having a (usually non 126.7) CTAF frequency.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Strathallan, Relaxed, Scotland
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keeping it secret for now?
Thanks Biggles.
Really there isn't much to talk about until we see precisely what is proposed. It might be a new section of the Civil Aviation Act
Or it might be something more complicated than that.
If a business asked us to sign a contract without disclosing the terms we would not take the business seriously.
I urge anyone who is concerned about this to write to his or her Federal MP asking that CASA disclose the proposed rule so that informed comment can be made upon it.
Really there isn't much to talk about until we see precisely what is proposed. It might be a new section of the Civil Aviation Act
31AAAA CASA must be satisfied
CASA must be satisfied that any person acting as a flight crew member spends more time talking on the radio than carrying out other duties.
Penalty 2 years imprisonment or fine of 100 penalty units or both.
CASA must be satisfied that any person acting as a flight crew member spends more time talking on the radio than carrying out other duties.
Penalty 2 years imprisonment or fine of 100 penalty units or both.
If a business asked us to sign a contract without disclosing the terms we would not take the business seriously.
I urge anyone who is concerned about this to write to his or her Federal MP asking that CASA disclose the proposed rule so that informed comment can be made upon it.
Ofcourse we all know the real reason many GA pilots don't make the prescibed calls now is because of landing fees incured by recording the CTAF frequency. Get rid of that and the problem is largely solved. While I have no personal objection to landing fees provided a service is supplied ie overnight parking tiedowns, wc's, phone, etc it is a bit rich when all you want to do is land,refuel by way of a swipe card bowser,and be on your way. While I believe we have no chance of getting rid of the recorders, one way around the problem would be to allow GA to use callsigns like the airlines do. For example a C172 from Wallaby flying school could be simply Wallaby 3 or any other callsign they prefered. A private aircraft you could name after your wife or kids such as Julie 1 a Piper archer and so on...........
Last edited by mostlytossas; 31st Oct 2008 at 13:16.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One
I believe the onus is dumped by CASA on the pilot - that leaves CASA in perfect position to argue either way after the event.
If you are overflying Nagambie - parachuting from FL140 from memory. Some airfields have parachuting, some gliding, some aerobatics, some model aircraft, and so it goes.
In the non-CTA area where there are no defined CTAF boundaries - the pilot has to look closely for symbols that indicate activity. Unfortunately they don't always exist. Therefore much monitoring of the CTAFs en route = not on the area freq to hear the a/c that is about to hit you.
Another different case is Werribee CTAF (126.7) in the Avalon airspace. Technically - to be legit - you should monitor Werribee (probably two flights there per year) when 'in the vicinity' - i.e. closer to Werribee than Avalon. Given the Jetstar activity, IFR training, and NESB students en route PTCK - it would indeed be a brave soul who obeyed the regulation.
If only regulation created safer flying instead of legal minefields
I believe the onus is dumped by CASA on the pilot - that leaves CASA in perfect position to argue either way after the event.
If you are overflying Nagambie - parachuting from FL140 from memory. Some airfields have parachuting, some gliding, some aerobatics, some model aircraft, and so it goes.
In the non-CTA area where there are no defined CTAF boundaries - the pilot has to look closely for symbols that indicate activity. Unfortunately they don't always exist. Therefore much monitoring of the CTAFs en route = not on the area freq to hear the a/c that is about to hit you.
Another different case is Werribee CTAF (126.7) in the Avalon airspace. Technically - to be legit - you should monitor Werribee (probably two flights there per year) when 'in the vicinity' - i.e. closer to Werribee than Avalon. Given the Jetstar activity, IFR training, and NESB students en route PTCK - it would indeed be a brave soul who obeyed the regulation.
If only regulation created safer flying instead of legal minefields
Last edited by james michael; 31st Oct 2008 at 22:59. Reason: Change VTAFs to CTAFs - same reason as One!
JM
Sorry to burst your bubble. The Traffic Act in most states had strict liability for many decades and was the first manifestation of the dreaded thing that made it sooooooo easy for Officer Plod to get a conviction.
Indeed, SL does make it an offence because you didn't use the indicator!
Scurvy
you are so spot one with that call. The people who allowed SL into the Regs should drop their collective heads in shame. Although the world hasn't fallen in because of the introduction of SL. It just makes it harder to prove your innocence rather than the Plod to prove your guilt.
Imagine if a Government tried to implement SL on the motoring public for failing to use indicators, etc.
Indeed, SL does make it an offence because you didn't use the indicator!
Scurvy
you are so spot one with that call. The people who allowed SL into the Regs should drop their collective heads in shame. Although the world hasn't fallen in because of the introduction of SL. It just makes it harder to prove your innocence rather than the Plod to prove your guilt.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
Am in agreement with you first post, "vicinity" etc etc.
Before NAS it was CTAF 3,000AGL/5NM and MBZ 5,000AGL/15NM, I thought NAS was when the water started getting very muddy on this front ?, and not gotten any better ?.
So why the post now ?.
Why not push for SELCALL function on VHF, that would be safety adding, What would ATC think about this, Max, James ?
Am in agreement with you first post, "vicinity" etc etc.
Before NAS it was CTAF 3,000AGL/5NM and MBZ 5,000AGL/15NM, I thought NAS was when the water started getting very muddy on this front ?, and not gotten any better ?.
So why the post now ?.
Why not push for SELCALL function on VHF, that would be safety adding, What would ATC think about this, Max, James ?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR
I'll leave the selcall to Max.
My position is that the boundaries were a false impression of safety because of several reasons:
1. Speed = time. 10 Nm for the tiger moth and the Dash8 are two different meanings. Time is a more appropriate alert and also allows one an immediate assessment of where the 'encounter' is likely.
2. MBZ boundary - meaningless. Broken Hill MBZ was a good spot to sunbake on the main rwy. Versus Marree when the lake in flood - a little CTAF where you took a cut lunch to cross the runway, due j/f traffic.
3. Vertical boundary - dangerous. MBZ 5000' AGL versus small CTAF 3 Nm 1500' or 2000' (from memory) - some of the small CTAF had PJE from FLs, aeros, etc.
What NAS did was allow commonsense to occur and calls to be made as appropriate for safe operations.
Then along came CASA (one suggests with the regionals tail wagging the dog) to prescribe and stuff it!
Afterthought - perhaps selcall pales into insignificance .... wait for it ...... if ADS-B is mandated and ADS-B IN comes along in the package. (That's better, I haven't mentioned ADS-B for days, needed a fix )
I'll leave the selcall to Max.
My position is that the boundaries were a false impression of safety because of several reasons:
1. Speed = time. 10 Nm for the tiger moth and the Dash8 are two different meanings. Time is a more appropriate alert and also allows one an immediate assessment of where the 'encounter' is likely.
2. MBZ boundary - meaningless. Broken Hill MBZ was a good spot to sunbake on the main rwy. Versus Marree when the lake in flood - a little CTAF where you took a cut lunch to cross the runway, due j/f traffic.
3. Vertical boundary - dangerous. MBZ 5000' AGL versus small CTAF 3 Nm 1500' or 2000' (from memory) - some of the small CTAF had PJE from FLs, aeros, etc.
What NAS did was allow commonsense to occur and calls to be made as appropriate for safe operations.
Then along came CASA (one suggests with the regionals tail wagging the dog) to prescribe and stuff it!
Afterthought - perhaps selcall pales into insignificance .... wait for it ...... if ADS-B is mandated and ADS-B IN comes along in the package. (That's better, I haven't mentioned ADS-B for days, needed a fix
)
Last edited by james michael; 1st Nov 2008 at 03:32. Reason: Afterthought
?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: inner suburbia
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
onemore, Your Bathurst overfly would be caught by
eg. an inbound to Bathurst for the 3500' circuit at 500 fpm and 120 kts would cross your 6500' overfly altitude at 6 minutes and 12 nm out.
True, but you're still in the 'vicinity' and could be a problem to someone who's inbound to or outbound from (say) Hoxton Park (whilst it still exists).
I'll be generous here and state that, I think, that the intent, is to assist in 'alerted see and avoid', but the words that we've seen so far are too much of a catchall and don't take into account the issue of closely spaced aerodromes (with possibly different frequencies).
This rule will apply not only to aircraft that are inbound to the aerodrome, but also to aircraft that are overflying the aerodrome or simply transiting through this airspace, if the aerodrome is depicted in the aeronautical charts and the aircraft is flying at a height that could put it in conflict with aerodrome traffic.
But if you are following the`inbound or departure routes to Bankstown - you wouldn't be overflying
I'll be generous here and state that, I think, that the intent, is to assist in 'alerted see and avoid', but the words that we've seen so far are too much of a catchall and don't take into account the issue of closely spaced aerodromes (with possibly different frequencies).
JM,
Not in my opinion. For those of us who need radio information to keep clear of others, the defined boundaries of the MBZ meant that we always operated in a mandatory radio environment, where pilots had to have a radio (MBZ freq then Area above 5000ft) and they had to use it. At least the rules facilitated a guaranteed traffic picture for us if people did the right thing. If a pilot chose to not comply with the rules, then he should have the book thrown at him. He is not only endangering his life, but potentially a hundred others. Commonsense and airmanship are all in the eye of the beholder. Unfortunately, the beholder may not have the big picture or the experience (or the decency) to decide what actually is commonsense and airmanship.
Why do the traffic authorities mandate wearing of seatbelts or ban horses and carts on freeways? Surely they are commonsense issues and don't need stupid regulations and mandates?
MBZ boundary - meaningless.
Why do the traffic authorities mandate wearing of seatbelts or ban horses and carts on freeways? Surely they are commonsense issues and don't need stupid regulations and mandates?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CB
I understand what you are saying.
If you have a solid read of the Ambidji report it confirms that the CTAF R (MBZ reborn) offers no more protection than the CTAF. MBZ (MTAF reborn) was a fiction of a regulation to carry and use radio that fell down when it was not used properly. Nor did it cater for incorrect/inadequate information NOR anti-social practices.
And - if you read the audits - 'twern't just GA being anti-social, non-conforming, etc.
I understand what you are saying.
If you have a solid read of the Ambidji report it confirms that the CTAF R (MBZ reborn) offers no more protection than the CTAF. MBZ (MTAF reborn) was a fiction of a regulation to carry and use radio that fell down when it was not used properly. Nor did it cater for incorrect/inadequate information NOR anti-social practices.
And - if you read the audits - 'twern't just GA being anti-social, non-conforming, etc.
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Been pondering this subject, a couple of observations, bare with me:-
.
Returning briefly to the liability analogy of road rules and how they might compare to aviation rules:-
.
Road rules are by comparison, simple and mostly designed for the dimmest of idiots to be able to follow i.e. lane markings, traffic lights, signage, vehicle safety systems etc all providing to a large extent a surface transport system with acceptable safety outcomes (given volumes and road user variables) with arguably less nasty outcomes 99% of the time when compared with aviation accidents.
.
Aviation on the other hand is far more fluid and complex with less simplistic standardisation options available, which therefore results in substancially less ability to idiot proof the design to the same extent as roads. It is more demanding on individual interpretation and multilayered (complex) decision making. It is less cut and dried, and requires far more intuition and individualism in deciding, when, where and how best to apply the many rules to any given set of circumstances. Maintaining overall system operability and safety is almost entirely reliant on high levels of operator proficiency in an environment that by its very nature means the opportunity to inadvertently err is exponentially greater than operating on roads.
.
It follows then that greater 'legal' latitude is required in GA that facilitates open and robust reporting without strict liability attached. Were that not the case, errors (wilful and/or inadvertent) would continue to occur (largely unreported) until the system fails unsafe!
.
The aviation industry (all sectors of it) relies on reporting to identify systemic and other deficiencies. Any impediment to this reporting culture is counter productive in many ways, not lest of which is safety improvement and oversight.
.
The aviation context
.
Q1. Why would a pilot deliberately not use, or misuse (wrong callsign etc) radio in CTAF or OCTA elsewhere??
A1. To avoid airport charges and/or hull identification post a naughty!?
.
Q2. Why would a pilot inadvertently not use, or misuse (wrong callsign etc) radio in CTAF or OCTA elsewhere??
A2. When a genuine error occurs with frequency selection, radio equipment settings i.e. to be human, we make mistakes now and then. Then there are things such as a verbal error i.e. familiarity with multiple rego’s or callsigns and getting them mixed up on different days/flights i.e. WIQ and WIX, or JAB4544 and JAB4845, or VOZ604 and VOZ609 etc etc, , most everyone has done this when they are regularly using more than one callsign or rego .. these are all categorised as sh1t happens!
.
A1. Should result in a big stick given the other negative safety consequences of such deliberate actions …. A2. Should not
.
So, how does the law and its application by CASA/DPP differentiate between the two?
.
Gary rightly points out prosecutorial discretion … BUT!
.
A1. Is extremely hard to prove as any number of excuses could be used to make a deliberate breach appear inadvertent
A2. Inadvertent breaches are stigmatised simply by being largely indiscernible in difference from deliberate breaches … so how does one prove or disprove their ‘inadvertentness’?? .. hmmm
.
Q3. When did Q1. become an issue?
A3a. When Location Specific Charges to General Aviation came in to being in concert with Airport leasing (privatisation) and increased airport charges! and;
A3b. The advent of strict liability in aviation, and its possible applications, which serves to further add to the propensity (for some) to attempt to hide hull identification post woopsy, or for that matter a deliberate naughty.
.
Q4. How do we remove the temptation to Q1/A1/A3b so that only Q2/A2 remain valid?
A4a Come up with an equitable method of levying reasonable charges that removes the temptation to rule break as per A1
A4b Provide a system of ‘no cost’ warning for self reported transgressions (that did not result in injury or death), up to three per annum (rolling total), then beyond 3, a mandated refresher training requirement in the area of deficiency at transgressor’s cost (such as a one hour session with an instructor in the aeroplane, or sim, or books).
A4c. Transgressions that are not self reported (that did not result in injury or death), a first strike ‘no cost’ (as long as 3 not already recorded in the 12 months), second strike (1 hour refresher), third strike fine, 4th strike sin bin for a period!
A4d. Strict Liability could/should perhaps only remain for injury or death resulting from proven negligence found outside of the Transport Investigation sphere.
I also strongly believe the Transport Investigation Act must include certainty that any operational personnel be they Pilot, ATC, Engineer, Safety Officer, Refueller etc who self reports as soon as practicable following an occurrence, be protected under the TIA, as per A4b above.
Unless and until people know with certainty that self reporting (in the pursuit of system safety and analysis) is free from unreasonable pitfalls, and that the system will provide them protection that non-reporting will not, then folks will continue to be reluctant to do the right thing despite the fact that most everyone is not involved in deliberate rule breaking.
The system as it stands is in effect tarring the mostly innocent group as being no better that the few really bad apples that need their bloomin’ heads read!
.
I am sure the legal eagles will have a view on this stuff, and so they should. Maybe my views are legally speaking naïve, but practically speaking, they ring true, and cut to the core of why folks are not comfortable with precription!
.
This discussion needs to be had!
.
Over to ewe’s!
.
Returning briefly to the liability analogy of road rules and how they might compare to aviation rules:-
.
Road rules are by comparison, simple and mostly designed for the dimmest of idiots to be able to follow i.e. lane markings, traffic lights, signage, vehicle safety systems etc all providing to a large extent a surface transport system with acceptable safety outcomes (given volumes and road user variables) with arguably less nasty outcomes 99% of the time when compared with aviation accidents.
.
Aviation on the other hand is far more fluid and complex with less simplistic standardisation options available, which therefore results in substancially less ability to idiot proof the design to the same extent as roads. It is more demanding on individual interpretation and multilayered (complex) decision making. It is less cut and dried, and requires far more intuition and individualism in deciding, when, where and how best to apply the many rules to any given set of circumstances. Maintaining overall system operability and safety is almost entirely reliant on high levels of operator proficiency in an environment that by its very nature means the opportunity to inadvertently err is exponentially greater than operating on roads.
.
It follows then that greater 'legal' latitude is required in GA that facilitates open and robust reporting without strict liability attached. Were that not the case, errors (wilful and/or inadvertent) would continue to occur (largely unreported) until the system fails unsafe!
.
The aviation industry (all sectors of it) relies on reporting to identify systemic and other deficiencies. Any impediment to this reporting culture is counter productive in many ways, not lest of which is safety improvement and oversight.
.
The aviation context
.
Q1. Why would a pilot deliberately not use, or misuse (wrong callsign etc) radio in CTAF or OCTA elsewhere??
A1. To avoid airport charges and/or hull identification post a naughty!?
.
Q2. Why would a pilot inadvertently not use, or misuse (wrong callsign etc) radio in CTAF or OCTA elsewhere??
A2. When a genuine error occurs with frequency selection, radio equipment settings i.e. to be human, we make mistakes now and then. Then there are things such as a verbal error i.e. familiarity with multiple rego’s or callsigns and getting them mixed up on different days/flights i.e. WIQ and WIX, or JAB4544 and JAB4845, or VOZ604 and VOZ609 etc etc, , most everyone has done this when they are regularly using more than one callsign or rego .. these are all categorised as sh1t happens!
.
A1. Should result in a big stick given the other negative safety consequences of such deliberate actions …. A2. Should not
.
So, how does the law and its application by CASA/DPP differentiate between the two?
.
Gary rightly points out prosecutorial discretion … BUT!
.
A1. Is extremely hard to prove as any number of excuses could be used to make a deliberate breach appear inadvertent
A2. Inadvertent breaches are stigmatised simply by being largely indiscernible in difference from deliberate breaches … so how does one prove or disprove their ‘inadvertentness’?? .. hmmm
.
Q3. When did Q1. become an issue?
A3a. When Location Specific Charges to General Aviation came in to being in concert with Airport leasing (privatisation) and increased airport charges! and;
A3b. The advent of strict liability in aviation, and its possible applications, which serves to further add to the propensity (for some) to attempt to hide hull identification post woopsy, or for that matter a deliberate naughty.
.
Q4. How do we remove the temptation to Q1/A1/A3b so that only Q2/A2 remain valid?
A4a Come up with an equitable method of levying reasonable charges that removes the temptation to rule break as per A1
A4b Provide a system of ‘no cost’ warning for self reported transgressions (that did not result in injury or death), up to three per annum (rolling total), then beyond 3, a mandated refresher training requirement in the area of deficiency at transgressor’s cost (such as a one hour session with an instructor in the aeroplane, or sim, or books).
A4c. Transgressions that are not self reported (that did not result in injury or death), a first strike ‘no cost’ (as long as 3 not already recorded in the 12 months), second strike (1 hour refresher), third strike fine, 4th strike sin bin for a period!
A4d. Strict Liability could/should perhaps only remain for injury or death resulting from proven negligence found outside of the Transport Investigation sphere.
I also strongly believe the Transport Investigation Act must include certainty that any operational personnel be they Pilot, ATC, Engineer, Safety Officer, Refueller etc who self reports as soon as practicable following an occurrence, be protected under the TIA, as per A4b above.
Unless and until people know with certainty that self reporting (in the pursuit of system safety and analysis) is free from unreasonable pitfalls, and that the system will provide them protection that non-reporting will not, then folks will continue to be reluctant to do the right thing despite the fact that most everyone is not involved in deliberate rule breaking.
The system as it stands is in effect tarring the mostly innocent group as being no better that the few really bad apples that need their bloomin’ heads read!
.
I am sure the legal eagles will have a view on this stuff, and so they should. Maybe my views are legally speaking naïve, but practically speaking, they ring true, and cut to the core of why folks are not comfortable with precription!
.
This discussion needs to be had!
.
Over to ewe’s!