CAA ’Significant Seven’
Thread Starter
CAA ’Significant Seven’
Recently published - UK CAA ’Significant Seven’ Task Force Reports.
UK CAA Safety Plan 2009-11.
- Loss of Control
- Runway Overrun or Excursion
- Controlled Flight into Terrain
- Runway Incursion and Ground Collision
- Airborne Conflict
- Ground Handling Operations Safety Team
- Airborne and Post-Crash Fire
UK CAA Safety Plan 2009-11.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The report on the Loss of Control section of the CAA Paper appears to reinforce the view held by many, that loss of control events can be reduced by more training on automatics. In doing so, it pays lip service to manual flying skills.
Instead of accenting the vital need for pure flying skills (which prevent loss of control in the first place) the authors have opted for a head in the sand approach by putting their faith in ever increasing automation and monitoring skills.
It is rather like saying I will not teach you how to swim as that is unnecessary. Instead, I will teach you how not to go near the water...
Instead of accenting the vital need for pure flying skills (which prevent loss of control in the first place) the authors have opted for a head in the sand approach by putting their faith in ever increasing automation and monitoring skills.
It is rather like saying I will not teach you how to swim as that is unnecessary. Instead, I will teach you how not to go near the water...
Whilst the UK CAA are to be congratulated for taking/continuing safety activities as described in the report, at times it appears they do not know what is actually happening at the workface; – over reliance on data and analysis. More ‘dual-hating’ experience may help.
I doubt that the MOR system will identify many meaningful precursors of events. The reporting system appears to lack a comprehensive investigative process, as used in accidents; how can an operator self report and self analyse accurately. Note the disparity in EGPWS reporting.
FDM has a lot of potential, but this again places responsibility (and cost) on the operator – for what? So that the CAA can know what is happening? Operators may choose to invest in their own data sets and safety initiatives instead.
Loss of control could be more accurately described as Lack of Control. This view could provide some insight to the precursors, whether these are manual or automatic flight skills – or perhaps they are more skills of judgement than of physically controlling the aircraft.
It would be helpful to see examples of how new training methods for automation and the skills of monitoring could be implemented. Are these to be left to the operator, again more training load, and responsibility passed to the sharp end?
I am surprised that the overrun task force did not involve anyone from performance certification, given the many difficulties in implementing this. Also that the lack of pre-landing performance assessment was not discussed; there’s an interesting independent study and EASA have noted the problem.
More training is a constant theme. Is this a sign of an underlying ‘blame and train’ view?
If the UK safety record is as good as claimed, then why should the CAA expect more from the same – training; how will this generate additional safety improvements?
The initiative is a good effort and an exemplar for other authorities, but I’m left with a feeling that the CAA might benefit from a new look at human factors and the modern ideas of safety management (resilience). Also, take a look at the problems (and solutions / cost) from an operator’s viewpoint.
I doubt that the MOR system will identify many meaningful precursors of events. The reporting system appears to lack a comprehensive investigative process, as used in accidents; how can an operator self report and self analyse accurately. Note the disparity in EGPWS reporting.
FDM has a lot of potential, but this again places responsibility (and cost) on the operator – for what? So that the CAA can know what is happening? Operators may choose to invest in their own data sets and safety initiatives instead.
Loss of control could be more accurately described as Lack of Control. This view could provide some insight to the precursors, whether these are manual or automatic flight skills – or perhaps they are more skills of judgement than of physically controlling the aircraft.
It would be helpful to see examples of how new training methods for automation and the skills of monitoring could be implemented. Are these to be left to the operator, again more training load, and responsibility passed to the sharp end?
I am surprised that the overrun task force did not involve anyone from performance certification, given the many difficulties in implementing this. Also that the lack of pre-landing performance assessment was not discussed; there’s an interesting independent study and EASA have noted the problem.
More training is a constant theme. Is this a sign of an underlying ‘blame and train’ view?
If the UK safety record is as good as claimed, then why should the CAA expect more from the same – training; how will this generate additional safety improvements?
The initiative is a good effort and an exemplar for other authorities, but I’m left with a feeling that the CAA might benefit from a new look at human factors and the modern ideas of safety management (resilience). Also, take a look at the problems (and solutions / cost) from an operator’s viewpoint.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On the green bit near the blue wobbly stuff
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Tee Em,
I completely disagree with your interpretation. The data in the report clearly shows that manual flying skils and use of automation are assessed as roughly equal factors in the causation of accidents and incidents.
Recomendations 4 & 5 deal with automation, recommendations 6,7 and 8 deal with manual flying skills.
I really cant see how this is in any way burying heads in the sand
I completely disagree with your interpretation. The data in the report clearly shows that manual flying skils and use of automation are assessed as roughly equal factors in the causation of accidents and incidents.
Recomendations 4 & 5 deal with automation, recommendations 6,7 and 8 deal with manual flying skills.
I really cant see how this is in any way burying heads in the sand
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Do I come here often?
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shell Management, once again you reach for your keyboard and show your utter ignorance of aviation. Maintenance errors are subject to a seperate study.
Please go away and leave aviation to others who know and understand it. You are an irritating irrelevance on this forum.
Please go away and leave aviation to others who know and understand it. You are an irritating irrelevance on this forum.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: dubai
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All good stuff of course.
It is significant to me, there is another safety related issue, swept under the carpet by the authorities. The continued touching up of crews at security before they go to work by complete and utter morons some of them. This can be a humiliating experience for most if not all and a stressful business for others. If you are hassled or upset in anyway before going to work, you may not be in the best frame of mind to carry out tasks in a normal or abnormal situation. Like a crew room argument or bust up before a flight. Don't tell the victims to call in sick before a flight as they wont do it, as the repercussions are obvious.
How many incidents or even accidents has the above contributed? We will never know.
This is what the authorities should also be looking at. However hell will freeze over before that.
It is significant to me, there is another safety related issue, swept under the carpet by the authorities. The continued touching up of crews at security before they go to work by complete and utter morons some of them. This can be a humiliating experience for most if not all and a stressful business for others. If you are hassled or upset in anyway before going to work, you may not be in the best frame of mind to carry out tasks in a normal or abnormal situation. Like a crew room argument or bust up before a flight. Don't tell the victims to call in sick before a flight as they wont do it, as the repercussions are obvious.
How many incidents or even accidents has the above contributed? We will never know.
This is what the authorities should also be looking at. However hell will freeze over before that.
Thread Starter
doubleu-anker, I don’t see how your security issue (or lack of action) relates directly to the CAA’s investigations.
If as you state the issue can affect safety, then use the appropriate reporting channels. In the UK an ASR / MOR, or file a (confidential) report via CHIRP.
If a crew member considers that a preflight experience will affect operational performance, then s/he should declare them self unfit for duty. Whilst this will probably require formal reporting and even cause personal concern about investigation, it should bring the issue to the attention of management as an issue requiring action.
If the issue is serious / widespread then the CAA or other authorities would become involved.
I understand that the CAA welcomes all safety reporting, but you will have to accept that they would be the arbiters of the seriousness of the issue.
This might be seen as an interesting reflection of many crews failure to report issues involving ‘near loss of control’ or ‘near runway overrun’ because they, the crew, decide that it isn’t a safety issue!
Perhaps this is what the authorities should be looking at.
If as you state the issue can affect safety, then use the appropriate reporting channels. In the UK an ASR / MOR, or file a (confidential) report via CHIRP.
If a crew member considers that a preflight experience will affect operational performance, then s/he should declare them self unfit for duty. Whilst this will probably require formal reporting and even cause personal concern about investigation, it should bring the issue to the attention of management as an issue requiring action.
If the issue is serious / widespread then the CAA or other authorities would become involved.
I understand that the CAA welcomes all safety reporting, but you will have to accept that they would be the arbiters of the seriousness of the issue.
This might be seen as an interesting reflection of many crews failure to report issues involving ‘near loss of control’ or ‘near runway overrun’ because they, the crew, decide that it isn’t a safety issue!
Perhaps this is what the authorities should be looking at.
For every crew member who finds the security process a source of stress and frustration, there are hundreds who simply accept it for what it is and move on without much of a second thought.
As for Shell Management's "input", that's enough for me. He has nothing positive to contribute. He hates aviators for reasons he refuses to explain. I shall simply ignore him from this point forward.
As for Shell Management's "input", that's enough for me. He has nothing positive to contribute. He hates aviators for reasons he refuses to explain. I shall simply ignore him from this point forward.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: dubai
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Points taken.
All of us at some stage have been hassled at security, before crewing a flight. If you have been then it is a distraction, form of stress, you name it but you don't need it. Anyone who says they have never been hassled at a security check is a lier or completely brain dead. All I am saying this could be the trigger that sets off a chain of events.
Oh yes the CAA and others are aware of the futility of cockpit crew passing through security. It is after all a tool to stop, all those who pass through security, from taking control of the aircraft. It has been pointed out to them for years and years.
Having cockpit crew pass security screening will not enhance safety. Therefore it has the opposite effect.
As the mind is very complex, you may not be the best judge as to whether you are fit to operate machinery or not.
All of us at some stage have been hassled at security, before crewing a flight. If you have been then it is a distraction, form of stress, you name it but you don't need it. Anyone who says they have never been hassled at a security check is a lier or completely brain dead. All I am saying this could be the trigger that sets off a chain of events.
Oh yes the CAA and others are aware of the futility of cockpit crew passing through security. It is after all a tool to stop, all those who pass through security, from taking control of the aircraft. It has been pointed out to them for years and years.
Having cockpit crew pass security screening will not enhance safety. Therefore it has the opposite effect.
As the mind is very complex, you may not be the best judge as to whether you are fit to operate machinery or not.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Do I come here often?
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is also a banning facility the mods can use. This is a forum for "professional pilots" SM is obvioulsy not a pilot, heartily dislikes pilots and does not understand our world.
SM I've saved this bit for when you are at your most irritating, I am head of flight safety for a major European corporate player and a current pilot, your cheap, insulting cracks at, my profession, my industry and my colleagues are tiresome, your ignorance of aviation safety matters is, I would suggest the worst on this forum. Aviation cannot work under "normal industrial safety practises", and thankfully never will.
Your behaviour leads me request that you be banned from the forum.
SND
SM I've saved this bit for when you are at your most irritating, I am head of flight safety for a major European corporate player and a current pilot, your cheap, insulting cracks at, my profession, my industry and my colleagues are tiresome, your ignorance of aviation safety matters is, I would suggest the worst on this forum. Aviation cannot work under "normal industrial safety practises", and thankfully never will.
Your behaviour leads me request that you be banned from the forum.
SND
