RA-Aus punishment that fits the “crimeâ€

[Guest brentc]

 

I’ll set the scene here on something that I think is *wrong* with RA-Aus. I’d like some comments in return if anyone has a spare moment as I’m after some ideas.

 

 

Let’s set the scene hypothetically………

 

 

You’re an RA-Aus certificate holder with Cross Country endorsement and are qualified for the flight for which you are about to commence.

 

 

You are out on a cruise in your trusty Thruster and it’s a 100 mile trip, so a fairly long one. You have an airfield and airspace coming up in front of you that is Class D airspace, let’s just say it was Albury (thus PPL required and appropriate aircraft, so essentially a no go zone for you). The shortest route is to the west, however there is some bad terrain in the nearest Class-G airspace (where you are allowed to fly) that you don’t want to fly over. You know exactly where you are and this is verified by GPS.

 

 

You willfully elect to fly into the CTA boundary by perhaps 1 nautical mile at approximately 500ft agl to avoid the bad terrain, so for all intensive purposes you are knowingly inside CTA.

 

 

Someone sees you and you get caught. RA-Aus is informed and you are hit with a “please explain.â€

 

 

I would like to now consider what kind of punishment fits this “crime?†In the CASA world it would be a number of penalty units and associated fine, so perhaps 10 penalty units and $1,100 inc GST.

 

 

What should it be in the RA-Aus world? (keeping in mind that you WILFULLY committed this offence)

 

 

- Loss of your flying certificate for a period of time (eg 3 months)

 

- Removal of Cross Country endorsement from your certificate

 

- Re-training for Cross Country endorsement

 

- A fine like in the CASA world

 

- Immediate grounding then some training or something………

 

 

I’m interested in your suggestions.

 

Of course it would be a different story if you did it by accident.

 

 

[Guest airsick]

As part of the cross country endorsement I would have thought that you would be taught a level of awareness about control zones (I don't know what is taught as I did a PPL conversion). With this in mind the breach highlights that your understanding of the regs (or at least your willingness to comply with them) is deficient and so some sort of punishment that impinges on your rights to fly cross country would be fitting in my view. Perhaps grounding and remedial training?

 

In general this raises an interesting point. I am not aware of any prescribed penalties in the RAA world at all. Do they exist? If so where can I find them?

 

 

[motzartmerv]

An interesting point Brent. I have violated CTA once by accident and got a please explain from CASA and the RAA.. But that was the end of it..

 

Obviously violations of CTA can be a very serious problem with regards to safety..

 

You could always ask ATC for a clearance for terrain avoidance?? They can only say no..

 

But i think in the situation you described, knowingly violating cta and not telling anyone is a pretty serious thing, worst case is you could bring down an RPT, so some sort of penalty would have to be imposed surely.. Some sort of re-education perhaps at the expense of the PIC, as apposed to a fine which may not discourage the guy from doing it again but rather make him make sure he doesn't get caught next time..

 

On the same pont, if you call up ATC and talk the talk, they will obviously ask you to sqawk a code, but even without a Mode C , if you talk the talk and walk the walk they may let you cut a step corner or something.. RIC let me do it once when the weather was crappy in the bankstown lane, they gave me a clearance to cut the corner of the CTA not above 2000, they didnt ask me if i held a PPL.. But mind you i was Mode C equipped.

 

cheers

 

 

[Guest brentc]

That's all valid. I'm specifically interested in the point that the pilot infringes airspace deliberately and with full knowledge.

 

I would consider arguing that re-education is not requried because he knows that he's doing it illegally.

 

But then again, re-education could be considered a form of punishment, and ultimately is as good as a *fine* because it's going to cost the pilot money and inconvenience to get it done.

 

Going in by accident is fully understandable and could be because of any number of reasons and a refresher might be a good idea in a number of cases.

 

 

[Mathew Ker]

Brent,

 

Your hypothetical implies that the pilot has knowingly broken a clearly defined airspace restriction and your wording suggests that he was 'caught' after the fact. Like previous respondents, I suggest some sort of fine/restriction/retraining would be appropriate.

 

On the other hand, I don't think it's unreasonable to enter restricted airspace if other safety issues come into play, issues you may not have been aware of prior to your flight. In spite of sound planning, the terrain may not unfold exactly as you imagined it to be and therefore a rational and sound diversion could be appropriate. I would think if the ensuing problems then encounted could be relatively easily negotiated along the lines of Mozartmerv's comments. Talk to people once you have your amended plan, then follow instructions given. If clearance is not given, you will then have to make another amendment as appropriate. If for whatever reason, you haven't asked for clearance, surely it wouldn't hurt to initiate an explanation after the event rather than waiting to be 'caught out'.

 

I'm still learning, so happy for rules and regulations to override commonsense.

 

Regards, Mathew

 

 

[facthunter]

Relevence.

 

brentc, you have emphasised the deliberate aspect of the action.

 

There should be an attempt to find out if the pilot has an attitude to rules and authority that constitutes the problem or, is ignorant of the danger of the situation that has been created. Re-education is the way to go, and a highly punitive response is not conducive of getting the right answers as, it supports cover-ups and lack of candidness. A points and fines system ( such as we have now with CASA.) is far from the ideal.

 

I am all for leaving this up to highly trained and experienced people to handle, and a system where the pilot has a right to be represented by a mentor and has some rights of review.

 

No doubt the powers that CASA have are delegated to RAAus. and they will deal with individuals under that authority. (as some large employers do). This works on the premise that the actions/ rectifications are hard enough /appropriate to the infringement, to satisfy the authority, as they still have the overall responsibility. Just where the points and fines apply and don't apply, I am not sure, but over the years there have been many cases of excessive zeal to come down heavily on individals who have little resources to contest them and are therefore subject to a very one-sided process, which would appear sometimes to be somewhat arbitrary.

 

I haven't heard of any actions by RAAus that have been considered inappropriate, certainly not excessive, in this area. I'm listening1.. Nev..

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Brent, yea, i agree with you reg the re-education.. Perhaps the re-education would be along the lines of, ok dude, what was your mistake, what could have happened (worst case) what will you do next time. Strongly putting forwared the reasons why controlled airspace exist's in the first place. And perhaps a check ride (the $$$ bit).

 

There may be times as Mathew pointed out where there's no other option but to enter class C or D, and what procedures would you follow to make it safe, and sneaking and and not telling anoyone would most certainly not be an option. Even if its a call like " thruster xxxx is one mile from blah blah , unable to remain outside class charlie due thunderstorms (orwhateva) Will be entering class C in 1minute, request instructions." Thats much better then the sound of silence.

 

When flying close to the step ive seen some very very big and very very fast acft only a few hundred feet on the CTA side of the step, and let me tell you, they Look very very big and very very fast..:thumb_up:

 

cheers

 

 

[Guest airsick]

The shortest route is to the west, however there is some bad terrain in the nearest Class-G airspace (where you are allowed to fly) that you don’t want to fly over.

Shortest route isn't always the best. I would love to fly straight through Sydney on my way to Newcastle instead of having to carry lifejackets while tranisting Victor 1 but I don't! (I think this is what you are getting at isn't it Brent?)

 

On the other hand, I don't think it's unreasonable to enter restricted airspace if other safety issues come into play, issues you may not have been aware of prior to your flight.

Terrain clearance shouldn't be an issue that you weren't aware of. You should plan appropriately and be aware of it. You can't just say, "hey, I wasn't expecting that tiger country to be there, I might just pop into Class C for a few moments." And even if you didn't expect it to be there due to an oversight, what's wrong with turning around? Do a diversion that remains OCTA. It isn't that hard, we all learnt how right?

 

There may be times as Mathew pointed out where there's no other option but to enter class C or D, and what procedures would you follow to make it safe, and sneaking and and not telling anoyone would most certainly not be an option. Even if its a call like " thruster xxxx is one mile from blah blah , unable to remain outside class charlie due thunderstorms (orwhateva) Will be entering class C in 1minute, request instructions."

I can't see you getting into too much trouble if this were the case.

 

I'll stick with my first suggestion - a grounding and maybe some remedial training to highlight the potential dangers (and stupidity?) of what you did.

 

 

[Yenn]

If you knowingly break the rules and put someone els at risk, just for your own convenience, then I think it would be appropriate to have your certificate taken away.

 

If you knowingly break the rules because of a safety problem that was not forseeable then a please explain with follow up woul be appropriate.

 

I don't want to be sharing the sky with cowboys.

 

 

[Mathew Ker]

Airsick,

 

I agree that terrain clearance shouldn't be a problem if proper planning had taken place. In the original scenario given, a longer flight surely allows for more opportunity to give tiger country a wide berth without adding significantly to the trip time. My point was that if you've not flown over terrain before, what you anticipate on the map, may not unfold as expected on the ground. Certainly turning back should be one of the possible courses of action (probably the most appropriate) if things are marginal.

 

Forgive me if my original post implied poor or lazy planning. :big_grin:

 

Regards, Mathew

 

 

[Guest Flyer40]

Let's add some science to the debate, I know how much some blokes hate it.

 

There are errors and there are violations.

 

Three types of errors; slips, lapses and mistakes. Mistakes are due to knowledge deficiency.

 

Two types of violations; willful (reckless) and necessary (procedures aren't workable).

 

Training is only an appropriate corrective action in response to mistakes, ie knowledge based errors.

 

The above scenario involved a willful violation, no amount of training will prevent a recurrence of a violation.

 

One of the most significant barriers to violations is peer tolerance, therefore the prevalence of violations can be seen as a measure of the culture of an organisation.

 

The next question becomes; does the scenario represent a concern that RA is characterised by too many violations, or perhaps a tolerance of violations?

 

If the answer is yes, you're left with a philosophical question of whether you want to change the culture. And that question will probably be answered by where the greatest democratic weight sits, with the anti-authoritarian egomaniacs, or with slightly more conservative types.

 

How would you assess the scenario on the attached decision tree?

 

[ATTACH]5996.vB[/ATTACH]

 

Decision tree - culpability matrix.doc

 

Decision tree - culpability matrix.doc

 

Decision tree - culpability matrix.doc

[Guest brentc]

Based on your matrix, the hypothetical pilot would fall under Possible Reckless Violation or if he believed in his mind that the System wasn't workable for him, perhaps corrective training is required.

 

From what I'm reading, people are thinking that re-training may be required even if the act was wilful, but this re-training serves as a form of punishment, especially if the hypothetical pilot is grounded until it's completed.

 

 

[Captain]

Brent

 

 

 

It's a good post.

 

 

 

In my mind this deliberate act needs some form of censure that will meaningfully hurt the pilot and be a cause for consideration by others who are like minded.

 

 

 

Such a deliberate act is more worser in my opinion because a radio call to Albury (using your example) will almost always be handled with consideration and accommodation by the controllers once the circumstance is explained, and it doesn't always need to be dire as they will just try to help and accommodate any such request.

 

 

 

From the recreational movements point of view as a whole, I think we will all benefit if our members are "professional" in their flying and do not act like cowboys. Such a deliberate act by your hypothetical mate has potential to take rights away from all of us.

 

 

 

So your hypothetical pilot was a dickhead who deliberately broke the rules, compromised safety in controlled airspace, possibly putting RPT lives at risk, and has possibly brought the entire movement into disrepute.

 

 

 

If it was a hypothetical bloke I recommend castration.

 

 

 

Hope this helps.

 

 

 

Geoff

 

 

 

PS Can you just imagine the consequences to us all if one of our (RAA) aircraft was to bring down an RPT service under the circumstances that your post describes?

 

 

 

[Yenn]

Another point. If there is a real requirement to go into controlled airspace for safety reasons, we can declare an emergency by radio to the controllers.

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

The real question is who is your mate Brent and is this really hypothetical?

 

Having asked that I'm in two parts here: I'm with Nev that whatever you do you don't want to drive this underground. The culture needs to encourage reporting and in order to do this it has to be as balanced and non-blaming as possible.

 

On the other hand I agree with Flyer40. This appears to me to be a reckless violation, this guy has said @#$% the rules, I want to violate CTA and never mind anyone else. The culprit could easily have asked and then abided by the controller's call.

 

One other point - this person is 1.4 times more likely to be male than female - those I think are the figures on deliberate violations.

 

My take is that (assuming this is a first offence of this sort) then a period of quiet reflection - say 3 months without a ticket. Then a fairly thorough BFR style review before the bloke flies again. A subsequent offence of this type would maybe bring 12 months plus the review and a third offence would see the ticket pulled.

 

I'm talking about a deliberate violation albeit low key.

 

I'd also publish the offence and punishment, though not the identity of the individual in the magazine.

 

I hold a completely different view for genuine mistakes rather than deliberate violations.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Keith Page]

Interpretation

 

In CASA owns words and in the bounds of safety.

 

"If things turn to bad :censored:all bets are off"

 

In that little phrase, is the answer.

 

 

[Adrian Lewer]

IMO if you where flying and the weather turned bad you should have asked for clearance, explained the situation and or landed in an appropriate field (precautionary search and landing) in an open field outside of CTA would have been the go i think

 

just an opinion...

 

 

[Guest Baphomet]

If our willful violator had any sense, he'd be flying at 50' not 500' that way he'd know all the good people of the world would be at least 450' above him, and radar probably wouldn't detect him. May as well be 'hung for a sheep as a lamb' so the saying goes. Oh and his preflight would have included painting over/removing the reg no.:devil:

 

Just joking - really!!

 

 

[Air Creation]

Brent..all good with getting the views & opinions on flying sport aircraft in CTA. Its a good post on a very important topic with many safety issues in safe airmanship.

 

But... does anybody out there really know when we can fly in CTA? The Regs Part 103 and 149 have been happening for so long now I'll be retired with grand kids by the time it all happens!! Flying in Alice Springs is not much fun when you are unable to fly anywhere near the actual town of Alice...its a BIG Country out here and it sure would be great to fly into town and around this magic township!

 

So..does anybody know - WHEN our RA-Aus CTA Endorsement will Happen??

 

Cheers :yin_yan:

 

Smooth Flights

 

Chris

 

 

[slartibartfast]

So..does anybody know - WHEN our RA-Aus CTA Endorsement will Happen??

As of August, it is in our Ops manual. It would have then been waiting on the Attorney General's department to draft the legislation to replace the overriding CASA regs. They have a shortage and backlog, so that was going to be some time.

 

Now, a new government has come in and started a full aviation review. It could conceivably be back to square one.

 

Don't hold your breath.

 

 

[Guest brentc]

I've said it before and got in trouble for it, however if you want to fly in CTA you need to get yourself a PPL. It's NOT THAT HARD! Trust me! It just takes a bit of cash and some committment and you're off and racing. It may also open up a lot of new doors for you!

 

 

[Guest airsick]

But... does anybody out there really know when we can fly in CTA?

You can do it now. The endorsement is called a PPL. :)

 

Most people here would have no hassles completing it and it would be a relatively cheap exercise given that the hour requirements are mostly met in RA aircraft. It isn't that hard and with a little focus it can be done (if I can do it anyone can...).

 

EDIT: Damn, Brent beat me to it.

 

 

[Air Creation]

Thanks guys..I was aware of the PPL road. I don't have the desire to get a PPL just to fly in CTA...!

 

Cheers

 

 

[Yenn]

The PPL has to be current, which means you have to have a current medical. I don't know what that will cost now, but it is the doctors fee plus CASA fee for approving the doctors report. In my case being over 70 I think it would not be cheap, as it would probably require a cardiac test of some sort.

 

 

[antzx6r]

I will be. But for more than just CTA. Theres the ability to carry the whole family, build and fly aircraft like the RVs and tigermoths with aero capabilities and to not be restricted by last light. I love flying RAA but I find myself wanting those few restrictions lifted. PPL is the only way to go for me i'm afraid.

 

Off topic a little but I've heard that not all schools accept RAA training completely. As in, the hours are no problem but they feel the need to start you from scratch with the entire syllebus, taking as many hours as for a zero hour student. Surely much of the ab-initio should be more of a BFR type thing or just to get checked out on the type and the guts of the training be more on what is lacking in RAA. Can anyone tell me if there is an 'RAA trained' friendly school in the sydney basin area? I don't mind being thorough with the training, but at around $200/hr I don't want to be stuffing around for 5+ hrs ($1000) on secondary effects of controls and climbing and decending turns etc.

 

 

I agree to a point. The hypo dude, as a willfull violator will not stop if the punishment is just an inconvenience. The offence, if the said thruster was without a mode c, is comparable to drink driving IMO. He's made a stupid decision that has the potential to kill inocent people. A sound thinking person has the nads to talk to ATC, settle on a safe apropriate sollution. Be that to turn around, land in a field or (and more likely) to cut through the edge of the step with all involved perfectly aware. Personally I think the guy needs to know how serious the situation is and 3 months off for bad behaviour is not enough. Aviation based community service!!

 

Again, totally different situation for a genuine mistake. Some retraining on navigation and the seriousness of CTA violation. Grounding is not right. The guy needs more practice, not less.

 

2 cents :thumb_up: