RA-Aus punishment that fits the “crimeâ€

[poteroo]

Hypothetical? No, it's Happening Hundreds of Times Each Year

 

What's hypothetical is being 'recognised' visually by a good citizen who knows you are in CTA, or reports you for low flying. Pretty unlikely I'd think. What's more likely is that you are in a modern aircraft with your TXP bleating away on ALT - thus giving Centre the picture that you have just violated CTA, and at low level. They then have to determine just who you are - and that's not going to happen if you land 'elsewhere'.

 

It occurs to me that an intentional unauthorised CTA incursion is where the PIC elects to configure the aircraft so as to not attract attention, (TXP - OFF, strobes - OFF,), and fly well clear of habitation, without becoming so low as to attract attention - but still below radar!

 

An accidental or unwitting CTA incursion is less likely to worry authority if you can see the situation unravelling, and make an early call for advice. And that's regardless of whether you are dual licenced. Knowing which frequency to call is something everyone should have at the fingertips.

 

Sure, PPPPP applies to these situations. Perhaps some re-training is needed, but....... most GA pilots who infringe CTA, ( those who are eventually identified), get off Scot-free. So why should our hypothetical RAA driver be crucified?

 

In the end, people are going to continue to infringe CTA, regardless of whether they hold a PPL,CPL,ATPL,or RAA endorsement. Educating everyone to use their navigation aids correctly, and to effectively negotiate with ATC will minimise incursions but it won't eliminate them.

 

happy days,

 

 

[Guest Elk McPherson]

I had a stude who was a repeat offender in the "rules are for others" category. I grounded him pending confirmation of the allegations, then grounded him officially for 3 months. This was only enforceable at our club, of course, because he already held a Pilot Cert.

 

My action as CFI was then used against me by the board :hittinghead: but that's just par for the course.

 

That student has never returned to flying in any real sense because he knows that while he could jump on his Ducati and play fast & loose, he would never be allowed to do the same thing in aeroplanes (RAAus or otherwise).

 

Was this a good outcome?

 

 

[BigPete]

You may have saved two lives. - His and his passengers'. :thumb_up:

 

regards

 

 

[facthunter]

Liability.

 

E MCP, IF the person IS a liability and continues to be so, there is only ONE outcome possible. These people threaten your liberties, put up YOUR insurance costs, Put OUR hobby into disrepute. Anybody who complains about how WE are regarded by the media and the world in general, should not oppose some discipline being applied. The big test IS, WOULD YOU BE HAPPY FOR YOUR WIFE & KIDS TO FLY WITH THIS PERSON. OR to share airspace with him/ her? Nev..

 

 

[cazza]

"I’ll set the scene here on something that I think is *wrong* with RA-Aus"

 

This is a very interesting way to shift the blame onto an organisation when in fact the actions and consequences lie squarely with the pilot. The situation is not about an organisation and punishment, it is about the mindset of pilots who deliberately put your and my loved ones in danger by making a decision to go into controlled airspace and not tell ATC they are there or ask for assistance. SAFETY is the #1 consideration, for the thruster pilot and everyone in CTA. So there is only one decision, and that is to contact ATC, tell them your position, your track, your altitude and ask for airways clearance. My bet is that they will grant it, assist you, and ask you to report at a certain place so they know you are clear of it. No worries. EVERYONE is safe, then and it is a responsible thing to do. BY accident, I strayed into controlled airspace and because I had my transponder on, I got nabbed and a big lecture from ATC. I copped it sweet, but my mates told me I should not have identified myself, turned off my transponder and snuck away. NO way. I am not putting me and or an innocent family out on a flying outing at risk. So I'll probably get some kind of punishment when the paperwork catches up with RA-Aus, and that's ok with me. I did the wrong thing but I won't make that mistake again when flying close to CTA.

 

cazza

 

 

[Guest brentc]

My post was in reference to the lack of a formal discipline structure. CASA have a points system and associated dollar value attached. RA-Aus have an informal hap-hazard system where the punishment often doesn't fit the crime. If there was a decent or significant or known punishment, it would deter the offender.

 

eg. Beatup $1,000, flight without appropriate endorsement, $500, loss of cert for 2 months, etc etc.

 

Whilst not entirely practical on all occasions and or offences, it would be a deterrent. Right now there are no deterrents which is why some certificate holders seem to think they can get away with anything - re Elk McP's posts.

 

 

[Guest Teenie2]

Somewhere in the CAR is a statement that goes something like this " The pilot in command has the final authority for the disposition of the aircraft and the crew". Many years ago I landed at Bankstown ap even though the ATIS was saying it was closed due stress of weather. CASA hunted me up ,quoted the above plus stated I had no other place to go ,CASA not happy but there was nothing they could do.

 

 

[cazza]

My post was in reference to the lack of a formal discipline structure. CASA have a points system and associated dollar value attached. RA-Aus have an informal hap-hazard system where the punishment often doesn't fit the crime. If there was a decent or significant or known punishment, it would deter the offender.eg. Beatup $1,000, flight without appropriate endorsement, $500, loss of cert for 2 months, etc etc.

 

Whilst not entirely practical on all occasions and or offences, it would be a deterrent. Right now there are no deterrents which is why some certificate holders seem to think they can get away with anything - re Elk McP's posts.

Yes, I get the idea of your post now. However, the example you chose is one that causes much consternation amongst the organisations and the troops. CASA is a regulatory body and has to have its rules and consequences in a row. RAAUS is an administering body and historically, I think the managers try to deal with problems in a more mentoring and educational way, rather than jumping straight into punishment. Does punishment act as a deterrent? Check out all the repeat offenders in jail if you want some statistics on that. Bascially research shows that people will do what they want, regardless of rules, if it is worth the effort and the chance of getting caught is slim.

 

Now that you have raised this issue of a formal discipline structure, I think the RA-Aus Board should take it up. Nothing irritates members more than getting a different punishment than someone else who did the same thing. As we grow, we should try to be consistent in dealing with infringements of rules and in a way that will help pilots to see the sense in following them because punishments can result in worse behavior - depending on the personality type.

 

CAZZA

 

 

[Yenn]

Dead right Cazza.

 

 

[Guest airsick]

Nothing irritates members more than getting a different punishment than someone else who did the same thing. As we grow, we should try to be consistent in dealing with infringements of rules and in a way that will help pilots to see the sense in following them because punishments can result in worse behavior - depending on the personality type.

Even CASA assesses each infringement individually. One breach of CTA may not be treated the same as another. They will look at the circumstances surrounding each case and make a judgement as to what to do. I think it is the framework within which to make this judgement that is needed.

 

 

[Guest Elk McPherson]

How would the board respond if it was shown that a RAAus instructor had falsified his qualifications to get a senior RAAus instructor ticket?

 

I would bet that, if proven, CASA would remove a GA instructor ticket immediately as the fraudster would be considered not a "fit and proper person".

 

I do not believe RAAus would respond in the same way. Or would they?

 

 

[storchy neil]

one les instructor raa instructor neil

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Elk. I can give you a (sort of) first hand look at that.

 

Several years ago I discovered on an instructor renewal that the candidate had a S/I rating. I knew the guy as I had done his previous renewal and an S/I rating would have been amazing. 30 secs of questioning demonstrated that he did not actually have the rating in practical terms.

 

In fact the office had made a mistake on the last renewal and done a 'paperwork' upgrade. The instructor must have thought it was Xmas and did not bother clarifying the event.

 

An email to the office produced a bit of squawking and red faces and I got fed up and just removed the higher rating myself.

 

As said that was several years ago. These days I do not think Mick Poole would have any mercy in the scenario you have described.

 

Tony

 

 

[storchy neil]

:clap:tony thank you the ramifications of what you discribed when it went bad the on the fan would have spread far and wide

 

if a rating is left of he would have screemed bloody murder

 

:clap:admiration for the office in canbera as some of my questions are curly :confused:

 

tony im with you i feel that mick would not be amused mistakes can happen it is up to us to do something about mistakes neil

 

 

[Yenn]

Elk. Your post reads as if you have no confidence in the RAAus administration. Do you have any evidence to back that up or are you whistling in the dark?

 

 

[motzartmerv]

If anyone, let alone an instructor was found to be falsifying hours im sure the RAA would come down on them like a tonne of bricks. I bet my bottom dollar it has happened before though..

 

When i got my first cert it was signed off for all the endo's. A mistake by the chieff who ticked all the boxes instead of crossing them out.. I made a joke out of it and said i was there to take the jab to brisbane, with a pax.. Id only done a couple of navs by then. hehe. anyway, we rang up RAA and got the propper licence out pronto

 

 

[Guest Elk McPherson]

YENN

 

let's just say I'm whistling, for the moment.

 

I have known Pooley for a long, long time. I have a fair bit of faith in Mick. I am certain that if the concrete, proven facts were put in front of him he would act accordingly. :thumb_up:

 

 

[sain]

My instructor arranged a trip to Sydney to tour the ATC teams at both Mascot and Bankstown.

 

As part of tour we were given a presentation on controlled airspace violations, which included video replays of the ATC system.

 

It was quite an educational experience, and showed a number of near misses like a GA flight almost getting run down by a C130 Herc near Richmond, and a pilot following the coast all the way on Victor 1 and coming very close to an airliner inbound for landing.

 

It also showed how ineffective switching off your transponder and flying at 50ft would be - they pick up trains and trucks travelling along highways. They also showed a plane who cut a corner of CTA, and then switched off their transponder when contacted by ATC. ATC ended up having to divert an inbound passenger to maintain seperation. Needless to say they tracked the transponderless plane all the way to their destination.

 

 

[facthunter]

Comment on CTA violations.

 

Some of the posts appear to trivialise this situation. Let me assure you that CASA has to act on these violations, as they are a significant threat to safety. All departure and arrival procedures are dependant on the airspace remaining separate from straying uncontactable aircraft. If somebody deliberately turned off the transponder to reduce the chance of detection, then a greater hazard is thereby created, and I would like to see the book thrown at that person. Nev..

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

How about a pat on the back for taking the safest route. I'm sure the pilot kept a real close eye out for usually non-existant traffic.

 

 

[Thx1137]

A good topic this one. Many people forgive 'small' infractions easily no matter if it a mistake or knowingly done. Sometimes the problem is one person definition of 'small' is not anothers. For me, as a newbie, airspace incursions isn't small.

 

Fines and reprimands have very little effect on people willfully breaking rules. This can be seen by the number of repeat automotive traffic violations.

 

For someone that makes a genuine mistake then just a "please explain" is usually enough. If they know what they did wrong and they have any kind of ethic then they will seek the required missing knowledge because they don't want to be in that situation again.

 

For someone that causes a serious breach possibly involving the safety of others because they simply couldn't be bothered or wanted to save a bit of time I would prefer grounding. In the example supplied it sounded to me like it would be part of the plan that they would dip into restricted airspace, the pilot chose the route did he/she not?

 

I reckon we RA-Aus members should be quite clear that we want to maintain our right to fly so we wont put up with poor behavior from our members. So, a gentle, guiding hand for those of us that make mistakes and an iron fist for those of us that don't care about everyone elses right to fly and their safety.

 

Steven.