EUROCONTROL - General Aviation Survey 2007

CrossPoint,

Thanks for answering.

Could I kindly ask you again to back up the basic assumptions you make
about risk flying in Europe (you implicitly state it is higher than
elsewhere), about mid-airs (you implicitly state they are a high risk
compared to others in aviation) and about a causal correlation between
airspace infringement and mid-airs (you say the former is a "major
cause" of the latter)?

I think you are wrong on ALL those points. Can you prove them?

FWIW, the page at Eurocontrol's website about their infringement
initiative doesn't make that last connection at all. They simply see
infringements as a risk per se. They also grade infringements in a
scheme where about 40 percent are deemed a "significant" or higher
risk."Major" and "serious" incidents, however, are still very rare. I
couldn't find the Eurocontrol definitions of these classifications with
a quick search. Nowhere on that page are mid-airs even mentioned, only
"potential risks" and other rathervague descriptions.

To be clear, I think there might indeed be too many infringements.
Although, we're talking about slightly over 4 per day on average in all
of "the busy European skies" - hmm! I also agree they can be a risk.
However, to portrait them as "a major cause" for mid-airs is travesty -
especially in the light of the fact that a much more "major cause" of
mid-airs might at least partly be the group your employer belongs to.
I'm talking about controller error. While most mid-airs are probably
caused by pilot error, airspace infringement has nothing to do with it
- again, feel free to prove me wrong.

So please understand that the whole "infringement initiative" seems a
little dubious. If you say that "the overall survey is developed based
on the requirements that we have", after looking at it, I have to say I
find that easy to believe - in a very ironic way.

After all, what magic "solution" to this "problem" might an ATC
organisation like Eurocontrol possibly come up with? Could it be fewer
controlled and restricted airspace? Well, if you think so, I've got a
bridge to sell you...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Larry,

Here's a memorable MAC in which a USAF pilot entered Tampa Class B
airspace with ATC clearance resulting in fatally disintegrating a
Cessna 172 and it's ATP rated pilot:


Actually, from scanning the report quickly, while the F-16s did
infringe airspace, the collision itself seems to have happened outside
that airspace after the infringement. Did I read it incorrectly?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 17:30:14 +0200, Thomas Borchert
wrote in
:

After all, what magic "solution" to this "problem" might an ATC
organisation like Eurocontrol possibly come up with?

Converting all European airspace to Class A? :-(

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
CrossPoint,

Thanks for answering.


So please understand that the whole "infringement initiative" seems a
little dubious. If you say that "the overall survey is developed based
on the requirements that we have", after looking at it, I have to say I
find that easy to believe - in a very ironic way.

After all, what magic "solution" to this "problem" might an ATC
organisation like Eurocontrol possibly come up with? Could it be fewer
controlled and restricted airspace? Well, if you think so, I've got a
bridge to sell you...

Airspace infringement might be a risk but the biggest risk is loss of
separation which is nearly always an issue with CAT and not GA.

What is an issue is the lack of consistency with airspace designations, an
example, widespread us of say class E in France and none in the UK. So
leaving French airspace you go from class E to either class G or class A
depending on altitude. In this case we are talking about 5500ft before
hitting class A.

Crosspoint,

The survey seems to be of the "when did you stop beating your wife type" in
that the questions originate from an incorrect premise. As such it is
difficult to complete in a way that gives meaningful results.

If your brief is to provide a set of results to fit an already predetermined
view, then it is clear from the questions about whatthat predetermined view
is.

For example, the best way to reduce the risk of airspace infringements would
to be make it possible for more European GA pilots to have instrument
ratings. A system which requires then to undertake a formal course of study
at an approved training organisation and do either the 8 written exams for
just the IR ($1000 just for the exam fees) or take all 14 for the ATPL (and
pick up the commercial licence too) means that pilot development is
restricted and that is the major danger.

Your study fails to address the underlying issues. Whether Eurocontrol want
more private pilots flying in their system of course is another matter.


SG

"CrossPoint" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 3 Àâã, 17:30, Thomas Borchert wrote:
CrossPoint,

Ok, so Eurocontrol links from their site directly to yours, so I assume
you're legit.

However, I have now tried doing the survey - and I have to say I am
aghast! In my job, I have to evaluate surveys on a regular basis. I
have never seen anything as badly designed as this one. "Give your best
guess how often this and that could/might lead to this and that"???
What kind of questions are those? What you are asking for is
preconception, prejudice and mythology. That's supposed to lead to
scientific results? Also, with my criticism regarding your
preconceptions in the introduction to the survey in my previous post in
mind, it is qite clear to me that you are operating on a basis where
your mind is made up already. You don't want to find reality, you want
to assure your assumptions.

And to think this is all paid for by my taxes and/or user fees!

BTW, I'd be really surprised if you ever got back to this forum after
dumping your OP. But I'd be very interested in your answers.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Dear Thomas,

Thank you for you fair oppinion.

However I must say that the overall survey is developed based on the
requirements that we have and based on different analysis made by well
known institutions like NLR in additional to a lot of experience and
good practices accumulated from the European states.

Therefore it is a personal choise to fill or not the survey. Personaly
I will very greatful to receive as many as possible oppinions
therefore I posted my letter here.

Vladimir

On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 09:00:05 +0100, "S Green"
wrote in
:

Whether Eurocontrol want more private pilots flying
in their system of course is another matter.

Isn't Eurocontrol a contractor for privatized air traffic control in
Europe? If so, it's not 'their system,' is it? They work for the
nations who 'own' the systems, right?

In article ,
"S Green" wrote:

Crosspoint,

The survey seems to be of the "when did you stop beating your wife type" in
that the questions originate from an incorrect premise. As such it is
difficult to complete in a way that gives meaningful results.

If your brief is to provide a set of results to fit an already predetermined
view, then it is clear from the questions about whatthat predetermined view
is.

For example, the best way to reduce the risk of airspace infringements would
to be make it possible for more European GA pilots to have instrument
ratings. A system which requires then to undertake a formal course of study
at an approved training organisation and do either the 8 written exams for
just the IR ($1000 just for the exam fees) or take all 14 for the ATPL (and
pick up the commercial licence too) means that pilot development is
restricted and that is the major danger.

Your study fails to address the underlying issues. Whether Eurocontrol want
more private pilots flying in their system of course is another matter.


SG

"CrossPoint" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 3 Àâã, 17:30, Thomas Borchert wrote:
CrossPoint,

Ok, so Eurocontrol links from their site directly to yours, so I assume
you're legit.

However, I have now tried doing the survey - and I have to say I am
aghast! In my job, I have to evaluate surveys on a regular basis. I
have never seen anything as badly designed as this one. "Give your best
guess how often this and that could/might lead to this and that"???
What kind of questions are those? What you are asking for is
preconception, prejudice and mythology. That's supposed to lead to
scientific results? Also, with my criticism regarding your
preconceptions in the introduction to the survey in my previous post in
mind, it is qite clear to me that you are operating on a basis where
your mind is made up already. You don't want to find reality, you want
to assure your assumptions.

And to think this is all paid for by my taxes and/or user fees!

BTW, I'd be really surprised if you ever got back to this forum after
dumping your OP. But I'd be very interested in your answers.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Dear Thomas,

Thank you for you fair oppinion.

However I must say that the overall survey is developed based on the
requirements that we have and based on different analysis made by well
known institutions like NLR in additional to a lot of experience and
good practices accumulated from the European states.

Therefore it is a personal choise to fill or not the survey. Personaly
I will very greatful to receive as many as possible oppinions
therefore I posted my letter here.

Vladimir

I noted that "poor airspace design" is a prime cause of problems, in
multiple cases.

In article ,
Airbus wrote:

In article ,
says...


Crosspoint,

The survey seems to be of the "when did you stop beating your wife type" in
that the questions originate from an incorrect premise. As such it is
difficult to complete in a way that gives meaningful results.


I couldn't agree more. Your analogy is apt.
I looked at the survey, started to reply (because I fly in Europe) but
quickly
felt I was being led into a trap, laid more by ineptitude than anything else.

Well meaning pilots might reply by clicking the "minimum" proposed incident
occurrence, however this is several orders of magnitude above the real risk,
which means the compiled result will be a wild distorsion of the reality.
This
is a grotesque disservice to those who wish to participate in good faith.

This survey is a meaningless contribution, and an insult to any who take
aviation saftety seriously. Not only should it be boycotted, but Eurocontrol
should be alerted and called to order on this issue of charlatanism and
intellectual bankruptcy . . .

I regret to use such harsh words, but this thing really stinks!

That is why "poor airspace design" should be mentioned as often as
possible. The "one size fits all," standard cookie cutter approach to
airspace design inhibits safety more than alleged "poor pilot training."

In article ,
says...


Crosspoint,

The survey seems to be of the "when did you stop beating your wife type" in
that the questions originate from an incorrect premise. As such it is
difficult to complete in a way that gives meaningful results.


I couldn't agree more. Your analogy is apt.
I looked at the survey, started to reply (because I fly in Europe) but quickly
felt I was being led into a trap, laid more by ineptitude than anything else.

Well meaning pilots might reply by clicking the "minimum" proposed incident
occurrence, however this is several orders of magnitude above the real risk,
which means the compiled result will be a wild distorsion of the reality. This
is a grotesque disservice to those who wish to participate in good faith.

This survey is a meaningless contribution, and an insult to any who take
aviation saftety seriously. Not only should it be boycotted, but Eurocontrol
should be alerted and called to order on this issue of charlatanism and
intellectual bankruptcy . . .

I regret to use such harsh words, but this thing really stinks!