There was an incident at my club the other day. Stockholm TMC called and told us than an aircraft had infringed on Stockholm (Arlanda) TMA twice. It had been squawking 7000 and mode C but was not in radio contact with ATC. In the beginning, AFAIU, it was initially mostly annoying to ATC as it didn’t actually affect Stockholm/Arlanda traffic given its altitude. Later, however, it stopped mode C so arrivals/departures to Arlanda had to be vectored around it as its altitude was now unknown. The aircraft was followed on radar to a landing on our club airfield.
After reading the aircraft logs, we found a suspect, who immediately confessed. He wrote a very apologetic report which we passed on to the incident investigator at Stockholm TMC and that was it. Case closed.
I came to think of what I’ve read about rather draconic reactions of British authorities to airspace infringement, so I am curious: How would this have been handled in your country?
Pretty much the same, I suspect. Very very few people get prosecuted. Most get “re-educated”.
Arlanda would be the equivalent of Frankfurt in Germany. A stunt like this would have severe consequences. A criminal investigation would be started and the state attorney would most likely impose a hefty fine (up to 50 000 € depending on the consequences, most likely much below because 50k would be for the most severe case imaginable).
In addition to that all airlines that suffered financial damage (delay, go-around, holding) could ask for compensation.
In aviation, the German authorities expect professional behavior from all participants and the tolerance level is very low. This applies to the case above, infringing on some airspace without causing any disturbance usually gets you a verbal smack on the radio or you have to write down a telephone number for a lesson. Been there, done it.
Pretty much the same, I suspect. Very very few people get prosecuted. Most get “re-educated”.
I fear you’re quite optimistic Chris. Do you really think hovering around the Heathrow terminal area and then going blind on the transponder would get you “re-education” only?
Is it clear that the “going blind” was due to turning off mode C (because they realised suddenly where they were and wanted to escape) or was it due to the low altitude and the mode C no longer being picked up?
Here it would be handled very similar to the Swedish way.
I’ve always been troubled by the reports that the handling of a case is determined by the outcome rather than the action. Two pilots infringe along the same track on different days. One happens to cause diversions and delays, but the other luckily doesn’t cause (perhaps due entirely to luck, or perhaps due to time of the day or due to a different runway in use). Both made an “honest mistake” and there was no intention to infringe.
Why should one be treated differently to the other? Either they should both be treated harshly, or both compassionately. They both did the same thing; just the consequences, though no actions or knowledge of their own, were different.
I’ve always been troubled by the reports that the handling of a case is determined by the outcome rather than the action.
I guess pretty much everywhere there is a big difference between “attempted murder” and “murder”. Also there is a difference between DOU and DOU and running over a kid. The outcome always plays a major role when judging over one’s actions.
Why should one be treated differently to the other? Either they should both be treated harshly, or both compassionately. They both did the same thing; just the consequences, though no actions or knowledge of their own, were different.
The major difference is the amount of discretion the ATC guy has. If he’s in a really bad mood, he can get you fined for busting and empty piece of airspace by 100 meters. If you roam around the Frankfurt TMA impacting the flow of traffic, then the discretion ends. If the airline pilot files an incident, it’s even less positive for you.
Both made an “honest mistake” and there was no intention to infringe.
As a pilot, there are areas where you’re not allowed to make “honest mistakes”. Even in the US there are clear limits. Try making an honest mistake by flying over Washington DC.
It makes interesting reading and shows they are very lenient. Most CAS busts just get a bollocking.
I think some got more but they were rare.
The ones which get really hit are those who bust airshows with Red Arrows, and similar public stuff. But the one who get the biggest hits are illegal AOC cases.
Is it clear that the “going blind” was due to turning off mode C (because they realised suddenly where they were and wanted to escape) or was it due to the low altitude and the mode C no longer being picked up?
I don’t know.
Do you really think hovering around the Heathrow terminal area and then going blind on the transponder would get you “re-education” only?
Pretty much. I know of two cases that stopped traffic at Heathrow for a bit… in one case, the instructor involved also published a joint ATC / Pilot write-up of the incident as part of an ongoing anti-infringement initiative, which probably helped.
The CAA have a very simple attitude that the response to an honest mistake is training, and prosecute only deliberate action or outrageous cases of negligence. The attitude of the infringer is also important. The DO follow through on the training – as instructor, I re-trained an infringer a bit, and the CAA was (informally) in touch with the school to see how he was doing.
Later, however, it stopped mode C so arrivals/departures to Arlanda had to be vectored around it as its altitude was now unknown.
so I am curious: How would this have been handled in your country?
IANAATC 
but I suppose the unverified mode C readout would not have been used for separation in the first place.
There can be a problem with turning off Mode C: if you are flying Mode A or just non-TXP under the base of CAS, ATC has to assume you are below it.
This leads to a lot of clenched buttocks among ATC, especially in places like the Luton-Stansted gap (the red line)
where they have to assume the traffic is below 2500ft even if it is “about to collide” with an airliner.
I would think it is highly provocative if it looks it is done deliberately. I have met pilots who deliberately turn off their transponders due to this. One pilot (in s. Europe; a homebuilt aircraft) even offered me to do a photo session in CAS with transponders turned off.
