Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

National CAA policies around Europe on busting pilots who bust controlled airspace (and danger areas)

alioth wrote:

AFAIK Mode C resolution is 100 feet.

Yes, but Mode S is 25’

EGKB Biggin Hill

Neal’s report is completely outrageous – in effect a fine of a few hundred quid for a 9 second bust, which could not possibly have involved an actual loss of separation.

The result of this “leave the greatest foul taste in the mouth” policy is that the majority of UK GA, including most PPL schools, flies non-TXP or Mode A. As EuroGA frequently reminds us, this is a lot less common outside the UK, apart from specific communities which remain “below the radar” for other reasons and they achieve it simply by not using Mode S.

Timothy – your argument is a circular one. The criticality of the situation is caused by the ridiculous separation rules which operate against known-altitude traffic.

It’s like having a rule which says that traffic within 100nm of Gatwick is a loss of separation. Then one could write that anyone straying within 100nm of Gatwick is causing mayhem and imposing huge costs on airlines, etc.

I was invited onto one of these (UK) GASCO courses

The word “invited” is quite funny because if you decline the “invitation” they remove your license

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter,

What you are missing is that there is a world of difference between separating known traffic and separating traffic from unknown and therefore unpredictable traffic.

EGKB Biggin Hill

Rather than getting into a pointless argument, Timothy, I have contacted some people I know in ATC for the separation numbers, because that might produce a useful discussion.

Your point is a great one-liner for a NATS presentation but doesn’t stand up when you consider that e.g. somebody flying a dead straight line, on autopilot, and nips a corner of CAS, causing the above rule-induced ATC-driven total mayhem and meltdown, was hardly traffic with unknown intentions.

“We” make the rules we live by, so if we die by the rules, we have only ourselves to blame.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Timothy wrote:

What you are missing is that there is a world of difference between separating known traffic and separating traffic from unknown and therefore unpredictable traffic.

But you have to accept we’re making a rod for our own backs. The guy earlier who made a 35 foot nine second infringement, after being asked by an ATCO to fly within 100 feet of the base of CAS, seems like a bizarrely gross overreaction. What you say is perfectly acceptable in the context of some of the NATS videos of some busts, where someone bumbles through controlled airspace without talking to anyone on a random path for a significant period of time. The solution of always being >300’ below CAS doesn’t seem to be practical either due to places like the Manchester LLR and having ATCOs request you fly within 100’ of the base of the overlying CAS.

Andreas IOM

Peter wrote:

somebody flying a dead straight line, on autopilot, and nips a corner of CAS, causing the above rule-induced ATC-driven total mayhem and meltdown, was hardly traffic with unknown intentions.

It is precisely that. ATC has no access to where it has come from or where it is going. Probably the first the ATCO will know of it is when CAIT alarms.

EGKB Biggin Hill
Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

The rod for our backs is our colleagues who infringe controlled airspace. It is they who are in the wrong, not the CAA, NATS or the airlines.

As people have alluded to above, we are pretty certain that people who use VFR moving maps properly do not infringe (a vanishingly small proportion of reported infringements is by people who are actually using SkyDemon) and that if they use FMC codes the infringement can either be prevented or mitigated to the extent that it causes no real issues.

All we have to do, as a community, is to adopt moving maps (and, if necessary, this can be on a phone – not ideal but much better than nothing – so there are really no space/battery issues) and use them properly, together with FMC if possible, and the vast majority of the problem goes away. If you don’t have a transponder but do have a radio, then at least tune it to the FMC frequency so that ATC can can call you by position.

We should be working together as a community to stop this problem, not shouting and screaming and hoping it goes away.

EGKB Biggin Hill

people who use VFR moving maps properly do not infringe

Of course… if you navigate “properly” you will never be in the wrong place

I bet you that most people who bust CAS were indeed running SD, with a minority doing the WW1-style stuff which still lives on.

What is “FMC”?

Related to this topic is this old thread and it is worth noting that one can find a GPS which emits GPWS (“TAWS”) audio on a headset/speaker socket (allowing it to be wired into an intercom) but not one which emits CAS warnings out of the same socket. All you get is a beep on an internal speaker. With SD etc there are complicated ways of rigging up a bluetooth connection… which will work only on certain days of the week.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

I bet you that most people who bust CAS were indeed running SD

Whey hey! I am making so much money today!

I am the poor sod who has read every single MOR for every single infringement in 2016 and 2017 (I’ll be doing the same for 2018). I am bound by an NDA not to disclose any details, but I can safely tell you that barely any people using SD properly infringed.

Yes, some had it on the back seat, or with a flat battery, but very, very few had it on in line of sight.

EGKB Biggin Hill
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top