Indeed; that report was posted earlier. It is a truly damning report on the UK airspace system, but I don’t know anybody who thinks it will be anything but totally disregarded.
Given the “politics is the art of the possible” constraint, I think that the only “possibly” achievable thing will be some changes to ATC services and the only “definitely” achievable thing is to drastically change the current mad CAA policy on busting pilots for the smallest mistakes.
I did some practical research on 6 July, routing south from Cumbernauld, between Glasgow and Edinburgh.
While talking to Scottish, and trying to set their squawk on a Trig, (which will be moved), I was told I’d infringed Edinburgh Class D.
I immediately dived and got out.
I received an email form, which I’ve filled in. I had paper maps, and was using Easy VFR/Airspace Avoid on two devices.
I have had no response since. I was under Scottish Law, and would probably chose court prosecution over paying a large fine.
Who sent you the form, and did you consider ‘taking the fifth’?
Did either of your GPS devices also think you had infringed?
I wonder what “a number” and “poor weather” really means. Presumably these are the type of generalisations used by someone who doesnt fly, especially when you read this 2016 FASVIG report local copy
and see the report on conditions.
That’s an interesting report, albeit from 2016. In particular:
… because that’s how the PPL is taught and examined more or less everywhere
… not gonna be popular because every nav software vendor has produced their own database and the last thing any of them want is a really low barrier to entry 
… clearly, the CAA has zero interest in anybody learning from anything. They just want to punish people, in the belief that it will stop them doing it again (but strangely they wanted to keep the policy details secret from GA at large). So e.g. the Gasco course has zero discussion of what the delegate did and how it could be avoided
… there is some truth in that but equally this is an area where ATC is often complicit in the bust, by establishing a dialogue and saying “standby” and then not getting back. Often they simply forget about you totally. This is ok if you are disciplined and at say 5nm you execute Plan B (usually a sharp dogleg, by then, often diving into IMC below) but if you do this with lots of pilots, you will catch some of them out. I have lots of such stories from pilots and have seen this myself a number of times.
… you just have to laugh
… that’s an interesting one. I’ve heard a number of times that the 3000ft/5000ft add-on is silly for piston GA because they can’t climb fast enough.
That will be the day… there is no Just Culture for GA pilots. They get busted by the CAA, unless they are either (flying as) CAA examiners, or solo students.
I have never met anyone personally who thinks it is OK to bust CAS. That there are such people may be true, at the fringes of GA (particular sub-communities, not mentioning any names but most know who they are, have such tendencies) and in another report (posted here previously) a Gasco employee was interviewed who said this and once that is said at that level, lots will believe it. At the “normal” GA level nobody thinks it is OK to bust, although great many fly non-TXP or Mode A to protect themselves from a brief mistake.
… wishful thinking; nothing proportional about CAP1404
… like most of the report, this is an excellent point, but for some reason it is resisted. For example people should be shown how to get notams, which is certainly important these days.
no comment…
That’s a good one but they would need to make CAS bigger by the same amount
Sad to hear this about UK! Would expect such a stupid approach from much southern/eastern authorities.
Experienced VFR pilots divide in two groups: those who already busted an airspace and those who never found out that they actually did.
I did bust airspace three times in my life, in different European countries. Twice, an apology over radio cured my mistake. Once I had to write a report, because I had a nearby airforce aircraft to intercept me. Neither of those incidents resulted in any fine – I guess because the authorities have seen a positive and responsible approach.
Penalising everybody sounds very unwise and if that is really the case, then shame on the UK CAA. They will have blood on their hands if some aircraft collide only because the mode s broadcasting will cease to be a universal habit for all. And one day they probably will.
I agree.
One interesting thing I have noticed is that there has been a very recent change of wording in the initial letter from the CAA which asks you to incriminate yourself supply the info on what you did.
They have added the words “in accordance with CAP1404”. Grammatically the said paragraph (which I won’t publish because it may be individual) doesn’t make much sense; it looks like the phrase was just inserted into the middle of it. And CAP1404 is so ambiguous anyway…
I reckon their lawyers have realised (probably from EuroGA) that this inducement to the pilot to self incriminate is going to make it hard to prosecute somebody should the pilot choose to exercise his legal rights and stick his middle finger up and force the CAA to prosecute him, this being the only way to get his side heard.
The funny thing is that this legal aspect has been widely known for a number of years. I have no written evidence of this but have heard that people who have done serious busts (shutting an airport down, etc) and who thus get considered for a prosecution, don’t receive the letter asking for the info. That would make sense. This incidentally also means that the “prosecute” decision must be made even before the (normally very rapidly sent out) letter from NATS (also asking for self incriminating info) gets sent out, so there must be some very fast discussion between NATS and the CAA on the very day of the infringement, if it is a bad one. Or NATS have some rules from the CAA to refer to…
The CAA Shared Service Centre sent me the form. I had no intention of “taking the 5th”. I did not disagree with Scottish Information when told Edinburgh had contacted them, and immediately descended, steeply.
The small scale screen showed me possibly in Class D.
I was distracted setting transponder, which had been badly positioned, and moved to improve vision, but not far enough. That will be fixed.
There’s a 9 month history of maintenance arguments, from the Group forming to my buying two members out in March. The trip from Inverness to Turweston was for a strip and repaint. I kept clear of controlled airspace for the rest of the way.
I was using EasyVFR, (Airspace Avoid), which is free from the CAA, with free 4 weekly updates.
However, it again all boils down to the same question: if operating below or in the vicintiy of a certain piece of airspace, why does one not talk to them (here: Edinburgh Approach), but to someone “else” instead (here: Scottish Control)?
