Peter wrote:
I wonder if this discussion of UK DA legality should go into a new thread?
I think it is perfectly reasonable to discuss whether the amount of UK airspace of various kinds designated for military use should not be scaled back somewhat to reflect our much-reduced military activity. We have very few ships and very few aeroplanes these days, and I doubt that the British Army throws as much stuff into the sky on Salisbury Plain as it used to.
As a starting point, perhaps the active status of most of these danger areas should be ‘by NOTAM’ rather than ‘every day’.
Does anyone know of any fatal or serious accidents caused by airspace infringements?
I raised this, with some gusto, at a GASCo Council Meeting in Farnborough when they were first shown.
I wasn’t shouted down, but I was ignored.
I agree that it’s a ridiculous claim. If they put in the word “risk” or “potential” then there is an argument for it.
Timothy wrote:
But it also raises, slightly tangentially, the whole question of Policing by Consent. If there is a view that some/many Danger Areas are not really dangerous, then of course people will infringe them, just like people break other rules and laws that they don’t think make sense.
Babypilotmedium
Timothy
EGKB Biggin Hill
but is there any evidence that pilots think that? I doubt it very much. DAs are infringed because pilots arent aware they are there, or are aware they are but make an error in navigation. I simply cnat imagine anyone flying intentionally throgu a danger area on the premise that it might not be active. (Of course there will always be the odd exception).
Timothy wrote:
I wasn’t shouted down, but I was ignored.
Now there is a recognised tactic 
Graham wrote:
I saw this poster yesterday.
I’m astonished that anyone could put that out with a straight face and believe it. I’ve not been on the course so can’t comment but it would not fill me with confidence having seen claims like that.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
I simply can’t imagine anyone flying intentionally through a danger area on the premise that it might not be active.
I can. There are plenty of people who will do less safe things in aviation because it is permitted. Very low flying over the sea (even wheel skimming) might be an example, but I am sure we can think of many more.
For example, someone above said “it’s only small-arms fire”. Bisley has a Danger Area up to 1200’. Having shot at Bisley many times, it is inconceivable to me that there is any danger to passing light aircraft at, say 1000’. I mean, what would have to happen for a bullet to hit that aircraft? The authorities and clubs are hyper safety conscious and the chances of a bullet straying out of the range are minuscule. Then, having strayed, the chances of it hitting a passing aircraft are virtually impossible. Then the chances of one .762 bullet doing serious damage to the aircraft are very small (cf. Battle of Britain)
Given the small but very real risks that we are willing to accept every time we fly – engine failure, spar cracks, whatever – is it inconceivable that someone is going to risk flying over Bisley at 1000’?
That poster above is a totally outrageous lie, but does not surprise me, coming from the “charity” called Gasco which gets most of its income from running “infringement punishment” courses (they have little educational value; I did one myself) for the CAA…
The funny thing is that anybody who has the slightest connection with aviation will immediately recognise it as a lie. So how did this get past anybody in charge?
Well, I suppose there are “charities” out there printing leaflets saying the world was created in 7 days (or was it 6?) so this is no worse
Isn’t it funny that EuroGA, despite being a European forum, is the only forum on which this UK stuff is being discussed? Discussions were shut down on the one UK site (by its owner) and get shut down on FB, AFAICT by a “CAA presence” which sends PMs to people inviting them to a private discussion.
Timothy wrote:
Given the small but very real risks that we are willing to accept every time we fly – engine failure, spar cracks, whatever – is it inconceivable that someone is going to risk flying over Bisley at 1000’?
No, its not, which is why I said there will always be the exception. As someone said earlier for the more heinous examples there is always the “endangerment” catchall which might well cover the wheel skimming as your example, presumably otherwise not illegal, if conducted over some loch in Scotland a few miles away from the shore in all directions and without anyone paddlig across.
Never mind GASCo, there are some truly lovely CAA and NATS quotes regarding airspace infringement and its consequence – I think I mentioned one or two earlier. Isnt there a particulalry lovely one about the billions (not millions) of pounds it costs the industry.
Timothy wrote:
For example, someone above said “it’s only small-arms fire”. Bisley has a Danger Area up to 1200’. Having shot at Bisley many times, it is inconceivable to me that there is any danger to passing light aircraft at, say 1000’. I mean, what would have to happen for a bullet to hit that aircraft? The authorities and clubs are hyper safety conscious and the chances of a bullet straying out of the range are minuscule. Then, having strayed, the chances of it hitting a passing aircraft are virtually impossible. Then the chances of one .762 bullet doing serious damage to the aircraft are very small (cf. Battle of Britain)
Likewise. I am no longer a member at any of the Bisley-based clubs as I live too far away for it to be practical, but I do recall thinking that it was just an enormous safety buffer. Rule 1 on the longer ranges was that you keep the barrel parallel to the ground (or lower) if the breech is closed.
And as a point of largely irrelevant detail, it is 7.62mm. I don’t think .762 (inches) is an actual calibre, but if it were it is certainly big enough to do a fair bit of damage!
Graham wrote:
And as a point of largely irrelevant detail
Yeah, but not so irrelevant as not to be worth saying, eh? 
