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)

Peter refers to the number of “infringements.” Timothy refers to “reported infringements.”

I thought we had established that reported infringements had increased because of CAA instructions to do so, and the inclusion of previously ignored infringement areas. This does not mean that overall infringements are not in fact decreasing.

It’s interesting to note that DfT acknowledge “course filling” to make up numbers during relatively quiet infringement periods, thus resulting in inequitable treatment of offenders.

So why keep resurrecting the thread?

Like Peter, I’m happy to see it maintain a high profile.

Last Edited by flybymike at 04 Oct 22:57
Egnm, United Kingdom

Another reason for increased reporting is new airspace. This takes two forms – literally new airspace like the Hawarden RMZ and airspace that was not previously (much) reported like ATZs and DAs.

I thought this morning’s infringement update from the CAA somewhat telling. Focusing so much attention on the barely noticeable infringement between Bagshot Mast and Bagshot VRP seems to me to be a PR error on the CAA’s part, as I will tell them at our next meeting.

EGKB Biggin Hill

That’s a gap I don’t think I would ever risk flying between these days.

Egnm, United Kingdom

For the avoidance of doubt, I think the point made is that we appear to now live in a culture where every infringement, however minor and of whatever nature, is encouraged to be reported. Hence, compared with times past, when this was not the case, it appears the number of infringements is on the rise, when in fact they are not. Moreover, it is probable that as GA activity has decreased, and its unlikely to be the case that pilots have become worse at navigation, the infringement rate has really fallen.

In fact if the CAAs initiatives and training requirements were having any effect at all, it should have fallen even further, because we know the pilot population is refreshed with new pilots much more quickly than you might expect, by the rapidity with which many pilots give up.

All in all there is nothing worse than a regulator that is prepared to distort vital safety data to suggest a trend in one direction when in fact almost certainly that trend is not so.

Why you would think or justify anything different is beyond me, but I would love to hear a contrary argument.

I could publish the letter (it is official so no reason not to) but I would not regard it as good courtesy.

The notable bits of note in it are

  • the Head of Domestic Aviation Safety at the DfT, Jonathan Barlow, is firmly behind [the well known CAA infringements chief, ex RAF ATC, who threatened legal action if his name is mentioned on EuroGA] and this is quite interesting in itself, because it may mean the new CAA bust-them-all policy came from the DfT, ~2 years ago
  • he believes actual infringments are rising (prob99 someone not involved in GA, given that the decline is so obvious)
  • he confirms the punishment policy has of necessity a seasonal variation (well, we knew that, see past 1300 posts, but some still dispute it)

There are general comments about the 2050 Green Paper, EC, etc.

He suggests that anyone unhappy about the Gasco route should use the CAA’s official complaints procedure!

Where is this morning’s CAA update? The usual site still shows August.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Thanks. Local copy.

Funny they are suggesting talking to Farnborough 125.25, when doing so does precisely nothing whatsoever for what happens to the pilot who infringes even for seconds.

In fact he is more likely to get busted talking to ATC, because he identifies himself. This point is not lost on many, judging from how much non radio traffic is flying around there.

I have totally stopped flying around the LTMA, below the 4500ft parts. Too risky. I would rather drive. But many don’t have that option; they are based under there.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

I have totally stopped flying around the LTMA, below the 4500ft parts. Too risky

That seems a bit extreme.

Andreas IOM

Timothy wrote:

I thought this morning’s infringement update from the CAA somewhat telling

Is this infringement report published?

Andreas IOM

I meant not under the 1500 2500 3500 parts.

Also only do flights which can be flown at a single level all the way.

The cost of a high profile

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top