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)

I don’t think they didn’t send him to GASCo because he posts on forums, it’s probably because the response to the MOR made it clear that the issues were understood and there would be little point sending someone to GASCo on the first offence especially when their report shows that they actually do understand airspace.

Andreas IOM

That’s what I tried to convey – that there were precise, well understood causes, which included some decisions that might have facilitated the infringement happening.

As i initially said, I never saw anyone even suggest something like a quid pro quo, I just wanted to be very clear on the details.

Noe – I think the point is that if you compare yours and Peter’s write ups the outcome are very different, which at least on the face of it suggests another explanation.

Many solve it by flying non txp and non-radio, but if I do that I lose the TCAS functionality.

Would it be safer to, perhaps inadvertently, change the ICAO address in your transponder from A0375B to, say, A34CE9 or C00DF4?

Glenswinton, SW Scotland, United Kingdom

There’s a piece in the current AOPA magazine from a member sent on the GASCO course, who likened his infringement to a tennis ball landing on the boundary line. He wasn’t sure which way the umpire would decide.
Alas it was not “out” it was in……

Egnm, United Kingdom

Fuji_Abound wrote:

Noe – I think the point is that if you compare yours and Peter’s write ups the outcome are very different

Peter did say that in both occasions his writeup was rather short of the “oops sorry” variety rather than the longer analytical writeup that Noe supplied, and it was Peter’s second rodeo when he was sent to GASCo (versus Noe’s first). To my mind these entirely explain the different outcomes.

If you show evidence that you understand exactly why the infringement occurred and have analysed it, it was minor, and it was the first offence, it’s pretty easy to see why they wouldn’t send you to GASCo (as the evidence shows you are already aware of the things the GASCo course is supposed to be teaching). There’s a lot of focus on GASCo being a “punishment” when I don’t think it’s intended to be one. If we make the assumption that GASCo is a good faith education effort and not a punishment, then why send someone on the course who has demonstrated already that they understand the issues, especially for a first offence?

Last Edited by alioth at 08 Oct 09:17
Andreas IOM

I think we all already understand the issue which is “don’t infringe,” and we don’t need to be educated “to not do it”

Anyone would see a £200 cost, plus travelling costs, plus accommodation, plus loss of earnings, plus hassle, as a punishment for a mistake and not as (unnecessary) education, and no amount of sanctimonious utterances to the contrary will make them see things differently.

If they want to educate us about the secret of never making a mistake, well, good luck with that.

Last Edited by flybymike at 08 Oct 10:29
Egnm, United Kingdom

Flybymike – I think you are absolutely correct, it is very difficult to see GASCo as anything other than a punishment.

Why?

It is inconvenient,
It is costly (by the time you take into account all the costs)
There is no engagement with the attendees (I gather any discussion is firmly resisted)
and the attendees are treated rather as naughty children might be by self serving lecturers who, if they are to be believed, have very little understanding of real world GA.

Compare and contrast with the “treatment” meated out to professional pilots,

Sim sessions at the company’s and pilot’s convience,
No cost to the pilot,
An engaging and professional enviroment in which discussion is positively encouraged

It is a policy of them and us, by people who have no understanding of GA and have entirely sold their soles to commercial pressures and filling the coffers of a dubious charitable organisation that now makes more money out of running courses than anything else.

It is a policy that lacks any sembelance of transaprency, or any proven record of safety, and which is fundamentally flawed.

In contrast the bastions of GA standards are and should be the instructors and examiners based around the country that are regulated and standard set by the CAA. These are the folk that should be in charge of re-education as and when required.

What an appalling situation that the CAA cant trust its own instructors and examiners. Clearly more lessons that could be learned from FAA land.

We really are run by a bunch of self serving bureacrats, who I doubt have any real experience of proper GA operations.

Yet another rant over.

I have to remark on the irony of those entrusted by the CAA to educate and inform (examiners and instructors) themselves making up a fair proportion of the course attenders. (Two of them on the AOPA course referred to above)
If proof were needed that infringements are an unavoidable consequence of human fallibility, this has to be it.

Egnm, United Kingdom

This is the article mentioned

Apologies for the low resolution, but it is readable.

It looks the same as the one I did.

They show the same videos of busts done by a tiny number of pilots who were hopelessly lost. The education value of these videos is close to zero.

One’s personal mistake(s) is not discussed, which is a missed opportunity, though it could be intentional to avoid raising inconvenient issues like ATC taking a long time to get back with a Y or N (a factor in many busts including those of several people I spoke to there).

Notably this pilot – unless he omits to mention a “previous” – seems to have got Gasco on his first infringement.

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

Back to Top