A couple of items came my way today.
US project for a predictive version of CAIT which suggests that the software the UK uses is actually more widespread.
Eurocontrol study of infringements which pretty well avoids blaming it on pilots.
Eurocontrol Part III (2006) can be found here, Peter.
https://skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/127.pdf
This report includes the following observation concerning the usefulness of data gathered from infringements in order to develop mitigation strategies -
“…to be in position to subsequently propose mitigation actions, more information is needed on the circumstances in which the incidents happened – and ideally, as to why an airspace infringement occurred.
The “why?” question is probably the most difficult to answer as there is, in most cases, one major ‘actor’ missing: the infringing pilot. Indeed, information on what happened in the cockpit could provide clues on the causes of an airspace infringement. In fact, it is deemed crucial to have his or her story as to why an airspace infringement occurred, in order to propose the appropriate risk-mitigation actions.
But information from the cockpit is hard to get since a large number of airspace infringements are generated by ‘unknown traffic’. For those which have been identified, but did not constitute a danger to other traffic, an in-depth investigation is rarely performed, i.e. the infringing pilot is usually not interviewed. At best, a written statement by the pilot is available.” (p. 8)
A summary of all Eurocontrol’s research was presented in 2013 and can be found here -
http://www.inac.pt/SiteCollectionDocuments/Eventos/2013/1_EUROCONTROL_Airspace_Infringement.pdf
Apologies for the links but I haven’t yet worked out how to link a local copy.
Best wishes
Mike
You can drag/drop images and PDFs onto the page.
There is a 2hr edit window also.
I normally localise PDFs I see (because most links go dead pretty fast) but often I miss them if busy, etc.
Strange – the 2013 paper link doesn’t seem to work. I will find another way to link and post it again.
Regards
Mike
Try this -
https://www.anac.pt/SiteCollectionDocuments/Eventos/2013/1_EUROCONTROL_Airspace_Infringement.pdf
Regards
Mike
Local copies of above PDFs:
The 2nd one has this list of causal factors
How different from the UK… here there is no such thing as “honest mistake” for example. Every infringement means the pilot is busted. No “honest mistake” mitigation. Well, the ones they cannot stuff into the Gasco course (Gasco capacity is about 20/month) get a warning letter and a black mark which stays on their record for ever, to make sure they get sent down to Gasco the next time.
I am not surprised to see these European initiatives being so different. I have had contacts with ATC outside the UK and they indeed do it differently. They do it more or less the way the UK used to do it until the current “hit them” policy arrived maybe 2 years ago.
Peter – I know it is not your intention, but I dont think for a moment this is an ATC problem – it is a problem with the regulator caving into commercial pressures and being to weak to to stand up for the interests of GA.
What does “unfavourable attitude towards VFR flights” mean In this context?
flybymike wrote:
What does “unfavourable attitude towards VFR flights” mean In this context?
FBM, the answer can be found in the Part II analysis (link in Peter’s post 1510 above) which summarises the discussions about pilot/ATC interactions thus:
“Another major finding of the survey is the general perception in the pilot community of a
rather unfavourable attitude towards VFR flights, as opposed to the priority and services
given to IFR traffic and commercial flights. Such an attitude could be a major contributor to
inadequate controller-pilot communication, which has been identified as a major point of
concern of VFR pilots.”
Regards
Mike
Well, that this exists is completely blindingly obvious 
It isn’t really ATC’s fault. It’s the way the system is set up.
IFR (Eurocontrol, etc) traffic has an implied whole-route clearance. In the event of loss of comms you are entitled to fly all the way as filed, fly the approach, and land.
VFR traffic has zero entitlement to do anything whatsoever. If ATC chooses to not clear you, you have to take care of yourself, without a clearance anywhere and potentially in a manner which doesn’t involve ATC. This can be perceived as an unfriendly system (and it is; quite often pointlessly so) but it is basically a political quid pro quo for the deregulation of OCAS flight.
The whole world of aviation (well, except the 3rd World of which quite a lot is IFR-only) is set up to run these two very different models, with much increased difficulty of acquiring the paperwork etc to be able to fly IFR. This will never change.
One could frequently argue that ATC should offer much easier clearances to VFR traffic but that’s a whole different argument which in the present climate will always fall on deaf ears. Some countries do it much better than others; for example France has a rather smooth system, but then France has a fraction of the traffic density of the UK, plus a much more joined-up ATC system which the UK will never have.
So, yeah, this is at the centre of the whole infringements debate, because IFR traffic cannot infringe. Actually, it can but I don’t think [the CAA man who threatened legal action if his widely known name is posted here] has ever busted anybody who came off an IFR flight and briefly re-entered CAS during the descent, after leaving it. If he has, it would be really interesting to hear about it
In Europe, the wide gulf between the two systems, and the correspondingly vastly better ATC service under IFR in the Eurocontrol system, is the main reason for getting the IR. It isn’t that you can fly in cloud; you can indeed, but you do that on a VFR flight (illegally)
