Moving pilot busting to India would be fun. Those who subcontract software to India report it has to be re-done several times (to get it even half right), which would mean we would have to file several MORs for each bust and then would get several Gascos for each one 
Dealing occasionally with Indian call centres is enough for me. I had to tell one person recently that I genuinely could not understand a single word they had said. (and for the avoidance of doubt, the last thing I am is a racist before you complain :-)
chflyer wrote:
Where is the line drawn between enroute and approach?
Good question, and why draw a line at all? I cannot really think of any other reason than an urge to privatize. An airport is a “unit” sort of, and it can be owned and run by different persons. But, airports can be clustered within one TMA, they often are, and en-route flights can go between airports within the same TMA. This means the TMA also is an “essential public infrastructure”, but obviously isn’t defined that way. It’s a result of people pulling in different directions, and it all ends up with “something” that is not a result of reason, optimization and planning, but rather a mixed soup that the majority is equally satisfied or dissatisfied with. It’s all caused by privatization for the sake of privatization.
That is why Remote Towers are so fun in all this. RT only starts to make real sense when you can control many of them from one place. Because then you can optimize all of ATC in one single place, and for a lot less money. This is something the Air Force wants, it’s something the air ambulance wants and of course all the airlines. It’s something that benefits everyone, and privatization (ATC) of individual airports becomes irrelevant.
Norway control already is at one single place, and has been so for many years already. Soon all of ATC/information for TMA/TIA and CTR/TIZ also will be in one single place. It wouldn’t surprise me if CTR and TMA suddenly becomes re-defined to “essential public infrastructure”. Time will show, and lots of stuff can happen.
I got a reply from the DfT guy:
You state that contrary to my previous statement, Airspace Infringements are declining; the number of MORs (Mandatory Occurrence Reports) that have been received in the 12 months to August this year are shown in the table below, together with annual figures for the preceding years.
These occurrence numbers are in the face of fundamentally consistent recorded GA flying hours in the UK, of around 1 million per annum.
It is now absolutely clear that these people have really bought into the idea that somehow pilots are becoming more and more stupid.
The CAA is working extremely hard in both its regulatory and educational roles to reduce the incidence of infringements through messaging and enforcement activity. I am very pleased to say that the vast majority of airspace infringements are resolved to the satisfaction of both the pilot-in-command and the air navigation service providers, both of whom are at the sharp end of such events.
which is a pretty incredible statement.
As the consequences of infringement could ultimately be catastrophic, we must all ensure that we reduce the incidence and likelihood of such events. Each infringement event is categorised according to severity and the process laid down in CAP1404 followed consistently; patently, those who have previously and recently (sub 2 years) allowed their aircraft to stray into Controlled Airspace without warning or 2-way communications can expect to be offered additional training in reinforcement for the previously attended Airspace Infringement Awareness Course (AIAC). Only when all other options have been exhausted, or the severity of the incident be so great, will the CAA be forced into relevant regulatory action.
In parallel with the educational and regulatory roles exercised by the CAA, the newly adopted ‘Airspace Modernisation Strategy’ is in train and the initiatives laid down in that document (CAP1711) are clearly aimed at reducing the likelihood of airspace infringement events. A number of those work strands are aimed directly and specifically at the lower levels of UK airspace and those that operate within that height band. Indeed, the Secretary of State has placed greater emphasis on this particular work, making funds available to more-quickly review airspace classifications, and develop lower power, less costly, more portable electronic conspicuity equipment to enable airspace sharing through a process of integration rather than segregation. Such moves will ultimately, when combined with greater pilot awareness, reduce both the likelihood and incidence of airspace infringements. Ultimately, the aim of all of this effort is to reduce the risk of infringement to a tolerable level.
He also doesn’t believe that reporting has been improved:
Regarding your view that reporting numbers are inflated by enforced reporting, EU law applies again in this area – reporting is required by ANSPs and pilots in accordance with Regulation (EU) 376/2014. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1018 lays down a list of classifying occurrences in civil aviation to be mandatorily reported. Annex III, i10(b) requires reporting of airspace infringement including unauthorised penetration of airspace.
The UK’s work on airspace sharing, airspace infringement, increased conspicuity to reduce mid-air collision and overall modernisation is very well regarded across Europe; the CAA maintains a close working relationship with EASA to ensure actions taken in this country are not at odds with the general direction of travel continental Europe takes.
Either this chap is a lone voice in the DfT or maybe this whole mad initiative originated in the DfT.
The UK’s work on airspace sharing, airspace infringement, increased conspicuity to reduce mid-air collision and overall modernisation is very well regarded across Europe
Either there is a whole lot more to this story than meet the eyes, or the guy is very confused. Infringements was a hot topic for a short time some years ago, popped out from nowhere, but has since simply ran out into the sand. I haven’t seen updated statistics since that time, and no more talk. That doesn’t mean nothing has been done or nothing have been considered. My guess is it indeed had been considered, and the result is “no problem as long as we maintain the culture and procedures we already have”. What this all boils down to is to create an environment where ATC can assure safety for the least amount of work, hassle and stress to each ATC offiser, while maintaining a flexible airspace.
Anyway, that sentence doesn’t relate to reality at all IMO.
“Each infringement event is categorised according to severity and the process laid down in CAP1404 followed consistently; patently, those who have previously and recently (sub 2 years) allowed their aircraft to stray into Controlled Airspace without warning or 2-way communications can expect to be offered additional training in reinforcement for the previously attended Airspace Infringement Awareness Course (AIAC).”
I cant imagine there are many that arent in two way communication? (I appreciate there are a few).
Sadly, I can only conclude that whoever wrote that is totally out of touch with reality. Yet another pen pusher. God help us.
Either there is a whole lot more to this story than meet the eyes, or the guy is very confused
that sentence doesn’t relate to reality at all IMO.
Sadly, I can only conclude that whoever wrote that is totally out of touch with reality. Yet another pen pusher. God help us.
Precisely.
What is incredible is that somebody “in the system” can write this with a straight face, addressed to somebody who fairly obviously is somebody who hangs around GA and has two eyes and more than a couple of braincells behind them.
Peter wrote:
more than a couple of braincells behind them.
This may be the problem, but not for the GA individual… ( )
It is quite astonishing that this was put in writing though.
Reportedly GA activity is down, GPS usage is increasing, yet reported infringements are increasing and perceived as a life threatening problem. I’d like to know how their logic flows. I would have thought they would have to think about this in more depth than just; reports are up therefore there is an absolute increase in these events.
Infringements with loss of separation are actually going down steadily. The credit for that is very possibly due to FMC use.
What do you mean by FMC use?
