The guy who is in charge of infringements is no idiot
Of course he is not but if you read his widespread contributions on UK social media over the years, he is from the same mould as all his (mostly ex RAF) associates in going for the “the system is right, and court martial the bastards who break the rules” route.
He demanded the removal of his name from EuroGA even though it is totally public knowledge and is at the bottom of thousands of CAA PDFs, and did the same on FB (changing his name there after somebody mentioned he works for the CAA). It was all really comical.
A solution needs a totally fresh look by somebody outside the “NATS – CAA – RAF pension preservation ecosystem”.
The problem is that there probably isn’t a solution. Pilots will always bust CAS at some rate. CAS is very complex and there is always a certain level of distraction. You can reduce it by flying a preprogrammed route fully on autopilot, preplanned wholly at a single level. That is how I now do UK VFR. No sightseeing whatever and very few flights with passengers. In fact very little UK flying. But most UK GA isn’t going to do this. Most don’t have an autopilot and most enjoy sightseeing and most don’t fly abroad.
Of course the UK could just revert to how it used to be, which is how the rest of Europe does it. ATC give you a bollocking, for a minor bust. It worked for decades and it works today. The problem is that this ex RAF CAA pension preservation crowd works on the (false) premise that busts can somehow be eliminated and the way is to punish pilots. It doesn’t work and it isn’t ever going to work.
Peter wrote:
The problem is that there probably isn’t a solution.
Actaully Peter I think there is some really easy quick fixes. I recently flew all the way back from far Eastern Europe in an ultra light. VFR. I used one pressure setting all the way. QNH. If we adopted that then that would be what say 7% of busts eliminated straight away.
Peter wrote:
A solution needs a totally fresh look by somebody outside the “NATS – CAA – RAF pension preservation ecosystem”.
And I do wonder if this why we are stuck with QFE and RPS and I also suspect thas the origin of the dire content of the PPL TK to.
LeSving wrote:
This shows of utterly nuts the situation must be. 14 pages of “instructions” and examples for how to prevent infringes at one tiny little geographical location. Unbelievable!
I can only agree. It defies belief. Doesn’t anyone in the CAA realise that the need to produce such a document is in itself proof that their ATS system is not fit for purpose.
The preservation of QFE and RPS are both RAF driven, and the civilian authorities would dearly love to get rid of both, but there are good operational reasons why the RAF want them, and the RAF provide much ATSOCAS.
Peter wrote:
The problem is that this ex RAF CAA pension preservation crowd works on the (false) premise that busts can somehow be eliminated and the way is to punish pilots. It doesn’t work and it isn’t ever going to work.
Whenever you mention ex-RAF I ask myself how on Earth these people are still alive because my first thought is about pilots who flew in Battle for Britain 
Then I realized that RAF continued to exist after WWII providing continuous stream of ex-pilots ready to be employed in CAA.
The preservation of QFE and RPS are both RAF driven, and the civilian authorities would dearly love to get rid of both, but there are good operational reasons why the RAF want them, and the RAF provide much ATSOCAS.
I genuinely wonder why the RAF needs these? Do air forces elsewhere in Europe use
The 1st one seems useful if the pilot is
The 2nd seems useful if the pilot is looking for an obstacle clearance without any ability to get a QNH near (say within 50nm) where he is going.
Neither seems to have an obvious value, provided that the pilot has
Both appear to be incompatible with IFR procedures because all the published IAPs use QNH only.
They are also incompatible with the ability presumed for any pilot without an ejection seat: to perform a forced landing. You ain’t gonna have the QFE then.
What are the “good operational reasons”?
I was pondering the same questions as Peter. I don’t think the Luftwaffe uses anything other than QNH. I did a precision radar approach to Wittmundhaven AFB (ETNT) once, I’m fairly certain they gave us a QNH. Same at Diepholz AFB (ETND).
I’m also curious. What possible use is QFE or RPS to any pilot (with or without a brain)?
Just supposing that I’m about to land at Tignes and someone kindly tells me that QFE is 740 hectopascals… WTF am I supposed to do with that information?
Is there a polite Q-code for “thanks for telling me QFE/RPS but right now I have an airplane to fly and quite frankly it would be more useful to know which dog came second in the 8:35 at Gretna…?
Me too But then again, gliders use QFE, as well as meters and km/h. They probably have their reasons, but making less confusion wrt other traffic is definitely not one of those.
Timothy wrote:
but there are good operational reasons why the RAF want them, and the RAF provide much ATSOCAS.
Which are?
