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 wrote:

The pattern I have heard over many years is that almost nobody (outside the UK) is enforcing minor CAS busts but there is sporadic enforcement of restricted etc areas.

That may be because in such cases enforcement (or pressure for enforcement) comes from outside the aviation sector?

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 25 Nov 17:22
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Timothy wrote:

I wish it were possible for more people to read more reports.

Could these reports not be de-identified and made public?

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 25 Nov 17:23
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Perhaps that is because instructors and examiners themselves make up a significant percentage of those required to attend the courses, proof if it were needed that infringements are in virtually all cases caused by inadvertent human error and not by carelessness or recklessness.

Yes. A number of instructors and one CAA IR examiner were on the Gasco course. Although “error” can be equated with “carelessness”, by those with an agenda to punish.

Recklessness is very rare… well unless you say that not using GPS is reckless Whoops, how are PPLs taught to navigate??

In short the problem will never be eliminated, it is part of the human condition.

Exactly, but the powers to be in the UK aren’t going to accept that.

That may be because in such cases enforcement (or pressure for enforcement) comes from outside the aviation sector?

In France for sure – the military guarding the nuclear and other sites get pretty aggressive. In the UK, the military don’t really own any airspace; there are occassional active DAs, and then there are R and P areas which are a no-go but they are rare.

I wish it were possible for more people to read more reports. It might change some perspectives.

It would also make the CAA look really dishonest, taking substantial annual fees from flying schools and examiners, for delivering a product/service which is so unsuitable for its purpose that anybody who flies “as taught” and does any reasonable number of hours, in the south east UK, is virtually certain, under the current CAA “bust them all” policy, to have their license removed within a couple of years. The only way to avoid that is to fly with one’s eyes glued to the GPS, avoiding the maze of CAS, ATZs, DAs, you name it. Or, of course, turn off the transponder.

You get the same problem when trying to get the CAA to do something about a dodgy maintenance company. They don’t like to do anything unless somebody died in a crash.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Airborne_Again wrote:

Could these reports not be de-identified and made public?

I think that there are two reasons why not.

  1. Too much disidentification would take out all the learning points and if you don’t disidentify enough people get (quite rightly) upset. Who wants to tread that path?
  2. You can’t look at half a dozen selected ones, to get a picture you have to look at hundreds. Who wants to do that?
EGKB Biggin Hill

To err is human, to forgive is divine – neither of which is Air Force policy.

All too appropriate, I feel.

EGLM & EGTN

Timothy wrote:

Far from it, I’m afraid (and very sadly.) Quite a few are the result of the instructor/examiner not intervening (sometimes quite recklessly) when they can see that there might be an infringement, often it’s simply planning to get too close and very often it’s a similar set of causes to non-instructors, just lack of attention.

Instructors and examiners are not gods, they have feet of clay.

Sadly this shows a complete lack of understanding of how professional oversight operates.

It is to argue that every sim qualified training instructor could never make a mistake when flying, or every solicitor that sits on the disciplinary board is incapable of appearing before the board him or herself.

The real point is that those suitably qualified have demonstrated the skills and training to provide the oversight that they are entitled to do. The real point is these people are actively involved in the industry they serve. The real point is that these people are often (I accept not always) current and active in their profession. It is very little different from why only a few posts back you were argueing you are better qualified to sit in hearing of another pilot.

The reality is we know nothing about the qualifications or experience of the GASCo instructors, because clearly this is a closely guarded trade secret. For all I know they may well be active GA pilots, but Lord knows, we arent told. They may even be instructors or examiners, that have regular exposure to pilots actually in command of an aircraft and who, are regularly in command of an aircraft themselves. For all I know, they have received the appropriate training to effectively deliver this course – although the evidence is that if they have, clearly they have chosen to totally ignore this training.

Everyone is capable of infringeing – you, me, the head of GASCo, the instructors on the GASCo courses (assuming they actually fly anywhere near CAS), the guy running the sim.

The fact that some instructors might end up attending the GASCo course themselves will only make them better at delivering the training required.

I regularly attend professional courses in both capacities, and I will tell you, everyone knows those who are delivering something of which they have no current experience – interest quickly wanes.

I am afraid this is a very good example of a totally flawed understadning of how training should and mostly is provided these days.

I have asked repeatedly tell us who the GASCo lecturers are – of course I dont mean names – what are their qualifications, are they active GA pilots, have they undertaken any educational training, are they active and current in GA training and examining? It really isnt difficult.

I have sat in on a number of CAT professional sim sessions and have had some detailed discussions with pilots who have been involved in various incidents that mandated sim validation by their company. In every case there is detailed discussion about the events that lead to and surrounded the incident, and a full and frank discussion about the circumstances for very obvious reasons. Everyone I have spoken to, or corresponded with, that has attended GASCo, has told me that any discussion during the course if forbidden. I can frankly imagine nothing more daming of the ability of GASCo to deliver this course effectively or of the CAA to excercise oversight of the course.

I would asked anyone interested, that hasnot done so, to look at the GASCo web – https://www.gasco.org.uk/

There are only two links – so it isnt difficult to follow the link to “Airspace Infringement Course”. Excellent, clearly here is a good opportunity for GASCo to provide some background to the course, the lecturers, its purpose, its achievements, infact anyhting that might inform and inspire confidence in the interested reader.

What do you get when you select the link?

Moreover, it may dawn on you that having given your personal details which they acknowledge will be added to their database, and perhaps after you have read the privacy policy, you realise they are storing this information electronically without giving any assurances as to with who and how the data might be used.

When perhaps you decide not to share this data with them and logout you are directed to this web;

http://www.worxinfo.com/

presumably a commercial organisation that profess to being a data research network. Who knows how GASCo use the data they generally gather – we arent told.

you might even decide to have a look at the click down menu to gleen and understanding of what GASCo believes its business to be. You will read this;

“To collect, collate and disseminate flight safety information among users of UK registered general aviation aircraft. To study all matters affecting, or which might affect, flight safety in UK general aviation and to make recommendations to interested parties, as necessary.

In furtherance of these terms, GASCo publishes a quarterly magazine called ‘Flight Safety’ which is available for a small annual financial contribution to the Council’s funds. It contains articles and information on flight safety matters and analyses of the causes of flying accidents and incidents which are published in the expectation that they will help pilots and operators to avoid the misfortunes of others. (All copyrights acknowledged)"

I find it beyond a stretch as to how delivering these courses comes within GASCo’s mandate. The closest might just be to study all matters affecting flight safety information etc. Whether the purpose of the course could possibly be construed as a study of the pilots attending, I wonder?

No, we have an organisation that is a registered charity, but tells the public very little about itself, does not publish its own accounts on its web, but discloses amoung other sources it is funded by donations from the CAA, never mind the income it also receives under the terms of its contract with the CAA.

If I was one of the other GA representative organisations that donate to GASCo I would have to very seriously question whether it is appropriate to make donations to a charity that are so reluctant to disclose how they operate, their financial state of affairs and the terms by which they deliver the infringment course to GA. If I were the CAA, I would have to question whether this relationship is appropriate and satisfactory. I would have to question why they are accumulating funds. It has been said before – perhaps to move out of the cabin they occupy – but of course we arent told. Perhaps it is justified they should buy or rent offices on the back of the profits they are making from the Infringement Course – but of course we arent told, but yet doubtless they are very happy to accept our donations should we wish to make a donation.

No, this is a charity that would prefer to play its cards very close to its chest, be less than transparent as to its funding, sources of income, and its future intentions and unwilling to tell us anything about the Infringement Course that now provides a very substantial part of its total income. This is a charity that has NATS sit on its board as an observer, the very organisation that doubtless is the commercial arm behind insisting GA must be brought under control. Need one doubt GASCo’s vested interests.

Last Edited by Fuji_Abound at 25 Nov 20:47

Gasco accounts from companies house website (can’t remember if this has already come up):
application_pdf_pdf

Edit: source is https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04425086

Last Edited by Capitaine at 25 Nov 20:54
EGHO-LFQF-KCLW, United Kingdom

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

The obsessive attacks on GASCo are basically incorrect on so many levels I couldn’t imagine where to start responding and this site would do well to delete them less risk serious damage to credibility. They go far beyond any reasonable discussion or opinion.

Now retired from forums best wishes

The same goes for the process that resulted in their being contracted.

EGKB Biggin Hill
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top