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)

Good point Peter, although I guess they will just hang in there until Brexit and then they no longer have to adhere to it anyways?

Low-hours pilot
EDVM Hildesheim, Germany

The Withdrawal Act merges all this stuff into UK law, on the date of leaving. But, sure, there is going to be some flexibility

However, 49(3) is already the default position in UK law – see e.g. here.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

along the lines that a pilot who infringed airspace does not meet the requirements for holding a license (flying skills and theoretical knowledge).

I don’t think anyone would really think this makes much sense, but it is probably the result of an internal conversation with the legal team and asking them the question “what reason ought we to give if we want to suspend licences in these circumstances?”

Peter wrote:

The most likely reason for the lack of challenge is simple: Most pilots just want their license back ASAP and they don’t care if the process leaves a sh1tty taste in their mouth. You also see this in everyday business, where most busy businessmen will write a cheque to get the Revenue off their back, even if the challenge is obviously bogus.

We have seen this before much earlier in the discussion. Those who support the system have repeatedly said “none of this is unreasonable, but if you don’t like it then decline to participate in the process and go to court, that is your right”. It is a somewhat disingenuous suggestion though, because that course of action involves a very large bill and probably no flying for the foreseeable future. Even then, what are you actually challenging? The matter of whether or not you infringed, or whether the process/penalty under CAP1404 is proportionate and fair (whatever that means)?

The question that all this leads to is: Should the CAA have the power to suspend licences without due process? If so, why? If not, why not?

Clearly the provisional suspension of indefinite duration is open to abuse, or more accurately can be used as a deterrent to any challenge. Even the Police are constrained by a certain ‘piss or get off the pot!’ rule – they must either charge you or release you after a certain amount of time. Perhaps there should be a time limit on provisional suspensions, after say one month they must either lift it or prosecute? But of course a prosecution takes a lot of time, so what happens while that is going on?

CAP1404 makes these questions go away by giving pilots Hobson’s choice: accept your guilt and accept our summary justice or face the cost and uncertainty of prosecution. It is much like conditional offers of fixed penalty notices for speeding – waive your right to a hearing and get a known penalty rather than an unknown one. Overall, incentivising people to waive their right to a fair hearing is a not a concept I’m in favour of, though at least the Police cannot suspend your driving licence.

I have been invited in for one of the ‘little chats’ that have been alluded to and I’m fairly sure that the relevant people at the CAA know who I am, so if I infringe then I expect to have the book thrown at me. My best hope would probably be to proactively write about the infringment and investigatory process on here, giving them the opportunity for some good publicity as I write about how fairly I’ve been treated! ;-)

Last Edited by Graham at 30 Dec 12:07
EGLM & EGTN

Graham wrote:

Should the CAA have the power to suspend licences without due process? If so, why? If not, why not?

IMO What is done here is is to suspend licenses as part of a creative scheme designed to sidestep normal legal procedures. The “why not” therefore seems irrelevant because the UK CAA has compromised all their credibility regarding that question.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

probably the result of an internal conversation with the legal team and asking them the question “what reason ought we to give if we want to suspend licences in these circumstances?”

knowing full well that when they ask Kate Staples’ department for such an opinion they are asking the legal team which loses around 3/4 of all contested CAA prosecutions.

Glenswinton, SW Scotland, United Kingdom

The most likely reason for the lack of challenge is simple: Most pilots just want their license back ASAP and they don’t care if the process leaves a sh1tty taste in their mouth

It’s also a big failure of the various pilot representative groups in the UK. They really ought to be standing up for pilots as a body, where pilots can’t stand up individually for fear of repercussions or expense.

EIWT Weston, Ireland

Martin of AOPA UK fame sits on GASCo so is hardly likely to do anything, as usual he has hopelessly compromised his position. Moreover, this was an appoint AFTER GASCos involvement. AOPA members might like to asks AOPA UK’s stance on all this – their response would be interesting.

I doubt they’d have anything interesting to say.

Any organisation (or individual) can hide behind the disingenuous but good PR line of “all busts are very serious, something must be done, one bust is one too many”.

There is also the “be careful what you wish for, they could get much more strict” line.

EGLM & EGTN

Yes, but it would be kinda fun to see which one they pick.

Interesting new advice regarding infringements at Barton just released here.

https://airspacesafety.com/updates/

Use of QFE rather than QNH is specified, with pilots to report “height” on entry to the ATZ. Many pilots will not readily use QFE especially beneath CAS because of infringement risk of not using the local QNH.

More interestingly though is that simply listening out on the Barton frequency is no longer acceptable for the purposes of acquiring the necessary information to enter the ATZ, and entry without specific information delivered personally to you by the AFISO, or entering after being told to “stand by” without such chat, will apparently constitute an infringement.

This seems to amount to requiring a “clearance” to enter by any other name.

If applicable to all ATZs, and the implication is that it is, then does this mean that non radio aircraft may no longer land at any airfield with an ATZ even if previously arranged by telephone? (because the necessary information will not be up to date).

Might be advisable to record future radio calls, and expect to have to loiter about outside the ATZ until what is effectively “permission” to enter is given.

Egnm, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top