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)

Given that most seem to be ex mil, one would need to organise a boot camp run by some ex SAS guys.

Plenty out there – example.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Wonder how this will be handled?



Andreas IOM

New CAA pilot bust numbers are out for January.

Some interesting changes.

Firstly the ratio of Letters (35) to Gasco (8) is continuing the recent improved ratio. I can’t see Gasco running their embarrassingly useless and patronising “course” for much longer. Well, not unless they increase the fee 3x to 4×.

Next we see a new category of “Insufficient evidence of airspace being infringed”. We will obviously never be told, but this might be pilots who presented a GPS track which disagreed with a radar track. GPS is obviously far more accurate, especially laterally.

Most interesting is the new “Planning/Threat and Error Management requiring 1-1 training” item. Does anyone know what this is, who runs it, and how much does it cost? Half the CAA and certainly all those involved in infringements read EuroGA so somebody ought to know. Perhaps it is too new; with the “sentencing” done only in January they may not have run any yet.

There are also zero suspensions. This category usually contained an implicit statement that if you did Gasco once, you got suspended next time.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Note also a subtle change of wording: one receives an ‘advisory letter’ rather the previous ‘warning letter’.

The insufficient evidence piece is probably the CAA realising they can’t argue with GPS tracks as you say, and also perhaps some pilots looking to reverse the rather ludicrous burden of proof which seems to exist with respect to transponder readings – readings which don’t actually have to be outside tolerance to apparently place you in controlled airspace. However it’s done, why anyone would need a licensed engineer to confirm the readings is baffling. Can an engineer read the display better than a pilot can, or are the CAA suggesting an engineer wouldn’t lie but pilots would?

I think there’s a general softening of policy and tone in response to publicity. I would not be surprised if those running this initiative got a fairly firm kicking from above – certainly in any corporate environment that would be the outcome of any sort of semi-freelance mid-level operation that resulted in negative publicity.

February numbers should be very low indeed, due weather.

Last Edited by Graham at 24 Feb 11:05
EGLM & EGTN

Just got the latest CHIRP flyer which among the usual comments on the usual things shows, on page 6, that some pilot got MORd for apparently entering CAS by 100ft.

Well, we know this is now standard UK practice.

The flyer is also wrong that 200ft vertically is enough, because you are allowed a 200ft error on the installation, but the UK CAA CAS busts dept does not allow this margin; you get busted for the actual transponder reading. Unless this has recently changed…

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Not sure if anyone brought this up but I think I remember from the ATPLs that mode C accuracy needs to be within 300ft. How can they be busting you guys for 100ft?

Sweden

Cttime wrote:

Not sure if anyone brought this up but I think I remember from the ATPLs that mode C accuracy needs to be within 300ft. How can they be busting you guys for 100ft?

That’s been brought up several times and the answer is simply that they’ve decided to do it that way. You can get off the hook by having a mechanic certify that your encoder was off.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

I wonder if you then get prosecuted for flying with a faulty encoder, on the basis that you would/should have known by previous verification from ATC.

Egnm, United Kingdom

Is there a practical case where this happened? I mean a case where the plane actually did not infringe any airspace but the transponder showed an altitude that was 200ft higher and therefore would have been within this airspace?

I would assume that if you can prove that you actually have not infringed the airspace (e.g. with a GPS-plot) they can‘t prosecute you.

Germany

I wonder if you then get prosecuted for flying with a faulty encoder, on the basis that you would/should have known by previous verification from ATC.

I think that is not possible because they can’t prove when the problem started.

The perhaps more obvious avenue, if the txp is more than 200ft off, would be to bust you for flying with an unairworthy aircraft. This would be hard to hit a renter with, so they would bust the school.

I haven’t heard of these things but then most people who get busted by the CAA are very obviously keeping quiet. They don’t want to be singled out for “extra treatment” if something happens again.

The really bad thing is that the CAA are busting people for any vertical infringement, when they should be allowing the 200ft (or 300ft?). This should not withstand a legal challenge but few will want to get into that for reasons already posted (for anybody ex-gasco, it will result in a very long license suspension while waiting for the court).

Is there a practical case where this happened? I mean a case where the plane actually did not infringe any airspace but the transponder showed an altitude that was 200ft higher and therefore would have been within this airspace?

Yes – posted very early in this very long thread. The CAA is taking the Mode C readout as absolutely accurate.

I would assume that if you can prove that you actually have not infringed the airspace (e.g. with a GPS-plot) they can‘t prosecute you.

GPS is not the official altitude reference. Airspace base is defined as barometric altitude (or with 1013 if specified as FL).

My guess is that if you have a GPS track showing 2000ft and Mode C showing 4000ft then you would get away with it, but only by producing a report from a licensed engineer proving the txp was faulty (see recent CAA stats using those words; also below).

Unfortunately we have bad news from the February 2020 numbers which have just come out. They are starting to pack out the Gasco “course” again

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top