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)

Malibuflyer wrote:

You mean that ATC cancels your IFR w/o your consent? really? Don’t think there is a legal basis for that…

Technically they don’t, of course. It’s yet another case of some people equating IFR OCAS with VFR.

What happens is that they push you out of controlled airspace and then tell you to stay outside.

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 19 Jul 20:21
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Technically they don’t, of course. It’s yet another case of some people equating IFR OCAS with VFR.
What happens is that they push you out of controlled airspace and then tell you to stay outside.

A_A – you should run for public office

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Airborne_Again wrote:

Technically they don’t, of course. It’s yet another case of some people equating IFR OCAS with VFR.

What happens is that they push you out of controlled airspace and then tell you to stay outside.

Well, i got squawk 7000 remain VFR OCAS, I then complained and said I was expecting to simply be on an IFR FlightPlan, which validated and that I did not cancel. After which you get squawk 2000 and the next frequency… they know damn well they are testing the boundaries but don’t care either way.

LFHN - Bellegarde - Vouvray France

In that situation, being on 2000 and having next ATSU frequency does not save the show on the next CAS bit but at least it will be some extra ink on ATC side not just PIC side…

Last Edited by Ibra at 19 Jul 21:51
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom
If aircraft ahead are establishing a wider circuit, do not follow, but reposition deadside or orbit as appropriate, and in communication with ATSU.

skydriller wrote:


I thought that it was now considered bad practice to have aeroplanes do orbits in the circuit. Not impressed.

Just realised that later on in the same piece it says:

In the interests of safety, orbits in the circuit are generally not permitted,

You couldnt make this stuff up…

Last Edited by skydriller at 21 Jul 04:44

They’re covering all options.

If you extend downwind and infringe, they will say that you should have orbited as advised.

If you orbit and cause an airprox or worse, they will remind you that orbiting was not permitted.

Damned clever I say.

Egnm, United Kingdom

Policy for Permanently Established Danger Areas and Temporary Danger Areas

In the UK, things get even better with a new policy statement on danger areas local copy

The words of one CAA former infringements chief, now working for an avionics manufacturer:

I read with dismay the new Danger Area Policy statement issued by the CAA today. We seem to forget that we are talking about Danger Areas not Restricted Airspace and that most Danger Areas (quite correctly) have no Statutory Instrument prohibiting entry.

Apparently, you commit a criminal offence even on a Eurocontrol IFR flight, under ATC control, if you bust an active DA. This is a new one because on which flights one does not check enroute notams – and not just because the route itself is not exactly known in advance.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Discussion about this on the “other” forum.

DA “infringements” are included in the CAA Statistics, and if entry is not prohibited this leaves an open question mark as to whether those who have already been penalised by a GASCO course or worse have grounds for redress/ compensation.

Egnm, United Kingdom

Basically you have to treat them as CAS but one whose entry conditions are sometimes too hard to establish.

Get it wrong and you have committed a criminal offence as far as the CAA is concerned (which is mostly incorrect but that’s how they run their pilot punishment process).

As posted previously, fighting the system is tricky because – if you want your case heard properly you have to go to court, and the only way to do that is to not co-operate – and your license is suspended at the outset, and you are grounded for potentially many months. The system is rigged to discourage people from wanting their cases looked at properly.

Too much posturing going on on the UK sites, as usual, with a lot of CAA and NATS people on them in disguise. I find it too depressing to read. So much disingenuity.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

Basically you have to treat them as CAS but one whose entry conditions are sometimes too hard to establish.

Unless it is solely owned by Mil or has nearby class D airport (who have radars & ATIS) it is just a mess

For state/cross: you call by phone morning you are asked to check while in the air, you look at AIP it says it refers to NOTAMS, you look at NOTAMS it refers to London Info for state, who refers to Mil Freq for crossing, the latter does not reply at midday or weekends…

One can also look at dates/hours in LT here but these have no “aviation value” on activity:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/south-east-training-estate-firing-times
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/military-low-flying-mod-sponsored-air-exercises

The rare few times I got reply from Plymouth Mil it was “DA is hot but ok for you to cross”

Why they can’t just broadcast DA state using recorder on a handheld radio if no one is not using a big chunk of airspace?

At the end of the day, how DAs are managed is just a s%£t show with load of bureaucracy, but seems UK pilot population is very happy with this setup, why not? we love to PPR both grass & full ATC runways (to give us wind & runway in-use I was told) before doing an overhead join to look at the square signals, then only check windsocks when eating greasy food at the cafe…

Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top