Peter wrote:
In fact – not sure about this – they can just not bring it to a court and then you are suspended permanently, in limbo.
Nope! They either charge you or stop being silly… Although, to my knowledge, they don’t charge people unless they are fairly confident they could win.
@Peter are there actual cases where this has happened? Not discussing the small minority of cases where someone bumbles into a TRA or a high traffic CAS and causes suspension of movements and loss of separation.
For the garden variety cases it is either just an e mail response giving extenuating circumstances, and the CAA reviewing ATC tapes and radar, or the refresher seminar. How many garden variety cases require a CAA practical exam and interview?
I sort of feel, after operating a few decades in UK airspace, it is administered quite benignly, perhaps in the spirit of a 1950’s Golf Club. Do you really want this administered with all the apparatus of a mandatory legal enforcement?
RobertL18C wrote:
Peter are there actual cases where this has happened? Not discussing the small minority of cases where someone bumbles into a TRA or a high traffic CAS and causes suspension of movements and loss of separation.
@RobertL18C, it all depends on the mood of the controller that raised the MOR, does it?
If the controller says in the “all was horrible”, like the case quoted here with ATC diverting a/c 8000(!)ft above a minor bust, then the CAA adds you another penalty point.
If you already had some, then at the third strike you loose your license.
And if two previous ones there was no violation, but you had no option of fighting it, then it doesn’t matter what you do on the third one, you get your license suspended or lost.
The problem raised here (and elsewhere as well) is that the CAA process doesn’t allow a full participation of pilot in the process and the threshold for penalty is much lower – read the MOR reports with “penalty points” added to the pilot that was flying just over 2500 ft, but well below 2600 ft (CAS at 2500ft), keeping in mind that the margin of error for the alt hold is 200ft.
Yes, the majority are OK, but the proper justice system is usually created so that if 100 suspect go free, but that one innocent is not punished.
Ah, and military+police+CAT are getting a free pass, as usual. How is that fair?!
@Silvaire I find it funny in that describing how you like to fly any distance, changing altimeter settings when you can find a local one, exactly why I prefer the European system with flight levels starting at a lower altitude.
On an A to B journey I climb to my chosen flight level set 1013 and stay on that until I get to B when I set local QNH as provided by ATS.
If I stay out of controlled airspace including class E I don’t need to talk to anyone either.
I do because we are encouraged to use the SIVs (Flight information services). Not, I hasten to add, for permissions but for flight following, traffic, weather warnings etc.
The SIVs have been set up to assist pilots.
@arj1 but what is the actual incidence of these potentially unjust actions?
Am not aware you ‘lose’ your licence on a three strikes you are out policy, certainly there is no policy as such and is based on hearsay. Depending on the pattern and severity of the busts, the pilot may have to take instruction and carry out a practical exam with a CAA examiner, or if the actions appear to be wilful and malicious and causing danger to life, then normal law enforcement is carried out. So you could get a test just for a single infraction.
I am aware these CAA exams do take place, and are not a lighthearted test, but are applied in proportionate circumstances.
Put another way, our flying brethren in the USA are subject to the FAA 709 check-ride as a consequence of lapses/incidents, but am not aware of American forae stretching to 357 pages on the subject.
@Silvaire I find it funny in that describing how you like to fly any distance, changing altimeter settings when you can find a local one, exactly why I prefer the European system with flight levels starting at a lower altitude.
All the while having no clear idea how high you are in relation to terrain (important when it’s windy), airspace or anything else that might be on your route. That kind of defeats the purpose of having an altimeter and doesn’t even address the issue of staying at a constant low flight level and potentially crossing zones of varying TA along the way. At which point you bust airspace because you weren’t studying the chart intently as you flew along in turbulence. It’s hard to imagine how such a system has survived to 2023, along with Q codes and the other nonsense that you’re dealing with.
As mentioned, I don’t have to “find” a local altimeter setting when I’m flying cross country, it’s right there on the ForeFlight screen in front of me, updated continuously. I did adjust my altimeter slightly once on my 250 nm flight yesterday, and no I don’t have two altimeters that I have to play around with! One is plenty enough for me, thanks very much 
Put another way, our flying brethren in the USA are subject to the FAA 709 check-ride as a consequence of lapses/incidents, but am not aware of American forae stretching to 357 pages on the subject.
What’s apparent reading reports from the UK is a CAA tendency to overreact to a minor airspace bust, almost to the point of hysterical overreaction. This is what appears to be unusual in the UK as opposed to the rest of Europe. In relation to your comment on the US there are plenty of similar busts in my local US area, I’m sure several every day, and almost uniformly the end result is a phone number passed by Ground to the pilot and a short conversation with the ATC center that noted the transgression. Only in extreme circumstances does it go beyond that level.
What’s apparent reading reports from the UK is a CAA tendency to overreact to a minor airspace bust, almost to the point of hysterical overreaction. This is what appears to be unusual in the UK as opposed to the rest of Europe
That’s exactly right.
And it is pointless.
RobertL18C wrote:
but what is the actual incidence of these potentially unjust actions?
There is no open data on how many of those “actions” are unjust. People that did not lose their license just shut up.
RobertL18C wrote:
Am not aware you ‘lose’ your licence on a three strikes you are out policy, certainly there is no policy as such and is based on hearsay. Depending on the pattern and severity of the busts, the pilot may have to take instruction and carry out a practical exam with a CAA examiner, or if the actions appear to be wilful and malicious and causing danger to life, then normal law enforcement is carried out. So you could get a test just for a single infraction.
The rule AFAIK (was in in some CAA CAP? @Peter would know) is:
First occurence in two(?) years – letter, second – mandatory infringement course, third – temporary license suspension.
That is if there was no severe impact (multiple diversions etc), if there was then most likely the CAA will prosecute.
RobertL18C wrote:
Put another way, our flying brethren in the USA are subject to the FAA 709 check-ride as a consequence of lapses/incidents, but am not aware of American forae stretching to 357 pages on the subject.
In most contries (including the US) ATS is centralised, so a) they could offer flight following seamlessly and b) if you just touch CAS, the most likely ATC will just tell you OFF (or even more likely, warn you before).
There is a way to subscribe to the MORs with all the personal data removed, most educating reading…
RobertL18C wrote:
Put another way, our flying brethren in the USA are subject to the FAA 709 check-ride as a consequence of lapses/incidents,
You have to do something pretty extreme, like flying right through the KLAX approaches at 500 ft to get a 709 ride. Certainly not of you clip the edge of some airspace. Also, if you have flight following, ATC will typically warn you a=or query your intentions. The latter is a total run of the mill occurrence when crossing the KLAX Bravo.
There is also the NASA reporting form, which operates a little bit as a ‘get out of jail’ card. The way this works is that you self-report a deviation, send it to NASA who anonymizes the report and sends it on to the FAA. Should there be enforcement action by the FAA, you can then present this (you get a copy back from NASA) and usually avoid penalties.
CAP1404 is the CAA procedures doc – much discussed here.
But the CAA busts man doesn’t really operate it. It was written up to look good and is mostly ignored. For example loads of first time offenders get sent to Gasco.
