National CAA policies around Europe on busting pilots who bust controlled airspace (and danger areas)

arj1 wrote:

In most contries (including the US) ATS is centralised,

It doesn’t even have to be centralised. It’s enough that different ATS units talk to each other and apply common procedures. E.g. in Sweden, we do have a national government-run ANSP, but more than half of the towers/approach control units are operated by different ANSPs, commercial or municipal. The system is still integrated.

@Silvaire may I remind you that QNH is not true altitude either. You still need to make a calculation as to if and by how much you are going to clear the top of a mountain, especially when flying from high to low pressure and low temperatures.
Flight levels and the semi circular rule is about avoiding other traffic not about avoiding obstacles. That should be done in the planning.
If I fly an MEP under IFR in IMC 2 altimeters makes things simpler.
When I fly a ULM under VFR I only have one.
Neither of these last 2 statements have any relevance to your argument.
As for your statement about flying through different TAs/TLs as I have explained several times now, in practice they take on no more relevance than changing different pressure settings moving from one area to another.
Sometimes I find it unbelievable how complex some people want to make things.
More so, things of which they have little or no experience.
Flying is a simple pastime even in many countries outside of the USA.
The UK has self inflicted problems caused by goverments outsourcing many operations involved in running efficient aviation services, like ATS to companies that have a profit motive and then not insist on some transparent joined up service.
This also appears from posts here on Euroga to lead a class system within aviation where more draconian measures are dished out to those less able or willing
to defend themselves .
It is ridiculous that pilots have to avoid CAS by 200ft and 2NM or whatever it is, to avoid the risk of being cited as transgressors.
Where is the legality of that? It is an abuse of power under the guise of advice and would not be tolerated in other democracies. The difference perhaps between an AD and an SB.
In France as in the USA we have strong bodies to represent ga pilots eg FFA or FFPLUM, RSA in France and AOPA and EAA in the US. But I don’t think the AOPA in the UK is a very strong lobbying body. Or perhaps it doesn’t do what the UK GA pilot community require of it. I may be wrong in this as I know little about the AOPA in the UK. I am sure others in here will correct me if I am way off the mark.

gallois wrote:

Sometimes I find it unbelievable how complex some people want to make things

Same here

For instance 2 altimeters? Why not 3, or another one anybody? Even flying the line we had one, and that is plenty enough. Having it set correctly and at the right moment is the key. Knowing when to change, or adjust its setting is pretty important too.

But once again, there are many distinctive and different items being discussed here, VFR vs IFR, terrain avoidance, etc etc, and all out of context of the thread title… pity.

Even flying the line we had one, and that is plenty enough. Having it set correctly and at the right moment is the key.

Not something I’ll ever need to worry about, particularly with respect to the fundamentally unnecessary need to twiddle with an altimeter at the right moment, as opposed to whenever you get a moment in the next 10 minutes.

The best solution to any problem is a fundamentally good design. Resorting to precision in an attempt to make an over-complex design function is the wrong approach, even more so when it is motivated by decades-obsolete ‘altimetry’ technology concepts. In this case the main system engineering lesson should be “man with two watches doesn’t know what time it is”

The right place in the 21st century for TA is well above any terminal area airspace, above any terrain anywhere near at 500 knots and above where anybody except a plane flying very fast and far is ever going to fly. That’s how 18,000 ft was chosen for the US. If ICAO were to adopt a recommendation for worldwide use I’d suggest 30,000 ft or so. Or establish regional or continental TAs that are 5000 ft or more above all terminal area airspace and that allow for the highest mountain for thousands of miles in any direction. The current situation in Europe is parochial to the point of being absurd, as much a problem as any of the other airspace issues that contribute to the intractable flying environment.

@Silvaire we will have to agree to disagree on your opinions and the FAA’s opinions on TAs and TL’s.
Perhaps as Dan posts " better stick to the thread topic" and leave the choice of how many altimeters on has in an aircraft to the responsibility of the owner and pilot.

Here’s one:

[ YT link fixed – see here ]

This guy, The Flying Reporter, makes a lot of videos and produces them pretty well (former journalist monetising his YouTube channel) but is always very careful to remain ‘appropriate’ and palatable to the authorities and various vested interests. They probably like him because his line is quite self-flagellating and while he tiptoes round some issues and semi-exposes them, he would never call them out directly.

In this video he’s heading south west through Southend’s Class D, his clearance is not below altitude 2,500ft.

Of course where he’s planning to leave Class D, it directly abuts the London TMA at that level (base 2,500ft). So if he continues at his present level, he’ll bust the Class A immediately on leaving Southend’s zone, but he cannot descend before leaving the zone because of his clearance.

The frequency gets really busy with a change of controller but with less than a minute to run he gets in a call and requests a descent, which is duly granted and he avoids the problem.

He talks it through with the person in charge of ATS at Southend who assures him that he’d not been forgotten and that he would have been called in time.

Now whether you believe that is up to you. Personally I think he’d been forgotten, I’ve known it happen before. But the key point is that it’s not Southend’s problem. Their responsibility ends at the line and what happens after that is the pilot’s problem, regardless of adjoining airspace and whether or not entry is possible.

Not below 2,500ft may not have been the smartest clearance to have given him, and it certainly wasn’t so smart of him to accept it without subsequent discussion – I’d have been back onto them soon after entering to remind them that I needed lower on approaching the boundary, but then I like to keep the planning and decisions in the cockpit rather than leaving it to ATC.

If it came down to it and I couldn’t call them in time, I think I’d have descended. In terms of the subsequent furore, I’d rather be arguing about a level deviation in Class D into which I was already cleared and talking to the controller as opposed to an unannounced excursion into Class A.

There is the technical question of whether he could have descended exactly through 2,500ft on crossing the line and so neither violated his clearance nor infringed the Class A. I wouldn’t like to try it!

If I was posting about that, I’d have written, (tried) to write, exactly the same as Graham. I agree with all of that. I’ll watch the video later.
It’s my home turf so I am familiar with the issue.
I hope I don’t blink at the wrong moment and fall foul of something I’m acutely aware of locally, but as were human, it can happen.

Almost exactly this happened when transiting Chambery airspace once. I’ve mention this before.
After 10 days cruising around Spain and France, I’d let my guard down, due to the exemplary ATC I’d encountered. Then when passing through Chambery toward Geneva airspace, at the last minute I remembered I hadn’t been given a hand-over.
I radio’d and was told ’you’re about to bust Geneva, you better give them a call, but I don’t think they’ll accept you.
It was circa 2000ft to loose to stay clear.
There wasn’t time for a call, so I did a spiral dive staying in Chambery airspace.
Once straight and level, OCAS, my call to Geneva immediately gave me a climb back into the class D at my original level.
My fault, I shouldn’t have expected ATC to do it all for me, but I had experienced 10 Days of such easy handovers and clearances, I just go it wrong.
Bloody disappointing though as she was watching me on radar all this time, and her frequency was quiet, as was the airfield.

Am I the only person to have always been treated very fairly by the CAA? This thread is making me feel delusional :)

I experienced a similar event as described in the YT, but compounded because I couldn’t descend due to an active gliding site with glider traffic. Result, continued into Class A from a Class D area under a separate radar controller, and explained the circumstances to the CAA who pulled the tapes from Swanwick. After a short review the matter was closed.

I know of colleagues who have had their licences suspended, but this was due to repeated lapses and repeat CAS busts, probably also age related.

As stated earlier, garden variety busts with extenuating circumstances are treated very fairly. Hopefully in this magnum opus of a thread someone will actually refer to a specific case where this was not the case. FWIW in my line of work I suspect am in one degree of separation of around 250,000 hours of low level UK GA operations. If there was a pattern of unfair administration of these garden variety busts it would be noticed.