I’m more a spirit than letter of the rule guy, so let’s do for the next good post.
Well, given that he offered the T-Shirt, a post on the T-Shirt is actually relevant. Take it.
Graham’s post deserves a discussion.
I think we all agree that infringements should not be done, so what sort of regime would people like to see?
Should there be a real Just Culture i.e. no punishment unless it was a deliberate action? The current UK regime is purely one of punishment; there is no learning involved.
Should there be fixed penalty tickets?
I don’t think anybody wants the t-shirt 
Not sure you can turn back the draconian wheel in UK, but the continental European system in its various interpretations seems to work well – for me and most folks I talked to(1)
If you are in (voluntary or compulsory) contact with Information, you
- (can) get info reg. airspaces/zones ahead of infringement OR
- (can) get a warning when entering incl. directional advice (turn…, stay above/below) OR
- get a severe request to get out this area (vertically/horizontally) immediately.
+
The folks at Information / ATC have(2) the discretion to decide about follow-up = filing for infringement… reportedly happens when CAT needs to avoid, when infringers react inappropriately or ignore hints/warnings, when people (massively) infringe NORDO.
And yes, there are fines and they can get heavy, but not for minor infringements like decribed here.
Seems to work everywhere else ?
I would not even want to start that discussion outside your island ;-)
(1) most people have had at least one accidental infringement (even if minor and w/o effect on anyone else) and were grateful for a hint/warning.
(2) there seems to be a slight tightening of the obligation to file in other EASA countries, too, not so zealously implemented/controlled, though
Peter wrote:
I think we all agree that infringements should not be done, so what sort of regime would people like to see?
Should there be a real Just Culture i.e. no punishment unless it was a deliberate action?
The concept of Just culture does not guarantee no prosecution, there are pre-conditions to qualify for immunity from prosecution:
Just Culture means: If you report the incident yourself using the relevant platforms (EASA) before you receive an official summons to comment or a fine e.t.c AND your action was not gross neglgence or intent no punitive action will be taken. The idea is that people report incidents (not only infringements but also those) freely with the guarantee that unless gross negligence or intent can be proven, no action will be taken against them.
And that is what we should see really. Whenever a report has to be filed according to the rules, the infringer should be given the chance to do so on his own accord declaring the incident and describing what was learnt from it. In which case he should not be prosecuted unless the incident was caused by grave negligence or by intent.
The trouble with Just Culture is, that it only works if all concerned play by the rules. And that would mean that Just Culture must be incorporated into law, otherwise it is well possible that while the CAA do play by the rules, overzealous prosecutors can ruin the whole thing if they prosecute out of their own accord. As most of the state prosecutors are hardly qualified to judge over this kind of incident, this is the other bit which should be made into law: The CAA should be the only ones to decide how to handle this. Unless the CAA brings charges to the state prosecutor, he should not have the authority to start a prosecution on his own. Otherwise, Just Culture becomes just a farce.
If you report the incident yourself using the relevant platforms (EASA) before you receive an official summons to comment
Is that a standard requirement for JC?
It would mean the “authority” could block the application of JC simply by rapidly sending you a message or a letter. Hmmm… that’s exactly what happens in the UK They do it the same or next working day.
Unless the CAA brings charges to the state prosecutor, he should not have the authority to start a prosecution on his own. Otherwise, Just Culture becomes just a farce.
The CAA (the regulator) is also the prosecutor. There is no independent prosecution assessment.
Just for balance, something happened to me in France the other day I had never seen before. I was cleared by Rouen into Evreux airspace and, once I passed the boundary, was handed over to them.
Evreux were completely useless, didn’t understand where we were, what we were doing, or why we were there. And at one point they turned us through 180° back to the north, because they were so far behind the ball. They accused us of entering controlled airspace without clearance, but I gave them very short shrift on that.
Eventually another controller took over and sorted us out.
But it was an unusual example of French airspace not being in the least “joined up.“
In Scotland, prosecution is decided by the Procurator Fiscal. The CAA can bring a private prosecution.
A C170 hit a Mercedes on a road crossing the runway threshold at Insch grass strip – springing out both windscreen and rear glass, with no injuries. The CAA decided not to prosecute. The Fiscal successfully prosecuted the pilot.
flybymike wrote:
The CAA (the regulator) is also the prosecutor. There is no independent prosecution assessment.
That is how it used to be handled in most cases up to recently in most places. However, recent events show that the state prosecutors in Switzerland for instance now follow a different regime and prosecute on their own accord.
