I think that it is a variety of factors across the board.
Indeed, but some of those have been around for ages. What I am wondering about is what has caused the big recent rise. Just from a lot of flying around the UK, it has always been obvious that lots of people were infringing very briefly and got told off by ATC. This stopped at a fairly specific point and now they all get MORd.
It is fairly obvious from the numbers that they take out those for prosecution, then take out those for license suspension, and then the top twenty of what is left that month get sent to Gasco.
One consequence is that the old tactic of phoning ATC and apologising, which – having spoken to ATCOs abroad, is still the process outside the UK – no longer works here. In fact the phone call is the worst possible thing you can do because it will draw their attention to a very brief bust which may have gone un-noticed – exactly what happened to me this year when I got sent down to Gasco. And you will drop the ATCO in the sh*t.
Inclusion of ATZs
That alone is worth about 10%.
How is it possible to infringe RMZ? RMZ is in G in the UK as well, no?
I would guess, by entering it without radio contact.
It would be interesting to summarise the legal instrument for infringing the various ‘airspace’ types listed
Are you perhaps thinking that some of these are not a breach of the ANO, and thus the CAA may be exceeding its powers?
Although I have no doubt about RMZs (the clue is in the M), I had a real row with the CAA about DAs.
My questioning the legal basis for infringing DAs was just treated as sacrilege, with a personal attack on me and my competence for even asking the question.
IANAL but I think that the only legal basis for prosecuting DAs would be Endangerment.
How is it possible to infringe RMZ? RMZ is in G in the UK as well, no?
So is an ATZ. And a TRA. And, for that matter, a ZIT, RA and PA. I don’t think that that’s the relevant issue.
@Peter – no not really, but it would be educational (as an FI and FE) to properly understand what is the ‘criminality’ in each case – for instance in the ATZ prosecutions I think it was flying in the ATZ without getting information – CAS it would be without a clearance – I don’t know with the TMZ or RMZ to be honest.
Going off at a tangent (but not enough, this time, I think for banishment to off-topic) why are DAs, RAs and PAs Areas and not Zones? Think about it.
but it would be educational (as an FI and FE) to properly understand what is the ‘criminality
That was my argument. However, the air was blue with insults and disparagements that I would even ask.
The bottom line was the question “__with all your so-called experience, would you fly in one, or recommend to students that they should fly in one?__” There seemed to be no actual answer to the question.
Timothy wrote:
Going off at a tangent (but not enough, this time, I think for banishment to off-topic) why are DAs, RAs and PAs Areas and not Zones? Think about it.
Actually, I already did and I don’t understand it.
in the ATZ prosecutions I think it was flying in the ATZ without getting information
Yes; this came up earlier in this long thread. Nobody seemed to be sure what is the exact criminal offence for each of the three different UK ATZ classes (A/G, AFIS, ATC). I think with an ATC ATZ it is clear: you must get a clearance. But it is Class G so how does that work… could this really be prosecuted in a court 
A search term like
ATZ AND infring*
digs out a few.
Then you have the practical angle i.e. the CAA needs to spend time obtaining the radar data from some radar unit to prove it. And radar is not that accurate; perhaps 0.5nm at 30nm. I recall this came up years ago when somebody was flying over Droitwich and was clear of the Birmingham Class D, but B’ham ATC disagreed. So, should somebody decide to take this to a court (especially with a GPS track showing them to not have busted it) there is an obvious problem unless the radar is pretty close. The radar is much less accurate in azimuth, too.
However, the air was blue with insults and disparagements that I would even ask.
There is a long history of the CAA enforcing something which they either don’t know has no criminal basis, or they do know and like the FUD option. This is pretty standard in aviation everywhere…
Usually when people make a lot of noise and bluster, it is because they know they don’t have a leg to stand on. Attack is the best defence
what has caused the big recent rise.
I think is just the several other factors I mentioned just coming together at the same time.
I think that the thinking is “let’s expose the whole problem, then deal with the whole problem.”
I rather suspect that if ATZ, TRA and DA reporting were enforced, say by CAIT, the numbers would go up substantially more (only a guess).
why are DAs, RAs and PAs Areas and not Zones?
Isn’t it just a name? Why do pilots care whether something is called a Control Area (CTA) or Terminal Manoeuvring Area (TMA)?
It is just a volume of airspace where certain procedures need to be followed prior to entering?
I rather suspect that if ATZ, TRA and DA reporting were enforced, say by CAIT, the numbers would go up substantially more (only a guess).
No doubt, but collecting radar evidence would be fun. Look at how far the Lydd DAs are from the nearest radar?
