Isn’t it just a name?
Yes, it’s just a name. And it’s the name I’m talking about.
Zones touch the ground, Areas don’t. That’s why all Class A zones (Heathrow, CI etc) had to become Class D.
The vast majority (but far from all) DAs, RAs, TRAs and PAs touch the ground.
https://www.easa.europa.eu/airspace-infringement#group-easa-downloads
The recent trend in the UK will presumably have a significant impact on the statistics shown here.
I wonder if EASA will conclude that we have a “special” problem in the UK, or will encourage wider reporting throughout Europe?
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).
Once ADSB becomes better established, and with increasing ATZs using FR24, 360 Radar, etc, and a resultant growing sense of self importance by A/G operators and AFISOs, I think such numbers will increase substantially.
This has already been suggested as a possible reason for the extraordinary amount of MORs raised by Barton alone since their ADSB trials.
Timothy wrote:
That was my argument. However, the air was blue with insults and disparagements that I would even ask.
This report is extremely discouraging. With that kind of attitude, it’s obvious they aren’t ever going to look further than the proximal cause and the system has no chance of being improved :-(
Reminds me of politicians on Radio 4. Instead of answering a question, they go on the attack or answer a question they would rather they were asked. Typical evasive response. I’m incredibly disappointed by this.
That EASA link, Fuji, has some interesting bits. This has general links and for example the data from Belgium is especially interesting; more so when compared with the UK which is clearly working hard to “generate data”.
Most countries don’t publish any data, according to that EASA PDF (which I guess was produced by a student doing a bit of googling 
)
Once ADSB becomes better established, and with increasing ATZs using FR24, 360 Radar, etc, and a resultant growing sense of self importance by A/G operators and AFISOs, I think such numbers will increase substantially.
Indeed, but you can’t prosecute with that. Especially with FR24, etc, and uncertified ADS-B OUT. You can send people to Gasco and you can suspend their license, but if you get a “tough one” who wants to go to court, he will win.
Timothy wrote:
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.
Timothy, my guess is that you are thinking as a men of law (lawyer, barrister, judge, …). And they were not. You think of something commonly called “rule of law”, they think of “hey, it’s dangerous, don’t do it”.
This report is extremely discouraging.
I was very nearly discouraged to the point of resignation, but decided that the greater good would be served by my continuing to engage.
It was however a bit of a wake-up call :-(
I do have to say, though, that the apology followed very rapidly after.
Was this from the same famous CAA guy who demanded that any mention of his name is removed from EuroGA?
My take on it is that the CAA knows they have no legal basis for prosecuting somebody in this case, and they don’t want the cat to get out of the bag.
I’m sorry that you received such a response from them to a very sensible question. But that only seems to highlight the concerns raised here about them behaving like a law unto themselves regardless of what should actually be the case.
Meh! You can make too much of, and over-react to these things.
