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

Timothy wrote:

Is this verifiable? If so we have a very strong safety argument. But if it just seems that way the argument is weaker. Maybe we need a proper study?

How much of a given is it that aircraft with a Mode S transponder will appear on FR24?

The reason I ask is that there are plenty of busy training airfields with good-sized fleets of aircraft that have Mode S transponders. But look in the vicinity of these fields on FR24 and you don’t see their fleets.

I sit on the Airspace Infringements Working Group, as an industry representative.

If there is evidence that people are switching off their transponders to avoid the consequences of being pursued following an infringement then it is a serious matter that that group must respond to, as it is clearly a more serious danger than people with Mode C infringing (because, particularly, of deeming.)

People have complained that the poster that said that infringements cause mid-airs are hyperbole and I agree (I said so at the GASCo meeting in a tent in Farnborough about three or four years ago where they were first shown.)

But there is no hyperbole whatever in saying that people who switch off their transponders are more likely to be involved in a mid-air. And if that is combined with an infringement of an Area (ie airspace that does not reach the ground) then that midair could kill hundreds of people and pretty much kill off GA at the same time.

So please bring evidence to me that this is happening.

If, however, it is just supposition and trouble making, then I would appeal to people’s good sense. If you start promulgating that it is the norm to switch off transponders then some people will think it’s ok and start doing so. They might die as a result of a midair that would have been prevented by TCAS or TAS.

In the last three months I have twice avoided such midairs because the other aircraft was squawking and I have TAS (you can see one of them in the latest Airprox report, though, as far as I am concerned, it was nothing like an airprox and if the other pilot thinks it was, he should probably not fly near London any more.)

So please let’s be sensible about this assertion. If it is true, we must tackle it, but if it is just to make a political point, be aware that you could seriously endanger people by making the suggestion.

That’s not at all how I interpret Timothy’s post. My interpretation is that the CAA will simply brush aside claims that people are (increasingly) flying with the transponder turned off unless there is hard evidence.

If the CAA under the current regime starts to believe that switching off transponders is an issue, the most likely reaction would be warning letters, seminars and prosecution to those who do…

As long as he-who-must-not-be-named-for-legal-reasons and other people with no understanding of proper safety management are in charge, this is a lost cause.

You appear to be saying that if one doesn’t assert that the CAA “CAS busts chief’s” [whose name cannot be posted due to legal threats] new policy is leading to more non-txp flying, he can continue to build his “bust them all” policy without any criticism.

Really though? Is that what I appear to be saying?

If you are concerned about

an effective way to shut down the discussion

then maybe you should deal with the words that are written without reinterpretation in such an odd way.

How about dealing with the points made, rather than creating a fiction?

I don’t think it follows that non-txp flying is extra dangerous. It all depends on where people are doing it.

I think that this thread is about proximity to controlled airspace, where traffic density is likely to be higher, no?

But anyway, I have been alerted to close encounters all over the UK and Europe. Transponder/TCAS/ADS-B is a valuable layer of swiss cheese in the MAC equation.

The CAA can do a study of ATC radar (primary v. Mode A v. Mode C v. Mode S) anytime they want. They don’t need pilots with TCAS boxes to fly around the place (risking a distraction and doing a bust!!!) making notes of numbers of visual targets versus numbers of TCAS targets. In fact they probably already have the data, but if it is what I think it is, they sure as hell won’t be publishing it.

That’s my point. Of course they could, but is that a reasonable use of limited resources? Resources that might otherwise be used to create new RNP approaches, for example.

So, to get those resources diverted, we need evidence that it’s happening, not just speculation from someone who thinks it would further his political point if it were true.

I mean this quite seriously. If there is evidence, produce it, and if I am convinced that it’s a real trend or issue I will press for action.

Timothy – I would want a slightly different question answered first by your working Group or whoever else might wish to;

- so where was the impact assessment of this change in policy?

Which would have doubtless considered amoung many other matters, could the policy “encourage” pilots to turn off their transponders in certain circumstances?

But how stupid of me, no one bothered to conduct an impact assessment (or certainly forgive me if I am wrong, but I havent seen any evidence they did).

I guess someone just thought, we are being badgered by NATS, this seems like a good idea, we have some good friends in GASCo and AOPA UK, so lets not bother with a proper tendering process, just get on and do it, and dont worry, we will have a few good chaps on the WG who are well – good chaps, job done. Surprsingly we end up with a complete disaster, but enough self interested people involved to ensure that all of the shortfalls of this policy are dismissed.

I could have no part of this and nor would I wish to be involved with any WG that had any connection.

Timothy wrote:

If there is evidence, produce it, and if I am convinced that it’s a real trend or issue I will press for action.

What sort of action do you think you could press for? Given the CAA seem to be quite heavy handed on a number of these things evidence of people breaking SERA rules would surely just cause the CAA to try to go after more pilots.

It does appear to be that they’re going after pilots rather than fixing the underlying issues.

Off_Field wrote:

What sort of action do you think you could press for?

I’ve already answered that question.