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

Sorry if I’ve missed an explanation above or just being a bit slow, but why does some English CAS require 5 km and 5,000 ft separation while other airspace requires “only” 3 km and 3,000 ft?

Taking the latter figure, does this mean that CAT shouldn’t be vectored closer than 3 km to an airspace boundary or lower than 3,000 ft above the base of CAS?

Or are controllers instructed work on the basis that their radar picture of traffic outside CAS is complete and accurate to a few metres?

Timothy wrote:

Current complexity is the result of many years of trying to minimise the volume of CAS. There are many places (North of Winchester is a good example, or between Stansted and Luton) where the obvious simplification would be to drop Class D to the ground. The effect would be that pilots would have to get clearances or go much further round, both of which are resisted by most GA.

The problem is that any airspace reorganisation is seen as some “new and pioneering” and “never done before” thing (at least that’s how it appears from where I’m sitting). Yet in the United States, which is arguably a safer place to fly overall than the UK, they manage to both have simpler airspace shapes AND simultaneously less airspace that needs a clearance in an area of similar complexity. All we have to do is look west to see a proven, safe system that works well.

I don’t accept that airspace simplification requires more airspace. As we know from earlier, there are vast empty pieces of airspace (which the CAA has no power to take away – which is utterly bizarre – a regulator that can’t actually regulate airspace boundaries, except the approval or denial of a 3rd party request) e.g. the airspace used for procedures in Glasgow that have gone away, and almost empty airspace around Doncaster after the forecast traffic failed to show up.

That the CAA cannot initiate airspace change is a great frustration. I have long argued for an airspace “curator” or “architect” who takes an overview of everyone’s requirements. The Glasgow and Doncaster cases are indeed the most often cited.

Timothy wrote:

So it’s important to be careful what you wish for when it comes to simplification. The upshot is likely to be a significant rise in hassle with no commensurate decline in infringements.

Absolute tosh.

I think we are all fed up being warned about what we may, or may, not wish for. The reality is whatever GA wishes for, commercial pressures and an ineffective CAA will win the day, as this thread so well demonstrates. The only way that will change is by GA making a sufficient and conserted fuss – which pragmatically I accpet may, or may not, happen. I am afraid this view could only stem from being totally out of touch with the true motivation for the current policy.

This thread has clearly set out so many reasons why the current policy on infringements is disasterous and yet none of the points made has been addressed – never mind adequately addressed, but rather not addressed at all. There is little more indicative of the CAA’s complete contempt for the view of GA.

As I have said before, but it should be repeated, not one other regulatory authority in the world has gone down this path, which should, in itself make you wonder why we feel we should be out of step with everyone else, but of course that is because we are aslo the only country where our airspace has been privatised, and the only country where our CAA now simply rolls over to any commercial pressure that is brought.

Timothy wrote:

It’s a request from a member (not a mod) not to have the personal attacks against CAA and GASCo people we have seen on here and Flyer.

I also have to say by any examination, that is wholly inaccurate.

I have seen no criticsim in either place of any individual (if there is, please do indicate where) other than the person in charge.

I would love to see anyone engage in the criticsm’s of this policy that have been widely made; what I find frustrating is the scurrolous attempts to denigrate these criticsm’s by vague and unsubstantiated commentary, that is all we have had in response to the concerns that have been expressed.

In short, deal with the points and stop all the excuses.

Timothy wrote:

That the CAA cannot initiate airspace change is a great frustration

If the relevant draft legislation proposed by DfT/Grant Shapps is passed by Parliament, then the CAA will be given such powers, as far as I’m aware.

Fuji_Abound wrote:

I think we are all fed up being warned about what we may, or may, not wish for

Well given Peter has:

basically stopped flying VFR within the UK

I suppose we should wish for something to change to enable him and others in the same situation to fly again.

There’s not a lot to be careful of when you’re not flying anymore?

James_Chan wrote:

If the relevant draft legislation proposed by DfT/Grant Shapps is passed by Parliament, then the CAA will be given such powers, as far as I’m aware.

Indeed, that is what has been said. I guess we now have to wait to see whether we have the same SoS on 13/12!