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

Might this explain the unusually large infringement numbers that popped up a while ago?

flybymike wrote:

Use of QFE rather than QNH is specified, with pilots to report “height” on entry to the ATZ. Many pilots will not readily use QFE especially beneath CAS because of infringement risk of not using the local QNH.

This aspect does seem ridiculously messy.

flybymike wrote:

More interestingly though is that simply listening out on the Barton frequency is no longer acceptable for the purposes of acquiring the necessary information to enter the ATZ, and entry without specific information delivered personally to you by the AFISO, or entering after being told to “stand by” without such chat, will apparently constitute an infringement.

This seems to amount to requiring a “clearance” to enter by any other name.

That has always been the case.

Not according to opinions on other high profile aviation forums.

I have NEVER enteted an ATZ without establishing contact by either airborne radio or having been given explicit instructions via telephone briefing.
I am unfamiliar with std non radio aircraft procedures but am surprised if it is correct that a radio equipped aircraft didn’t need some sort of permission.
I have always operated along the straightforward line of make contact, receive information and or details, if I’m not welcome I will be informed.
If I’m not given a reason, I will expect there was a specific cause for that.

I am unfamiliar with std non radio aircraft procedures but am surprised if it is correct that a radio equipped aircraft didn’t need some sort of permission.

Permission to enter a FISO or A/G ATZ has never been required, merely a requirement to obtain information necessary to safely enter the zone.

This can perfectly legally be done by listening out on the frequency before announcing an _intention_to enter the zone.

This is not to say that it would not be good practice to use the radio to communicate with the AFISO and clearly announce intentions for the benefit of other traffic.

The apparent latest Interpretation of the actual requirements to imply that “permission” is required from a pseudo ATC controller is a step too far.

flybymike wrote:

Permission to enter a FISO or A/G ATZ has never been required, merely a requirement to obtain information necessary to safely enter the zone.

Not quite. Rule 11:

(2) An aircraft must not fly, take off or land within the aerodrome traffic zone of an aerodrome unless the commander of the aircraft has complied with paragraphs (3), (4) or (5), as appropriate.
(3) If the aerodrome has an air traffic control unit the commander must obtain the permission of that unit to enable the flight to be conducted safely within the aerodrome traffic zone.
(4) If the aerodrome provides a flight information service the commander must obtain information from the flight information centre to enable the flight to be conducted safely within the aerodrome traffic zone.
(5) If there is no flight information centre at the aerodrome the commander must obtain information from the air/ground communication service to enable the flight to be conducted safely within the aerodrome traffic zone.

Since the top of the CAA enforcement department and probably half of the rest of the CAA, NATS and DFT read EuroGA daily, they could have commented

So much for being interested in promoting safety, rather than just busting every pilot who infringes something. The silence, with various threats (see posts a bit further back) confirms this absolutely.

Very well said.

The trouble is they arent remotely interested in promoting safety, just course filing.