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

“They are crazy these English”

If not a FISO or AFISO, what qualification does the person you are talking to in an A/G communication have and what are their duties. I ask the question bceause like many aeroclubs in France our club house is equipped with a radio, capable of 2 way communication. However, unless you have the appropriate radio licence and qualifacations, as I understand it, you cannot use it to communicate with an aircraft. You can monitor transmissions but not talk to them. If you need to talk to an aircraft you either need to use a portable radio or call from another aircraft.
Is this only in France?

In the UK I believe it is an NAA-issued Radio Operator’s Certificate of Competence

Edit:
“They are crazy these English”
Normally it’s the Romans who are crazy, but if it’s in Astérix it must be true

Peter wrote:

This reminded me of my Eaglescott experience which was an early education in my 20 year flying career

Representations? There is no AOPA in the UK, since its head is sitting on Gasco which is the chief organ for reprocessing pilots who committed these dreadful criminal offences.

It is quite normal with fields listed as having A/G radio. When inbound I make my first call to Wherever Radio, and if no reply from the ground I make subsequent calls (the usual ones, as your chaps at Eaglescott said) to Wherever Traffic.

I didn’t mean representation as in someone to stick up for us, I meant representations as in notifying whomever in authority that Barton appears to be going rogue based on an interesting interpretation that may not have been spotted by said authority.

Graham’s interpretation and method of entry to ATZs is exactly as I have always implemented it and historically has always been thus.

The problem with the new interpretation is that failing to follow it is now apparently deemed to be an infringement.

Off_Field wrote:

JasonC wrote: (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.

This does not explicitly state that the effective clearance to enter must be given directly to the pilot does it?

If for instance a pilot had picked up all that information that was being passed to another aircraft technically he would have received the information necessary to enable a safe flight to be conducted. Maybe I’m reading it wrong, but it doesn’t seem to be totally clear either way which is less than helpful.

but my understanding is that an AFISO’s are not entitled to refuse entry (under any circumstances), and not entitled to refuse a landing other than in accord with the strict terms of CAP413.

As others have said their service is strictly limited (in the air) to providing any information which MAY be relevant to the safe conduct of the flight through the ATZ.

Other known traffic within the ATZ might be relvant, so, for example if there is another aircraft transitting at say 2,000 feet East to West, that information might be useful. The trouble is this sets a precedent. Any traffic within the ATZ might be relevant and therefore the AFISO suddenly finds that he has a duty to pass this information (all of it) to the pilot. If he doesnt he hasnt fullfilled his duty any more, or any less, than of the pilot hadnt contacted the AFISO, and, to make matters worse, the AFISO has used his judgement to assess whether or not this information is relevant. It seems to me this places the AFISO on very dangerous ground, unless he is able to strictly comply. Any absence of such reports could equally result in complaints to the CAA given the wide scope of the wording. Of course, in contrast with when an ATC service is being provided, the officers have specific training (and or radar) to help determine whether any transitting aircraft could be a threat to one another and allow the officer to determine what information may, and may not be relevant.

So in short given an AFISO cannot refuse a transit, and given the only relevant information that comes to mind that might be passed, is that regarding other traffic, there is a signifcant onus on the AFISO if this is to be enforced, one of which they may not be aware.

Personally, I always make a call for transit BUT I am truly struggling to recall any occasions I have been passed any information that is relevant to my transit (especially regarding other aircraft) even though clearly there is other traffic with the ATZ, except those places with parachuting and model flying where this information is usually passed and is very helpful. Do Barton do either?

I can think of one recent case where a police rotary transitted an ATZ low level and straight across the departure, and which I only narrowly missed in the climb out at a few hundreds feet. Failure of the rotary or the AFISO to call this traffic as matters stand would have consequences.

I think Barton may be on very dangerous ground following this course, and the CAA on even more dangereous ground, unless they are truly satisfied that the AFISOs here are also complying with their respoonsibilites without excercising judgement well beyond their pay grade. :-)

I may be completely wrong but I imagine that the large majority of Barton traffic will be inbound and outbound, rather than in transit.

flybymike wrote:

I may be completely wrong but I imagine that the large majority of Barton traffic will be inbound and outbound, rather than in transit.

Yes, I think given its location that would be so – for some reason I have never been to Barton, and dont know it at all well. Clearly if you are inbound, it does make very good sense to establish comms, infact it would be dreadful not to do so.

I am actually not adverse to calls anyway for transit, and have always done so, but I do think this exposes the shortcomings of pilots “being done” for not doing so when transitting, whilst in my experience, AFISO’s rarely pass traffic information.

Peter’s example further exposes the potential danger of making reports with the consequences we are seeing when, in fact matters could have been far better resolved in some other way. I mean, if an examiner departs, and presumably remained in the ATZ, and presumably still with two way comms., and then announced the intention to perform a PFL, how could this result in a bust? As ever, I guess there was more to it, but it seems extraordinary.

The problem with this whole farce is that we have learnt in many disciplines that they key is to encourage the regulators and regulated to work together with mutual respect. Pilots are a tolerant lot, but the consequence of this is for them to be less tolerant. In my example if we complained every time a AFISO didnt provide us with traffic I suspect the CAA would be inundated with complaints, the same would be true of transit refusals and errors made by controllers. Without a struggle I can think of at least a dozen occasions where I have been given a dangerous clearance (eg six occasions and counting of being cleared to line up, with an aircraft on short final), and yet in every case it was clear it was a genuine mistake and far better resolved between me and ATC. In the same way I have made inadvertent mistakes, had a chat with ATC and both parties ended up happy and better informed.

In short it aint rocket science, and this policy of straight to GASCo, do not pass go, will end in tears at the rate things are going.