flybymike wrote:
could solve minor infringements at a stroke by increasing zone boundaries a couple of miles and lowering CAS a couple of hundred feet,
I presume you mean enlarging CAS so it has a buffer zone?
CAS already has a buffer zone built into it – this is part of the reason why busting someone because their (100 foot resolution) Mode-C momentarily said 2500’ under a 2500’ shelf (and turning it into a ‘loss of separation’ because an IFR aircraft was at 5000’ above this momentary bust) is unfortunate, to say the least. Our airspace is already significantly bloated by the existence of these buffer zones.
JasonC – we will have to disagree, but based only on my experience of flying in ine part of the States for the last 30 years or so and on the basis of the FAA’s on record policy which would seem to suggest suspensions are rare as long as the pilot IS co-operative.
The Compliance Program represents a focus on using – where appropriate – non-enforcement methods, or “Compliance Actions.” A Compliance Action can be described as the FAA’s non-enforcement methods for correcting unintentional deviations or noncompliance that arise from factors such as flawed systems and procedures, simple mistakes, lack of understanding, or diminished skills. A Compliance Action is not a legal adjudication, nor does it constitute a finding of violation.
Examples of Compliance Actions include on-the-spot corrections, counseling, and additional training (including remedial training). The purpose of a Compliance Action is to restore compliance and to identify and correct the underlying causes that led to the deviation. It is intended to be used as an open and transparent safety information exchange between FAA personnel and you.
Generally, if you are qualified and both willing and able to cooperate, the FAA will resolve the issue with a Compliance Action. In contrast, discovery of behavior indicating an unwillingness or inability to comply may result in enforcement, Likewise, evidence that supports an intentional deviation, reckless or criminal behavior, or other significant safety risk, would preclude d an individual or organization as ineligible for a Compliance Action.
FAA My bold
The FAA have revised their policy in particular to recognise JUST CULTURE and I very much believe that the current debacle we see in the UK with the CAA, would not be endorsed by the FAA in the US, and would be subject to much flak from AOPA if it were.
Graham wrote:
I think that’s a slightly excessive and perhaps a little inflammatory statement, based on what we currently know.I would say instead "The explicit threat of licence suspension in CAP1404 is strongly incentivising pilots to waive their right to a fair hearing’.
I am not so sure – I can see both sides of the argument.
The reality is you can be three times over the alcohol limit and will not get a licence suspension on the roads until you are found guilty in Court. It is the Court that hands down the penalty TAKING INTO ACCOUNT all the circumstances and after have heard all the learned pleading. That is our judicial system. It is relatively quick and not excessively costly. We recognise there is a significant danger in giving these powers to the police, even though a drunk driver can legally drive the next day and kill someone – drunk for a second time. It is not perfect.
However, I dont think that is the point. The far more important concept that we discussed some time ago is that of JUST CULTURE. The CAA are imposing a penalty without any process of appeal, or examination of sometimes complicated circumstances in which an infringement occurs, relying on legisaltion that is very poorly drafted and unlikely in some cases to be adequate in Court, to obtain a conviction, achieved by coercing pilots to agree by undue means.
Eventually what will happen is one of these cases will end in Court, the unsafe nature of the process will be exposed, and there will be significant claims again the CAA for past undue process and probably for handing down GASCo courses and. more importantly, licence endorsements. Heads will roll, but it is a painful process it would seem trying to get them to see sense and avoid what are becoming more and more predictable consequences. Of course when those concerned go, I dont suppose they will care, and will still collect their inflatred pensions.
After landing on a closed, occupied runway Jim Inhofe I think got some remedial training ordered from the FAA. Arguably probably a good idea. (2010 article )
I’ve had very limited interactions with the FAA, but the ones that I have had have all been very positive.
Eventually what will happen is one of these cases will end in Court, the unsafe nature of the process will be exposed, and there will be significant claims again the CAA…
Well, I think it may be very much worse than that. The architects of the CAP 1404 policy knew that it would deter light GA from transponding in the vicinity of complex airspace. It is inconceivable that they failed to monitor the percentage of non-transponding light GA traffic at pinch points during the implementation of CAP 1404, and their failure to publish the results tells all we need to know:
CAP 1404 deters radio and transponder use and thereby squanders the safety of GA OCAS for the convenience of NATS and commercial air transport.
It would be unfair to lay all responsibility for this with Mr Gratton and his team, though they have played a full part in putting me and my family at greater risk of a mid-air collision when we fly to southern England. The chain of responsibility stretches all the way from ATCOs who “just obey orders” (and we salute many who do not) through the NATS and CAA hierarchies to the Secretary of State for Transport, Mr Grant Shapps. They will all have blood of the first CAP 1404 mid-air collision on their hands.
flybymike wrote:
could solve minor infringements at a stroke by increasing zone boundaries a couple of miles and lowering CAS a couple of hundred feet,
I presume you mean enlarging CAS so it has a buffer zone?
CAS already has a buffer zone built into it – this is part of the reason why busting someone because their (100 foot resolution) Mode-C momentarily said 2500’ under a 2500’ shelf (and turning it into a ‘loss of separation’ because an IFR aircraft was at 5000’ above this momentary bust) is unfortunate, to say the least. Our airspace is already significantly bloated by the existence of these buffer zones.
Don’t know if you noticed the smiley?
I was actually joking. 
The last thing I want to see is enlarged areas of CAS.
Jacko wrote:
CAP 1404 deters radio and transponder use and thereby squanders the safety of GA OCAS for the convenience of NATS and commercial air transport.
As I understand the rules in place, any airplane equipped with a transponder MUST have it on at all times while flying. Therefore, whoever takes CAP 1404 as a reason to shut off their transponders would be in violation there and then. Seeing how the UK CAA appears to treat CAS violations now, it would be my bet that they will enforce the transponder rules even more, up to the point that switching off the transponder would be considered a willful act and therefore punishable even harder than a CAS violation.
I fully agree with what has been said here and with your statement of deterrence as well, but it can not be the solution to willfully break the law to avoid unintentionally breaking another.
If the situation of zero tolerance and all that are as bad as this thread suggests, it should be up to EASA and if possible ICAO to take issue with this. And while many will say ICAO is a toothless tiger, it may be that but recently we have seen that they do care about just culture enough to put e.g. the Swiss transgressions on their general assembly agenda. That message here has hit home and there are efforts to change the current situation here. I would suggest that a similar move by ICAO onto Britain would cause them to rethink their position as well.
Having said all that, zero tolerance on airspace busts is in place almost everywhere in the sense that they want every single event to be used for prevention of others. There is nothing wrong with that, however, this does not mean that every single event should result in punishment.
What is certain is, that the way things are becoming more and more known, GA pilots will actively avoid the UK. Maybe that is part of the goal… as for the Fawlty Tower principle that you can run your business or airspace just fine if it wasn’t for the cumbersome customers using it.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
it would be my bet that they will enforce the transponder rules even more, up to the point that switching off the transponder would be considered a willful act and therefore punishable even harder than a CAS violation.
It would be terribly difficult to enforce, and if it were enforced, I would imagine there would be quite a lot of transponders simply permanently uninstalled which would be even worse still.
Enforcement of transponders would surely be very difficult – it only requires to say that the fuse must have popped and didnt notice, so rather falls into the same category as enforcing action against every motorist caught with a tail light out.
Not that I agee with turning them off, but I do agree that it is a terrible facet of the current policy that is tempting some to do so.
every motorist caught with a tail light out.
However, the above is illegal, even if you didn’t know about it.
Whereas flying with a defective transponder, or a defective altitude encoder which is a popular method nowadays especially since they keep packing up, is 100% legal.
The only possible consequence would be a load of TMZs. That would upset a lot of people, but could be done because the UK has virtually no representative organisations. The head of AOPA is on Gasco
zero tolerance on airspace busts is in place almost everywhere
Yes, but they don’t go after most of them. For a brief mistake, the pilot gets told off by ATC. Just like the UK used to do until 2017/2018.
