Peter wrote:
Unfortunately, you don’t; see previous posts. In the winter, when GA activity is much lower, the number of busts is also lower, and they can pack the majority of CAS busts onto the gasco “course” (capacity 20-25/month), and while this is “only” a ~£400 fine (depending on travel requirements etc), the problem is the steep escalation: once you have done gasco the next step, within 2 years, and per cap1404, is a license suspension. That is rather severe. In the summer, it looks like a first time offender gets a warning letter roughly 80% of the time. On the gasco session I did most people there got gasco on their first offence.
This is just not true.
Looking at the December numbers just published – taking out the provisional suspensions (2) and ongoing investigations (2), only 14% of people were sent to the GASCo course – the remainder either got warning letters or no further action, or in 1 case the online test and 1 other case flight training. The people who went to GASCo: one for poor planning/airmanship, one for 3 infringements in 3 months, and 3 for “safety intervention measures applied”, so they don’t appear to have just momentarily nicked a corner of airspace.
I think we can lay the “course packing” hypothesis to bed.
I have to repeat my post from a few days ago:
Possibly; see posts further back 
Time will tell.
Gasco course packing certainly did take place through 2019. It’s also been confirmed to me privately by people in the system.
Yes, in rare cases things like that happen – and though both of us theoretically know that accepting an IFR cancellation w/o knowing exactly how to legally get to the destination in VFR we also know that sometimes things happen fast (makeing accepting the cancellation still a mistake but who never does mistakes).
Again, this thread is very long and nobody can read it all the way back, but there have been instances where I was told that had I not done such and such I would have probably been MORd. Another is here.
The problem is the UK now has a zero tolerance. ATC are required to MOR everything no matter how ridiculous, and for sure every MOR reaching the CAA will result in action against the pilot. There is no appeal, there is no hearing you can attend.
A warning letter alone may sound ok but the next time will be Gasco and the next time is a suspension, so the escalation is aggressive and steep.
Looking at the December numbers just published – taking out the provisional suspensions (2) and ongoing investigations (2), only 14% of people were sent to the GASCo course – the remainder either got warning letters or no further action, or in 1 case the online test and 1 other case flight training. The people who went to GASCo: one for poor planning/airmanship, one for 3 infringements in 3 months, and 3 for “safety intervention measures applied”, so they don’t appear to have just momentarily nicked a corner of airspace.
Perhaps a more sensible approach is now being taken as a result of this discussion and else where. Lets hope so.
It is interesting how few accounts there are in the public domain of pilots who have attended GASCo, despite the numbers now being in the many hundreds. I wonder why?
Fear…….
Perhaps a more sensible approach is now being taken as a result of this discussion and else where. Lets hope so.
I hope so too. January numbers will be very interesting – either way.
Worth a mention that “safety intervention measures applied” doesn’t necessarily mean anything was happening. Due to the 5000ft/5nm UK add-on, ATC can choose to issue a modified vector to an airliner even if there is a 4500ft vertical separation. Then “safety intervention measures applied” applies, which sounds like you did something horrible. Also I believe the CAA letter contains that phrase as standard for any CAS bust. “Safety” is always the magic word.
I wonder why?
Probably because they know that CAA staff read all the forums
Peter wrote:
how does NATS write to you immediately following a bust?
Probably they use G-INFO?
And with any N-reg pilot who has some sort of online presence, tracking them down is trivial. :-)
For Group, syndicate and, in a different category, rental self fly hire, and in yet another category, flight instruction, how does the CAA establish who was the PIC. Presumably they must first ask the recorded owner, or the commander at the time, if that is possible (I mean if you land at Barton, having infringed, they can ask for the name of the PIC).
I recall the owner is required to provide the information, but in what circumstances?
Fuji_Abound wrote:
I recall the owner is required to provide the information, but in what circumstances?
I’d imagine the owner is required to declare who was PIC (as well as provide paperwork etc) any time the CAA ask. I have no problem with that, it seems perfectly reasonable.
Nor me, it was just clarrification that rarely does the Reg lead directly to the pilot.
There is no mystery how the letter is eventually sent to the correct person.
IME, it is pretty obvious what happens if you have ever been identifiably on the UK forums (I used to be, years ago).
About 10 years ago I visited NATS (re the AFPEX product) and they told me they cannot get CAA pilot data, unless somebody from NATS goes to the CAA personally. So they sent someone over every few days.
And NATS has a database after that of everybody who they have ever contacted previously.
