11 is hardly “packing out the course” (vs 47 in the “closed, advisory letter or tutorial” category, and 1 getting practical training)!
Peter wrote:
The perhaps more obvious avenue, if the txp is more than 200ft off, would be to bust you for flying with an unairworthy aircraft. This would be hard to hit a renter with, so they would bust the school.
They would not really be able to do this because:
1. mode-C does not have any error correction, so the receiver might be at fault.
2. very few mode-C transponders have an altitude readout on the front, so, say halfway between annuals, it’s practically impossible for a pilot to know the transponder is out of tolerance (especially if it’s an intermittent fault).
Malibuflyer wrote:
I mean a case where the plane actually did not infringe any airspace but the transponder showed an altitude that was 200ft higher and therefore would have been within this airspace?
Yes, I personally have had this happen to me.
I was leaving Barton (after the “bust ’em all” strategy was already in full swing) and Barton asked me “say altitude” (1500’, well below Manchester’s airspace), however, Manchester was showing me at 3000’+. I offered to turn the mode-C off, and they accepted. I never heard anything about it again. Checking my transponder with Ronaldsway showed it was spot on, so it may have been an intermittent fault. In any case it was probably pretty obvious that I wasn’t at 3000’ in that position and that quickly because my aircraft lacks a JATO rocket.
I now have a transponder which displays the pressure altitude, and it’s left by default on that display. I also have a Garmin G5 recording barometric altitude to a microSD card (and airspeed, bank and pitch angles etc).
I have had Class D transits refused many times, mostly by Solent (EGHI) who sometimes tell you to Stand By and don’t call you back.
Re the Gasco numbers, these are the monthly totals plotted on a graph, which shows that our earlier expectation of some policy to abandon the Gasco “course” seems to be premature
The problem with Gasco is not so much the ~£400 waste of time. It is that, per CAP1404, the next step is license suspension.
Peter wrote:
mostly by Solent (EGHI)
Given that Southampton’s traffic just fell by 95%, that shouldn’t be a problem any more…
Would be interested to hear the ultimate outcome for those who “decline to undertake training” and who may well have “self incriminated” by making the “voluntary” statement before sanction.
Everybody has self incriminated, by completing the NATS and the CAA report forms.
If you don’t do these, you will simply have your license taken away for ever. This is the only way if you want a court hearing. You have to not co-operate. But this is a poor route because you lose your license at the outset and then you wait – with no defined timescale – for the hearing. I spoke to one guy who waited 6 months; he spent a lot of money pushing it so maybe somebody else would have waited for much longer since the CAA has zero incentive to rush to court, given they have already grounded you. Once you are grounded you are not relevant to them anymore, so they are happy to leave you like that.
My guess on those who refused training is that they were either giving up flying or wanted a court hearing. I cannot think of any other explanation because the refusal finishes you as a pilot for ever – unless you win the court case.
On the gasco “course” one delegate said openly he had given up flying, so I wondered why he was there. It must have been that he was threatened with a prosecution if he didn’t attend. I didn’t get a chance to talk to him – mutual discussion was not allowed except in the toilets, or after the course but then everybody was rushing home.
My guess on those who refused training is that they were either giving up flying or wanted a court hearing. I cannot think of any other explanation because the refusal finishes you as a pilot for ever – unless you win the court case.
That’s why I would be intrigued to learn the outcome of what might subsequently happen in court (on the basis of whether the case might be inadmissible because of the self incrimination argument?!)
Would love to see a test case from some brave soul.
Some Mode A contacts today. This one was very close – about 100ft above me when I finally saw him. A “new” plane so obviously intentionally flying with Mode C off (or due to very poor training). The issues around the Solent (EGHI) area are now well known, with a load of Gasco “customers” as a result of MORs filed there
I did get a pic but it wasn’t good, and I would not publish a good one because of the likely resulting trouble 
But whoever it was should think about it.
Near/under their 2000ft CAS base, I asked ATC twice to confirm my Mode C readout, and recorded it.
Given that Southampton’s traffic just fell by 95%, that shouldn’t be a problem any more…
Didn’t sound like it today. Time will tell.
On what basis are they not giving transit clearances if the amount of traffic has dramatically fallen?
I have not tried a clearance but the radio seemed busy as usual.
Interesting commentary from a well known aviation journalist reflecting the CAAs attitude to his recent enquiries from him about CAS access and infringements. Much talk of doors closed, no one wanting to be quoted on record, and stories from the CAA that all we will need to know will be promulgated via CFI’s and FI’s (who of course Timothy and others previoulsy told us cannot be trusted by the CAA so that is a good one).
What a shambles, as many of us have long suspected.
It really does beggar belief when our own regulator isnt prepared to go on the recod in any meaningful way.
I really do feel this is a scandal. Lets hope when this virus is eventually dealt with, some sanity will prevail in other arenas.
