alioth wrote:
I think one pilot who flies 200 hrs a year is less likely to infringe than 10 pilots who fly 20 hours a year, since the 200 hour/yr pilot will be a lot more current, up to date with current issues/airspace changes, and less likely to make errors than the 20 hr/year pilots
If that is true, a higher insurance premium is justified as the ten 20hr/yr pilots are also more likely to make errors that lead to insurance claims…
alioth wrote:
I think one pilot who flies 200 hrs a year is less likely to infringe than 10 pilots who fly 20 hours a year,
Not so sure about that. I think we all agree that unless we are talking about blatantly flying across the Heathrow/Paris/Frankfurt CTR entirely unaware, then most infringements are a minor lapse due to unforeseen circumstances and complicated airspace, so the more hours you fly the more often you are likely to have this happen.
Its also about mission profile – this is why instructors feature alot in the CAAs stats – they fly VFR alot and have a student to look after.
Regards, SD..
“I think one pilot who flies 200 hrs a year is less likely to infringe than 10 pilots who fly 20 hours a year,”
I am in 2 Groups, and have flown the highest hours each year for the past 10 years. I am the only one to have infringed airspace – but I am also the one who has flown farthest from homebase in that time, in unfamiliar airspace. I don’t think anyone else has been in a position to infringe within the last 3 years, due to distance.
Flying with a student in turbulent conditions and a fast airplane under a very low shelf of airspace can lead to a technical infringement faster than you can imagine. Normally you can keep a 500ft or so buffer, but under our 1500ft shelf that is not possible due to obstacles and terrain. I have lately scratched some TMA airspace for about 8 seconds, maybe 50ft too high, but I doubt anybody else will have seen or cared about it. I´m grateful to fly in Germany, not England. I don´t believe the UK CAA policy will prevent these things from happening either.
As a controller I sometimes see short vertical deviations of VFR and IFR traffic, but if they are indeed short I treat them as a false indication. There´s no way of telling if it was an infringement or false indication and frankly, if there´s no conflicting traffic I´d rather care about more important things.
I have said for some time you cannot have one rule for one, and another for others.
Operators in CAS who infringe on their clearance are “dealt with” in an entirely different way from GA pilots OCAS.
The correct way to deal with infringements is to refer the pilot to either the in house process (in the case of commercial pilots) or local instructors in the case of GA pilots.
Why? To be effective the pilot needs to have a one to one discussion that discusses the circumstances of the infringement in an open and frank way, and one in which both parties can determine whether the risk has been mitigated or was minor and trivial and unlikely to reoccur. There are many other reasons why this approach is the correct approach.
The CAA do not trust instructors to perform this role, not withstanding that they effectively exam and appoint the said same instructors. They would rather sub contract the task to a dubious organisation that operates out of a port-a-cabin in Rochester, that isnt prepared to reveal the experience and qualifications of those appointed to run their courses. It is an utter disgrace, has not proven that it has acheived any of the objectives that could be expected, not that I am even sure there has ever been a document that sets these out, and required the pressure of a freedom of information request to be brought to account in any way, after refusing to provide the information requested.
It is everything that aviation safety should not be about, and yet is run by a charity that claims to place aviation safety at the fore of its objectives.
I am afraid this policy was ill thought out, will not prove effective, and should be abolished.
At least in Germany instructors are not “appointed” in any way by the CAA but it is a license/rating like any other license/rating. Anyone who passes the tests can get it and call themself instructor independently of whether CAA likes her/him or not. Accordingly there are some instructors that take safety really seriously and are extremely dilligent in doing their job while others don’t care and even do training flights in overloaded planes, etc.
I fully agree to you, that it would be much more effective against infringements to have measures that are individually tailored to the pilot who did it instead of standard courses – but such an individual treatment would be even more expensive.
I dont believe it would be more costly.
At the moment the courses are held in relatively few locations, and has Peter has said before, with no latitude to be late, by the time you have paid for the course, an hotel, travel and potential loss of income it is a costly exercise .
The cost of a few hours with an instructor would be much less and far more convenient. It would also put money into the pockets of those were it is needed rather than some rather silly organisation that cant decide whether it is still a charity or a profit making operation.
MedEwok wrote:
There seems to be no consequence of me touching class D of Bremen EDDW two weeks ago
Good for you 
and it’s also the point of the thread. There are no consequences (other than becoming part of the statistics).
gallois wrote:
I got the impression from the previous posts that Norway and Germany required flight plans be “deposed” for any VFR flight in classes B, C, and D.
No, certainly not the case. But, what causes confusion (to me at least) is how things actually work when you do, and you start somewhere in G.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
organisation that cant decide whether it is still a charity or a profit making operation.
How do you mean?
arj1 wrote:
How do you mean?
We have been through that in the other thread. Fuji doesn’t accept that a charity can have a commercial profit-making side which then subsidise other loss-making sides of the charity.
