The UK CAA is probably the only CAA in the world which runs a “100% bust them” scheme.
The US is a big place. Roughly 10x bigger than all of Europe, in GA hours flown. They are strict in some areas e.g. TFR guarding (you get an F16 pretty quick) and this probably generates a lot of enforcement actions. But they have easy access to CAS: Class D on a 2-way radio contact, and Class B if you ask and usually you get it. Also – and this leads to a huge discussion – they have a joined up system, whereas in the UK the owners of most CAS do not talk to VFR GA at all, or with rare exceptions, so if you bust it hits them suddenly when they get the software generated indication (CAIT). US ATC definitely does not bust everybody.
The UK 100%-MOR policy is simply stupid, and has been crudely implemented by particular people whose programme is to punish without education. Unfortunately for most of us, however, they can always dig up a muppet who shut down Heathrow for 30 mins, and sure enough the radar videos of these are always played back at every opportunity…
Yes there have been a number of cases in the UK where of several infringers only the Mode S one got followed up. That is obvious: following up a Mode C pilot takes a lot more work.
First, the use of CAIT is non-sense, it should be left to ATC/Pilots to judge the airspace bust and it’s implications, flagging someone who nips airspace for few seconds bellow airspace dimming boundaries with taking into account the impact of the bust is just madness
I get zillion of CAS standby on boundary sometimes vectored by ATC OCAS to few waypoints for transit rather than the one I am planning for, with few after a botched late handover or freecall with many other pilots on frequency, for a less skilled pilot (like me 
) unless you do 180 back in that scenario hitting CAS is 80% guaranteed to happen and get flagged on CAIT then you have a whole myriads of paperwork to deal with !
Second, MOR system has been abused, first it is 100% MOR on both ATC and PIC, second PIC & ATC details on MOR are used to persecute for CAS busts, this is not a healthy use of the MOR system IMHO
Malibuflyer wrote:
Avoiding airspace infringements for pilots is extremely easy: Just stay away 500ft vertically and 2NM horizontally from any airspace you should not touch and you will never infringe (and if you still do, there should really be some additional training…). That, however, would require an airspace structure that allows recreational flying with these margins to airspaces.
@Malibuflyer and that IS a problem, especially in the south. Just think for a second: EGKB→EGTO 18nm leg has got the MSA of 2400ft and TMA at 2500ft. :)
And please remember that XPDR error is 200ft and the CAA might interpret it their way…
In general, MSA below TMA is around 1700-2200ft
I mean, even if it was TMA class A from, say, 3500ft and then 2000-3500 for Class E/TMZ/RMZ, it would have worked for the most traffic.
And what I’ve noticed, judging by the youtube videos and talking to others – pilots tend to spend more and more time inside the cockpit, staring at the moving map, than outside the cockpit even flying VFR… And if there is a collision under or around the CAS – it is still your problem. You broke the rules!
gallois wrote:
And yes if you infringe controlled airspace you should expect to get “busted”.
The questions is what “infringement” means. As long as acertain altimeter error is allowed (and it is) that possibility of error should be taken inte account when deciding if something is an infringement, but it is not in the UK. Also, the acceptable flight technical error in altitude should be taken inte account for temporary infringements. All of this is simple to implement in infringement detection systems if you want to.
Airborne_Again wrote:
The questions is what “infringement” means. As long as acertain altimeter error is allowed (and it is) that possibility of error should be taken inte account when deciding if something is an infringement, but it is not in the UK. Also, the acceptable flight technical error in altitude should be taken inte account for temporary infringements. All of this is simple to implement in infringement detection systems if you want to.
Theoretically, PPL test acceptable altitude tolerance is 150ft, plus 200ft for XPDR error, 350ft in total.
So, in theory, there should be no alerts set up for up to 2850ft. If you “take 2” as per CAA, then it should be 2650ft.
Clearly there is a fundamental difference of opinion on enforcement.
I think it is wrong to punish everybody who infringes. The nature of the circumstances (easy distraction, ATC services, the way the whole system is set up, etc) in a brief infringement makes it unjust to do that. The system and all its contributing factors is just too complex. It isn’t like doing 20 over the speed limit in a car…
Ideally, a warning letter should be sent out in every case. But “they” probably decided that with the effort involved in tracking down the pilot at the time, which ranges from trivial (sole owner of a G-reg) to labour-intensive (a syndicate around a non-G-reg reg) they may as well hit them hard while they are at it. The whole system is already heavily slanted against Mode S flyers because they need far less effort.
But actually the UK system worked ok for decades. It took a particular personality, arriving a few years ago I think, to bring in the present regime.
arj1 wrote:
Theoretically, PPL test acceptable altitude tolerance is 150ft, plus 200ft for XPDR error, 350ft in total.
So, in theory, there should be no alerts set up for up to 2850ft. If you “take 2” as per CAA, then it should be 2650ft.
As we as pilots all know that, it can be expected that we keep a distance of 350ft from any airspace to avoid infringement. The problem is only the situations where this is operationally not possible due to terrain/airspace (MSA is not a good indicator for VFR flights) – I know what I’m talking about as I live myself under a 1500ftmsl class
C..Peter wrote:
think it is wrong to punish everybody who infringes. … A warning letter should certainly be sent in every case.
Couldn’t agree more! Only very significant infringements should be prosecuted the first time. A good process for less significant infringements would be a letter (or even better a call) the first time, a letter with some “incentive to remember” (aka small fine) the second time and only the third time “giving the opportunity to reflect and improve airmanship” (aka mandatory retraining), etc.
manchester low level route about 4nm wide and 1250 base makes it difficult to keep 2 miles away and 500 below
Malibuflyer wrote:
As we as pilots all know that, it can be expected that we keep a distance of 350ft from any airspace to avoid infringement.
Then what it the purpose of this passage from SERA? “Where ATS airspaces adjoin vertically, i.e. one above the other, flights at a common level should comply with the requirements of, and be given services applicable to, the less restrictive class of airspace.”
The UK formally disregards that rule (it’s from ICAO) and always has done.
The Manchester LLR is a “suicide alley” And of course it has Barton down there, which holds the world record for MOR filing for ATZ busts…
Should this thread be merged with the main one?
