I’d merge them 
Done
Airborne_Again wrote:
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.”
Peter wrote:
The UK formally disregards that rule (it’s from ICAO) and always has done.
Is it legal for the UK to disregard it though? If not then many pilots could be claiming for damages.
AIUI any ICAO Contracting State can file a difference to ICAO. Then every other CS has to accept that, unless they file an objection (which I believe almost nobody does).
Also many States differ to ICAO without filing a difference; for example the US has many un-filed differences. I went to a presentation by an FAA lawyer who said Yeah, we know, but we aren’t going to change it now…
Whether filing a difference is legal/illegal under some other framework, I don’t know. It may well be that an EU Directive (e.g. SERA) blocks the right to file a difference if it conflicts with SERA. Yes that would be absolutely hilarious
I don’t think the UK has filed a difference, BTW.
And you don’t get busted for flying at 2499.99999ft under a 2500ft CAS. You do get busted for flying at 2525ft (the Mode S resolution, I believe) so the ICAO rules is of no benefit.
What I find most dispiriting is the apparent failure by Mr Gratton and/or his CAA colleagues to foresee and mitigate the effect of their “zero tolerance” policy on the use of transponders and electronic conspicuity (EC) in the relatively crowded, complex and constrained “GA” airspace south of Lancashire and Yorkshire.
I had a close call with a non-transponding modern, fast GA aeroplane over Kent last summer, and I hold CAA personnel responsible for that pilot’s entirely predictable, however regrettable, reaction to their policy.
They could so easily reverse the harm they have done by making clear that except in the most egregious of cases, no action is to be taken against a pilot squawking Mode S with an appropriate frequency monitoring code.
They have missed a golden opportunity to encourage use of EC by giving a similar assurance. It is stark raving bonkers that an a pilot with certified ADS-B out, whose position, speed and heading are broadcast to a high degree of accuracy, should in effect be punished for being easy to track and trace.
Peter wrote:
You do get busted for flying at 2525ft (the Mode S resolution, I believe)
Mode S as such permits 25 ft resolution, but you can use a 100 ft resolution encoder with mode S.
If the aircraft used to have a King mode C transponder and upgraded to a slide-in mode S replacement such as the Trig TT31 or the King KT74, then it is likely that the 100 ft encoder is still used.
The question is, at which transponder-reading the CAA actually starts prosecution. Do they really go after pilots that fly with a 1600 reading if the airspace starts at 1500?
Has such a case ever been challenged in front of a court?
Jacko wrote:
and mitigate the effect of their “zero tolerance” policy on the use of transponders and electronic conspicuity (EC)
Sorry, I don’t buy that argument. Thats like saying “Police must not prosecute speeding if they don’t want to be held responsible for people removing their plates”. If pilots are doing stupid, dangerous and often illegal things by not turning on transponder, ads-b, etc. you can’t blame the CAA
Yes ATC are required to MOR 1600ft in 1500ft base CAS. The CAA act on 100% of MORs.
Sadly this thread is way too long to read easily now but you will see in past posts that the only way to get a court hearing is to literally stick your middle finger up and refuse all co-operation with the authorities, forcing them to take you to court. You cannot instigate a court case yourself (other than a judicial review of procedures). The huge tactical problem with this is that they have removed your license at the start of the process, so you will be grounded for at least 6 months. That’s OK if you
Normally, in criminal law, obviously nobody ever will instigate a court case themselves But in this case you have an Authority which can implement “criminal” enforcement without recourse to law, and at that stage you cannot fight anything (other than the above JR). So they can ground you for potentially many months. I am sure this is the same in every other country, in the basic procedure.
It may be possible to sue the CAA (a civil action, obviously) for having removed your license, alleging it was contrary to procedure, etc. It would almost certainly succeed in the above 100ft case, because the allowed txp error alone is 200ft. But as I say you will be grounded while doing all this, and a good barrister will cost you 5 digits.
On non-txp flying, it is not enforceable because, ahem, they can’t easily get you to start with 
Whereas police can easily pick up a car with no plates if they see one (and they do, of course). Also a lot of traffic is non-txp, which is legal, and a lot is Mode C which is also legal (but much more effort to track down). What you can’t legally do, in EASA-land, is downgrade an installation. But you can fly indefinitely with a broken txp, or with any txp whose altitude encoder is broken. The last one is becoming popular in the UK, especially with some schools.
Malibuflyer wrote:
Sorry, I don’t buy that argument. Thats like saying “Police must not prosecute speeding if they don’t want to be held responsible for people removing their plates”. If pilots are doing stupid, dangerous and often illegal things by not turning on transponder, ads-b, etc. you can’t blame the CAA
There really isn’t equivalence in your statement. Driving a car without plates will get you pulled fairly quickly. Having a transponder not in the correct position wont. Numberplates do not help reduce crashes. EC obviously can.
We are not really talking about the CAA prosecuting stupid and dangerous, we’re talking about a blanket approach which gets people for momentary lapses which are very difficult to remove for someone who is flying a good number of hours and dealing with the complex UK air system. To go to back your car analogy, it would be like someone getting prosecuted for doing 61 in a 60.
Malibuflyer wrote:
Police must not prosecute speeding
There is a huge difference between speeding and airspace infringements. The vast majority of airspace infringements are accidental. The vast majority of speeding (beyond a certain tolerance) is deliberate. Also, except perhaps in Switzerland, a tolerance is applied above the speed limit to allow for accidental excursion (and the mostly theoretical instrument error).
Also, speeding carries fixed penalties and only in really bad cases licencing action is taken.
The above comparison how a known motor traffic issue where deliberate rule breaking is a factor in many deaths is treated, compared to an issue where lapses of concentration is creating an inconvenience and only theoretical risk (in a radar environment) highlights that the ‘zero tolerance’ policy is both unfair (disproportionate action) and idiotic (unintended consequences, actually decreases safety)
