Fuji_Abound wrote:
but I dont believe this is representative of the majority.
Neither do I – therefore I’m not against apologies as long as they address the right people. And that in my view is the core of the discussion!
In Peters opinion – as I understand him – by busting an airspace you do something bad to ATC – and therefore apologizing to ATC is a good thing.
In my opinion by busting an airspace you do something bad to other pilots and ATC doesn’t matter as they are only the “administrator”. Therefore apologizing to ATC is pointless and if you want to apologize you should do so to the other pilots (which operationally is obviously much harder…).
Malibuflyer wrote:
In my opinion by busting an airspace you do something bad to other pilots and ATC doesn’t matter as they are only the “administrator”. Therefore apologizing to ATC is pointless and if you want to apologize you should do so to the other pilots (which operationally is obviously much harder…).
I think Peter’s point is the practicality in that ATC are the moderators of the various airspace users, and for that matter, everyone with a vested interest. Also, the act of apologising is almost remedial in its own right, regardless of who you actually make the apology to; I guess in a similiar way if you are religeous and say your apologies to God (as being the best analogy I can think of) that act of contrition is in itself self serving.
Here is another proof of the UK infringements policy – a 100ft infringement was MORd. This guy will get the CAA treatment for sure
I hope not, as it appears he didn’t actually infringe. However, I certainly wouldn’t bet against it.
100ft for about a mile….
From past discussions here, if he got the “report from a licensed engineer” re his TXP, he would get away with it, but that report (a transponder test) is likely to cost him some £££.
Here is another 100ft one which was MORd
I´m sure the vast majority of ATCOs would not bother at all for stuff like this if it wasn´t for this pCAIT. It´s different for an obvious violation of course, like crossing the TMA via the FAF of an international airport inside airspace C. These are dangerous and should be dealt with accordingly.
A standard altimeter has an approved deviation of 60ft, if I recall that correctly from my CPL theory. In the US FARs you´ll find in 91.217 that the transponder has to transmit within 125ft of the altimeter. We are supposed to tell IFR aircraft to stop squawking C when it´s more than 300ft off the reported altitude.
These infringement reports of minor apparent violations are good for nothing but providing a job for some people. BS.
I think we need to be very clear that most of this in the UK has come about because of the constant whinging of commercial users and NATS, and the complete inability of the CAA to stand up to anyone elses interests in the airspace and ensuring some flexibility in the way the airspace is used. I dont balme NATS or the commercial users, because that is their job, I utterly blame the CAA for being so weak and ineffective, but that is another story.
Had GA any half sensible representation in the UK of course these vested interests would have been unable to rail road their views in the way they have, but unfortunately the main representative organisation we do have in the form of AOPA UK is utterly useless and so tainted by its own interest, that it is a disgrace that it claims to represent GA.
In short I have come to the conclusion that the simple reality is we have ourselves ulitmately to blame so we really shouldnt be surprised at the state of affairs we have reached – and I suspect it will only get worse. GA in the UK, and, for that matter, in Europe, I suspect has become very easy to pick off and seen very much as side line of amateur pilots who dont really go any where or use their aircraft for any purpose and should be kept firmly in their box, and not really allowed to play outside.
I know, a cynical and acid view, but I do feel that is the simple reality, and one I take no pride in holding.
I never understand how the chap at the CAA whose name cannot be mentioned can take any pride in what he does, or how GASCo can either, but I guess these days that doesnt matter, its a job, it pays the bills, and having respect and a belief in what you do, is a luxury that cannot be afforded today.
Of course, you are right… Part of the reason why this has come to this point in the UK is that there
is no functioning AOPA or similar there. And PPL/IR, although very much a UK pilot group, is no substitute.
Peter wrote:
Here is another 100ft one which was MORd
Obviously an example of a pilot that received very bad (if any) advice before talking to the CAA. “The flight has been unremarkable up until the point of infringement” is nothing short of a confession that the infringement actually happened. Can’t help them.
The one thing that strikes me in the discussion is that British people obviously have a completely different attitude towards their own legal system. An infringement that is “proven” by the authority by the reading of an uncalibrated device that is showing values that are in line with measurement accuracy of perfectly legal behavior – that would for any German be a reason to take the case in front of a court – up to the European Court of Justice if necessary.
