Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

National CAA policies around Europe on busting pilots who bust controlled airspace (and danger areas)

The Minister is Grant Shapps who has already been attacked by the trash press (and the anti-wealth Guardian, of course) for owning a Saratoga, and N-reg too So if you write to him, he will (because he must) pass the correspondence to a man in the DfT who runs 100.000000% the company line (bollox, basically – see here and here).

I think Grant is a good guy but he can’t be seen to be looking after his hobby.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I think the ideas of writing are very honourable and would be the usual and best course.

However, it seems to me it has been tried, and the only thing that is effective is where writing compels disclosure under a FOI request.

It seems to me on this one everyone is in total denial, it is like a runway train heading for catastrophe but the break man has his feet up drinking a cup of tea and is oblivious.

I think when matters have reached such a state of affairs there is unlikely to be any constructive engagement!

However, it seems to me it has been tried, and the only thing that is effective is where writing compels disclosure under a FOI request.

I’ve remarked before that a FOI request from me for locations and numbers on specific danger area “infringements” (many of which are not restricted for flying) was denied for “confidentiality” reasons.

Last Edited by flybymike at 23 Nov 20:39
Egnm, United Kingdom

Did you try an appeal? The CAA denies all requests (of significance) AFAIK. All had to be appealed.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

A query to my constituency MP regarding the appeal procedure got a fairly quick (and useful) response from the Minister for Aviation, Robert Court.
I understood the protocol was to submit through your MP.

Maoraigh
EGPE, United Kingdom

The point has been totally lost on the ex RAF ATC “club” at the CAA that not publishing where the busts are taking place is suppressing the only opportunity GA pilots have to learn from the data.

Some of the busts appear in the monthly MORs listings but – I have unauthorised access to these top secret Kremlin/Cold War-grade documents – by no means all. I don’t know why but perhaps only 10-20% of the busts are listed in the monthlies. But even those listed can’t be correlated with the monthly bust numbers. You could connect a very small number of those sentenced to some MOR items published 1-3 months earlier…

So we get the numbers but these heinous criminal offences may as well have been committed in the Peoples’ Republic of Upper Volta, where none of us fly, but which probably does have TMAs, CTAs, CTRs, and ATZs… well maybe one of each.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Do we know with certainty the number of pilots each month infringing for a second time? I know that most who do, get GASCo at least, but I think it is quite possible to have been to GASCo the first and second time. Presumably it is the third time that a suspension is all but guaranteed, but perhaps even then, not an absolute guarantee.

Fuji_Abound wrote:

Do we know with certainty the number of pilots each month infringing for a second time?

One can never know for certain if all cases are captured, but I believe you can deduce it or something close to it from the sentencing data.

Among the GASCo sentences there is a number in brackets representing those who got GASCo for repeat infringing (i.e. a second-timer) and among the suspensions there is a number in brackets for repeat offenders (which is at least a second-timer). I would add those two together and I think that’s a pretty good indicator of second-timers. Might catch some third-timers if they went through all the stages, but I imagine they would be few.

EGLM & EGTN

Graham – yes thank you. I suppose there is an interesting argument that if there are very few second (or third) timers the policy is having some effect. However, is the course intended to be a deterrent, or refresher training? I am guessing in the pilot world both would / might be equally effective. It maybe there is a populaton of pilots that do require knowledge refresh, and if this prevents them infringeing again, this is a good thing. The question still arises that if it is proving effective and there are very few repeat offenders does the course need to have a deterrent element? Purely as a deterrent it would seem the course is a failure. In other words if something is to act as a deterrent lots of people would avoid the “offence” because the penalty deters them in itself, and this does appear to be taking place as numbers, if anything, are increasing.

It seems to me the CAA are confused about the different approaches. We have penalty points and fines, without any refresher training, for drivers in the first instance presumably because we believe it is all about having deterrent in place to prevent speeding. We then progress to the option of refresher training for more serious cases. This seems a sensible and proportionate response. However, I am of the view that very few pilots infringe, in the same way that simple speeding brings a sense of pleasure and satisfaction to some drivers. I suspect most pilots infringe simply because they have made a mistake, and therefore refresher training is far more important than a simple deterent.

Have the CAA just simply misunderstood when a penalty and when less confrontational refresher training is the correct answer?

Seems to me just maybe the CAA need to revisit their own human factors course material?

Last Edited by Fuji_Abound at 24 Nov 17:23

I suppose there is an interesting argument that if there are very few second (or third) timers the policy is having some effect

I’d form a different conclusion from that. I’d suggest that if there are few repeat offenders but the number of infringements hasn’t gone down, then that shows that infringements are a rare occurrence for the average pilot…..a once off human error…and are only a thing because of the sheer number of pilots.

A rare once off error is impossible to prevent by fear of penalty or training. Recurring errors can be avoided by better checks and procedures, but rare once off errors suggest the pilots are operating good procedures are is just part of being human.

EIWT Weston, Ireland
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top