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)

What would also be very interesting is whether other countries operate the same separation rules e.g. 5000ft above or below against any unknown (but squawking mode C) traffic.

That is a massive separation which ensures a “conflict” almost anywhere in the LTMA, even if there is nothing horizontally.

Paradoxically of course if there is no Mode C altitude info, they have to assume you are below CAS, and since there could be CAT at CAS base plus 500ft (rare I am sure; 1000ft would be more common) they are operating an effective vertical separation of just 500ft. So why 500ft for unknown non Mode C targets, and 5000ft for unknown Mode C targets?

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

What would also be very interesting is whether other countries operate the same separation rules e.g. 5000ft above or below against any unknown (but squawking mode C) traffic.

That’s bizarre. It would for example completely stop IFR operations in Los Angeles, because only a relatively small fraction of traffic there is ‘known’ to ATC.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 26 Apr 16:20

Timothy wrote:

This must depend on level of culpability, no?

I have never heard of anyone being prosecuted for this.

Timothy wrote:

I bet if someone maliciously closed Oslo or Stavanger by flying low passes up and down the runway in a C150 they’d soon be prosecuted!

That is something very different. If you do that, you will not only be prosecuted for not flying according to clearances, but you will also get a civil case on your back from the airlines.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Peter wrote:

Paradoxically of course if there is no Mode C altitude info, they have to assume you are below CAS

Or the opposite flying OCAS on top of CAS

My understanding from local ATC if no altitude info or non-xpdr: it is assumed that the unknown traffic is VFR, that he is OCAS and he will “see and avoid” the IFR traffic (even if he does bust CAS), this applies to both LTMA and CTRs/CTAs

In practice, they may re-route IFR traffic laterally, except those that are close to land but for these they may apply +1000ft margin on them inside CAS if they have unknown traffic around, especially from those unknown transitioning bellow the CTA

If you have no altitude info while flying OCAS under CAS along runway extended line, you better speak to someone for identification/height or soon you will have a TMZ/RMZ stub

Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

Paradoxically of course if there is no Mode C altitude info, they have to assume you are below CAS

Ibra wrote:

Or the opposite flying OCAS on top of CAS

Its amazing that this is apparently so ill defined in some areas. Under FAA regs all aircraft within or near e.g. Class B (controlled) airspace are Mode C equipped, except for those lacking engine driven electrical systems. Those aircraft are required by explicit regulation to remain under the airspace, not over it.

“However, an aircraft that was not originally certificated with an engine-driven electrical system or which has not subsequently been certified with a system installed may conduct operations within a Mode C veil provided the aircraft remains outside Class A, B or C airspace; and below the altitude of the ceiling of a Class B or Class C airspace area designated for an airport or 10,000 feet MSL, whichever is lower”.

Traffic in the busiest airspace in the world is not diverted because there is non-communicating traffic in the general area, including non-Mode C aircraft in the limited cases that allow them in the area. Non-communicating aircraft are correctly assumed to be all over the place in VFR conditions, and almost invariably squawk Mode C so there is no need for radio chatter as long as they remain outside of Class B or C (A only exists above 18,000 ft).

Last Edited by Silvaire at 26 Apr 17:40

it is assumed that the unknown traffic is VFR

Surely not, given that it is legal to fly IFR in UK Class G, non-TXP and non-radio.

that he is OCAS

Yes, definitely, which seems bizzare because the separation minima they must then work on is just 500ft or 600ft or so.

It is turning safety on its head.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

But as you can guess “IFR in UK Class G”, is IFR within pilot mind but VFR from other perspective for all practical purpose, actually ATC needs to talk to you to tell them you are IFR ;)

Yes, at the end they may just have 500ft (or 1000ft sometime), then you can hope VFR fly X5FLs and IFR fly X0FLs but I guess there is more info one can use like flying speed, track history…

Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

actually ATC needs to talk to you to tell them you are IFR ;)

I don’t think so; CAS ATC must assume non-mode-c traffic outside a CTR is below CAS and it does not have to separate CAS traffic from it. It merely needs to separate the CAS traffic from the CAS base, by 500ft, 1000ft or whatever.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I went right in to the controlled airspace one week ago i southern Sweden. I had the wrong QNH, which I got aware of when I listened to the ATIS again. 10 hPa wrong, which got me 300 feet up in the controlled airspace.
After landning I called ATC, but they hadn’t noticed it…anyway I sent in a report, so let see what happens :-)

Johan M
ESTT, ESMS

Peter wrote:

It merely needs to separate the CAS traffic from the CAS base, by 500ft, 1000ft or whatever.

Yes, 500ft or 1000ft is all what they have to do, 1000ft is applied when the traffic is unknown
I was referring when you tell ATC you are IFR and planing zone transit after “bimbling like VFR” around CAS, it goes hectic

Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top