The toll for an – extremely minor – granite space bust in the mountains is typically death. And yes: There are airfields where the margin of error between the runway and the adjacent granite space is just 1NM (or even less).
There’s a difference though, in that you can see where a mountain is by looking out of the window and most of us VFR pilots spend most of our time doing exactly that. GPS is great but if it were truly the be-all and end-all to navigation, then these people weren’t reckless:
Peter wrote:
And this is not a “legal” procedure; the suspension of a license is a purely admin procedure with no right of defence or even any right of a hearing. It is classed as “provisional” which cleverly removes any appeals route.
@peter, wasn’t there a change in policy where you can challenge the CAA?
There was something posted recently mentioning that, but I was too lazy to read through the whole new document and play the “spot ten differences” game.
we pilots do not take airspaces as seriously as we should.
Come to the S.E. UK and fly around a bit 
wasn’t there a change in policy where you can challenge the CAA?
Nothing I am aware of.
I post my writeup on UK GA chat sites regularly and apart from getting beaten up by the usual suspects 
nobody apparently in the business has said any of it is not true. ATCOs deny my assertion that they would eventually get kicked out if they stopped doing MORs but I can’t see how that could possibly be true; it flies in the face of employment law.
Malibuflyer wrote:
The only reason why airspace busts happen is that we pilots do not take airspaces as seriously as we should.
This clearly isn’t the case. Yes some perhaps do not, but this not the only reason. If these airspace busts were as serious as flight into terrain we would be seeing a lot more accidents from people who do bust airspace. The reality of this is that it usually has little to no effect.
I would say it is a lot easier in VMC to fly within a few feet of a well defined piece of granite space than it is to fly near an invisible box.
Peter wrote:
wasn’t there a change in policy where you can challenge the CAA?Nothing I am aware of.
Airspace Infringements: review and actions update
Airspace Infringements: review and actions (CAP1404) has been amended to highlight the CAA’s audit and safety assurance functions of the Infringement Co-ordination Group (ICG), and introduces the option for those provisionally suspended by the CAP1404 process to request a review of that decision. These changes take effect from publication of this amendment to CAP1404 on 2 August 2021.
As well as this new review process we are continuing to assess other options for stakeholders to have certain CAA decisions reviewed, in line with our new regulatory principles.
https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?appid=11&mode=detail&id=7389
Interesting. I wonder what this actually means.
any remedial actions notified in the decision will be underpinned by the sameprinciple of ‘without delay’;
is almost certainly bollocks. Someone I know passed his skills test weeks ago. He’s just been told (after much chasing) the license was issued on 5th August but it takes them 1 week to print it “due to technical reasons”. The whole place is collapsing, and very likely they enjoy doing their already extremely cushy, zero low stress, and laid back job while “working at home due to covid”. In fact the whole govt is dealing with this “home due to covid” issue right now, with the Cambridge/Oxford Arts graduates civil servants having been absolutely loving every minute of it, with full union support of course, while very little work is getting done.
They have finally officially confirmed the 2 year period:
Previous infringement(s) by the pilot. A previous infringement will only be considered relevant if the related CAA decision on education/retraining requirements for that previous event sits within a period of 2 years of the reported date of the current event.
This is surely a joke:
Provisional suspension of a pilot’s licence
The CAA is authorised under Article 254 of the Air Navigation Order 2016 to provisionally suspend a licence that it has issued. A provisional suspension is not a substantive decision of the CAA, it is a preliminary step taken whilst we are considering what, if any, further action is required before a substantive decision can be made
It is quite “substantive” for the victim, from Day 1! How can anyone write something so pompous, with a straight face?
I may have missed it but I can’t see any “appeal” option if you have not been suspended. For example, no way to appeal a gasco sentence, even though at n+1 (within 2 years) you get the CAP1404 suspension.
Peter wrote:
The CAA is authorised under Article 254 of the Air Navigation Order 2016 to provisionally suspend a licence that it has issued. A provisional suspension is not a substantive decision of the CAA, it is a preliminary step taken whilst we are considering what, if any, further action is required before a substantive decision can be made
That interesting. It reflects a mindset that the the activity and paperwork are synonymous, and that the actual regulatory purpose of the paperwork (flying) is not of substantial interest. As you indicate, they show themselves to be remarkable, self serving idiots.
In VMC, as a VFR pilot, I find Granite (and Gneiss, and Quartzite, etc) have much more clearly marked boundaries than Class D, etc if navigating by looking out the window.
In VMC, avoiding granite is made slightly easier because it is somewhat more visible than airspace.
Off_Field wrote:
If these airspace busts were as serious as flight into terrain we would be seeing a lot more accidents from people who do bust airspace. The reality of this is that it usually has little to no effect.
Thanks for making my point!
Cobalt wrote:
In VMC, avoiding granite is made slightly easier because it is somewhat more visible than airspace.
(As reply to the last post with the similar point):
Sure, it is much easier to avoid granite in VMC than an airspace. But still – as Off_Fields post illustrates – it is also true that we as pilots simply do not care that much.
Thousands of variants of "Nobody gets hurt by busting the airspace by a few ft/mtrs/…) is not only the opinion of Off_Field but if we are honest the opinion of the majority of pilots.
Therefore far too many of us do not care enough even in situations where it is not so difficult to avoid. Yes, there are some situations where an airfield is surrounded by airspaces with a tight cap on top where it is actually quite a challenge to navigate w/o busting them. But:
1. Even in such situations I have met far too many pilots that did not have an answer to the question with what visual clues they identify the borders of the airspace when flying VMC. (Too) many do not even prepare their flight enough to know "when I stay north of the forest I’m clear of the airspace)
2. Many airspace busts happen not in those fields but enroute where pilots do not care. There is a larger group of pilots that do so much trust in GPS that they appear to make a sport out of flying as close to the airspace line on their screen as possible (up to a point that one colleague actually wanted to discuss if the bust happens when a part of the aircraft pictogram on the screen is in the airspace, the centerline of that pic or only when the full plane is in …). Just keeping a rational 3-5NM distance to not risk a bust does not come to their mind…
I’ve learned flying in gliders at a time where GPS has not been around and the airspace structure in Germany has been much more complex than what it is today – with lots of military airspaces that were really meant seriously. The consequence of an airspace bust at these days would not have been some nasty letters as it was today, but a starfighter chasing you. Guess what: Airspace busts did not really happen back then …
