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)

I busted Paris TMA twice. Each time with a mode S transponder on ALT (I didn’t intend to bust in the first place ).
I didn’t warn anyone, and never got any questions.

I read not long ago there is a phone number to call if you enter a French prohibited area by mistake.
It is mainly meant for P area / ZIT, areas for national security, not just any CAS AFAIU.

LFOU, France

Johan_M wrote:

ATC, but they hadn’t noticed it

This is most unlikely to happen in the UK, as there are automatic warning systems called Controlled Airspace Infringement Tool (CAIT) in the high impact airspace. It doesn’t work for ATZs or DA, RA or PAs, but it does for quite a lot of ordinary Class A and Class D.

One of the reasons that reported infringements have increased.

EGKB Biggin Hill

Most of my flying in non-transponding at the moment, but it’s not to infringe without being detected – it’s because the PA-17 has no electrical system (other than a 12v 7Ah battery powering a single com radio) and so no transponder.

I’ll be back in the TB10 soon though, and will keep clear of the LTMA as usual.

Those two guys at the CAA (see their antics on the other forum) are still running the money making courses? Unsurprising really. That said though, since I learned what percentage of infringers are not using any sort of moving-map GPS I am warming to a zero-tolerance approach. Obviously some are unlucky, a moments inattention, etc. Obviously the more you fly the more you’re likely to be unlucky one day – I wonder when my day will come.

EGLM & EGTN

Timothy wrote:

One of the reasons that reported infringements have increased.

That’s the thing. It is completely implausible that infringements would not be down since the widespread adoption of moving-maps GPS. But reporting rates are up (from very variable to almost 100%) so infringements appear unchanged.

Some dunderheads at the CAA clearly need a course in elementary statistics and operational research. Perhaps I can offer it at £200 plus hotel stay?

Not surprised they shy away from that issue though. They spent at least 15 years telling us not to use GPS, so it wouldn’t do to acknowledge that it makes all the difference.

EGLM & EGTN

So why 500ft for unknown non Mode C targets, and 5000ft for unknown Mode C targets?

Unknown traffic that has busted airspace has to be kept away from other traffic by 3nm or 3000ft generally unless the CAA has granted specific reductions.

The 5nm or 5000ft rule was so absurd and caused so much pain that it has been abolished.

But I agree with you.

If unknown traffic can operate legitimately under the LTMA with separation as little as 500ft, then it makes little sense to suddenly need to separate by 3000ft on a blanket basis when they’ve discovered a bust.

I would much prefer considering unification closer to 1000ft (standard IFR separation) instead.

Last Edited by James_Chan at 27 Apr 06:45

5nm or 5000ft rule was so absurd and caused so much pain that it has been abolished.

When was it abolished?

I was told, maybe 2 years ago, that it was 5000ft and something like 15nm. So at 15nm (or whatever) they started vectoring airliners around, otherwise the ATCO would be fired. And once they start vectoring traffic around due to this, the infringer (if caught, and Mode S assists there massively) gets the “stage 2 special treatment”.

I am also pretty certain that it isn’t just 3nm now, against Mode C (known probable altitude) traffic which is not in radio contact.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

There is so much in this thread that is so wrong (whether through lack of understanding or wilful mischief making, I don’t know) that it’s difficult to know where to start.

Firstly, the CAA prosecutes a tiny proportion of infringers, and the ones that are prosecuted are either serial offenders or have created carnage, causing huge, and sometime quite dangerous disruption. If you can, imagine what happens in the LTMA if an airport is closed for 20 minutes, there are suddenly a whole bunch of unexpected go-arounds and diversions to slot into James’ already 98% full airspace. Not to mention the financial cost to the airlines and the disruption to individuals’ lives when they find themselves in Manchester instead of London, trying to get to a business meeting, family event or whatever.

But, as I say, the number with major disruption is small, and the proportion of those prosecuted smaller, that is not the main point.

The main difficulty is that once someone infringes into controlled airspace, they might only be there for a short period, but the controller doesn’t know that. If the pilot is insufficiently aware of his position to be inside controlled airspace, all bets are off. Are they going to turn left and get out, or turn right and get so close to an airliner that it gets a TCAS RA, climbs into the path of another aircraft, causing it to get an RA and so on? The controller just doesn’t know, so she has to start moving traffic, traffic that is already close together, away from the infringer, while keeping separation from other traffic.

If that happens, the controller has to be pulled off their position (partly in case they have been affected emotionally, which may lead to a momentary loss of focus later in the shift.) Taking them off position means finding someone else, which then disrupts the duty roster for the day, or longer.

So, every infringement has to be taken seriously, and can potentially causes massive knock-on effects out of all proportion to the few seconds knocked off the infringer’s flight.

Also, the apparent inability of the GA community to play its side of the bargain causes a range of thoughts and emotions from the ATC and airline side that is wholly counter productive to ourselves. It results in calls for more airspace, more mandatory equipage, more training and a welter of measures which only damage the rest of us. The CAA actually do a brilliant job in batting off those demands (some of you who think that the CAA is out to get us should spend a bit more time with them; a lot of them are themselves private pilots who really want to see the best for general aviation.)

But the bottom line is that every infringer makes life worse not just for the airlines, CAA and NATS (other ANSPs are available) but for every one of us. We should be looking on infringers not as members of our community who are hounded, but as we now look on drink-drivers. There once was a time when the drink-driver was the victim, he is now the pariah. The same should be true of infringers, if we value our freedoms.

Then there’s all this crap about the Infringement Awareness Course.

Firstly, it is an excellent course. Almost everyone who goes on it arrives resentful and leaves having had a really stimulating and enjoyable time. They talk to their friends and there is a clamouring from non-infringers to be able to attend because it is such good training (this is analogous to the situation with driving Speed Awareness courses.)

Secondly, it has not been put together by the CAA. It is created and delivered by GASCo , a charity dedicated to flight safety, who also do safety evenings at clubs and schools and are very highly regarded. GASCo is made up largely of volunteers who just want GA to be better and safer. They are an excellent organisation.

Thirdly, no money is made. It is a cost centre. Actually, the thought that money is flowing from the infringer towards the CAA, NATS, the airlines or GASCo is quite risible. An infringement can cost thousands or tens of thousands to the airlines and NATS. I have tried to get this figure from them, but they can only give me the costs of a go-around and a diversion (already many thousands) but not the costs of re-arranging people’s flights, ground transport, hotels and the on-costs of missed meetings and missed opportunities.

It is time that some of us did a little more research before shooting our mouths off and making matters worse.

EGKB Biggin Hill

I was invited onto one of these (UK) GASCO courses last year after a 9 second 32ft bust of the London TMA from below at a notorious pinch-point between Farnborough and the London TMA -I was aware I had done it as I took avoiding action of same level conflicting traffic at which moment SkyDemon bleeped at me as I descended but I thought it was so momentary it was a non-issue and flew on, only to get a letter a few weeks later…

They explained that due to their Controlled Airspace Infringement Tool (CAIT) my return on the radar went INFRINGER and then they had to treat me as such for the whole of the rest of the time I was tracking under the 2500ft base airspace: since Farnborough had asked me to transit at 2400’ and Heathrow couldn’t raise them on the phone (I had a Farnborough squawk) that was a long time. Apparently they route traffic right around the edge of the TMA and suddenly couldn’t, and the poor trainee controller had to be taken off shift…

I was surprised on the GASCO course that most of the pilots in the room were highly experienced including even Search and Rescue types. We pretty much agreed by the end of the day that if we’d all given CAS a 300’ margin we none of us would have been there. It was actually a useful and informative day, even though I was originally gobsmacked to be contacted and nearly everyone was resentful about being there.

What seems obvious to me now, but I didn’t previously consider, is that they are getting your altitude information from your transponder, so you can’t be guided by say GPS altitude on SkyDemon but rather only by what your transponder is sending.I suppose you could be in the same place in the sky on a different pressure day and outside CAS!

TB20 IR(R) 600hrs
EGKA Shoreham, United Kingdom

Just to be clear, @NealCS and I hit “send” at exactly the same moment, there was no collusion between us (I have no idea who he is) yet we have managed to say exactly the same thing – him better than me, of course.

EGKB Biggin Hill

How can they bust you by 32 feet? AFAIK Mode C resolution is 100 feet.

Unfortunately it’s difficult to give all airspace a 300’ margin, take the Manchester LLR for instance. If you fly 300 feet below the base you’ll be flying very low over Warrington and there’s not many places below 1000 feet you’ll meet the glide clear rule in a single – so practically, you’ve got to go as close to the ceiling as practical.

Anyway there’s a good reason why my new transponder will default to showing the pressure altitude it’s reporting on its display. I too would like to do this course if it came to somewhere nearby, one thing I miss about our flying club in Houston was the regular (and very informative) safety meetings. We have a GASCo meeting here coming up shortly (not the infringers one – I’m not sure of the subject but I was planning on going), but unfortunately I’m probably going to be away and miss it.

Last Edited by alioth at 27 Apr 08:10
Andreas IOM
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top