Eurofighters in 2010 cost £70,000 an hour in the UK. IIRC the expectation was for the price to come down considerably.
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2010-11-25a.367.0
I’d heard that figure too; I wonder if the costs will actually rise as the airframes get older and maintenance increases. Aircraft operate best when flown more; an airline wouldn’t keep so many hulls on the ground like the RAF do.
In the UK the Harrier was costed at 40k/hr some 30 years ago, and that was in the days the RAF actually flew planes 
Any decent justice system will have maximum fine numbers, and I would be amazed if anywhere in Europe could legally bill say 100k for an interception. In Germany the max fine is €50k and according to old posts here by Germans it has never been known to be imposed.
In the UK there is an unlimited fine for cases where fighters were launched to intercept but this appears to be aimed at airlines which went lost-comms and triggered that. The fines for private pilots are in the court sentencing guidelines which are c. 150% of weekly income. The CAA adds its costs to that. Serious busts have led to fines c. 5k but the pilot’s income is not revealed so it is hard to assess this.
BTW, some recent Gasco delegate feedback indicates a GPS usage of about 75%. That is the opposite of the numbers posted here. So Gasco is preaching to the wrong audience; they probably pick up mostly GPS + Mode S pilots. Also it’s been reported that on a show of hands not a single person did the infringements exam i.e. the whole room had been sent straight to Gasco.
Peter wrote:
some recent Gasco delegate feedback indicates a GPS usage of about 75%.
What kind of GPS? The numbers did show that panel mounted IFR GPS was not all that helpful in avoiding busts, and it’s likely that Mode-S equipped planes are the ones with the IFR GPS. I would be willing to bet you that very few of the GASCo attendees had been making effective use of Skydemon or some other VFR navigation product.
Incidentally, I can anecdotally tell you they DO chase up non-Mode S busts, and I have witnessed this first hand on two recent occasions (both weren’t actual busts, but either faulty encoders, or possibly a receive error given that Mode C has no error correction). One was a local PA-28, and Scottish Control were after him and went to the trouble of contacting me when I was talking to Ronaldsway to ask if the offending aircraft had landed at Andreas. Once they discovered it was a PA-28 and the altitude they had indicated was well above its absolute ceiling, the owners were notified by phone and it went no further.
It happened to me, too – shortly after leaving Barton, Barton info asked me ‘say altitude’ (1500’). Turns out my transponder was reporting me at 3500’, and Manchester approach had contacted Barton to find the offender. Given my aircraft type lacks JATO bottles, it was obvious that it was an avionics issue and I heard nothing more about it.
What kind of GPS?
I don’t have that info.
The delegates were mostly experienced pilots. I would think that, in the UK, almost everyone in Class G is using a tablet product. Even IFR tourer pilots are using these because, as you say, the panel mount maps are basically useless for staying in UK Class G.
I am sure they chase up non Mode S busts but it appears that it needs to be something bigger than just a “nip”. It’s a case of resources. A broken Gray code wire is likely to be hugely visible; I once got FL510 or some such, with a faulty encoder in a KEA130A altimeter
Serious busts have led to fines c. 5k but the pilot’s income is not revealed so it is hard to assess this.
Total fine and costs of £8100 here.
https://www.caa.co.uk/News/Private-pilot-fined-after-landing-without-permission/
Yes; true, original thread.
Peter wrote:
I would think that, in the UK, almost everyone in Class G is using a tablet product. Even IFR tourer pilots are using these because, as you say, the panel mount maps are basically useless for staying in UK Class G.
Indeed.
If I were to fly the TB10 on any non-trivial A to B flight in the UK without SkyDemon and just using the GNS430, it would be a case of checking the route carefully on the paper chart first and making notes on what altitude is ok between which waypoints. In flight there would be no deviation whatsoever from planned route without checking the paper chart first, or unless I knew I was was obviously in an area with no airspace around.
The GNS430 shows airspace lines, but unless you are very familiar with the area you need to refer to a chart to see what those lines are.
One thing that surprised me, that nobody seems to have commented on, is this graphic posted by Peter
In 2018 there were 25 pilots who had their licence provisionally suspended. Given that this should just be for the extreme cases, this seems very high to me.
According to the graphic, there were just 5 prosecutions and just one the year before. Did there used to be a lot more prosecutions which are now being dealt with via “provisional suspensions” or are provisional suspensions being used to supplement a poor prosecution history?
Is there any analysis published showing the incidents that people were involved with that resulted in provisional suspension? I’d love to get some idea of where the line lies between Provisional Suspension and not.
It seems to me that most of the complaints and issues being raised here could be comprehensively resolved if some statistical data and analysis was published by the CAA (which they promised to do in the famous flyer forum thread).
But the refusal to release that data is obviously making people suspicious that it’s not being released because it won’t show the picture that the authorities want it to show.
Latest CAA statistics release here.
https://airspacesafety.com/facts-stats-and-incidents/
Zero online tests in May out of 163 reported infringements, (of which apparently action, or a decision of no action, has thus far been taken in respect of 42 of them.)
So is that 80 % deemed suitable for the course with obvious adjustments compared with a warning. Very different from what Timothy suggested.
