Standby wrote:
Likewise the stats don’t show that ‘the CAA sends the majority of CAS busts to Gasco
There seems to be a massive change of policy this year. There isn’t enough data (or enough detail on it) to be sure of anything, but what it looks like is that any Mode S bust of NATS airspace goes straight to GASCO. They are the low-hanging fruit.
All the ‘no further action’ stuff can be accounted for by non-Mode S busts where it is hard/impossible to prove the matter or trace the pilot, not to mention things like ATZ busts at small airfields which are never going to get followed up properly or RA busts where no-one cares because nothing was happening in that RA at the time.
Here’s what I’d like to do: filter the data to remove all cases where the aircraft/pilot hasn’t been 100% identified and where no clear radar proof of the offence has been obtained. Then from that reduced data set produce the figures on what enforcement action is taken. I think the results of doing that are quite predictable
Standby wrote:
Also looking at some of the dimensions of CTRs and CTAs in the UK, a ‘clipping’ may well result in a loss of separation when the controller obviously cannot get the required vertical separation. NATS (and other ATC companies) have to report infringements so its not really ‘playing the ball’ by hitting them or the CAA over that part. Its all a requirement of the MOR system. The Take 2 idea that, if i recall, was actually not a NATS or CAA idea is a great concept and I certainly use it when I fly.
Just about any clip will result in ‘loss of separation’ because the UK has decided to define that as 5nm horizontal and 5,000ft vertical.
So now I have it; its a sweeping generalisation, as I intimated before, to whip up a debate. Look at the number of vertical infringements in 2018 and then compare it with the number of Gasco course referrals; they don’t match up according to your theory. You cant even get the separation standards (5nm/5000ft) right in your post; it is not that in all places.
Also remember that all radar derived reports have radar proof and that ATC also has to do an investigation. Your argument is flawed and you still didn’t answer my question re licences taken away.
Please keep your posts to facts and not assumptions as young pilots joining the GA community might actually take what you say here as the truth. Some of what you say might be bordering on liable i.e. a piece of writing that says bad, false things .
Peter wrote:
Anybody who actually flies a plane has “nipped” airspace a number of times; maybe once a year. Often unaware. .
I don’t think that’s true. While I don’t to as many cross-country miles as many here, I have NEVER busted controlled airspace in 1400+ hours of SEP flying, for all the flying in the last few years I can prove this with Skydemon track logs (many of which go near Manchester, which is way ahead of even the London TMA for busts). I used to live under the Houston class B airspace, and I never busted that either (and when I was in Houston, I used to fly 300+ hours a year, mostly VFR).
Hopefully I haven’t cursed myself by saying this now (although I don’t know what the CAA would do to me – I don’t live in the UK, and I have an FAA license).
Standby wrote:
So now I have it; its a sweeping generalisation, as I intimated before, to whip up a debate. Look at the number of vertical infringements in 2018 and then compare it with the number of Gasco course referrals; they don’t match up according to your theory. You cant even get the separation standards (5nm/5000ft) right in your post; it is not that in all places.
No, it’s not that at all. It’s a genuine suspicion that the CAA are simply going after the low-hanging fruit (Mode S and detected by CAIT) to ease the pressure NATS are putting on them to crack down on infringements, rather than applying a proportionate and intelligent approach to try and solve a complex problem. Note also that I said there’s evidently a policy change at the start of this year, so 2018 numbers will of course not match what I am suggesting, and we have no information at all on the important subset of data, which is the infringements on which it is actually possible/practical for them to take any action. My apologies on the separation standards – it is not my area of specialty.
Standby wrote:
Also remember that all radar derived reports have radar proof and that ATC also has to do an investigation. Your argument is flawed and you still didn’t answer my question re licences taken away.
Yes, that’s my point. They have the proof and are motivated to perform the investigation because they want action taken. But a large number of busts (ATZs, RMZs, TMZs RAs, etc) will have no identifying radar data, and for some if there is radar data then it will involve a long-winded process of obtaining it from a commercial body that has no interest in that particular event. I never said anything about licence removal, but since you mention it I think you’d have to screw up very badly for this to happen. Even the CAA probably realise that for a repeat offender they probably need to ask a few more questions and look into the root causes of the trouble that particular pilot is having rather than just pulling a licence as a step in the process.
Standby wrote:
Please keep your posts to facts and not assumptions as young pilots joining the GA community might actually take what you say here as the truth. Some of what you say might be bordering on liable i.e. a piece of writing that says bad, false things .
It would be a poor world for some if in our discussions we were restricted to stating only undisputed facts. When the CAA are not forthcoming with the facts, speculation is natural. What does “liable, i.e. a piece of writing that says bad, false things” even mean? Are you trying to sound like a legal type?
I don’t know what your motivations are, but you’re a new user and posting only on this single issue. That usually offers a clue.
Standby wrote:
Some of what you say might be bordering on liable i.e. a piece of writing that says bad, false things
Sorry to nitpick, libel, not liable. There’s been nothing libellous said anywhere in this thread. Saying false things isn’t libel, otherwise every politician in the country would be bankrupt by now, and Daily Mail would have gone out of business years ago :-)
Graham, I’m a new user who has recently received one such “letter” so I have done some looking into the matter (the power of Google) as, in my case I made an error of writing down the wrong QNH (1001 when I should have set 1010). I feel mortified that I did it but I know why now; I infringed the London TMA and didn’t get sent the Gasco course. Ten years of flying and I’m sure that in that time I haven’t done enough refreshing of the basics. Same 2-yearly instructor, and quite happy with my SEP and IMC rating has led me into some bad habits. A recent Gasco safety evening certainly opened my eyes but I have no one to blame but myself.
I may be an anomaly but when you start to look at the information that is available, I wonder if we all know enough. Self reflection has been eye opening in my case but then with time on my hands I have time to peruse. Maybe also as I was brought up in a generation where polite engagement with the authorities is something I was nurtured on I took time to ask the CAA about my case and here I am because my experience and research is proving different to some of the information here.
Thanks for the background and for being so candid.
Standby wrote:
I made an error of writing down the wrong QNH (1001 when I should have set 1010)
But that is random, inevitable, human error.
What letter, what course, what safety evening can prevent that happening? I would argue none at all, although a change of UK altimetry procedures might.
Thinking about it more, that wrong QNH (9mb out) is part of the reason I never use QFE or RPS. By adopting this policy, any change of altimeter pressure setting that results in a large turn of the knob at a time other than going through the transition level is indicative of a mistake somewhere (in them saying, or me hearing/writing).
I kid myself that by following up with “request the QNH please” then eventually FISOs and A/G operators will get the message and stop passing the QFE.
Standby, you don’t do yourself any favours by accusing someone of writing “to whip up a debate”. We don’t carry advertising so why would anyone bother? We are donation funded.
And as a mod/admin (an unfortunate dual role; throughout history people have preferred their executioner to wear a hood 
and that is how most forums are set up) I have zero incentive to spend even more of my time here than I do already.
So you provide a data point that not all LTMA busts get sent to Gasco. That is good, but is not unexpected. If you read back up this thread you will see rough calculations on the Gasco numbers (which are pretty well proven now, from multiple sources including their published 2017 accounts in which Q4 shows the new activity, at roughly 200-250/year) and the conclusion made was most if not all CAS busts get sent there.
And as I have posted several times, the total number (1300 or whatever) is not “CAS” busts, and much/most of it is “legally dodgy to prove” stuff like ATZ busts which are awfully hard to nail evidence-wise.
Due to widespread concerns over this new policy, a number of FOIA requests have gone to the CAA. I know about some of them and I know one asked for Q1/2018 and Q1/2019 and asked for a breakdown for each of those six months, with how many pilots got sent down which channels. If those numbers turn up, we will have clear data, but thus far the CAA has resisted, citing whatever (it’s all been posted here).
Their release of the May 2019 numbers, 2 days ago, while virtually meaningless for reasons already posted, renders that objection false, so maybe they will come back with some numbers in due course. Until then, all we have is the Gasco course numbers, and the busts itemised by airspace type (TMA etc), and putting these two together leads to the conclusion already posted.
One can dispute it of course. There is some dodgy reporting. As posted previously, look at the Q1 2018 v. Q1 2019 TMA busts here. I repost the image here:
Massive rise in TMA busts with no significant rise in CTR busts. In March TMA busts went 8 to 25. CTR busts stayed at 15. I cannot see this is possible from real flying. It has to be a statistical or ATC-procedural massaging. These numbers are presumably all from NATS or whoever owns the TMAs (mostly NATS in the UK).
So what are NATS, or the pilots, doing which is different?
I don’t think NATS are doing anything new. CAIT has been out for a few years. There might have been a staff discipline change, preventing any discretionary non reporting of the CAIT alert, but we won’t find a NATS employee posting here.
One suggestion for the 8 to 25 is increased use of Mode S by pilots. The mandatory 8.33 fitment (which has caused panic in GA, where most things are left till the last minute, and overloaded avionics shops which are quoting silly lead times to even look at a plane now) has driven many Mode S installations, because once in the shop, after a 6 month wait, you may as well… CTR busts don’t need altitude readout and even non-TXP ones are likely to get pursued, because they are pretty close to the runway.
What the letter did and forced me to do was to look at my flying in the whole. I can assure you getting a letter with the blue logo is a sobering experience but the catalyst for what probably should have been done some time ago.
To err is indeed human; not to make the most of an error and learning opportunity is maybe arrogant and self denial. To be accurate on public fora is appropriate and right; do we really want to turn into the same ‘type’ as our elected leaders who constantly bemoan the other party/parties when maybe, as was in my case, we (I) could have done things better. How many times have we drive from A to B and climbed out of the car remembering nothing of the drive? Is that complacency or something far more dangerous? For me, my error was a wake-up call of my complacency.
Peter wrote:
Massive rise in TMA busts with no significant rise in CTR busts. I cannot see this is possible from real flying. It has to be a statistical massaging.
Well, it could be suggested that the actual numbers are so small, the occurrences are so random and one month is such a short period of time that 8 to 25 (TMA busts Mar 18 and Mar 19) is random variation about the mean.
But taken as a whole, the Q1 TMA busts 2018 to 2019 is doubtless a statistically significant increase. This is either an increase in actual busts or an increase in reporting, and given that we know that all controller discretion has been effectively removed the latter seems more likely.
I would say less massaging and more presenting them without context because the natural inference (infringements are up) suits the agenda.
