National CAA policies around Europe on busting pilots who bust controlled airspace (and danger areas)

Standby wrote:

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.

With respect, I think you are missing the point.

I really dont think this is about whether infringments should be ignored. I dont believe anyone beleives that. I dont think it is about not addressing complacency. We all become complacent.

It is about the most effective way to tackle the problem. Many of us believe this is not either effective or safe.

For example, you could have received the same blue letter and been referred in the letter to one of a number of local designated instructors for a review flight?

Personally, I feel very uncomfortable with the way those “receiving” the course are selected.

I feel unconfortable when the organisation providing the service is a registered charity. It says itself that it should not be accumulating more funds than it already has, and yet it continues to do so. A charity does not exist to accumulate money. I feel uncomfortable that there appears to be no published accountability. We dont know how the tendering was carried out, we dont know how long the contract was awarded for, we dont know why the CAA paid the cost of developing the course, and we dont know how our data is being protected, or why the statistical information requested is not forthcoming.

We dont have answers to any of these questions.

I might add, we shouldnt have had to ask the questions in the first place.

You would be surprised how widely the information about your case is distributed for the process to work. You may be happy with the people who have access to your personal information – and you may not be – I dont know, but if you dont know, I cant see how you can assess the matter?

I find it very strange with this knowledge anyone would support this arrangement without more information.

That is not to say all may be well, and the stats., might prove it is effective, BUT the really point is WE DONT KNOW, and there appesrs to be a veil of secrecy over some important questions.

There is a reason why these processes need to be transparent, and a very important reason. At the moment this is not.

I have attended the course as part of ATO instructors refresher training, and found it helpful and conducted in a pleasant open manner.

The UK sometimes muddles through with these sort of arrangements, which can be much less draconian than other jurisdictions. Perhaps not pellucid but not exactly violating the human rights charter.

Caetano Veloso, in exile in London sang
London London where he marvelled at being able to approach Bobbies without fear.

RobertL18C wrote:

The UK sometimes muddles through with these sort of arrangements, which can be much less draconian than other jurisdictions. Perhaps not pellucid but not exactly violating the human rights charter.

I get a little worried when we are presented with anything and told, well it could be a lot worse. Usually, it makes me feel like saying, and it could be a lot better too.

I also think we should judge ourselves by our own standards, because they are the ones we fought for.

Someone told me recently be careful what you say, you may get something worse, we need to tread carefully. What a load of tosh. We should never need to be careful of discussing issues such as this, less it be forgotten most of the people concerned are paid from the public purse, shame on them for not being willing to accept this type of scrutiny. And I say again, while some very real concerns are being expressed, I dont think anyone is saying they are (all) justified, but if the questions arent answered, then I suspect that is when people draw their own conclusions.

Sadly, I know there are those that are involved with this matter and are aware of some of the concerns expressed, and could make some helpful comments – but they dont. Sorry to shame, but shame on you.

Perhaps the discussion needs to cool a couple of degrees (like the weather)?

Peter

There is still a lowest court system, I was in that court with my warning letter. I flew too high into the London TMA and infringed (my first in 10 years but I still infringed). I studied CAP1404 wondering what I might need to do and my infringement was minor in nature according to the list so I guess that is why I receive the warning letter.

The one think that surprises me is the lack of trust over the statistics; surely it will take time to get a true picture and probably only at the end of each year when the totals are published; all infringements take time to process from tracing the pilot to getting reports to reviewing against the process. I’m as intrigued by it all as much as the next man but I’m a little more sanguine about the time – I guess that comes with age and plenty of it on my hands these days.

Perhaps I’m thick but in what way is an awareness course going to prevent people from mistakenly noting down the wrong pressure setting, what way is an instructor flight going to make people avoid making the same mistake, what way is receiving a letter going to provide a learning opportunity for something which is already known, and in what way are any of these things going to make people aware of something they are already aware of (i.e. not to infringe)
As has been stated, infringements occur as a result of natural unavoidable human failings, not by pre meditated recklessness, indifference or incompetence, and If there is ever a course to eliminate human error, making simple mistakes, or becoming distracted, or briefly inattentive, I will be the first to enrol.

Standby, why did you need to attend court after “merely” receiving a warning letter? Did you defend the case? Were you fined? or was the letter issued following the court appearance?

Mike, it was an analogy. Peter claims there is no lower action to be allocated than the Gasco course; he also claimed that all London TMA infringers go on that course. I was one of said infringers
Peter wrote:

What the CAA has done is like removing the lowest court system (magistrates’ court, max fine say 1k) so the lowest court system is now the country court, max fine say 10k.