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

Peter wrote:

I know these 1980s/1990s Trimble boxes were and probably still are used in “commuter” planes e.g. the twin turboprops which fly loads of short routes around the place, but I have never seen one in light GA, which moved from no GPS at all to the KLN or GNS boxes, all of which have a moving map (albeit near-useless on the KLNs and the GNS430/GTN650/IFD440, especially for navigating around airspace).

I learnt to fly with one in PA28s and Duchess. GNS were the fancy stuff. This was the basic CDI GPS.

lionel wrote:

Yeah, something like this:

I did my PPL on planes equipped with these…

We had one of these on the Tupolev 154… panel mounted.

Peter wrote:

Yeah, but today?

You didn’t say today, you said they were never installed in light GA which they certainly were.

Peter wrote:

Yeah, but today?

Still plenty around

Peter wrote:

How long since you saw one of these used in light GA?

Something like 2016.

In the UK separation with an unknown a/c may have to be 3000-5000FT (see 18 here).

Here is an ATCO’s opinion on the matter in a recent publication.

I’m not familiar with any of this, but reading most of the thread, it seems like a bust of 100’ for half a minute should not trigger much of anything since by the time the ATCO wil have attempted to try to contact the first IFR traffic that would get in conflict, the conflict has already disapear. But it was noted that all infringement regardless of how long or how much are treated the same, it does not make sense. The engineer in me would say: in case of infregement, wait 30 seconds. At the end of the wait, if the intruding aircraft is creating conflict, start diverting IFR, contacting him…. otherwise, forget about it :-)
There’s your little software patch to improve the situation :-).