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)

There is a difference between

  • in the UK, flying under a radar service (e.g. a Traffic Service, from say Farnborough Radar) and you have advised them of your route
  • in France, flying under an implied radar service (any FIS, Terminal, Tower, etc) and you have advised them of your route

If you enter CAS without a formal clearance, in the UK you have done a CAS bust, but in France nothing happens (they usually don’t even use the words “cleared” which is a bit strange to non French pilots).

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

PPL activity has decreased, but UL activity has made up for all of it.

Including paragliders, paramotors and such, the GA activity has increased over the last 30 years.

That is possible but these types fly largely very locally. Also large parts of the UL community operates totally below the radar, transponders OFF or not installed. Ask anybody in southern Europe. This “jump in and fly” freedom is one of the big attractions of the UL scene – as posted here on EuroGA countless times. The only airspace these can detectably infringe is a CTR and for anyone who has the slightest idea of their position and uses a GPS those are well defined easily avoidable shapes.

My assertion is that the portion of GA which does significant A to B flights, and thus my far most likely to infringe, is shrinking. I have no data handy to prove this (other than, as you say, continually declining license issue stats) but it is visually obvious just from hanging around the GA scene. My local airport, located in the busiest part of the UK GA-wise, is seeing a drop in movements of some 1/3 over 20 years. This is seen all over the place. But due to the ~£25 landing fee it has almost zero uncertified planes based there, or going there. In the UK it is an article of faith that everything over £5-£10 is a ripoff

On the Gasco course (see notes posted earlier) there were a few ULs and a few helis but the rest of the 20 was certified GA. Mostly high-hour experienced pilots.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I agree Peter

Having sat back and watched this over the week something has been bouncing around in my head. Lot’s of comments re £200 for a training course and and another similar amount for travel and the like. A few comments here and elsewhere about practical training with an instructor being a fairer option (unless I have misread the many posts).

CAP1404 includes the following about a licence suspension to be completed within 90 days;
The CAA will prescribe elements of the pilot training syllabus to be covered by the pilot. A minimum of six hours of refresher training must be attended at a pilot training organisation of the pilot’s choosing. Training may be flight training, be ground-based or a combination of both.
Completion of training must be documented by the Head of Training or Chief Flying Instructor, with written confirmation of the topics covered and time spent on each topic provided to the CAA. A record of the training should also be retained by the pilot training organisation and may be subject to audit or inspection.
Refresher training at a pilot training organisation is conducted at the pilot’s expense.

So lets assume that if the Gasco course was to be replaced by a lesser amount of training, say 3 hours. Im thinking that might be more expensive than the £200-£400 amount that has been mentioned here. Where I rent my usual aircraft its £179 per hour with an instructor and thats assuming that I could get the time with an instructor at the school within the 90 days as they are certainly busy with ppl students. Simple maths says thats going to cost me more

I am not sure that we might be in a good position at the moment. My last Gasco safety evening that I attended was very well presented.

Last Edited by Standby at 06 Jul 14:23
United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

the portion of GA which does significant A to B flights, and thus by far most likely to infringe

That gives rise to some thoughts about the average pilot’s airport location – what I enjoy about A to B flights versus local flying is the hugely reduced airspace complexity once I leave my local area. Would that not be true for a pilot based on the outskirts of London, heading north?

Peter wrote:

There is a difference between

in the UK, flying under a radar service (e.g. a Traffic Service, from say Farnborough Radar) and you have advised them of your route
in France, flying under an implied radar service (any FIS, Terminal, Tower, etc) and you have advised them of your route
If you enter CAS without a formal clearance, in the UK you have done a CAS bust, but in France nothing happens (they usually don’t even use the words “cleared” which is a bit strange to non French pilots).

IMHO, this is the main reason why the UK has a “problem” with airspace infringements when compared to other countries.
Most the “infringement with loss of separation” that occur in the UK wouldnt occur in other countries like France because you are “Known Traffic”. It is common to get a “clearance” to fly at the height of the base of a TMA/CTA from a FIS.

Regards, SD..

CAP1404 includes the following about a licence suspension to be completed within 90 days;

Indeed; that route is used for serious busts. I doubt anybody has an issue with this. If I flew overhead Heathrow one way and then just as they re-open it I turned around and did it again coming back, I would want to crawl into a hole and never come out. I would probably get myself examined for early onset dementia. The only way that is likely to happen to any pilot who is basically awake would be very clever (undetectable, military-grade) GPS jamming.

So lets assume that if the Gasco course was to be replaced by a lesser amount of training, say 3 hours. Im thinking that might be more expensive than the £200-£400 amount that has been mentioned here.

My assertion is that the Gasco course, being used for what seems like the majority of CAS busts, even – from many witness accounts – the most trivial ones, is an excessive punishment.

It also creates a sort of “criminal record” inside the CAA (the CAA has actually told one “victim” who I know personally that any bust is a criminal offence) which if suitably accumulated lands you in hot water further down the line. Under the current implementation if you “just touch” CAS on 1st Jan 2019 and again “just touch” CAS on 31 Dec 2020 then (based on the FOIA-disclosed 2 years) you have done 2 busts in 2 years and the next “just touch” will be licensing action i.e. a suspension pending retraining. Actually if you got Gasco on the first one (as you will currently, since the old online exam step has been discontinued) then on the 2nd one you may get Gasco again, or a license suspension! That is ridiculous. It is like getting banned for doing 30.1mph twice in 2 years. Currently you get banned for doing something like 37mph 4 times in 4 years, which is possible but it needs pretty bad luck (or a very heavy foot; even I never managed it in my motorbike or XR3i days).

Putting the above another way, there is insufficient “graduation” in the system. It should be something like this:

  • 1st should be a letter
  • 2nd should be some online thing (which makes you spend a bit of your time on it, so you don’t forget it that easily) but not the crap we used to have
  • 3rd could be the Gasco thing (which is a £400-500 fine for the average delegate, plus a lot of inconvenience, in many cases taking 3 days out of his life)
  • 4th could be some interaction with the training system.

Obviously there needs to be a period after which the previous one is expired e.g. 2 years.

And, obviously, seriousness could be used to select a higher option right away, so e.g. a “corner nip” would only ever produce a letter, but shutting down Heathrow for an hour would lead to the last step right away (I suspect most of those get their license pulled and probably give up).

Yet, for some reason, the UK CAA is unwilling to do this. Some get letters but those are mainly cases where the evidence is poor or resource-expensive to collect (ATZ busts etc). The current system looks like it was set up to hit all CAS busts with a hammer.

And while on CAP1404, that document was by all accounts written by the one guy who is also the judge jury and executioner in the CAA, and its interpretation takes place behind closed doors. It is like me being a mod/admin on EuroGA and the Guidelines and Terms and Conditions being secret. There would be an uproar, and rightly so.

what I enjoy about A to B flights versus local flying is the hugely reduced airspace complexity once I leave my local area

Sure; a lot of airspace is much easier to fly around in.

It is common to get a “clearance” to fly at the height of the base of a TMA/CTA from a FIS.

In France, what we call FIS can clear you through any CAS… they possibly coodinate ahead.

Incidentally, the UK doesn’t operate the ICAO rule that the airspace class at a boundary is the less restrictive of the two classes. So you can’t fly at the 2500ft LTMA base at 2500ft. Anyway, if you could, CAIT would not work as currently implemented (zero tolerance).

In the PPL syllabus I did there was a load of stuff about being able to fly at the base of an “airway” at its base altitude/FL provided you crossed it at a right angle, or something I vaguely recall like that. That’s bollocks; today you will get busted by CAIT.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

In the PPL syllabus I did there was a load of stuff about being able to fly at the base of an “airway” at its base altitude/FL provided you crossed it at a right angle, or something I vaguely recall like that. That’s bollocks; today you will get busted by CAIT.

I remember that too but if my memory serves me better that is only when the base is a flight level. I might be wrong and no doubt Peter will correct me if I am.

Last Edited by Standby at 06 Jul 19:53
United Kingdom

Whatever is done, IMHO if you’re radiating Mode-S, and keep radiating it – however egregious your bust – the fact you kept your transponder on should give you immunity from criminal prosecution. This would encourage people to not turn off their transponders to try to get away with it.

Andreas IOM

How are gliders affected by this? I thought they had airways crossing “priviledges”

UK, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top