Gasco (means General Aviation Council), the course and process is entirely designed for GA CAS busts (or aimed GA/Bizjet/Mil busts of CAT airspace to put it rightly)
I think CAT busting another CAT FL falls under “no worries, he is our own jerk” and it is dealt with as a separate industry process ;)
Nonetheless, I don’t see why airliners crew could not learn from that content for their ops?
There were some bizjet pilots on the Gasco course. One (a multi pilot jet flown by a CAA authorised initial IR examiner!) did a departure in Class G and with some slightly dodgy ATC interaction busted CAS during climb.
Airline pilots fly mostly in CAS so it would be level busts and such and AFAIK they get sorted under “Just Culture” via their employer. Also most of those who operate at Class G airports get a clearance into CAS before takeoff, so they cannot do a bust. This is necessary since an airliner cannot be seen to fly around at 2300ft until London Info or whatever gets sorted…
GA doesn’t get Just Culture 
Are you sure it is as binary as attend the course or be prosecuted? That is certainly not my experience. For example, the procedure opens for the opportunity to discuss the event/events in detail with a CAA Flight Examiner and/or then agree a tailored syllabus of remedial flight training with an approved organisation.
Sorry, I just have to remark on the irony of those (instructors/examiners) entrusted by the CAA to re educate us, themselves making up a fair proportion of those attending the courses. Proof if it were needed, of the accidental nature of infringements, and their particular exposure to frequent flyers.
Peter wrote:
Airline pilots fly mostly in CAS so it would be level busts and such and AFAIK they get sorted under “Just Culture” via their employer.
By their employer, sure! But why should the CAA be more lenient towards them than they are towards GA pilots. Because I am pretty sure it is.
Of course I know the answer – as you say they are “our own jerks”. Also, they are in radio contact with ATC all the time so any situations can be defused quickly. Which is exactly the problem with the UK ATS system in relation to GA infringements. I’m a bit surprised that @Cub doesn’t comment on that.
So how does a departure of an airliner out of say Exeter work? Where is it any different to a Citation, or a 182 departing on an „airways“ flight, to say Newcastle?
Does he really get the final clearance to join controlled airspace before he even takes off?
It’s not in his remit, nor that of anyone outside the government.
We have a privatised and fragmented system where the radar service available outside controlled airspace is terrible because no-one wants to pay for it. The government does not consider it part of national transport infrastructure, but leaves it to the market. Some money (and therefore provision) is made available through LARS but it is nowhere near enough and it doesn’t really work. The vast majority of traffic service agreements in the south east (Farnborough Radar) come with the “reduced traffic information due controller workload” proviso.
The practical upshot of the whole thing is that the average Class D CTR radar controller in the UK is not working the traffic that is creeping round the edges of their airspace. Thus when an infringment happens it is panic stations, because the controller isn’t talking to that traffic and has no idea at all what it might do. Perhaps this accounts for the extra separation requirements?
Pop across the channel and it is quite unlikely that you would get close enough to (say) Nantes to infringe their TMA or CTR without already being on frequency with the appropriate controller.
Also most of those who operate at Class G airports get a clearance into CAS before takeoff, so they cannot do a bust.
That is not correct. In fact, I cannot remember it ever happening.
As an airline pilot?
I am pretty sure that e.g. Easyjet departing out of Southend (before it got Class D) operated like that.
With radar on the airport it is more than likely. It is mostly in the absence of radar that one is fumbling around in Class G initially (with some rare exceptions e.g. Oxford) until one gets a clearance into CAS with London Control (or Thames Radar, etc).
Most bizjet ops (e.g. out of Biggin) don’t get a clearance to climb into CAS immediately. From one jet pilot: “Biggin will only clear you to 2,400 feet. Once you’re established on the radial to DET and Thames have you on radar, you’ll get clearance to climb into controlled airspace.”
I was wrong about Oxford
Timothy wrote:
Also most of those who operate at Class G airports get a clearance into CAS before takeoff, so they cannot do a bust.That is not correct. In fact, I cannot remember it ever happening.
You’re not seriously suggesting that a FlyBe departing Exeter is given the instruction:
“Remain outside controlled airspace, contact London Information 124.750” ?
I’d be absolutely staggered if that was the case. But perhaps I shouldn’t be….
Graham wrote:
The practical upshot of the whole thing is that the average Class D CTR radar controller in the UK is not working the traffic that is creeping round the edges of their airspace. Thus when an infringement happens it is panic stations, because the controller isn’t talking to that traffic and has no idea at all what it might do. Perhaps this accounts for the extra separation requirements?Pop across the channel and it is quite unlikely that you would get close enough to (say) Nantes to infringe their TMA or CTR without already being on frequency with the appropriate controller.
Pop across the Ocean and you’ll find vast numbers of non-communicating (to anybody) aircraft flying close around Classes B, C and D airspace… without any problems at all. The issue is not communication, which is just a last ditch response to predictable system failure, but poor airspace design that led to that failure being predictable.
In a high traffic density area my observation is that there is no way ATC can talk to everybody – even with properly staffed FAA-style ATC. In that case, you really need good airspace design because that is what is doing the job to prevent uncleared entry, not ATC interjecting when the airspace system fails.
In the surrounding traffic dense US Class E areas, traffic separation for non-communicating traffic is now moving predominantly to ADS-B IN (versus purely see and avoid) plus monitoring air-to-air, with IFR and a few VFR planes talking to ATC.
