Whats so odd is loads of question have been asked about the process and no one, but no one, with any standing at all is prepared to come here or any of the other forums which they know most pilots use as the best source of information and provide any helpful answers.
There is no question answer list – anywhere, of which I am aware.
In fact there is almost nothing in the public domain.
Pulling teeth would be easier and less painful.
Two simple questions;
1. Is it, or is it not, the case, that exactly the same infringement in terms of vertical and horizontal distance may result in a different “penalty”,
2. Is it, or is it not the case, that there is no discussion during the GASCo course of individual’s infringements, or discussion, commentary or feedback in response to the course?
It would be rather useful to get some straight answers. Lets see.
I think this is because it suits the CAA to keep their options flexible i.e. undocumented.
For example they need to somehow control how many get sent to Gasco. The Gasco processing capacity is 20-25/month so if during one month the CAA had 50, they would have to pick out the 20-25 worst ones (but the really serious ones get separated out anyway, for license suspension and retraining) and send warning letters to the rest. Or maybe retrieve that duff online exam route to get the numbers down a bit. And if their decision process was documented, you could get two pilots meeting up and comparing notes and discover that one of them got a letter for exactly the same thing for which the other got Gasco.
And the CAA can’t hold some back because the pilot is given 90 days to choose the venue, so “overflow” is possible where all the venues available within the 90 day window are booked up.
This is nothing new; it happens in all “examination” systems. The pass mark is adjusted each time to achieve a certain distribution of passes.
Also they will be keeping a closer eye on “usual suspects” – pilots with a history, etc. Hard to do that in an open system.
NATS doesn’t really come into the equation anymore because they have been doing 100% reporting for years. At least of busts which are reported internally… the individual ATCOs have recently lost the discretion on that one, but nobody is going to have the balls to restore that; it would be like allowing Gatwick ATC to ignore drones so long as it is only 1 or 2.
Airborne_Again wrote:
@Cub, The air transport industry — as well as many other “dangerous” industries such as rail transportation — have achieved a very high level of safety precisely because they do not view (unintentional) inappropriate actions by individuals as primarily being the fault of the individual but something that the system has to accommodate and if it doesn’t is is a fault of the system. In fact, the air transport industry pioneered this view.Considering that I still do not understand why the CAA (and apparently also you) see infringements as a pilot problem exclusively, to be addressed by retraining and/or sanctions.
To which he never got a straight answer.
Meanwhile, it does seem that the only surefire way for a frequent flyer to avoid such sanctions in parts of England is for the circuit breaker serving his Mode S transponder to develop an intermittent and untraceable fault…
That, evidently, is the result sought by whichever UK CAA or NATS director will be in line for a bonus for drastically reducing reported infringements of TMA, CTA and ATZ airspace. Good job! It’s gonna be great!
Unfortunately there’s likely to be a stubborn residue of tightwad aviators who will not cooperate by turning off our transponders; we will say that we paid good money for a transponder so we’re bloody well going to use it… These refuseniks may ask for a zone transit clearance whenever we fly anywhere near Class D airspace, and we will ask for a deconfliction service OCAS. We will file a complaint whenever such requests are refused. Who knows, maybe that’ll create a “problem” which will open a bonus opportunity for someone else? Win-win! 
Having another look at the data it is obvious that anybody who infringes (regardless of how minor) and who has done Gasco previously will get his license removed. (AIAC=Gasco)
June 2019:
May 2019:
April 2019:
The above shows zero but the category is shown so the intention is clear.
Since in June roughly 50% got sent to Gasco (that’s of all infringements; probably most CAS ones got it) this is really a policy to hit GA hard. Infringe twice, no matter how minor, and on the 2nd one you are grounded for some undocumented period. This clearly gives a lot of satisfaction to some “up there” but is madness in terms of safety management because those who don’t give up will just turn off their transponders. Flying with a TXP, in any even slightly complex airspace, is just too risky when the penalty escalation is this steep.
BTW, the 5000ft/5nm appears here so no wonder lots of people believe it.
Quote…. the statistics show an unacceptable and continued rise in airspace infringements. A great many pilots are still not using moving map technology or failing to use it correctly. In addition, a number of infringements involved pilots encountering poor weather that was forecast in formal met reports, showing poor pre-flight planning and weak Threat and Error Management. [name removed on CAA request].
I still think we need to wait until we hear a story of someone getting their licence pulled for two relatively minor (small and honest error rather than poor planning) infringements before we decide that is the case.
I honestly don’t think that pulling licences is a step they will take lightly, and I imagine one would have an opportunity to put one’s side of the story forward.
I cannot see how the data presented can be interpreted any other way (unless a post-Gasco infringer gets let off totally, which is inconceivable) and clearly they are trying to send that message to GA at large, but I agree with you 100% as regards the practical implications. There are a fair few pilots who would instantly chuck say 10k at a lawyer in such a case. I certainly would, and I know exactly which one I would call. How many times has Just Culture been mentioned by the CAA? This is absolutely zero Just Culture.
It is equally interesting that the CAA is avoiding releasing any data on this. Perhaps somebody fancies doing another FOIA request?
Grant Shapps may be a GA ally in a high place, but his work is going to be entirely with Brexit for however long the Tories hang on. GA won’t even get a look in.
Earlier in the thread, there was some criticism of the way airspace use may be changed in the UK.
This UKGA report on the Kirkhope inquiry just landed in my inbox.
The following caught my eye: “The Inquiry recommended that the Government should give the CAA power to make alterations to airspace applications – currently the CAA can only accept or refuse applications.”
Changing applications does still requires an application. So does this really change anything?
