Timothy wrote:
@LeSving, the big difference between the UK and Norway (and indeed almost everywhere else) is that our ATS service is privatised rather than state run and universal.That means that we have a principle that “the user pays”, only the airlines pay and airlines operate in controlled airspace so we have very fragmented and poor ATSOCAS.
I don’t see that it has to be that way. In Sweden enroute ATC is provided by a government agency which is however almost entirely financed by fees (i.e. the user pays) and not taxes. Taxes pay for less than 1% of its activites and that part concerns national security.
Terminal/airport ATC is deregulated. Some airports buy it from the same government agency, some buy it from private companies (mainly ACR) and some have their own ATC staff.
And still the Swedish ATC system is “seamless” with excellent service for GA OCAS.
I still think there is something of a difference between ‘state-run but funded by usage charges rather than direct taxation’ and completely privatised.
The UK has a horrible track record of privatising things that (if privatised) still need a degree of state guidance to ensure they do what they are supposed to do and then failing to properly do it.
Railways, telecoms, energy, water…. ATC…..
I was about to suggest that we rename the thread.
Obviously I try to minimise threads which are applicable only to the UK.
It is just amazing how this one has turned out.
I did get some very interesting input off forum from non UK ATCOs but it only confirmed the impression here. Really serious busts get a similar treatment everywhere.
I also got input from an ex NATS ATCO who was pretty unhappy with the thread, but actually didn’t, on my understanding, dispute what seems to be a CAA (not NATS) procedure on infringements. NATS have not done anything different for many years, except being more thorough in reporting them… to the CAA.
UK has a horrible track record of privatising things that (if privatised) still need a degree of state guidance to ensure they do what they are supposed to do and then failing to properly do it
From my contacts with both NATS and the CAA I reckon they are highly politicised places and probably quite unpleasant to work in. Same as most well managed firms actually, but business generally do not recruit heavily from the military. This has military footprints all over it, even in the hotel seminar notes using “dispersal” instead of “end”. Hopefully dispersal into a variety of airspace classes is not the intention 
I have nothing against the military – I even tried to join the RAF when I was 16 – but in this case I don’t think it is the best regulatory / enforcement approach.
I think the UK is paying the price of decades of neglect of the Class G community. Heavy policing is not the solution. Actually… same comment could be made for other (rather more explosive, literally) social scenarios but it would be awfully off topic 
Peter wrote:
I also got input from an ex NATS ATCO who was pretty unhappy with the thread
A common theme in aviation (or UK aviation at least) is that people – usually part of the establishment – get unhappy at the fact that someone has expressed their view. I don’t really encounter this anywhere else.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Can’t you appeal administrative decisions made by the CAA to a court of law?
Effectively you can, by not engaging in the process, thus leaving the CAA with no option but to prosecute. I think that pilots in general prefer to engage.
Graham wrote:
few enroute ATS units there are that are worth talking to
…which is why I now use almost exclusively TMC or 121.5 when remaining OCAS.
The thread is quite UK centric so far, probably mainly because it is less of a problem in other countries.
But I want to add a German perspective: What CAAs say about infringements is probably less important than what the law says.
In Germany, the Luftverkehrsverordnung in conjunction with the Luftverkehrsgesetz determine that one can be fined up to 50.000 € for an airspace infringements (fittingly called Luftraumverletzung in German, where Luft = air, Raum = space and Verletzung = injury). If you fly into restricted/closed airspace (ED-R), you can get a prison sentence of up to 2 years.
If you endanger other air traffic by entering a control zone without clearance, this can also result in a prison sentence according to the Strafgesetzbuch (penal code) in addition to civil litigation e.g. by airlines who incurred extra costs.
Class G ATZs are busted all day long. What was the penalty?
Not to be trivialized of course. I can count at least a half a dozen Class C Airproxes in the past few years and at least one Class A Airprox here local copy
It’s not just IFR big jets that have to avoid infringers. It could be me or you operating legitimately inside ATZ or controlled airspace.
which is why I now use almost exclusively TMC or 121.5 when remaining OCAS.
What is TMC?
Class G ATZs are busted all day long. What was the penalty?
ATZ busts are now included in the stats and enforcement action; one of the reasons that numbers are increasing. Airfields are being encouraged to report ATZ busts and are doing so. The CAA recognise that an ATZ bust is more likely to result in a mid-air than a bust of a radar environment.
Peter wrote:
What is TMC?
Sorry, I meant FMC. Mental block
What is an FMC?
ATZ busts are now included in the stats and enforcement action
Surely that works only if there is radar and, more or less by direct implication, ATC?
In Germany, the Luftverkehrsverordnung in conjunction with the Luftverkehrsgesetz determine that one can be fined up to 50.000 € for an airspace infringements (fittingly called Luftraumverletzung in German, where Luft = air, Raum = space and Verletzung = injury). If you fly into restricted/closed airspace (ED-R), you can get a prison sentence of up to 2 years.
@medewok how often are these penalties applied?
