The really scary thing is we are discussing a fairly minor issue: airspace busts. But what happens when the principle is applied to all areas of life: your driving, your jay walking, your diligence at work, your medical condition, your [removed], your shopping, etc etc? Private companies in democratic states make the Stasi look like Boy Scouts in regards to the volume of information they have about you. For now, most use it to sell goods, but there are plenty other potential uses….
Use of technology to generate revenue from minor airspace busts is just the beginning of a process of monitoring and control that is likely to get far worse.
….am starting to understand what motivated this gentleman:)
I can see why Timothy has got pretty annoyed, he spends hours and hours of his time doing unpaid work putting something back into GA. He is engaging with the CAA and people have been shooting the messenger to some extent.
I also can see why Peter has got pretty annoyed. One of the most experienced Pilots on this forum seems to have been hit with disproportionate action.
AOPA UK realise there is an issue. I quote from page 7 of the latest magazine from Martin Robinson who is now a board member of GASCo " I am also concerned that the CAA in some instances, is being a bit heavy-handed. In the past, giving a pilot a formal caution was considered an appropriate response, but adding to that a temporary suspension of licence, a requirement to do 5 hours of additional flight training and attend the infringement course, may be seen as an abuse of power. When the CAA acts as judge and jury on on airspace infringements AOPA will only support reasonable and proportional action taken by the CAA……………."
So think you Timothy for all of the work you put in, and also thank you Peter who spends hours and hours each week moderating this forum/ tidying things up/ moving topics etc. We are all benefiting from these hours of voluntary work.
Actually regardless of whether I have been done for a bust (I do normally write about anything I get, after a suitable time to make sure I don’t get “something extra” 
) my interest in this is simply what I have been writing i.e. on behalf of all pilots. That is after all why I spend considerable time running EuroGA.
What appears to be a very recent change of policy to an excessively aggressive zero-tolerance implementation is not going to do GA any good, in the short run or in the long run.
I always protect sources where so desired and I know a lot more about actual cases (what they did and what they got for it) than I am able to post.
I know at least one of the FOIA applications is going to appeal so time will tell… but as above posts show we have enough data to show some interesting things, from the bits which have leaked.
In some respects against my better judgment I am going to make a further contribution.
It has been suggested that some of the comments here (and elsewhere) have been unduly aggressive. If this is so, it is of regret.
If there is an explanation, I feel that frustration may be a factor.
On the whole, pilots are an inquisitive and intelligent group. When presented with changes in policy I believe we rightly seek to understand why.
Therefore, I thought I had better try and understand the statistical information that may have driven policy.
Google is my friend, and probably most pilots.
Air space infringements would seem a sensible place to start, which yields this;
https://airspacesafety.com/facts-stats-and-incidents/
So what happened before 2017?
Well that seems more difficult, but there are some hints here
It would seem between 2012 and 2017 the average number of infringements have average around 1,000. In 2018 the number suddenly increases by a significant number, to 1,350. After a flat line trend for 5 years, the cynic in me inevitably asks why the sudden increase? Are there any causal factors that maybe distorting the statistics?
In 2017 the CAA had a strategy.
https://www.caa.co.uk/Safety-initiatives-and-resources/Airspace-infringements/
And said,
“In general, the severity of these events is low. None of the reports were classified as high severity, and none resulted in a collision. However, 7% of infringements led to a Loss of Separation and 0.3% to an AIRPROX.”
They also said;
“These occurrences are normally promptly resolved by the intervention of air traffic control and pilots.”
With the possible exception of 2018, it seems to me from this basic research the number of infringements over the last seven years has not materially changed. It may have even fallen, given we seem to agree that there is a much greater emphasis on reporting and not just those involving NATS.
So, it seems to me the number of infringements is pretty constant, and the CAA feels less than 10% resulted in a loss of separation and that they have promptly been resolved between pilot and ATC.
Here we are discussing a change in strategy.
It seems to me one of the questions that is being asked is twofold. Has the problem changed, and if it has changed, does it warrant a change in strategy?
I beg the question whether the statistics indicate the problem has changed?
I then beg the question that is a course or prosecution the answer, should this be targeted in some way or is it already being targeted in some way? If it was always resolved in the past, what has changed? Is it the same pilots that regularly infringe because a wrap on the knucles by ATC isnt sufficient, or on the whole were these isolated mistakes?
Finally, I find myself having to ask if this arrangement has been in place since late 2017, but the number of infringements has increased, at what point in time do you assess whether the strategy is producing results?
I don’t know the answer to these questions.
The cynic in me would say that after several hours of research piecing together some form of joined up policy, application of the statistics year on year to a proper assessment and evaluation of the problem, and the development or at least the publishing of any meaningful fact based assessment I can very little on the web in which to take solice.
It may exist, but finally I find myself asking, if a comprehensive study has been conducted would it not be helpful to direct pilots to that study, because and I come full circle, we are an inquisitive lot, and I have no doubt we would be greatly reassured if policy change was driven by quantitative assessment, rather than seat of the pants reaction.
Perhaps the ultimate question, is are 3 infrigments a day too many. Well, we know that perhaps 20% to 30% of those are not GA – not to excuse the non GA infringers, but in our community that may mean it averages around 2 a day.
It will be interesting to see how long it takes to reduce the number of infringers. Various policies have been tried over the years. There will be a number every year that ultimately cant be prevented whatever action is taken. I would suggest if every infringment resulted in prosecution, that base line will not change. Perhaps in a few years time we will consider the stats again and the results will speak for themselves.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
In 2018 the number suddenly increases by a significant number, to 1,350.
This has a number of causes, including the CAA encouraging ATZs to report, the introduction of various bits of airspace, such as the Hawarden RMZ and more actively looking at DAs etc.
I don’t think there has been a fundamental shift, just more reporting.
But there doesn’t appear to be a fall either.
Having said that, a few years ago, infringement was a yawn, Cinderella subject. This thread, among other things, demonstrate that it is being promoted in the list of “things for pilots to worry about”, so we might hope for improvement.
You do have to be careful about statements like:
In general, the severity of these events is low.
You have to remember that the author is reporting up as well as down. I have already taken to task the author of that sentiment, as it is “off-message” compared to other things the CAA are saying.
Timothy wrote:
You do have to be careful about statements like:
In general, the severity of these events is low.
You have to remember that the author is reporting up as well as down. I have already taken to task the author of that sentiment, as it is “off-message” compared to other things the CAA are saying.
Oddly enough I tend to be more cautious when people say phrases like “off message” as per your last sentence, because then I feel they arent telling me the whole truth, only the bits that fit with whatever agenda they have…
Spin data? Of couse NATs and the CAA would never do that… 
skydriller wrote:
Oddly enough I tend to be more cautious when people say phrases like “off message” as per your last sentence
I reacted to that as well There are two uses for such a term:
It eventually has the same effect as crying “wolf!”. It’s like the situation with drones. They are so “dangerous” to manned flight they should be made illegal. Yet, not a single accident has happened, world wide, even though the number of drones are decades higher than the number of manned aircraft. People making rules and regulations should focus on reality first, not perceived danger or symbolic “seriousness”.
Here we are discussing a change in strategy.
Yes exactly, and I think what you are really looking at in this whole picture is the promotion of a particular individual into a particular position in the CAA.
That is all it takes.
And the new policy is to “go and get them”.
It may have started under the previous CEO, Andrew Haines. I went to a speech of his a few years ago where he made his view on this rather clear. However you get two problems with that:
The CAA is fairly big but most of it deals with stuff not related to GA, so with GA enforcement it is a very small team. For example for many years it was just one guy who decided if someone will be prosecuted (he was actually paid by the DfT and seconded to the CAA; I spoke to him a few times). He was pretty clever and played the game well IMHO. The policy was to avoid court cases because they set a precedent which tends to go against the CAA in the long run
Of course such a change of strategy, not based on any worsening of the data, is going to be controversial and the release of the data will be correspondingly resisted vigorously.
The whole thing is ridiculous. Together with the CAIT detection tool, and a rule for ATCOs to report 100% of busts, and NATS policy to send 100% of the reports to the CAA, it is like having a 30mph speed limit enforced at 30.1mph. Then, on current rules, 4 busts in 3 years gives you a 6 month driving ban. Detection is with a device fitted to the car which auto reports to the police. This would cause an uproar of course, but its de facto result would be that the 30mph limit would be something like 20-25mph. Many people would give up driving. The present CAS bust policy means that the UK TMAs are several nm bigger all around and perhaps 1000ft lower everywhere, and once this gets well known, loads of pilots will give up flying.
“The present CAS bust policy means that the UK TMAs are several nm bigger all around and perhaps 1000ft lower everywhere, and once this gets well known, loads of pilots will give up flying.”
I dont follow?
