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)

Just because an aerodrome has a tower does not mean it is a controlled airfield. There are many towered airfields in France, such as so of those quoted by @Bosmantico which have an AFIS and all of tjem will tell you they are not controllers. If I remember correctly ICAO annexes state that ATC’s only operate as controllers in controlled airspace, classes A to E. This is mirrored in EASA regulations under definitions. It is also a questipn which comes up regularly in IR exams.

France

gallois wrote:

Just because an aerodrome has a tower does not mean it is a controlled airfield. There are many towered airfields in France, such as so of those quoted by @Bosmantico which have an AFIS and all of tjem will tell you they are not controllers.

I am not referring to the tower building. I am referring to the tower function (TWR), which is an ATC function, distinct from AFIS.

According to AIP-France, Colmar is a controlled airport with a tower function.

AIP AD 2 LFGA.3 item 7 “ATS”:
TWR : MON-FRI : 0630 -2000
SAT, SUN and HOL : 0730-SS + 30 (MAX 1900). […].
Outside these SKED, AFIS: PPR from AD operator

So Colmar is certainly a controlled airport. (But not controlled H24.)

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 21 Jul 22:19
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

A little update I have just been passed by one of the several FOIA correspondents:

Following the CAA response posted here a request for an internal appeal was apparently sent and they sent this reply which (as one would expect) upheld their last decision.

However it is clear that these various FOIA applications are precisely what resulted in the recent publication of the data we are now seeing here and that is a very good thing because it makes the enforcement process more transparent.

They are still publishing data which largely cannot be interpreted usefully, because there is no way to look at a given month’s infringements and work out who got which route.

I have no idea if anyone will do an appeal to the FOIA Commissioner. Probably somebody will, since at least two that I know of did appeal to the CAA internal review which was the next stage.

A useful exercise would be to try to find out the profile of Gasco course delegates All reports I have seen (except those from Gasco/NATS/CAA staff) are that the profile is mostly fairly high-hour pilots who were flying with Mode S, and thus the course is wasted as a learning exercise and is just a £200-£500 (depending on how far you travelled) “fine”.

Cub’s " 16 inch shell fired across the bow of N-reg pilots (i.e. myself, rocking this particular boat) " above is a fair point in that this is cheaper than having the FAA pull your certificate and having to engage a lawyer in the US to sort it out… but the vast majority of infringers are G-reg so that is the principal community which is getting hit. And the real issue is that the new “zero tolerance” policy which captures lots of people into the system, creating many repeat offenders in due course.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Cub wrote:

The FAA in particular, if asked to deal with US licensed aircrew, operating in the UK tend to go for the draconian approach and simply remove the pilot’s FAA Airman’s Certificate regardless of the circumstances. Similarly, a British pilot based in Germany and operating on a German issued EASA licence was reported to the German authorities having been involved in three CTR infringements over a weekend. The Germans revoked his licence immediately and without question. While people may not like being subject to apparently punitive measures following an infringement event in the UK

This would suggest a foreign pilot (and not resident in the UK) probably faces immediate suspension, whereas a UK pilot faces a course. How can this be proportionate and how is it not discriminatory against the foreign pilot?

Also with a N reg aircraft how can it be established where the pilot is actually resident, given that the pilot could be resident in the UK, or Europe, or indeed even the US?

A couple of comments in response to Peter’s latest post. I think we should step back for a moment and look at the alternatives to delivering some sort of remedial training in response to certain categories of infringement event. CAP1404 prescribes those categories of pilots that it would appear necessary to address apparent deficiencies such as;
1. Pilots involved in infringements resulting in a medium/high risk bearing scenario, generally involving proximity to another aircraft, avoiding action etc.
2. Pilots involved in multiple infringements
3. Pilots involved in incidents resulting in serious disruption or delay to CAT.
Once this type of assessment is conducted in relation to an individual pilot then clearly a Regulator is duty bound to do something to address the apparent deficiency.

The obvious course of action would be to prosecute but certainly myself along with a number of GA representatives including several members of the Airspace Infringement Working Group and some people within the CAA were very keen to seek an alternative to prosecution, hence the Airspace Infringement Awareness Course.

I am sure we can and will continue to debate the content and application of any course but I do see it as demonstrably proactive alternative to a prosecution, means tested fine plus expenses and a criminal record, for a percentage of transgressing pilots particularly, when as pointed out many times, very few people set out with the intention to infringe.

In relation to my ‘warning shot’ re FAA, it was not meant that way at all. I was simply commenting that maybe it is better in some circumstances to have the CAA deal with foreign registered pilots and aircraft involved in events in the UK if the parent NAA’s response may be binary and draconian?

Cub
Various, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

I have no idea if anyone will do an appeal to the FOIA Commissioner. Probably somebody will, since at least two that I know of did appeal to the CAA internal review which was the next stage.

Out of curiosity, what is the procedure for this in the UK? In Sweden, appeals would go to the courts. (But that seldoms happens because the system is set up differently.)

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Cub wrote:

I think we should step back for a moment and look at the alternatives to delivering some sort of remedial training in response to certain categories of infringement event. CAP1404 prescribes those categories of pilots that it would appear necessary to address apparent deficiencies such as;

To me as a non-UK pilot, it seems evident that infringements are mainly systems failures and not failures of individuals. The main reason being the byzantine airspace and ATS system in the UK. You will never be able to curb infringements by addressing the pilots because that’s not where the real problem is. (Well, not unless you kill off GA in southern England.)

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Cub wrote:

In relation to my ‘warning shot’ re FAA, it was not meant that way at all. I was simply commenting that maybe it is better in some circumstances to have the CAA deal with foreign registered pilots and aircraft involved in events in the UK if the parent NAA’s response may be binary and draconian?

I certainly didnt take it as anything to the contrary.

.. but I dont understand how it can be an alternative. A “proper” foreign pilot is not likely to return to the UK to attend the course – or is that what is suggested?

1. Pilots involved in infringements resulting in a medium/high risk bearing scenario, generally involving proximity to another aircraft, avoiding action etc.
2. Pilots involved in multiple infringements
3. Pilots involved in incidents resulting in serious disruption or delay to CAT.

I dont think anyone would disagree this is a very sensible solution for pilots within these categories. The reality is that any pilot infringing twice with any of these consequences should suffer some form of penalty and / or re-education as it is unacceptable to conduct a flight in this way. (leaving aside the possible questions over the design of the system that may make it unreasonably difficult in the first place, which is another matter)

I think the concern that has been expressed, is the use of the same response for pilot’s involved in minor infringements.

In fact it seems to me it is ridiculous that minor infringements should carry any risk of a criminal record.

As I have said before, there needs to be clarrity over what constitutes a minor infrigement and consistency on the reponse to a minor infringement, otherwise the whole process is seriously tarnished by the concerns that the response is not set out, there is a risk it is not consistently applied, and that it could be used as a mechanism for course filing. (I am not suggesting that any of this is actually happening, just making the point that with an “open” system all these risks should be addressed, and that is why the system should be subject to scrutiny and open governance).

Last Edited by Fuji_Abound at 22 Jul 08:46

Thanks for your post, Cub. The assurance re the “warning shot” is appreciated.

Let me pick up your point 2. – multiple infringements.

Under the “new regime”, if you do a 1 min bust on 1st Jan 2019 and another 1 min bust on 31st Dec 2020, then (based on the 2 year rule disclosed under FOIA) you are a “repeat infringer”.

Your situation then depends on what you actually got on the two occassions.

There is abundant evidence that, under the “new regime”, most (if not all) first time CAS infringers get sent to Gasco. This is probably because, as the CAA figures show, the online exam route (the one with the bogus questions, which most failed, but that’s another debate) has been largely abandoned.

According to CAP1404, the likely post-Gasco step is a license removal. There is evidence that some do get Gasco a second time.

So some second infringers get their license pulled.

Is that fair?

Is it also not grossly unfair to lump such a “multiple infringer” with

1. Pilots involved in infringements resulting in a medium/high risk bearing scenario, generally involving proximity to another aircraft, avoiding action etc.
3. Pilots involved in incidents resulting in serious disruption or delay to CAT.

especially given UK’s 3000ft/5000ft/5nm add-on which creates lots more “loss of separation” incidents than in the rest of Europe.

Apologies to others that all this has been posted further back up this thread.

Stepping further back, the UK policy seems to be that if you hit GA hard enough, people will stop infringing. The pursuit of the most minor infringements implies that the policy is that if you hit GA hard enough, people will stop infringing totally. Clearly this is a road to disaster, because anyone familiar with flying in UK’s Class G system will know these things just happen if you fly enough hours.

Lumping a 1 minute infringer with someone who shuts down an airport for half an hour is completely disingenuous. The human factors are totally different.

Re CAP1404, isn’t this a document drawn up by the enforcers themselves? It is like the local farmer drawing up a notice that a dog seen off a lead in his field (with sheep in it) will be shot. He is entitled to do this, BTW, so this is a good comparison with the CAA. So every time he shoots a dog, even one which was off the lead for 1 minute, he can point to the document and say his action was in accordance with the farm’s policy. The fairness and effectiveness of the policy is periodically reviewed by a committee, comprising of the farmer, his wife, his son, and two of his drinking mates who are also sheep farmers.

Also with a N reg aircraft how can it be established where the pilot is actually resident, given that the pilot could be resident in the UK, or Europe, or indeed even the US?

NATS maintain (or have access to) a huge database of pilot details. For over-2000kg this is maintained by Eurocontrol, because they send the IFR route charge invoices out. They also have the AFPEX user database, which is probably almost all pilots in the UK, even if almost none of them use it today. I visited their AFPEX team about 10 years ago when I was writing this article; I wanted it to be correct.

Out of curiosity, what is the procedure for this in the UK? In Sweden, appeals would go to the courts. (But that seldoms happens because the system is set up differently.)

AFAIK anybody can appeal to the Information Commissioner directly. I’ve never done this but lots and lots of people have, as e.g. this website shows. There are various rules to block “nuisance” applications.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

Re CAP1404, isn’t this a document drawn up by the enforcers themselves? It is like the local farmer drawing up a notice that a dog seen off a lead in his field (with sheep in it) will be shot. He is entitled to do this, BTW, so this is a good comparison with the CAA. So every time he shoots a dog, even one which was off the lead for 1 minute, he can point to the document and say his action was in accordance with the farm’s policy. The fairness and effectiveness of the policy is periodically reviewed by a committee, comprising of the farmer, his wife, his son, and two of his drinking mates who are also sheep farmers.

A really great analogy! This setup is frequently used by companies and authorities alike to try to avoid responsibility when they’ve messed up. “We only followed our rules/policies” which, of course, were written by themselves.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top