Yes; exactly.
Note the semicolon 
Someone I know who has a PhD, and worked for 10 years as an editor for a high-end book publisher, reckons CAP1404 has horrible grammar.
Peter wrote:
Someone I know who has a PhD, and worked for 10 years as an editor for a high-end book publisher, reckons CAP1404 has horrible grammar.
I agree.
You do get the impression none of this stuff has been looked at by anyone with a legal background or drafting experience which is a worry.
When our resident barrister comments how unsafe some of this stuff is, and is pretty much ignored, I get even more worried.
Peter wrote:
The 2nd yellowed section above contains a semicolon which could mean different things. Looking at this portionit is clear that there the semicolon means OR.
I don’t think so. It means “AND”. If it did mean “OR”, then any repeat infringement would be “major”. But in the definition of “intermediate”, you have an infringement which does not compromise flight safety where the aircraft/pilot has previously infringed.
We may have wires crossed but I am certain that here
the semicolon means OR because the two parts (flight safety, or previous) are independent.
Lionel – I would go with you as well, certainly this is the common use and I think the one most people would think is intended. It would also seem the reasonable interpretation within the context of the whole passage.
If it doesnt Peter may well be able to help as to the practical application, because if you have infringed a second time is your licence suspended and then you go to GASCo, to get it unsuspended so to speak?
I also dont understand what “provisional” means – surely either your licence is suspended or it is not? In other words, no more flying until you have completed GASCo, which would seem to make sense. Quite why this is provisional, I am not sure. Any suspension is a suspension, and any suspension can be withdrawn, unless the implication is intened to be that it is being made clear it is a temporary suspension and WILL be “unsuspended” if you do certain things.
As I said earlier, this is truly appalling drafting because it doesnt clearly explain where anyone would stand. I wonder if dissected in Court, what the consequence would be? I suppose it is quite useful because it almost gives the IWG the ability to justify handing down just about any penalty they might think is appropriate.
A semicolon is indeed used to terminate each item in a structured list e.g.
You will go to jail if
a) you drive too fast;
b) you drive too slowly;
c) you eat while driving;
d) you use the phone while driving
(and then the last item does not have it)
and then it means OR or AND depending on the context.
In free text, a semicolon is a pause; a bit like a full stop but less strong. It certainly does not mean OR or AND. As usual, plenty of examples on google.
I don’t think I personally know anybody who got suspended but clearly, in the UK enforcement context, it must mean suspended pending the satisfactory completion of some remedial action. Past cases I vaguely recall were re-sitting the Air Law exam (which for any pilot means wasting a week of his life, revising all that trash all over again) plus possibly a skills test. One gotcha might be how long you end up grounded for. I’ve never heard of anybody doing Gasco as the remedial action, but it is possible.
In the US (FAA) context it tends to mean your license is suspended for say 90 days and you get it back then without a specific action.
To repeat what I have written many times: most Gasco delegates are first time infringers. This is because the previous step (the dodgy online exam) is barely used. I have no idea what happens to one of these if they infringe a second time (within 2 years, if that time limit is operated correctly). CAP1404 indicates several possible routes. I know for a fact (from a Gasco lecturer) that some get a second Gasco. The only other option I see is a suspension, pending some remedial action.
I haven’t managed to keep up with what’s posted on all the pages of this thread, but I’ll say again here what I’ve said elsewhere 11 years ago:
- The UK’s airspace design and set up fails to recognise the human factors (e.g. workload, distraction) and limitations of navigation of pilots operating outside controlled airspace.
- The most infringed units do not offer FIS in an area outside their airspace boundary. This must change.
- The UK’s fragmented FIS is not helping with infringements. It should be clear for the pilot who to talk to, not pick from overlapping areas, causing one to infringe the other’s airspace.
- Any adjacent ATSUs should share flight information (e.g. White Waltham with Heathrow) such that they may be known to the other when necessary.
- There’s lots of complex and stepped Class A airspace sitting next to Class G which is a huge risk. It should be converted to Class C or below to permit access where the traffic situation permits and make most efficient utilisation of airspace.
- Establishing Farnborough N and E is out of line with international standards and should be replaced by a centralised “London” unit.
- London Info and other LARS should re-sectorise to provide joined-up FIS from surveillance data.
- For those who have made themselves known, they should not be treated differently from level busts and other lateral nav mistakes that traffic inside controlled airspace may make.
- The political games (i.e. it’s not my problem / I won’t fund it) really needs to stop. I’m getting tired of sounding like a broken record about this. The issues should not be palmed off for someone else to deal with.
- A passenger levy of up to 20p can raise up to £57m per year to help sort out this mess. There are clear benefits for the airlines, their passengers, and non-airline users, in a greater known and joined up environment. And negligible impact to the airline business.
- The worst that can happen is that GA pilots are made a scapegoat for all things gone wrong with the system and face unfair punishment for all these issues.
Although Cub has not specifically answered my question as to what he means by “working Farnborough Radar” I can’t help feeling that whichever of the three possible definitions I gave which might apply to this phrase, it would still not prevent penal action in the event of an infringement of Luton or Stansted.
This is because on the Flyer forum we already have an example of a brief seven second infringement of the Manchester CTR whilst avoiding weather in the low level route. The pilot owned up over the radio and was told by ATC that the infringement was inconsequential and not a problem.
He was subsequently reported and sent on the course.
If actually talking to the controlling unit still results in this penalty, then talking to an entirely separate unit will be even more likely to result in one.
I would take ‘working’ Farnborough Radar to mean that one is in receipt of a service. It shouldn’t matter if it’s basic, traffic or deconfliction – one is ‘working’ them by any reasonable definition.
I don’t view using a listening squawk as ‘working’ that unit. It’s something else entirely.
For what it’s worth (or not), the main barrier to putting a Mode S transponder into the PA-17 (no proper electrical system, just a 12v battery powering a single com radio) is the requirement to operate it at all times. I would want to turn it off to conserve the battery when well away from controlled airspace. Thus Mode S is essentially unworkable for us.
I would take ‘working’ Farnborough Radar to mean that one is in receipt of a service. It shouldn’t matter if it’s basic, traffic or deconfliction – one is ‘working’ them by any reasonable definition.
I don’t view using a listening squawk as ‘working’ that unit. It’s something else entirely.
Indeed, but… the reason I strongly doubt that talking to say Farnborough exempts you from getting busted is that I know people who were doing exactly that (under a radar service) and got sent to Gasco.
In short, CAP1404 is pretty meaningless. Even if somebody knows what some of the content means, he is not operating it.
