Great news.
I hope everyone might recount there experience here, good or bad, as this is the best feedback.
July 2019 data is now now in the usual place
A big increase in some, notably ATZs, which is expected given how reporting is encouraged for ATZs… Otherwise similar to May.
BTW, coming back to
They have nothing to be proud of if they expressed no desire to read it.
That is to be expected; to say otherwise would be like a jury on a court case saying they have read all about it in the newspapers 
They would all get kicked off the case and a new jury sworn in.
So of course the CAA has to pretend they don’t read EuroGA and in particular don’t read this thread!
The trend appears to be looking something like this
2017 – 1,162
2018 – 1,358
2019 – 1,700 (assuming first six months around but a little less than second six months)
Please can someone enlighten us as to how the current policy is solving the problem? (with slight tongue in cheek).
All other factors aside, it looks like a total failure to me, as the problem is getting significantly worse. (well nearly a 50% increase on two years ago), against declining flight hours, so everything else aside, you would expect a small improvement if you did nothing.
The problem is just the same but now every man and his dog is just pressing the MOR button.The Association of FISOs even sends out reminders urging members not to forget to “educate” the infringers about the error of their ways, before banging in the MORs asap.
Flybymike – exactly, the problem is it makes it all but impossible to assess whether the policy is working or not, which will be the case for some years now. The cynical might say a perfect construct for justifying a highly dubious process, but that would be the cynic. Unfortunately, I dont think the CAA has even acknowledged the number of infringements has increased not because there are more taking place, but simply because more are being reported.
It would be interesting to work out what has been the biggest change in the reporting system which really caused the numbers to take off.
I think it must have been the making it a disciplinary offence for an ATCO to not report it. That would cause a dramatic rise in reported infringements, because any ATCO who fails to report a few of them is going to get fired pretty quickly.
Does anyone know when this change took place?
When I first became conscious of the increased interest in infringements, perhaps around ten years ago, the numbers being quoted were typically around 600p.a.
I think that it is a variety of factors across the board.
In no particular order:
Some of these are, indeed, more infringements (it was not possible to infringe, for example, Southend before it existed) but I think that more are the inclusion of more reports that would never previously existed.
How is it possible to infringe RMZ? RMZ is in G in the UK as well, no?
It would be interesting to summarise the legal instrument for infringing the various ‘airspace’ types listed, I could do with doing it for an instructing piece I’ve got coming up but haven’t time right now!
