It is obvious from FR24 that there is be somebody within 5000ft/15nm almost anywhere.
… Yes, which is why these separation standards don’t exist. ;-)
When was it abolished?
I can’t remember now. Probably around 4 to 5 years ago or something like that.
Airspace complexity is a factor in a few infringements, but if you removed all those where it is a factor, there would still be an awful lot left to worry about.
And the NOTAM issue described in that article are pretty much solved for those using SkyDemon.
The problem for me isn’t the degree of tolerance in the enforcement approach. I have little problem with zero tolerance.
The problems as I see it are:
1. The accuracy of the equipment involved. A 32ft bust? I’d be contesting that, saying that my altimeter isn’t accurate to 32ft (nor is it required to be) and according to my altimeter I remained below the base of CAS. What the transponder outputs and what your kit says at your end is not my problem, because I don’t hold altitude on the transponder (are you saying I should?) and your kit is your problem. If you want to prosecute (or use the same fine-dressed-up-as-education-under-duress-without-trial-under threat-of-greater-penalty strategy they use on the roads) then you need to prove that I actually infringed the airspace – that I crossed the geographical line in the sky, not just set your alarm off.
2. The year-on-year data can’t be taken at face value, because we’ve gone from very variable levels of reporting to almost 100%. Over 100%, if you take the Thruxton departure example!
3. The fact that the CAA have been telling us for years not to use GPS and it’s now becoming clear that it’s the best possible tool for solving the infringement problem. The lack of humility from them on this matter, which would be funny if it wasn’t so serious, is astounding. The material they currently kick out still dances around this issue and pretends they’ve not had to do a 180. Ultimately you have an organisation in a terrible state, doing a terrible job across the board (do you get your new license within six months of applying yet?) which continues to see its customers as the problem. Not only that, but its employees involved in airspace regulation adopt assumed names and team up together for online beat-ups of any pilots who suggests that the CAA might not be doing a fantastic job.
its employees involved in airspace regulation adopt assumed names and team up together for online beat-ups of any pilots who suggests that the CAA might not be doing a fantastic job.
Could you point me to one of these please? I no longer attend Flyer or PPRuNe, so don’t know what shenanigans I am missing.
Let’s not go down there any further.
Never know who on EuroGA might bust CAS.
You are missing absolutely nothing, Timothy 
Let’s not go down there any further.
Never know who on EuroGA might bust CAS.
Sorry, I don’t understand that comment. Where is “there” and why is it relevant?
Is the suggestion that people who read EuroGA will be treated worse by the CAA if @Graham points me to a discussion on Flyer or PPRuNe where CAA employees are discussing infringements?
Having seen the whole enforcement process, including the decision making meetings where it is determined what action will be taken, I can assure you that there is no opportunity (not to mention will or time) for such maladministration.
Let me reply in terms of forum policy.
We discourage people working for Company X from vigorously promoting its products or services unless they mention they work for X. To argue otherwise is like arguing in favour of fake reviews on Tripadvisor, Amazon, etc. Obviously this is hard to enforce because most people here are anonymous even to admins, but in some cases it is obvious, and I’ve had a couple recently chuck their toys out of the pram and leave.
Similarly, while we would be very happy to have somebody in a regulatory / enforcement position to contribute on EuroGA (and no doubt many such people already do) if they started beating people up then we would have a “quiet word” with them. It’s like if you got into a fight down the pub with some guy who you don’t know is the chief policeman of your county. When “you” next get nicked for shoplifting, he might be completely impartial in the discharge of his official duties, but, with apologies to Clint Eastwood, do you feel lucky? Most people are only human…
On EuroGA we don’t allow personal attacks anyway but I am sure you get the idea. Other forums tend to be run relatively de-moderated, to maximise traffic (advertising revenue) and/or for national cultural reasons, and that facilitates such situations.
I am astonished that stuff goes on, actually, since it is definitely against NATS and CAA employment policy to participate on forums, and the mods there know exactly who they are. But it does; I’ve seen it in years past.
Timothy wrote:
Having seen the whole enforcement process, including the decision making meetings where it is determined what action will be taken, I can assure you that there is no opportunity (not to mention will or time) for such maladministration.
So what do you think happened in the case above with the “32ft infringement” as explained below?
NealCS wrote:
I was invited onto one of these (UK) GASCO courses last year after a 9 second 32ft bust of the London TMA from below at a notorious pinch-point between Farnborough and the London TMA -I was aware I had done it as I took avoiding action of same level conflicting traffic at which moment SkyDemon bleeped at me as I descended but I thought it was so momentary it was a non-issue and flew on, only to get a letter a few weeks later…They explained that due to their Controlled Airspace Infringement Tool (CAIT) my return on the radar went INFRINGER and then they had to treat me as such for the whole of the rest of the time I was tracking under the 2500ft base airspace: since Farnborough had asked me to transit at 2400’ and Heathrow couldn’t raise them on the phone (I had a Farnborough squawk) that was a long time.
Regardless of whether Neal thinks the course was useful or not, it appears to me that this bust was entirely down to “the system” not being joined up …additionally, collision avoidance in my book trumps airspace permission or ATC instructions in exactly the same way as it would for an airliner responding to a TCAS alert in controlled airspace. It certainly doesnt look from the outside as if the enforcement process was working in this case.
The problem is that you only need a few of these type of “enforcements” to become widely known for some to go down the “transponder off” route, which doesnt help anybody, least of all those controlling the LTMA, and arguably, those that do go down that route are probably the very ones you want to be able to see…
Regards, SD..
Timothy wrote:
Having seen the whole enforcement process, including the decision making meetings where it is determined what action will be taken, I can assure you that there is no opportunity (not to mention will or time) for such maladministration.
Well I have recently had the opportunity to deal with the UK regulatory enforcer, administrator. Not directly on CAS bust for me, but on a minor trivial matter where a Whistleblower, with of course totally false information, attempted to ruin my day and managed to get the ear of a Gatwick administrator.
The organisation is IMO not fit for purpose with major indiscretions seemingly overlooked and not administered, but attention given to dealing with malicious tidbits. This is referred to as ‘’the route of easy hits and least resistance’’.
Problem, as with so many of UK institutions is the resultant lack of trust and respect in their ability to fairly and objectively manage their affairs.
I have never had a satisfactory outcome to anything I brought to their attention, (maintenance) the end result being it is all my fault. Guess what? Just do not go there and if you bust CAS, try your best to get out of it anyway you can.
