Separation standards – rather complex and as someone has already said, dependant upon airspace classification, radar update rates, range from radar heads etc.
Trying to keep things simple, in the UK controllers must provide avoidance advice aimed to achieve 5nm or 5000ft between IFR traffic inside CAS and unknown traffic which the believe to have entered CAS, unless reduced minima is authorized with ATS unit orders (MATS Part 2).
So, looking at unknown traffic, this is defined as “A position symbol which cannot be associated with an aircraft known by the controller to be operating within the airspace concerned shall be considered to represent an unknown aircraft.”
There’s then the rule which says that traffic can be ‘deemed’ to be outside CAS under some circumstances (the easiest scenario is a primary radar contact which can be observed within the lateral limits of a CTA). This particular element is a bit of a fudge (has been for at least 3 decades) and the safety managers amongst us would like to see it go, probably resulting in more GA constraints!
32ft for 9 seconds – I think there has to be more to this particular event. Was that 32ft on top of an altimeter/transponder error? Where did the 2ft bit come from? I’m not aware of any system that can provide such accuracy apart from a DGPS.
Infringements – the easiest thing to do, from a pilot’s perspective, is to apply some wriggle room. I don’t buy into the “ATC told me” argument when skimming around the Heathrow CTR; any ATC ‘instructions’ issued outside CAS are ADVISORY, that’s why the whole piece falls into UK Flight Information Services. There really is little excuse if you’re running a navigation app on your iThingy.
Prosecutions – not many vs. lots of reported infringements. That says it all really.
BeechBaby wrote:
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’’.
While I don’t doubt your experience, I wonder whether you are talking about the same part of the organisation?
BeechBaby wrote:
Not directly on CAS bust for me
I am only talking about the people in the CAA who manage the way that infringements are dealt with, who are much less draconian and more just than some on here give them credit for. I have no doubt that there may be other people performing other functions possibly in other organisations who may be less just. I have not seen them in action (though I have seen several people in NATS who would like the CAA to be more robust with infringers, but they are not the decision makers.) All I can describe is the process I have seen, and I fully endorse its aims and methods.
In some ways what we are seeing is a post-truth thing. A few people express opinions about how they think the system must work, based on their experiences elsewhere, and then shout about that, without actually knowing much about the particular process we are talking about in this thread.
Nobody disputes that prosecutions are very rare. They are a matter of public record here.
What isn’t avalable is the % of busts which get enforced using other means. I have tried to find this out but entirely without success.
Circumstantially it appears that all or nearly all LTMA busts are pursued. As I say above I don’t have any numbers but I know of some apparently very minor ones (including one which they knew nothing about until the pilot phoned them to apologise, was told categorically nothing has been reported all day, but evidently then they looked back around the time he gave them and they found it, reported it to the CAA, and the CAA sent him straight to the final stage below) and if ones like these get pursued it is hard to believe there could be any which are not.
AFAIK the present process is
I believe the last one used to be a set of 3 options, two involving something at the CAA and the third was a “re-education” session at a local school. Fairly obviously everybody would go for the last one. One school instructor told me he doesn’t get these anymore (used to get loads) and now they all go to the new option which is the seminar, where the £200 booking fee amounts to a ~£400-£500 “fine” because most people can’t make one of the very few available locations for the starting time, without significant travel and an overnight stay nearby.
As I have said before, on the exact number I am bound by an NDA, or at least privileged information, but, at least at present it is a very low number which are not closed on receipt, because there was no separation loss and no aggravating circumstances. Your 100% is an order of magnitude wrong.
However, on urging from industry, including myself, together with representation from AOPA, LAA, BHA, BMAA etc in future (from now on) all reports will be followed up at least by a letter from the CAA telling the pilot that he has infringed, though in the vast majority of cases there will be no further action.
I emphasis that the industry is right behind this because those of in the front line of representation, advocacy and lobbying (as opposed to those sitting in armchairs supposing stuff) know that infringements are a real threat to the future freedoms of GA. They have to be considerably reduced (by, say, 80%) in order to stop calls from airlines and ANSPs for:
So far, the CAA have been very measured indeed in their response, and have bent over backwards to apply a just culture and judicial oversight. But you are right to say that those responsible read the forums and you can see the thought “why do I bother being decent?” flitting across their faces from time to time.
This is a topic, like drink driving, where there is more to be gained by the community by accepting that there is a problem and helping to eradicate it than by standing on soapboxes shouting on the perpetrators.
And the answers lie primarily in a few, relatively simple steps:
Timothy wrote:
But you are right to say that those responsible read the forums and you can see the thought “why do I bother being decent?” flitting across their faces from time to time.
Sorry but I cannot agree with that. It is like saying a friendly police officer lets someone off committing a crime, because he wants to be decent. Life is not like that I am afraid, and neither should it. If you bust airspace all infringements should be treated and dealt with equally. Due process.
If not you end up with the system I described prior to Mods deleting it. 
Nothing has been deleted…
Peter forgive me. When I looked it did not appear. Wi Fi issues methinks. Thanks for correcting me.
EASA’s take on it
BeechBaby wrote:
Sorry but I cannot agree with that. It is like saying a friendly police officer lets someone off committing a crime, because he wants to be decent. Life is not like that I am afraid, and neither should it. If you bust airspace all infringements should be treated and dealt with equally. Due process.
OK, let’s expand, maybe starting by your analogy.
The reason for “letting people off” is not to be friendly, it is to maintain community relations. We, in this country anyway, and I think that it’s now true for most of Europe, are policed by consent. It is when policing by consent breaks down that we get civil disobedience and riots.
Indeed, if you look at the history of riots in the UK over the last 40 years, they have very often followed periods when policing has no longer received the consent of some elements of the community, elements that feel that they have been unduly targeted by blanket measures such as Stop and Search and Zero-Tolerance.
So the Police have had to learn to apply their powers judicially and surgically, with a scalpel not a hammer. Decency is probably not the right word to have used and Justly and with moderation is a better way to put it.
Moving back to the way that the CAA deal with infringements, there has been a huge effort put into developing a due process, and dealing with every case fairly.
You can’t quite say “equally”, because it is just to treat repeat offenders more robustly than those “of previously good character”, and that is indeed part of the just process.
There is a community problem as well, because the responsibility for infringements does not fall only on the pilot, but also on those that trained and examined him and even, in some cases, on bar-room and, dare I say it, forum chatter.
Taking the schools and examiners first, there is a clear problem (now, thankfully becoming historical) that some schools and clubs produce more infringers than others. Part of that is to do with location (it is much easier to accidentally infringe airspace if you are based at White Waltham or Barton, say, than if you are at Shobdon or Dunkeswell; that should be obvious) but some of it does seem to come from training quality and from attitudes. The CAA has tried to single out the schools which seem to produce more than their fair share of infringers and help them reorientate.
But some club bar and forums also seem to be a hotbed of “it really doesn’t matter as much as they say”, “they are all out to get us”, “they are only in it to raise money on courses and fines.” and “it’s really because they want to close us down.” All of that is just a bunch of toss.
If people put as much effort into reducing infringements as they do now into belittling and dismissing them, the future of GA, in the UK anyway, would be much rosier.
And it really isn’t very hard. Most people have in their pockets something that can run SkyDemon. Running it on a smartphone is suboptimal, but far better than not.
Similarly, squawking and listening on the FMC is very easy and a big mitigant.
The solution is so easily in our grasp, and so important to be grasped.
