Timothy wrote:
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.
Try living in Glasgow. Or Barcelona, Or Madrid, Or Paris. Policing by consent?
Timothy wrote:
The solution is so easily in our grasp, and so important to be grasped.
Not so sure it is within our grasp. It keeps happening, and in my view for a variety of reasons.
Silly little airports over expanding when the world wanted to fly off with bucket and spade for 30 quid each way. Days are all gone due austerity. However airspace restriction/constriction remains in place.
Real areas of very complex airspace, South East mainly, where the majority of population live and work. By default more recreational flyers.
Speaking of UK, it is a very small country with heavy commercial aviation traffic who want in return free and unrestricted CTA. Rightly so, they pay for it.
Generalisation coming up, but poor training organisations with old style instructors, Douglas Bader style, new style instructor wannabe’s who are hour building. One eye on the prize, not the student or job per se.
Poorly equipped pilots, who still believe it their right to fly non radio, with a watch and compass wondering why an Emirates 380 is a mile in front. 
I could go on………If you wish a touchy feely consent process then do not prosecute.
Timothy wrote:
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.
I agree. Fully.
It is due to a lot of people lacking skills and who often even don’t care that infringements are such a huge issue. And yes, the demand from airlines and ATC to kick those incompetent people out of all airspaces is real and there. I’ve shown one example of what is in store at international airports if people continue to wail about “complex” airspaces, just because they are to lazy or too stupid to understand them.
Well, sorry, if you are not sure you can handle complex airspace structures, then STAY THE HELL AWAY from them. Fly somewhere else where there is nothing in your way or get proper instruction. It is not rocket science but ONE single incompetent pilot can ruin things for all of us.
The reaction will be simple and brutal: Extend CAS to keep VFR flights out, quite possibly introduce or re-introduce Class A airspace, TMZ’s RMZ’s and other such stuff. The calls for this have been there and they are getting louder the more the problem surfaces. And unfortunately it has not been getting much better, despite the fact that today we have means of avoiding airspaces like never before.
Or maybe that is the problem in the first place, people relying on their gadgets to keep them out of trouble rather than checking, rechecking and taking notes of the airspaces they will be close to during their flight preparation. Most airspace infringements take place in permanent TMA/CTR type airspace and not obscure temporary flight restrictions which pop up in unreadable NOTAMS.
No, it’s not enough to simply follow the magenta line and trust the magic box to keep you out of trouble, you have to program the route such that you don’t get in trouble in the first place. Why skim the lower or lateral limits? In most cases flying around airspace so as to stay at least 500 ft from it’s vertical and 1NM from it’s lateral limit will not cost a lot of time but it is quite a bit safer than flying just on the limit and then complain if the wind blows you inside and you get busted.
Looking at issues like the proposal für Zurich to “simplyfy” airspace and thus forcing VFR traffic down to dangerously low levels below a TMA, massively restricting many airfields up to the point where some of them end up in the CTR, e.t.c.That is what happens if airspace designers get their way and that is the demand they get from the airlines, the military and others who are fed up with the infringements.
Ignoring or denying the issue is totally contraproductive as all it will do is make sure we get pushed further and further away from larger airports, up to the point where we either have to scud run like in the infamous VFR routes in Italy or be banned from overflying large parts of the landscape completely.
It’s our choice.Either get our act together and see to it that everybody else does or be expelled from more and more airspace.
BeechBaby wrote:
Policing by consent?
I’d think if the powers that are policing this would make a case to the public explaining what kind of dangers infringers bring upon airline passengers, the consent would be there to send us all packing in no time at all. You better beware of this kind of consent. And I hope it is brutally clear to all of us that if something like the Aeromexico or PSA disaster ever were to happen here, it would mean the end of GA, Europe wide. Mostly for good.
BeechBaby wrote:
Real areas of very complex airspace, South East mainly, where the majority of population live and work. By default more recreational flyers.
The question is what can be done to simplyfy the airspace in such a way that it’s still flyable. I don’t think too many people will be comfortable flying if the complex airspace gets simplified to a 1500 ft MSL Class G and Class A above that covering the whole South East so that anyone can remember. Simplyfying airspace always will mean that lower limits get extended.
BeechBaby wrote:
Generalisation coming up, but poor training organisations with old style instructors, Douglas Bader style, new style instructor wannabe’s who are hour building. One eye on the prize, not the student or job per se.
BeechBaby wrote:
Poorly equipped pilots, who still believe it their right to fly non radio, with a watch and compass wondering why an Emirates 380 is a mile in front.
the latter two go together. Instructors who believe GPS is rubbish and airspace infringements don’t matter need to have their license taken. And Students need to learn from day one that airspaces are the single most important thing in navigation these days with regards to survival of GA as a whole today.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
it would mean the end of GA, Europe wide. Mostly for good.
Agreed and I know pilots who still blast off, radio switched off because they do not want to talk to anyone. A hand held vintage Garmin in hand.
BTW these are older multi houred and rated pilots.
The video posted by Le Sving was good, but how many on here can honestly state that is how they prepare?
I will go first. I don’t. Not to that level. Particularly VFR. I consider myself a good, confident and responsible pilot. Visit a local airfield any day of the week and watch the goings on. How some get into the air, let alone bust CAS when up there, beats me. Includes Instructors…….
Some years ago when UK busts were rising, dramatically, there was a joint NATS/CAA presentation doing the rounds. It was linked to local speaking seminars on safety etc. It was almost an amnesty approach, a consent approach, but it fizzled out I think? My memory may be failing me 
Your 100% is an order of magnitude wrong.
If you look at (from the timetable; not sure if this is publicly accessible) how many of the 1-day £200 GASCO hotel sessions are being run each year, and the rough audience size, the number of “guests” is of the order of several hundred per year.
So the above quote cannot be true, if as (per CAA) there are ~1k busts and (per CAA; see the old VFR chart thread) 56% fail the online infringements exam.
It looks very roughly like the majority of the 56% who fail the exam are sent to the £200 hotel session stage. In the past they would go to a local school for a bollocking by a “CFI” which was clearly a lot less inconvenient than the £200+travel+accommodation hotel session.
Plus I happen to know that some offenders are sent straight to that stage (no tutorial / online exam); presumably because the CAA guy judges that they would not benefit from it.
Taking the claimed “order of magnitude” as a factor of 10, that would suggest that only ~100/year get pursued with anything more than a letter saying “bad boy, but we let you off”. That would mean that only 56 would fail the online exam, and I can’t see GASCO running this £200 hotel session, across more than a dozen venues per year, just for 50-odd attendees each year. There would not be enough people to open a packet of custard creams for
So I reckon, Timothy, somebody is pulling ya leg about the percentages which get sent down to the gallows Working the numbers backwards it looks like of the order of 70-90% of busts get the online tutorial and exam.
Could be a recent policy change, which would explain why nobody seems to know about it.
BTW, AIUI, NATS report 100% of busts to the CAA, and always have done, so this is nothing to do with NATS, whose employees vigorously (and correctly) protest having any part in any allegedly unfair treatment of infringers.
It’s 20%
However, beginning this week, 100% will get a letter.
However, only about 20% will have any further action taken.
I have the figures right in front of me, I don’t have to guesstimate.
BeechBaby wrote:
Agreed and I know pilots who still blast off, radio switched off because they do not want to talk to anyone. A hand held vintage Garmin in hand.
And the problem with that is? Theatrical role playing, rule following as a motivation in itself, and petty ‘hall monitor’ style enforcement are not the route to safety, and I think tend to distract from the creation of more rational airspace and other factors that make the system work. Radio communication is benefical for communication around airports, where the issue is timing but I don’t think it has much benefit in relation to airspace busts where the issue is position, particularly if ATC is overloaded.
Moving map GPS is fantastic, and one of the main benefits is in reducing the motivation for pointless ATC communication. Overloading ATC with radio chatter is not beneficial to preventing airspace busts, and pilots being focused on communication is not particularly benefical to situational awareness.
It’s 20%
On a 56% online exam failure rate, that would directly mean that 112 people do the £200 hotel session each year. I can check that, but not quickly. I can’t believe anybody would bother to run this scheme for so few people, but, hey…
only about 20% will have any further action taken.
Are the decision criteria published?
Peter wrote:
I can check that
I am as good a person to check with as any
Timothy wrote:
However, beginning this week, 100% will get a letter.
What happens when you get a letter but dont think you did anything wrong?
Do you get to dispute the allegation? Is anybody at CAA interested in hearing this?
If you can show you didnt bust airspace (SD screenshot), is it still recorded as an airspace bust?
Regards, SD..
