I heard an interesting exchange on London Info yesterday.
A guy on the frequency was somewhere near the London City CTR/CTA and obviously got very close because, without any request for navigational assistance of any sort from the pilot, London Info called him up and gave him a heading to steer to remain clear. The pilot accepted the heading and said he thought he would have stayed clear on his previous heading, then London Info told him they wanted to be sure of it because there is zero tolerance and even the smallest nip of a corner must be followed up and will result in action being taken.
This tells me two things:
1. Any discretion which ATC may have had previously has been removed.
2. The policy is so embedded that a (pleasingly diligent) London Info FISO decides to explain it over the RT to a pilot, completely dropping the secrecy veil over the fact that despite being a non-radar service they can see you on radar.
From the statistics and from what we’re hearing, it is very obvious that at least some of the increase (perhaps much of it) is an increase in reporting rather than an increase in infringements.
I would not really expect those at the CAA dealing with this to understand the finer points of faulty-cause-and-effect or the perils of regarding a set of statistics as gospel without considering context. The alternative of course is that they know perfectly well that the stats don’t tell the whole story but view these faulty stats as a useful tool with which to beat private light GA and push the case for more regulation/restriction. I favour the former explanation though on the grounds that cock-up is usually more likely than conspiracy.
It is very telling that they really do not want to release the stats on post-infringement action.
Peter wrote:
It is IMHO absolutely impossible for such large increases to be real, especially with the March CTR numbers being unchanged at 15.
wonder if they have started to count drones towards these numbers :-)
Several years ago discussion around infringements seemed to me to be almost wholly directed towards CTR infringements. Although doubtless TMA, and airways were included, we now also have TMZs, RMZs, (I don’t recall that the latter two species even existed in days gone by) RATs, Danger areas, restricted areas, prohibited areas, and most notably ATZs.
A thread running on another forum indicates that Barton in particular are producing record amounts of MORs in their ATZ, and whilst AFISOs at this airfield post on the forum in question, no explanation has been provided.
If, as appears, the UK has moved to a “100% pursuit” policy of all infringements, that will create havoc in the long run
I wonder what brought about this extreme reaction. Perhaps the CAA is ultra sensitised to being laughed at over the Gatwick drone business?
BTW, one interesting piece, not previously known, from that last FOIA response is that they give you two years for a CAS bust to expire. IOW, after two years you are not a “repeat offender”. However, the process is opaque anyway… The exception is if it resulted in a criminal prosecution, but this is strange because one guy I know was told by the CAA that every CAS bust is a criminal offence.
whilst AFISOs at this airfield post on the forum in question, no explanation has been provided.
Do FISOs have to sign the Official Secrets Act? ATCOs do, hence they are ultra nervous. Also, I am told by some current or recent employees, posting in a forum is a breach of NATS and CAA employment policy, partly because if the poster’s identity becomes known (as it already has for those posting on the main UK site) their posts can be regarded as statements of company policy.
@Peter, you seem determined that there is some kind of plot going on here, whether a conspiracy or just lying.
As I have said before, I know that there isn’t, but I am bound by an NDA not to tell you very much. That NDA isn’t to protect the CAA, but the individual pilots who infringe.
Why don’t you go along to the CAA tent at Wycombe later this week and discuss it with them? Last year [name removed on CAA request] was at LAA (I can’t remember if he was at AeroExpo), so he might be there. You could have an adult discussion with him, rather than engaging in rather fruitless megaphone diplomacy.
Peter wrote:
I wonder what brought about this extreme reaction. Perhaps the CAA is ultra sensitised to being laughed at over the Gatwick drone business?
They are likely very sensitive to the fact that they look really rubbish at the moment about a few things (Shoreham airshow crash trial outcome, Gatwick drone farce, licence processing times, lack of Brexit plan) and any rules-heavy organisation tends to respond to being caught with their trousers down by getting more heavy-handed. They are probably also getting a lot of pressure from NATS, which as it develops as a commercial organisation will become less about co-operation and more black and white about issues like ‘their’ airspace being encroached on… “I’m not discussing why they’re coming in, just keep them out, the deal is that they stay out.”
A zero-tolerance approach is generally a management tactic resorted to by those who have failed to in their attempts to influence, guide and lead people towards the desired outcome. There are a few really bad managers in the company I work for who send emails saying “this is a new mandatory item” when they want people to do something or change a process. Good managers don’t need to do this because they can just ask and their people do it.
Peter wrote:
Also, I am told by some current or recent employees, posting in a forum is a breach of NATS and CAA employment policy, partly because if the poster’s identity becomes known (as it already has for those posting on the main UK site) their posts can be regarded as statements of company policy.
I am, frankly, quite surprised that these people post on the UK flying forums. I would be absolutely staggered if their employment Ts & Cs did not prohibit it – normally one is prohibited from commenting publicly on anything to do with one’s employer unless actually making an announcement as an official spokesperson. Either these terms don’t exist at these organisations (so unlikely as to be impossible), or there is some particular internal policy which actually encourages these sorts of attempts at influencing, or these people aren’t very smart and don’t know that what they’re doing could get them fired. They generally use nicknames, but it is well-known who they are.
Getting “personal” is not a productive technique, Timothy, but you seem to like it… fair enough, so long as you don’t get offensive. Others can judge the rest.
As a normal private pilot, I have no personal interest in discussing anything with any individual in the CAA, so I don’t know why you keep posting individuals’ names. I suppose it is because you just happen to know that the CAA policy on this whole thing is in the hands of just the one individual? That doesn’t look so great, either, does it? I am not even going to ask you who prob99 wrote CAP1404 
Another factor is that if any information is obtained from a CAA employee in a conversation, it cannot be posted openly (verbatim) on EuroGA. So the numbers have to come from the CAA officially.
That NDA isn’t to protect the CAA, but the individual pilots who infringe.
That’s rubbish, because (see others’ posts above) no personal data is being revealed. There is absolutely nothing confidential about e.g. what % of infringers get sent down which route. It doesn’t matter how one looks at it; there is no honorable or decent explanation for witholding that info.
Timothy wrote:
That NDA isn’t to protect the CAA, but the individual pilots who infringe.
Genuine question, not in any way facetious, what is it to protect them from?
In the same vein, I would challenge the CAA’s refusal to release stats under FOI requests. How does releasing stats re: enforcement processes possibly cause any issues for individuals who have been reported, or for ATC who do the reporting?
I don’t think there’s a conspiracy, I just think that there’s some sudden urgency to address this problem (much of which is probably a result of an increase in reporting) and that it’s being badly managed.
Timothy wrote:
That NDA isn’t to protect the CAA, but the individual pilots who infringe.
How does a set of statistics reveal the individual pilots?
James_Chan wrote:
Everyone should know about FMCs.Yes, but looks very much a UK specific thing though. As we’re on a European-wide forum here, does the rest of the world use them?
Germany has introduced listening squawks for TMZs around regional airports a handful of years ago.
