Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

National CAA policies around Europe on busting pilots who bust controlled airspace

I comment with trepidation.

I do recall the thread in that other place.

Timothy – your pleadings are obvioulsy sincere, but I think you would agree that when statistical information is not published naturally people become suspicious. Unfortunately too often in the past their suspicions have been justified (I am not saying they are in this case). It never proves a sound policy.

Over the years I have had a reasonable number of occasions when ATC have fallen short. On only one occasion have I I made a complaint, and then, although invited to do so, did not pursue the matter as a formal complaint. The protagonists you mention should not forget the value of the partnership, the trust between the parties, and the understanding that we all make mistakes from time to time.

As to [name removed on CAA request] throwing in the towel, I genuinely have no idea who he is, or whether he is a good fella or not. However, you mention he is a pilot. Thats great, however those looking after the interests of GA should have a GA background, and I mean a “real” GA background. If he does, I would hope he would have no reason to throw in the towel and every reason to understand why pilot’s are suspicious IF the rate of prosecution has increased, especially, if I am correct in saying that the number of GA hours flown has depressingly decreased significantly from say 20 years ago, when I cant recall hardly anyone every being prosecuted or sent on silly courses.

Last Edited by Fuji_Abound at 10 Jun 19:09

20 years ago zero people were sent on courses.

Egnm, United Kingdom

All three of you have known me for many, many years. You know that I am not a “suck-up”. Indeed, quite the opposite. You also know that I am honest and truthful, some would say to a fault. You know that I have been a member of the judiciary for 22 years, and know something about justice and process.

You also know that I see the infringement process from the inside, and am in a position to judge what’s going on, as well as the pressures coming from several stakeholders.

If you cannot accept anything I am saying, I guess there’s not much hope for reaching a common understanding.

EGKB Biggin Hill

…all four

EGKB Biggin Hill

Timothy wrote:

If you cannot accept anything I am saying, I guess there’s not much hope for reaching a common understanding.

I doubt it has anything to do with not believing you – I for one definitely would believe you, without hesitation.

I dont think that is the point.

As evidenced by the dicussion in that other place which then is still only a snapshot of the GA community the suspicion I suspect does not come because of your reassurance or lack of, (assuming they have read it) but the lack of transparency by the regulator.

As I said earlier, any regulator that does not or cannot publish statistical information, is already on dangerous ground, because everyone will either suspect a cover up, or, will be little tinkers and suggest it is a cover up. Its always that way.

Timothy, I didn’t call you a suck-up. What I said was that plenty of suck-ups in that Flyer thread showered the man in question with praise and to some extent, rounded on those who were asking probing questions. I am not familiar with the exact timing of your departure from Flyer, but I believe the thread occurred sometime after you called “clear props” for the last time.

That said, you are ‘in the room’ – presumably by the grace of the CAA. You must be able to see it from our perspective – that you would not say anything negative about the process, lest you be asked to leave the room. Mandy Rice-Davies applies.

We just want to see that the stats on enforcement pathways support the idea that the process map is being followed. Anecdotal evidence suggests that most (if not all) are sent straight to the £200 course, and indeed the economics of the courses don’t stack up unless they are highly attended. The stats could easily disprove this deduction if they were released, but the CAA won’t release them – citing a totally BS confidentiality argument – which if actually applied would mean AAIB reports and Airprox reports couldn’t be made public either! Throw in the tutorial/test thing, where you are set up to fail with the obvious premise that the test is going to be based on the tutorial but then it isn’t, and I’m sure that even you have to admit – from the outside it doesn’t look good, does it?

EGLM & EGTN

Peter wrote:

NATS guy who openly said that anybody setting 7600 will be shot down

Why would they shoot you down for lost comm?

Andreas IOM

A point I think is also worth making (albeit with a little drift) is the CAA is regulating two very different communities.

On the one hand the professional operator, utilising the most sophisticated aircraft and hand held the whole time (as has often been said how easy in many ways is it to fly an IFR FP in CAS) and the “amateur” operator, utilsing (sometimes) a lot less sophisticated equipment, who often struggles to get any service whatsoever while scud running in all the weather, negotiating complex airspace, single pilot and gracioulsy accepting a basic service due to controller work load or degraded radar performance, while doging the odd NOTAM which is designed to catch you out if at all possible while the controller is on the landline.

and yet, they serve both communities all the time they are collecting the fees, and regulating both.

I flew recently with a BA training captain (to be fair who trained about 30 years ago in the States, and doesnt “do” GA, well not for 20+ years and then not in Europe). His comment on a flight OCAS was what a complete load of bullsh** – you put up with this!

Last Edited by Fuji_Abound at 10 Jun 19:55

Graham wrote:

That said, you are ‘in the room’ – presumably by the grace of the CAA. You must be able to see it from our perspective – that you would not say anything negative about the process, lest you be asked to leave the room. Mandy Rice-Davies applies.

I am not in the room for my own benefit. I am there to try to help resolve the difficult situation, as a representative of GA and for the benefit of GA. I do quite a lot of work for the cause, for no benefit or remuneration. We even take our own lunch (except the last meeting, hosted by BMAA, where they generously fed us.) If I were asked to leave the room, that would be fine with me.

Oh, and I am not a tart.

EGKB Biggin Hill

I am the tart.

I’m saying “he would say that, wouldn’t he?”

You’re Lord Astor.

EGLM & EGTN
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top