Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

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

alioth wrote:

Surely in the case of OEI, a jet transport will use the full thrust available rather than continuing on with the de-rated performance (which I understand is done to save fuel and engine maintenance, which is hardly a concern when you’ve just called mayday)

If you use a derate it gives a different Vmca which will lead to different V speeds for the departure. Boeing states in their FCTM (Flight Crew Training Manual) that the derate must be respected, implying that you can only use the full thrust setting of the derate if required (the derated thrust can be further reduced by assuming a higher ambient temperature and it’d be this extra reduction that you would be getting rid of). Some airlines do allow the setting of full thrust on the live engine in such a case, but some don’t and only allow the full derate. Theoretically the aircraft is capable of clearing all obstacles at the reduced thrust setting but obviously it doesn’t take account of airspace.

As an example, one of Boeings biggest jets will take 7500m from brakes release to make 1000ft at 276T and it still hasn’t accelerated in level flight to retract the flaps at this point. That’s 2.5nm from the departure end of 23L. The aircraft is capable of lifting 335T (ish) from the same runway. The LLC starts 9.6nm from the departure end of 23L.

There is little chance of any reduction in size of existing CTRs for the reason of engine out performance of departing transport aircraft. It’d be a better proposition to try obtaining a different dimension or position for the corridor dependent on runway in use. If landing NE there should be scope for transits up to 2000ft along the corridor.

Last Edited by GilesM at 12 Jun 11:33
EGCV, United Kingdom

Timothy wrote:

Peter wrote: That’s a good point, but I would be astonished if anybody got a NFA letter after any CAS bust

80%

given that we know for a fact that even tiny busts go straight to Gasco.

No you don’t.

This is really astonishingly stupid (and I am sorry to say that). It is like the kid in the playground who thinks he knows more, but plays coy. For goodness sake either make the position clear, or if you cant or wont, dont say anything. Sorry, but it is pathetic. We are all meant to be professioanl people seeing if this is a sensible solution to a serious problem. Frankly I am pretty fed up with the astonishing way nobody really cares about some serious points that have been made, and are happy to hide behind the usual committes and do nothing while GA pilots get more and more annoyed.

and it is the tip of the iceberg as far as I can see. We are now the only country pretty much that hasnt effectively implemented any GPS approaches, and the CAA has been found to have done nothing, and examiners tell me they are fed up to teeth with all the paperwork they must do to the point of giving up and (I could go on) but no one cares, better to hide behind a committee and take the expenses.

even this thread, not a single person in the “know” is prepared to come forward and set out the posiiton, and they could without concern as to any NDAs etc., but the frank position is they cant be bothered as usual.

You have experienced pilots on hearing say none of this stuff is in the PPL syllabus (and it isnt) and yet its seen fit to include it in the test?

It really does make me wonder whether any of these people actually fly GA aircraft, have any idea what really goes on, or are just complete idiots. Unfortuantely in my experience (and very sadly) it is the case that most of the people who sit on these committees actually have nothing better to do and would never succeed in the commercial world.

I give up.

As to GASCo it turns out Martin of AOPA fame is an officer. It gets worse. So you would think AOPA UK would represent pilots that have infringed and may well be unhappy be referred to the GASCo course, and then you would find there is a clear conflict of interest, because the head of AOPA UK sits on the main board of GASCo.

What a mess.

Last Edited by Fuji_Abound at 12 Jun 13:08

Yes it is all pretty weird once you start digging around…

On the 80% v. 20% (or whatever) I am hesitant to go around the points already posted in this thread multiple times. There are several data points of first time infringers, minor infringers, going straight to Gasco, but for various reasons the detailed personal accounts are not going to get posted. I think one was, further back. Most pilots who are still flying don’t want to end up on some sh1tlist. More info will come out in due course…

There are other possibilities with the numbers. If you look at the 2018 and 2019 bust numbers above, look at which ones enable the collection of the evidence without too much legwork*, throw in the known Gasco course attendance (c. 250 per year) then one possible (and plausible, circumstantially) scenario for the current time is

  • CAS (CTR and TMA) busts, easily evidenced by Mode C+S, nearly all go to Gasco for the ~£400 “fine”
  • other busts, with no evidence which would stand up to the slightest legal challenge, get a warning letter (ATZ, DA and other “OCAS” busts must be in this category)
  • the old online tutorial and dodgy infringements exam have been largely abandoned
  • the large numbers of busts by the military, and busts by others “in the system”, are ignored

An FOIA application on the % of military busts would be interesting, but would be fiercely resisted, due to the embarrassment factor.

Time will tell…

The rest of Europe will be reading this with incredulity at how the UK manages to screw itself up.

* Totally obviously the lowest hanging fruit for the CAA is the continual stream of CAS bust reports from NATS, who have the aircraft database and pilot contact details (they have the pilot’s email even for most UK based N-regs) and who do the initial legwork of contacting the pilot and get him to write out a nice self incriminating report under the guise of “just collecting safety data”, and this nice package goes to the CAA 100% of the time regardless of mitigating circumstances. The OCAS busts are not picked up by NATS and following them up is a lot of work, going through NATS, military etc Mode C radar data for the ATZ, DA etc busts, and the CAA doesn’t have the resources to do this

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

For a moment it seemed that the conversation could be adult, that was when I said that I would do a bit of digging around and get some stats, as well as make the point to Rob that there is no confidentiality aspect to overall stats. I also said that I would ask for more transparency on the questions being asked in the online test, and I would get a ruling on what elements of the information I already have are not subject to NDA. All reasonable steps forward on what might be a bit of a hill climb. That was to have been in less than a month.

Experienced lobbyists would have waited on that point, then moved to the next achievable milestone on a trajectory towards their goals.

But the atmosphere then became so febrile, with brickbats being hurled at good, honest, decent people at GASCo, people who dedicate a great deal of their own time to the wider goods of GA, and minds were so clearly closed and made up, that my reaction was the same as I imagine was Rob’s on this famous Flyer Forum thread, which is to simply stop engaging.

Screaming abuse at those who are on your side just isn’t a winning strategy. Nor is loading loads of extra demands as soon as a few are conceded. Nor the “everybody knows” approach to opinions based on one conversation.

But I guess that on these matters, like all others, you’ll all know better than me. Press on with your way of gathering information; I continue to wish you good luck in your endeavours.

EGKB Biggin Hill

This should all probably be referred to the APPG who just might be able to sort it out;

About the APPG
Mission Statement
The General Aviation All-Party Parliamentary Group promotes the objective – as set out by British Government – of making the United Kingdom the best country in the world for General Aviation, and to stimulate interest in the sector. Our goal is to ensure that General Aviation inspires both current and future generations to take up science, technology, engineering and mathematics, thereby creating high-tech jobs and growth in all nations and regions of our economy. In order to achieve this objective, the All-Party Parliamentary Group believes that a network of General Aviation airfields must be protected and enhanced by the government.

So just by way of summary;

1. The Regulator has farmed out administration of infringment to a charity,
2. The costs of the charity setting up the scheme have been paid by the public, but not refunded,
3. The charity receives the income, and it is now a significant part of their income,
4. The charity has accumulated funds substantially in excess of its stated objective,
5. The charity may not be registered with Data Registrar, and is more than likely to be holding confidential data,
7. The Regulator will not provide statistical data on grounds of confidentiality, although it would appear some of this data is already in the public domain, and it is doubtful how statistical data would reveal personal information given the number of pilots involved,
8. Is there any evidence that any regulatory or safety impact assessment has been conducted,
9. Is there any evidence that there was any tendering involved before the appointment of a sole provider.

Timothy wrote:

But the atmosphere then became so febrile, with brickbats being hurled at good, honest, decent people at GASCo, people who dedicate a great deal of their own time to the wider goods of GA, and minds were so clearly closed and made up, that my reaction was the same as I imagine was Rob’s on this famous Flyer Forum thread, which is to simply stop engaging.

Screaming abuse at those who are on your side just isn’t a winning strategy. Nor is loading loads of extra demands as soon as a few are conceded. Nor the “everybody knows” approach to opinions based on one conversation.

That is just not the case.

I see abosolutley no abuse here, unless you are some super sensitive sole.

These are the sort of sensible questions I hear every day in the Board Room – and I really do mean every day.

Sensible, proactive scrutiny of either the proposed policy, or the current state of play. I see nothing in the above list that is remotely abusive. I see nothing there that couldnt be dealt with in a very straight forward way. Either the position is as set out, or it is not.

OK, it might have become a little more direct, but only as a consequence of such utter nonesense.

Oh, I know, lets not engage with the people we are meant to be looking after because well they might ask some difficult questions – really!

What went on elsewhere is irrelvant as I dont suppose many of us remember or care.

As to all these good people doing wonderful jobs – how many times do we hear that. I am sorry, it sounds like an excuse and we should feel sorry for all these good people. Frankly I would rather they didnt bother and we paid bad people to do the jobs properly. My short answer is if you cant do the job, then dont. Moreover, I would imagine most of the people on the committe, I dont mean the observers, the ones that are actaully making the decisions – are paid. Guess by who – the public purse?

Sorry, but it isnt personal Timothy, its the same as it would be at any commercial BM up and down the country – except that at many it would have been far more blunt, some one would have coughed and said under their breath – bull****

oh and for completeness, what has good honest and decent people got to do with anything. I have no doubt they are all good honest and decent. We are all good honest and decent. Unfortuantely good honest and decent people can sometimes do a good job and sometimes they dont have the knwoledge or experience to do a good job. Who knows. All that annoys me is good honest and decent pilots who it would seem have often made a very minor mistake and put to huge amounts of grief and yet when they ask some sensible questions about whether this is being conducted in a proper and lawful way all they get is silence.

Its a disgrace, and for that reason I would also call into question as matters stand whether in fact they are good honest and decent because if they were I think just one of them would have the courage of their own convinctions to justify the current policy – but not one does (so far).

Last Edited by Fuji_Abound at 12 Jun 14:46

…and you think that that is likely to encourage them?

As I say, I wish you luck. You have all sorts of routes at your disposal – CAA Chair or Chief Exec, GASCo Chair or Chief Exec, Charities Commission, MPs, APPG, law courts, Press, public shaming on forums, GASCo AGM. I hope that one or a combination works for you.

But the route of quiet diplomacy and lobbying would probably have been more fruitful and ultimately more successful. As far as I, personally, am concerned, that door is now closed, because I don’t want to be associated with the strident voices on here.

EGKB Biggin Hill

…call me if you would like to discuss offline.

EGKB Biggin Hill

Timothy is right in that a softer approach is required. This is because what you are dealing with is not the commercial norm that Fuji refers to.

Do you want to:

(a) learn more, about what’s going on and help to nudge things in a better direction, or

(b) expose incompetency and perhaps malpractice.

The problem with (b) as an aim is that unfortunately the CAA aren’t really subject to any oversight and basically no-one cares. They have quite wide-ranging powers against which you have no appeal whatsoever, they are incredibly bad at just about everything they do and nothing is really going to change.

(b) might be more interesting and more fun, but (a) stands a much better chance of achieving something. They’re just incompetent, not evil.

EGLM & EGTN

An FOIA application on the % of military busts would be interesting, but would be fiercely resisted, due to the embarrassment factor.

A good number of years ago AOPA stated that 30% of infringements were by the military. I have no idea what the current figure might be.

Egnm, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top