Fuji_Abound wrote:
the public purse
If you’re worried about a charity getting 20 or 50 k£ not exactly according to a rigoristic interpretation of their aim and that this money comes from the goverment or one of its self-funded agency, I think you need to take a breather and put it in perspective.
Just think how much Brexit is costing us at the moment
flybymike wrote:
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.
5% in 2016 (analysing reports of about half the incidents.)
This is the last full deconstruction we have done, focussing on more salient features in later years.
20160712_FASVIG_Infringements_Data_Analysis_Final_Report_Revision1_pdf
that a softer approach is required
I tend to agree as well.
Many people are competent in certain areas and less so in others, even at the top of the UK political structure.
But if all we do is keep knocking them on the head, anybody else taking up the position will go on the defensive at the issues hurled at them, and anyone who is probably more competent than the rest (by objective or subjective standards) will have very little morale to stand for such a position in future.
And in the end nothing gets done.
Just politics imploding.
30% to 5% is impossible, given the massive growth in the GA ones (which itself is obviously due to changes in the reporting process, but that’s irrelevant). Most likely most of the mil ones go under the carpet at the CAA; they can hardly do anything else with them. And/or most mil ones are not Mode S which means tracking them down is way too much work, for NATS who do the initial donkeywork on CAS busts.
Interesting PDF – I will read it later.
What if we theorised that the majority of those getting fairly firm enforcement action (the course) were those who had served themselves up on a plate by busting NATS airspace while Mode S equipped, and those who get off more lightly are mainly those against whom it would be very hard to prove a case (a visual observation by an A/G operator of an ATZ bust, say)?
It would be interesting to take the dataset of those sent on the course and break it down according to exactly what they infringed and whether they had Mode S.
Another interpretation of the putative change in the military situation is that when infringements started to become a big thing a few years ago, all the civilian authorities could do was and is to try to communicate with disparate pilots whose whereabouts are unknown, whereas the military is in direct control of training, knows every move their pilots make, and can communicate in a very direct manner, including a threat to end their career?
While civilian pilots are as receptive to re-education as those represented on this thread, military pilots say “Yes, Sir!” I guess that makes a difference very quickly.
I have seen a lot of
but not a lot of
I’m particularly crap. Which is why I worry quite a lot about infringing due to a lapse in concentration.
It wouldn’t be because I’m not aware of how serious infringements are, or because I don’t know how to plan a flight or navigate. Thus I genuinely don’t think it is a matter of re-education.
The difference in receptiveness is obvious, and not simply a matter of better people with a better attitude. It’s because, as you say, their career might be on the line.
I am crap too. I can’t say with 100.000% certainly that I could fly VFR from EGKA to somewhere 100nm up north and not clip some CAS. Even if I am talking to Farnborough the whole time, and they warn me, it will be too late, because even a 10 sec clip will be reported and I will go to Gasco. At say 150hrs/year, it is bound to happen occassionally. The only way I could be 100% sure is to go non TXP (which is what most people do).
Timothy wrote:
This is the last full deconstruction we have done, focussing on more salient features in later years.
I found that an interesting read – thanks for the link.
What also stood out is that Barton topped the league in all three categories and by quite a margin – highest %age of infringers for based, departure and destination airfield. It would be interesting to know where the Barton infringers are typically infringing – I presume it’s not scattered evenly around the local area (and I would bet the majority are in the Manchester LLR) – and how many of the infringements were because the pilot was still on Barton’s QFE.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
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
Yes, good idea. I buy that :-)
Sorry, only joking. (it was getting a little too UK focused given the title of the post is around Europe…)
