Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

National CAA policies around Europe on busting pilots who bust controlled airspace (and danger areas)

Strange. So when the press ask Borris if he has taken drugs, he is being accused of criminal activity. I dont follow the logic? He is being asked a question, which he may chose to answer or not. In this case the answer is black or white and the information is already in the public domain, so why would you object to being asked or get upset? Why would you perform a public role, and not wish to be open to scrutiny?

The question is simply they dont seem to appear on the register, so are they registered, should they be collecting this data, and if they are, what is being done with it?

You know as well as I, the question could be put formally, by anyone, and would then have to be answered. That has nothing to do with this discussion.

Any “normal” charity, company, or public body I suspect would be more than happy to say of course we are, or we dont need to be for the following reasons, or whatever, we dont hold the data, which would be a perfectly reasonable explanation which we would all understand and be a whole lot less suspicious.

It is a very simple question, that is regularly asked of businesses, not because there is necessarily any suggestion the business is breaking the law, but it is information the public is entitled to have.

Again, I just find this degree of sensitivity adds to Peter’s suggestion that something doesnt add up.

I would have thought that anyone in a legal position would know this was the case and fully support this position.

More so they have told the world their purpose in life is General Aviation Safety – there is a certain magic in the words General and Safety. In other words when pilots are discussing exactly what is your purpose to see how this can be improved, you would have thought what a good opportunity to engage. To provide some answers to some of the questions.

I find it actually impossible to understand why you would consider any of this hostile – it really does just totally defeat me, unless of course there is some good reason why you would not wish to engage, which brings us full circle to Peter’s point, and the concerns so many others on here appear to be expressing?

I should also point out that any of these questions would be quite reasonable questions to put, before anyone hands over data and to which they would be entitled to answers, so I cant imagine it is any great secret, is it? Certainly from the simplest research it seems to me when it comes to speed awareness courses etc this is all very transparent stuff. Why is it different here?

Last Edited by Fuji_Abound at 13 Jun 14:35

Peter wrote:

Thus most of those sent down to Gasco will be Mode S users who were using GPS

I think the figures that have been released disprove this hypothesis, or at least make it extremely unlikely. 80% of infringers DON’T go to GASCo, and I find it unlikely that 80% of infringers are not transponding.

DavidS wrote:

It is also plausible (IMHO more likely) that most infringers are diligent pilots who got caught out.
What a shame we can’t see the statistics to try and work out which.

They give an indication. It’s more likely that a diligent and engaged pilot will be a member of some GA group (AOPA, LAA, etc.) (Note: “more likely”, of course there will be diligent pilots who are not a member of a GA group, but I would be willing to bet that the most diligent and up-to-date pilots will be the member of some kind of GA group). The overwhelming majority of infringers were not a member of any GA group – 60% of the infringers cited in the report Timothy links.

Andreas IOM

How are the pilots processed that fly a Group aircraft or a rental?

Clearly some enquires of the owners or the club need to be made after the event to establish who the pilot was, or directly with the home ATC?

How does this work with commercial GA operating in CAS?

With the airlines I am very aware of how BA and EasyJ deal with such matters. It would seem the CAA are happy with these airlines internal procedures, but they are presumably not happy with the internal procedures of some / all clubs to “re-educated”, or are they, and how does this reflect how they proceed following an infrigment? Is this discriminatory?

And indeed, what would happen if a group or club claimed to be unable to identify the pilot?

When speed cameras came in the universal get-out of pretending to be unable to say who was driving led to a change in the law with strict liability for the registered keeper in the event that they did not supply a name.

EGLM & EGTN

Someone said earlier pilots are apparently lining up to go on the course volutarily – paying £200 plus hotel etc in the same way. Can this really be true? Why would you do this? I am all for ongoing education, but the time would be far better spent with an instructor, with a request to spend sometime looking at CAS avoidance. I find this very hard to believe.

Is there a statutory provision as Graham mentions requiring a pilot to name himself, and does the letter make clear how the process will progress and what alternatives are available?

It would be interesting if some could set out the process in terms of how contact was made, and what they were asked to do? I am assuming the letter would be sent to the registered owner or trustee(s) of the aircraft in the first instance?

Last Edited by Fuji_Abound at 13 Jun 17:34

If the course were offered over a couple of evenings and free of charge at a reasonably local venue then I would attend voluntarily out of interest.

I’m not going to pay money or get myself to some distant town at 0930 on a Saturday for it though. I would surmise that those queuing up to pay and attend are the GASCO safety evening groupies.

EGLM & EGTN

Remember alioth that the figures we have seen relate to earlier years.

We have not see any data which contradicts a supposition that at the moment most easily-traceable (Mode S) infringers of NATS airspace are being sent to GASCO as a matter of policy.

Neither the CAA nor GASCO are immune to the basic elements of organisational theory that lead to picking the low-hanging fruit and maximising income.

Last Edited by Graham at 13 Jun 17:54
EGLM & EGTN

The letter goes to owner – so leasing company or club typically for rental aircraft

EASA requires a journey log under Part NCO that identifies the commander amongst other things – if an owner couldn’t identify the PIC I would say they would be open to prosecution under ANO Part 235:

(2) The operator of an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom must, within a reasonable time after being requested to do so by an authorised person, cause to be produced to that person any of the documents or records specified in paragraph (3) which have been requested by that person.

Now retired from forums best wishes

At every AIWG we are told of the people who want to go on the course, and we argue with the CAA that they should be permitted, which the CAA won’t do.

I am fed up with the suggestions that I am lying.

For intelligent people who are clearly successful in your fields, I am amazed at how poorly you deal with informed sources who have expressed willingness to help you in your stated aims. It leaves me with the impression that you actually don’t want to be better informed in case it interferes with your belief systems.

I am sure that it would also put off anyone from CAA or GASCo engaging, for similar reasons.

EGKB Biggin Hill

Timothy wrote:

I am fed up with the suggestions that I am lying.

For intelligent people who are clearly successful in your fields, I am amazed at how poorly you deal with informed sources who have expressed willingness to help you in your stated aims. It leaves me with the impression that you actually don’t want to be better informed in case it interferes with your belief systems.

I doubt anyone has said that.

You have made it clear that you have signed a NDA, and therefore are able to say very little. I respect your position. I also understand that means that you have said, very little of value, because you are unable to say.

There remains a long list of unanswered quesions (and I understand you cant answer these).

I think, what is being said, is the limited evidence available suggests all is not well, which is a very different matter.

I doubt you will accept that position, but as I have said many times, there is a very simple way of setting the record straight. I would like nothing more to find there is nothing to concern us here.

I recall a long time ago in a galaxy far away, a barrister who I worked with who is now a very senior judge, say to me that you can tell me all the stories you wish; it is irrevelant whether you believe them or not, all that matters is the evidence, evidence, and the evidence.

We have no evidence, no one willing to answr any of the questions, and so any further discussion is pointless.

Unfortuantley for me it leaves a very bad taste, and I would not wish to be involved with this. If i were involved, I do know for sure there are some questions I would want to make very certain I knew the answers to, otherwise I would be unable to continue in any position related to this matter. If I were satisfied with the answers then of course I would be happy to continue.

I have nothing more to say on the subject, and will not be contributing to this topic again.

Sign in to add your message

Back to Top