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

“Controllers will first try to maintain or regain separation between the infringing aircraft and any other traffic before trying to establish contact with the infringing pilot. If contact can be established the situation can be resolved very quickly and the controller will assist the pilot in vacating the airspace. The controller is required to file a report on every infringement of controlled airspace, and where the event is more severe in nature, the controller may be removed from duty and be unable to plug back in until the initial investigation process is complete.” NATS

So when was discretion removed?

Is the absence of discretion a good thing? In motoring this would mean every driver exceeding 30 mph would be reported, there would be no 3 mph tolerance. Every driver seen edging over junction lines sanctioned.

Is CAT designed without tolerance? In other words is their a buffer designed in such that an aircraft that drifts up into the LTMA where the ceiling is 5,500 by 200 feet at risk of a loss of seperation with CAT above?

“Most infringements occur in southern England where the skies are more crowded than in other areas of the country and where there is a complex airspace structure. There is a concentration of infringements in the airspace surrounding Heathrow, Luton, Stansted, Southampton, Gatwick and London City airports. Each of these incidents has a serious impact on airport operations, disrupting arrival and departure procedures, delaying passengers and increasing the workload of controllers and pilots as they take action to ensure the safety of all affected aircraft.” NATS

I had a quick look yesterday about the on message concept. There are plenty of examples in the last year of relatively inflamatory on message assertions. Above is an example. The assertion is that every incident has a serious impact causing disruption and delay. Is that true? It seems at odds with the occasional off script message. For those here that have infringed were you aware of the extent of the disruption you caused, or, if not what was your experience?

I was reading an old copy of Flyer magazine the other day. By coincidence there was a letter from an ATC at Stansted. It was a critical response to an article the previous month by a Geoff Boot and explained that infringements of Stansted airspace were very dangerous, especially with the increase in traffic over the last few years. I believe Mr Boot had suggested that more leniency/flexibility should be allowed on the part of the CAA whereas the ATC argued the contrary.
I decided to take a look on the front cover to see the date of the magazine, it was the year 2000. (No I’m not a slow reader the mag just happened to be lying around:)).
19 years of debate and no decrease in airspace infringements would suggest to me a" failure to communicate. "

On another subject please help me out guys. So much about understanding this is about understanding the data collected. It wasnt meant to be trivial or snipping when I asked about this earlier, but an attempt to understand why freedom of information requests have been resisted.

So help me out as my understanding is clealy lacking.

I thought that essentially organisations that gather personal data should register? I know there may be exceptions.

We can all check here:

https://ico.org.uk/esdwebpages/search?EC=3&Name=general+aviation++safety+council

So we can see for example NATS and the CAA are registered, so is the Light Aircraft Association as a typical GA members group, but there doesnt appear to be mention of the General Aviation Safety Council or AOPA UK as two other examples. Does this mean they dont hold the same sort of data or are exempt in some way or are registered differently? Does it mean they cant use the data to produce useful statistics hence the freedom of information request cant be fullfilled?

I find the whole matter confusing.

It appears to me that the CAA approach to infringements was modelled after what is done for exceeding the speed limit while driving – threat of punishment and forced education; the only thing missing is the fixed penalties for small / first infringers.

And that is why there is such a backlash – it makes no sense

@Timothy, you are an instructor. just ask yourself a question – if a student came to you fessing up “I infringed”, would you (a) slap him with a ruler three times and send him to a GASCO evening or (b) Have a good, “student”-led debrief about causes & what to do, teach them a bit about effective GPS use, and go flying?

The vast majority of speeding incidents are deliberate. A painful slap helps to focus the mind, and speed awareness courses make some people realise the real harm an accident at speed can cause, and how quickly it can happen.

The vast majority of airspace infringements are unintended, and if negligent, the negligence is not deliberate, but accidental. So punishment is inappropriate, and the value of the particular training offered is debatable. If anything, “Did you use GPS? No? Well, use it then!!!” appears to be the main lesson, and how to use it effectively is learned in the air, not on the ground.

It seems to me we probably all agree the rate of infrigments really hasnt changed in a very long time.

It therefore also seems to me it is reasonable to conclude the actions taken in the past to reduce the number of infringments has been ineffective.

Therefore, if the aim is to reduce the number of infrigments a different strategy is needed?

Alternatively, we accept that the level of infrigments is within the noise threshold, and practically it is all but impossible to reduce the number further.

I dont know the answer of course.

I do know that having as much data as possible from which to derive some evidence would be the most sensible approach.

if a student came to you fessing up “I infringed”, would you (a) slap him with a ruler three times and send him to a GASCO evening or (b) Have a good, “student”-led debrief about causes & what to do, teach them a bit about effective GPS use, and go flying?

I think that the fallacy here is that the GASCo evening is the equivalent of (b).

It is an informative and enjoyable debrief on why infringements are important, why they happen and how they can be avoided. There is no slapping about at all.

On the “message”, this is only about opinion, ie the question of whether you use the word “serious” about an infringement and how, in my opinion, the CAA should be consistent on the matter. It is not right that middle management should be telling the pilots that every infringement is serious, while telling their political masters that most aren’t. This has echoes of the current leadership debate in the Tory party. Individual candidates seem to have a wild view that they can give different messages to different target audiences, and each audience will only hear the message directed at them!

“Seriousness” is a big topic, which we have debated for many hours in AIWG, and is going to be rather hard to encapsulate in one short post.

Anyone who has been involved in a red traffic light offence will probably know that that is zero tolerance there as well. This may be a better analogy to the infringement situation than speed, because it is more of a black and white, binary issue.

I was waiting to turn right at a junction in London the other day, when the lights changed to red. I started the right turn, and someone coming in the opposite direction “infringed“ by about half a second. There was very nearly an accident, which could have been serious. There is no such thing with red lights as a minor or major infringement.

Because of CAIT, there is also no such thing as a minor infringement any more. If there is any traffic inside the zone, then the chances are that it will be with in 5 miles and 5000’ of the edge of the zone.

That means that any infringement is likely to result in a loss of separation. If separation is lost then the controller must be taken off position and must write a report. Also, the traffic inside the zone will have to have separation restored, and that will often mean a go around. A go around at somewhere like Heathrow, where there is an aircraft on the ILS every two minutes, and another departing the parallel runway at the same rate, results in mayhem, which can last a long time. That mayhem will have to be sorted out in the absence of the suspended controller.

And that is not to take into account the effect on the controller themselves. In every likelihood there will have been no negligence on the part of the controller to cause the infringement (it could be, for example, that someone has popped out of the top of White Waltham circuit, right into the approach stream at Heathrow, without the controller having any prior knowledge or ability to influence.)

While we are discussing how “fair” it is on the infringing amateur pilot to have further action taken, we also owe it to our friends and colleagues in ATC to think about the effect that an infringement, over which they have zero control, affects their professional life.

A discussion we have been having for years in AIWG is whether an extensive infringement at a time when there is no traffic is less or more serious than a “minor“ infringement of a busy zone, where mayhem ensues.

The example that I have always used is the difference between someone flying deliberately across Stansted through the ILS, luckily at a time when there is no one on the ILS, or someone who clips the corner of Heathrow zone, resulting in go arounds and diversions
etc.

This is approximately the equivalent of the jurisprudence phrase mens rea. Historically, it was a necessary prerequisite for an offence to be committed. Now, unfortunately in my opinion, there are examples of “absolute offences“ (where it is possible to commit an offence completely unknowingly, but simply because it is your absolute responsibility to ensure that the offence is not committed, such as insuring a motor vehicle.)

The arrival of CAIT has, to some extent, made the question moot, because every infringement now has consequences, but there remains a difference in opinion between myself and those responsible at the CAA as to whether an infringement should be judged on the pilot’s actions, or on the outcome. Although neither side is, in any way, black and white on the issue, my view is that it should be more on the pilot’s mindset, rather than the outcome, whereas the CAA view is rather the opposite.

As I say, I could wax lyrical on this subject for many hours, and that is probably enough. I hope it gives you some insight into the issues and how they are debated.

In my opinion, if we are looking for any kind of medium term improvement to the situation, there is no point in diverting the argument onto:

• Whether CAIT should exist.
• Whether 5000’/5nm is a reasonable separation standard from unknown traffic.
• Whether airspace is too complicated.

All strong, interesting topics, but way outside the pay grade of those dealing with the day-to-day consequences of infringements, And most unlikely to be changed under our influence! Let’s focus on what could be improved.