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)

Fun discussion but I miss to understand why this is so problematic in UK and not a problem at all in (rest of) Europe.

Last Edited by Emir at 18 Jun 11:34
LDZA LDVA, Croatia

A mixture of things:

-an absurd airspace structure in the UK
-absurd flying regulations (controlled flights in uncontrolled airspace, etc.)
-scandalously poor ATC services and poor to non-existant integration of the various agencies
-very complex airspace structure in the London area
-very high traffic density in the southeast of the UK
-pilot training which is mostly stuck in the WWII time. For some reason, this is more the case in the UK than in the rest of Europe. Maybe something to do with the fact that old-timers (RAF, etc.) are still very present in UK PPL flight training
-thus still many pilots not using GPS
-a system which seems to catch every single infringement, however minor and irrelevant it may be

The rest in only emotions.

Last Edited by boscomantico at 18 Jun 12:03
Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany

As to the contract with General Aviation Training – can anyone tell us how long this contract has been given to them for?

Also, when someone next goes on the course, and is asked to provide various components of personal data, would some one mind please asking if they are registered to be entrusted with this data, and if they are not, then their entitlement to collect this data.

I am sure all is well, but data protection exists for all sorts of good reasons as we know, and it seems to me it is proper this is seen to be upheld, because otherwise there is some pretty personal stuff that could fall into anyone’s hands.

Again, I am sure all is well, but I cannot find their registration, and, as I asked earlier, I would like to understand whether or not they should be registered. Very happy if they should not be registered, or they are, as that would be of considerable comfort to us all, I am sure.

Emir wrote:

Fun discussion but I miss to understand why this is so problematic in UK and not a problem at all in (rest of) Europe.

What a good question?

I could hazard a few guesses.

“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.”

So to answer and earlier question, this is why I wrote – (wot I wrote).

This is the statement by Blain Kelly at NATS, who I assume knows what he is writing about?

alioth wrote:

Actually, CAIT is apparently worse than that, it’s an instance of what the author Philip K Dick called “pre-crime” and will label someone as an infringer before they even infringe. It’s more like a speed camera that gives you a ticket in a 30 zone while doing 25 mph because at your current rate of acceleration, in 10 seconds time you’ll be doing 30.1 mph, in other words it’s actually “negative tolerance” rather than zero tolerance.

It sounds like the tool was intended as a tool for ATC personnel, but is being misused for enforcement. If the speed / acceleration / position of an aircraft looks like it will come dangerously close to another, although it is not yet known whether it will and it can still adjust, IMHO it makes absolute sense that the ATCO will have a warning on his screen. But using that “anticipative notification” for any enforcement action is miscarriage of justice, because the infringement has not actually happened.

ELLX

Emir wrote:

why this is so problematic in UK and not a problem at all in (rest of) Europe.

Also there’s lots of Class A airspace sitting next to Class G airspace.

Class A airspace gives no access to VFR flights, even if the weather is good and there isn’t much traffic inside it. The adjacent Class G airspace has no TMZ and many pilots operate beneath the shelf not squawking ALT (Mode C). The most infringed areas (Some Class D, some Class A) do not routinely offer radar / crossing services to pilots operating just outside it. Those who do talk are often talking to adjacent units that either do not offer radar, or are not joined up enough to the units that are often being infringed.

Therefore if the line is crossed, pilots aren’t on frequency and also may not have ALT verified. And it can suddenly become a big issue.

In the USA and in other European countries, the FIS may be provided by Approach or Center, is radar based and joined up. The terminal airspace is Class B or C with the surrounding bits being Class E. Pilots are actively encouraged to be on frequency and/or mandated to squawk when operating on the edges, and consequently controllers are generally relaxed about letting you in or being around the edges. This leaves ATC to give any restrictions where due and handle all the rest under the covers and make better use of airspace.

Last Edited by James_Chan at 18 Jun 12:40

James_Chan – I suspect most of the “real problems” arise from class D infringments in the South East with consequence for the flow of inbound CAT manouevering for arrivals and departures. Of course I could be wrong.

James_Chan wrote:

Those who do talk are often talking to adjacent units that either do not offer radar, or are not joined up enough to the units that are often being infringed.

You don’t even need to talk to anyone just set a listen sqwak & freq and reduce volume, I find no point speaking to London Info/LARS as they will come to you after the fact and you will not get much service busy/sunny days, a listen sqwak & freq will do a far better job than left/right phone calls between ATC/ATC/Pilot…

I think it is a great idea for lateral airspace busts even when you are familiar with the area, follow same routes, especially when SD is switched OFF
For vertical airspace, I used to rely on GTX330 altitude limit warning at FL22 but I found height much easier to watch for if you are for a takeoff/landing

But I still find it pitty to have to stick to 2200ft anytime above land in the south-east in class G fearing to hit LTMA class A airspace with no prior ATC warning or class D cushions…

Last Edited by Ibra at 18 Jun 12:52
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

Ibra wrote:

But I still find it pitty to have to stick to 2200ft anytime above land in the south-east in class G fearing to hit LTMA class A airspace with no prior ATC warning or class D cushions…

To rigorous an approach and that could well be a consequence.

How many pilots are now flying around the whole of the south east at 2,200 feet regardless of the airspace for fear of ever infringing?

What are the safety implications of compressing the traffic even more? Has that been considered?

Sign in to add your message

Back to Top