I think to insinuate that a single ANSP leans heavily on the regulator to make action more severe in crazy. I’ve heard the chap from the CAA talk about infringements and it seems that the CAA don’t react differently to infringements reported by NATS than any other ANSP. GA pilots have to surely take some responsibility, having seen some stats it looks like vertical busts are the issue. Why would we chose to fly so close to the base of airspace or so close to the edge. The tech out there today makes it easier to build in a bit of space (to Take 2 as I’ve seen). Using the altitude is your friend excuse is poor as we’ve all see the social media posts of people choosing to overfly London City at around 2300ft “because ATC didn’t stop me”. I wonder what the glide distance of their chariot is? Let’s stop bitching and do some work ourselves so that we don’t give ATC a reason to file the MORs they have to.
Perhaps if EVERY TIME a GA flight is refused CAS access a reduction in busts would magically happen because ATC would be giving equal access to all users, which I thought was a basic requirement.
Perhaps if EVERY TIME a GA flight is refused CAS access, the pilot report it to the CAA (and whatever alphabet org he belongs), the CAA would have evidence and stats to beat the ANSPs.
I think refused CAS acess is the wrong angle: you will have to work hard to get refused VFR transits, but you will get load of “controller workload”, “orbiting and rerouting”
However, there is more work to do along the “US style for VFR flight following” even with a UK flavour such as listening sqwaks, publishing low level VFR routes for a given CAS and LoAs with local airfields to use some of underused airspace, some of these should have been in place when that airspace was born…
Standby
21-Jun-19 14:56
434
I think to insinuate that a single ANSP leans heavily on the regulator to make action more severe in crazy.
Perhaps.
However, NATS report every bust, they didnt use to. There is a reason for the change in policy. We just dont know what it is because no one will say.
I think a few people are missing the point here. Isn’t an airspace infringement one of the Mandatory Occurrence Reportable incidents? If so then NATS should be reporting them so that means to prevent recurrence and to allow the community to learn from them. Isn’t that where that the Take 2 idea came from?
Also I think that there is a means of reporting refusals of access to controlled airspace. I’ve never been refused a transit and I’ve never heard one being given and I fly in the south of the country where there are a number of different ATC organisations providing the service.
It sounds like everyone is blaming ATC and the CAA for doing their job?
Standby wrote:
It sounds like everyone is blaming ATC and the CAA for doing their job
Their “job” surely is to treat all airspace users equally and not focus on one section. I have never had a refusal in France for example but just try getting through Stansted at any time of day!
@standby welcome to EuroGA 
I recommend a review of this thread.
The main issue appears to be a recent change of CAA policy on what to do with infringers, with the indications being that most if not all of them, no matter how minor, getting sent straight down to the Gasco course which for practical purposes is a £400 fine.
As you will see already posted, the CAA is vigorously resisting the disclosure of any numbers. My take on it, FWIW, is that once this gets out, and if it is what all the indications suggest, the % of Class G traffic which is nontransponding (or Mode A) will go up from the current ~50% to close to 100%. Eventually that will result in some more deaths from mid-airs.
I wouldn‘t focus so much on that £400 amount. That is very little money in fact, for making a serious mistake (which an infringement of controlled airspace still always is).
It‘s more the inconvenience of having to go to some course far away from home. But not the £400. In Germany, any infringement (of those which get to the BAF, the agency taking care of these things), the fine will be a lot higher than that.
boscomantico wrote:
But not the £400. In Germany, any infringement (of those which get to the BAF, the agency taking care of these things), the fine will be a lot higher than that.
How then do you get infringers to report their infringings ? (not sure about the spelling, but Chrome doesn’t come up with any usable alternative 
)
