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 that does not correspond with what I have been told off-forum by people in the German system. Would you be able to post some indicative processes (what happened to the pilot and what fine it was) for e.g. a 1 min CAS bust with no effect on traffic in CAS, and a similar bust where separation was officially lost?
Based on what I hear, the treatment for say a 30 minute bust which shuts down Frankfurt is about the same as for doing the same at Heathrow. In the UK, providing you show an adequate hunble attitude, first offence, etc, it may be removal of license pending some exams and a skills test. In worse circumstances it could be a prosecution and a fine of a few k.
This came up earlier in this thread where the €50k fine etc were mentioned.
BTW I have confirmation that the UK does apply a 5000ft/5nm add-on for an official loss of separation. No other country I know of does anything like this. The ATCO is taken off duty and sent home pending an investigation, I am told. A great system…
How then do you get infringers to report their infringings ?
I don’t think infringers would normally report their own infringements. They are normally identified by mode S, (the “ANPR” of the skies.)
From a safety point of view I don’t know what advantages mode S offers over mode C. The main disadvantage is obvious.
No, I can‘t post much, but any fines usually start at 500, and are often in the 1000 Euro range. It‘s a different story that these fines are often reduced somewhat if you object. The other difference is that in Germany, most minor infringements never lead to any fine at all.
Anyway, 400 pounds is a ridiculous amount of money in flying, so I really wouldn‘t focus my arguments around that, as that makes one look a bit silly.
most minor infringements never lead to any fine at all.
There you go. Exactly my point. Nobody will argue with 400 quid for shutting down Heathrow, or Frankfurt.
From a safety point of view I don’t know what advantages mode S offers over mode C. The main disadvantage is obvious.
Indeed.
For OCAS traffic, there is actually a slight use for Mode S: with a listening watch and the appropriate squawk, ATC is able to call you by your tail number, rather than saying “aircraft 10 miles south of Gatwick” etc.
Whether they will make that call in time to stop you busting, depends on the situation, and if you bust, which you probably will if they are busy elsewhere, you go down to Gasco regardless of whether you were talking to ATC.
One interesting factor was identified recently which usefully swells the “Mode S identified CAS bust low hanging fruit”: lots of people have been forced to install 8.33 and many of them did Mode S at the same time because it makes sense (due to crazy waiting times for avionics work, etc). Given that nobody has been able to escape 8.33 (realistically) this has caused lots of “old pilots” and “old planes” to have Mode S which they had been resisting for many years.
Have I missed something but I am sure that the GASCO course is £200 and, if what is said is true, is cant be a fine if the cost covers what has been reported to be a very good day’s training. Also why is everyone getting so tetchy about statistics; I’ve looked at the airspace and safety site tonight and it is clear that the CAA is publishing figures; every infringement will be different so how can we really expect to get exactly what everyone wants from figures.
Reading this thread makes me wonder whether we GA pilots really do understand the one subject that is currently the elephant in the room. Firstly if infringements must be reported under the MOR scheme by ATC then surely pilots should report their own infringements and they are one and the same (and uncleared entry into some form of airspace); sounds like a refusal to accept the facts and try to blame in on ATC and the CAA.
To me one or 2 on here (no names) seem to be bitter and cynical – prove you are the good pilots that you appear to be by not giving the ATC and CAA a reason to write and act on MORs.
flybymike wrote:
From a safety point of view I don’t know what advantages mode S offers over mode C. The main disadvantage is obvious.
A lot of data is broadcast which can allow ATC to warn you of a future problem. For example the altitude select can be reported and I have personally been told that I have made a mistake in setting it before going to that altitude.
Firstly if infringements must be reported under the MOR scheme by ATC then surely pilots should report their own infringements.
I agree, indeed only today I handed myself into the local cop shop for doing 31mph in a built up area.
Looking forward with relish to the educational course.
the GASCO course is £200
Indeed it is. However if you turn up late you are deemed to not have done it, so many have to stay locally the night before (say £100-150). Also if you look at the locations (posted earlier) they are very far apart and I reckon the median travel distance is a few hundred miles, which in the UK isn’t much fun, nor cheap. It is a pretty significant penalty on the individual.
the one subject that is currently the elephant in the room
I doubt anybody has an issue with significant busts. The issue is that there is clearly a very recent policy change (in the CAA) which runs a zero tolerance so e.g. a 10 sec / 100ft bust reported by CAIT sends to pilot to Gasco. IMHO most would regard this as unreasonably harsh. No other country in Europe does this, and the UK didn’t do it until maybe 2 years ago. Another thing is the 5000ft/5nm add-on which again nobody else does and which artifically generates lots more official losses of separation, and these a a very big thing for ATC, but really they are a “rod for their own back”. All this has been “done” further back up this (admittedly now very long) thread.
To say that a 10sec/100ft CAS infringement is a serious offence is “true” but no more true than doing 30.1mph in a 30mph speed limit. No ATCO will be seen online saying the former should be acceptable, and no policeman will be seen online saying that the latter should be acceptable 
The long term result will be a lot more nontransponding traffic, which benefits nobody. It p1sses off and endangers GA which spent the money installing TAS/TCAS1 (most modern IFR tourer types) and it tightens up the back ends of ATCOs when they see a primary-only blip merge with a big jet on the ILS, which leads to TMZs, which leads to more demands on ATC because they now need to somehow service a bigger volume of CAS…
For example the altitude select can be reported and I have personally been told that I have made a mistake in setting it before going to that altitude.
This is extremely rare in light GA, because you would need an ARINC429 connection from the autopilot to an Enhanced Mode S transponder. A TBM900, or a new jet might have it… No normal GA autopilot supports this.
Peter wrote:
The issue is that there is clearly a very recent policy change (in the CAA) which runs a zero tolerance so e.g. a 10 sec / 100ft bust reported by CAIT sends to pilot to Gasco. IMHO most would regard this as unreasonably harsh. No other country in Europe does this, and the UK didn’t do it until maybe 2 years ago. Another thing is the 5000ft/5nm add-on which again nobody else does and which artifically generates lots more official losses of separation, and these a a very big thing for ATC, but really they are a “rod for their own back”. All this has been “done” further back up this (admittedly now very long) thread.To say that a 10sec/100ft CAS infringement is a serious offence is “true” but no more true than doing 30.1mph in a 30mph speed limit. No ATCO will be seen online saying the former should be acceptable, and no policeman will be seen online saying that the latter should be acceptable
Has there been policy change and what if a 100ft/10 second infringement caused a loss of separation? Is the 5/5000 not the required separation standards in the UK (I think that in some places it may her 3/3000 now?).
I think any ATCO who is removed from controlling duties because someone infringed and had a separation loss might not necessarily agree with your 30.1mph rationale.
Yes it has been ‘done’ but why can’t pilots (GA (of all types), military and others) just use the advice given in all the media that provides just that…advice?
I’ve only been a pilot for 10 years and in now way consider myself to be a prefect pilot but it’s not just about infringements is it, airmanship across the aviation industry is maybe not quite what it could be. Is that the fault of anyone but those who need to apply it?
Peter wrote:
This is extremely rare in light GA, because you would need an ARINC429 connection from the autopilot to an Enhanced Mode S transponder. A TBM900, or a new jet might have it… No normal GA autopilot supports this.
Our 2006 Cessna 172 with G1000 supports this and AFAIK every G1000 installation does. There is a fair amount of G1000 equipped aircraft around so I wouldn’t say it is that unusual.
Although if you have the old KAP140 A/P and not the integrated GFC700 A/P it is a bit silly in that the transponder transmits the altitude setting on the G1000 itself which doesn’t do anything but set a bug on the altitude tape — it is unrelated to the A/P altitude setting. So you have to set the altitude both on the A/P and the G1000 otherwise ATC may worry. Guess how I know…
