That’s a very interesting find, Atmilatos. I did a google on the RA3228 local copy document and it is published by the UK military. That gives 5000ft/5nm for all relevant cases. However the NATS article gives 3000ft/3nm. Maybe that explains why Gasco gave 5000ft/5nm for all the UK (since the main presenter was ex RAF, although he would have retired many years ago) and the late Dave Philips also gave 5000ft/5nm (he was ex RAF ATC AFAIK), while some UK ATCOs on the UK sites are claiming this is bollox and 3000ft is used. Anyway, the practical difference is not great; 3000ft/3nm will still produce a lot of “losses of separation”.
this is obviously hot topic in UK since it triggered incredible number of posts in this thread (558 up to now) while it seems that it doesn’t catch much attention of pilots outside UK.
That’s because, quite clearly, the rest of Europe realises that most CAS busts are just “stuff that happens” and using a hammer to smash the issue isn’t going to work – other than in the long term by eliminating most GA activity.
The rest is detail… e.g. making CAS clearances generally trivial to get (France), using the same ATCO to do OCAS and CAS (most of Europe), not adding the 5000ft (or whatever it is today) to every Mode C altitude to artifically create a “loss of separation”.
The rest of Europe is prob100 reading this and is having a good laugh.
Serious busts e.g. shutting down a major airport for an hour, are treated pretty much the same everywhere (some time with an instructor, fines up to a few k for those who stick a finger up, etc) and nobody has an issue with that. AFAICT the CAA suspends their license until a satisfactory flight with a CAA staff examiner (see my Gasco notes; one such video was shown). But nowadays, in the GPS age, only complete muppets do those. To fly right across say Heathrow you have to be well “out of it”, especially if you then do the same on the way back 
I really don’t think minor busts, caused not by a lack of “knowledge” but by a momentary lack of attention or a distraction, will ever have a solution. It is a real human factors challenge, with no obvious solution I can see other than to avoid flights where it can be a factor. So, do only preplanned flights, at one altitude, on autopilot. For example, I have two extremely minor “cases” in the bag, over two years, so if there is a “next time” the CAA guy will lock me up and throw away the keys. I doubt he actually operates the 2 year rule for “repeats” since it took somebody’s FOIA application to discover the 2 year rule. The last one I did was taking up a 91 year old ex RAF guy for a flight around Sussex. He has weak legs now so this was to be probably his last flight, but we managed to get him into the plane and he really enjoyed it (I used to fly with him in his 80s; he had a PPL until a few years ago). In flight, I was watching the GPS very carefully but once spoke to him for 1 or 2 mins too long… “F__K”! Most of us have done this in years past but back then it didn’t lead to anything nasty with the CAA. Edit: I phoned them afterwards to apologise and they said they had no infringments that day. They asked the approx time, went back to check, and confirmed no infringements. But somebody logged the phone call, investigated the radar data and found it! So: NEVER PHONE TO APOLOGISE. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TODAY. And, the worst thing for me, is that I probably dropped the nice ATCO in the sh1t. 1min35secs in CAS (according to NATS) and straight to Gasco. Obviously, in the correct ex military way, the CAA disregards mitigating circumstances So, to address this human factors issue (basically, briefly talking to a passenger on sightseeing flights) the only option is to simply stop doing sightseeing flights with passengers, except on totally trivial routes along the coast, flown on autopilot. This is ok for me because I rarely do them anyway (and certainly don’t do them for myself since there isn’t a whole lot to see from the air in SE UK, except along the coastline, and anyway I have done so much flying around my base over the years) but clearly this is not a viable plan for GA generally. I am sure most people doing sightseeing will now make sure they turn off their transponders.
As far as I could tell, most people on the Gasco session were there due to momentary lapses of attention, and some due to screwups in which ATC played a big part (but the pilot is always the one in the wrong, by definition). Those busts were tiny infringements. Some data I have seen on cases which got sent to Gasco involved literally just touching the edge of CAS; presumably ATC radar is assumed to be perfectly accurate for this purpose, when in fact it is far less accurate than GPS.
There were a few who navigate by dead reckoning and VRPs etc and they are prime candidates for a bust and I guess those, probably having paid out best part of £500 in all, either went out and bought a GPS, or got such a shock they gave up flying there and then.
The engineer in me would say: in case of infregement, wait 30 seconds.
Maybe CAIT has such a delay, but everyone I have spoken to says No. Actually on one UK site it was stated that the way CAIT works is commercially confidential…
Found an old “action plan” from 2009 by EASA regarding airspace infringements. The actions are divided into user categories from users of airspace (pilots) to highest level of rule making (EASA). Unsurprisingly, most actions are not to be done by pilots, but by others. It would be interesting to know which of these actions the UK CAA has initiated.
It can be found here. local copy
LeSving wrote:
Found an old “action plan” from 2009 by EASA regarding airspace infringements. The actions are divided into user categories from users of airspace (pilots) to highest level of rule making (EASA). Unsurprisingly, most actions are not to be done by pilots, but by others. It would be interesting to know which of these actions the UK CAA has initiated.
At first glance this looks very reasonable. However, my feeling is that essentially none of this has been implemented by any country (unless it was already).
Yes, on a quick read I agree.
The thing which immediately makes me concerned about the accuracy of data sources is seeing a graph like this
which cannot be true given the general decline in GA activity everywhere and especially in Europe. It has to be improved reporting that produces these rising numbers.
There is some fun stuff in there which will never be implemented e.g.
As an aside, I wonder how many foreign pilots do busts in the UK? They would probably be categorised as a “letter”, so making the CAA posture appear less aggressive. It is really easy for foreign pilots to bust CAS in the UK, due to the way the ATC system is set up.
Airborne_Again wrote:
However, my feeling is that essentially none of this has been implemented by any country (unless it was already).
Maybe, but it’s hard to tell. It’s 10 years old, and stuff has indeed happened during the last 10 years that we take as “has been there forever” today. It’s a bit fun reading about GPS in that document. Today, only serious die hards don’t use GPS in some way, if only as a map on the pad. Some stuff has happened by itself in a way, but the widespread use of GPS may in part be a result of this document. Even if it was only read once in 2009, then forgotten.
What’s interesting is the broad approach to this problem. It cannot be solved, or minimized by banging pilots in the head with a hammer. The whole system has to change. A solution has to be created – by everyone. It simply cannot be solved by squashing symptoms. But, I don’t know what has been going on in the UK. Maybe all the “other” stuff already is in place, only VFR pilots left, and they still don’t “get it” ? (I don’t see that as a the most probable scenario, but certainly not improbable).
Peter wrote:
the general decline in GA activity everywhere and especially in Europe
It turns out this is a myth. The GA activity (hours flown) has been constant the last 30 years. I’m not talking about number of licenses and such things, as this has no direct relationship with the activity. GA has changed, and is changing. PPL activity has decreased, but UL activity has made up for all of it. The US is probably different due to a very high activity to start with.
Including paragliders, paramotors and such, the GA activity has increased over the last 30 years.
Peter wrote:
That’s because, quite clearly, the rest of Europe realises that most CAS busts are just “stuff that happens” and using a hammer to smash the issue isn’t going to work – other than in the long term by eliminating most GA activity.
Not only GA, also the military has it’s share of busts. But that is another issue.
Fact is, that in almost every safety seminar I’ve attended over the last few years infringements are the biggest issue, long before even deadly stuff like VFR in IMC and similar. With the complexity of airspace mounting exponentially over the last years, infringing has become much more common and at the same time with the introduction of Mode S, easier to track the offenders.
Fact is further that authorities all over Europe (and I would imagine in the US as well) take infringements very seriously indeed and they are one reason why the call for more extensive “easier” airspace gets louder by the incident. Unfortunately not only from ATC and CAA’s but sometimes also from pilots who deem the current airspace too complex. For me, this is a huge threat to VFR traffic and with it most light GA. “Easier” airspace means automatically that lots of airspace which today is class E will become D or C or even A, down to scud running level and possibly closing down several small airfields which today still have sufficient freedom to work.
For me, airspace infringements are a big no-no and also totally unnecessary with todays GPS and moving maps, as well as proper preparation. People who do not do that and get busted will have to face the music, whether it is with a course (which implies that the authorities think they have re-education potential rather than grounding them) up to license revocation and fines or worse is up to the case. But at the same time I would very strongly advocate the system in use by EASA whereby if you report the infringement yourself for the benefit of educating others via the reporting platforms, this should be seen as a sufficient sign of maturity to forego prosecution. In most countries that is what is done unless the case is very special or severe.
What I find very disconcerting today is the move away from Just Culture however in some countries like Switzerland, where it ceased to exist altogether and anyone in aviation comitting a mistake of whatever kind WILL get prosecuted by the state attorneys and sent down or fines massively, including loss of job or worse, including a compulsory reporting even if it means delivering yourself to justice, which is afaik even against human rights. I know it would be illegal in the US (5th ammendment) and it is the opinion of several lawyers I talked to that it is illegal in Europe as well, but it’s being done.
But to get back to the topic of infringements, I think it is the duty of every single pilot to avoid those like the proverbial plague. It does not take much imagination what would happen if a mid air occurrs involving a GA plane and an airliner. And there have been close calls, very close calls indeed. most of which have been caused by inept GA pilots. That ATC get nervous at the prospect, who will blame them, particularly if one knows that they will be prosecuted vigorously for every possible mistake they make.
Bitching about corrective action by authorities is like those who constantly trigger speeding devices and find them oppressive. Well, the 100% sure way to avoid traffic fines is just to keep to the speed limit. And the by far surest way to avoid airspace infringements is to prepare, prepare again and then watch the airspace vigorously while in flight and to take immediate action if you are forced into controlled airspace by circumstances beyond your control.
While I agree that the way things go in the Uk is not good from many perspectives, it is also one of the most complex and busiest airspaces on the continent. So who is not safe to fly there, stay the hell out. If that means some of the dimmer characters in GA give up flying, well they are better off on a mini golf course if their idea of safety is turning off their transponders and sneaking around approach sectors in the hope of not being discovered.
So if GPS is the absolute cure, how are there any infringements at all?
One way that I’m aware of is the discrepancy between GPS altitude and barometric altitude.
It sounds as if some other people have been landed in hot water by the interface between controlled and uncontrolled flight e.g. doing a maneuver under ATC then returning to pilot navigation on a heading and location that were not preplanned.
I’ve never infringed as far as I’m aware, but have had stressful experiences trying to dodge weather and find new routes en route.
All infringements all caused by a loss of situational awareness – I.e. you are not where you think you are / you are not where you wanted to be. I don’t believe anyone ever plans to route through CAS without clearance intentionally, and even the number that accurately fly a bad plan are tiny.
However the list of contributory factors that can lead to loss of SA is massive, but in the main I suspect it is because pilots deviate when airborne from their intended plan (laterally and or vertically) for reasons various
I think one of the biggest ‘causes’ of infringments is the fact that pilots are trying to avoid controlled airspace in the first place.
It would be far better all around if pilots headed straight for controlled airspace with the full and reasonable expectation of getting cleared through. This way they would be in contact with ATC, identified, with their altitude verified before they even got close to the edge. Any little error in their own navigation would be noticed by ATC and not be a big issue because ATC can move them around as necessary, and because they are already cleared in, it wouldn’t be an infringement.
It would mean that pilots are not trying to fly up to the edge of airspace or squeeze through small gaps.
But in the UK, there isn’t the same expectation of a clearance through airspace that exists in most of the rest of Europe, and so pilots give up calling.
When I fly though the UK, I look at the map and ask “who could I get a radar based traffic service from?”. If there is someone, I call them. If I’m in an area that there is no possibility of getting a traffic service, I turn down the radio and fly on until I get to the next one (assuming I’m not looking to cross controlled airspace obviosuly!). I see little point in a basic service unless I need a flight plan opened or need a weather update.
But if I fly through France, I wouldn’t dream of not being touch with ATC. I know that I’ll get seemlessly handed over from one frequency to another, almost certainly cleared through their airspace, and often cleared through without having to change from the FIS frequencey (FIS often negociate my transit with the local ATC without any interaction from me).
Compare a navigation error in those two circumstances.
In the UK, outside radio contact and without any radar service a navigation error or moments inattention could easily lead to an infringement and with me being “unkown traffic”. The same mistake in France is likely to be picked up by FIS before it happens, and even if it does happen, I’m know traffic with known intentions and verified altitude and easily instructed to correct my error.
Getting UK airspace joined up so that GA pilots call ATC and can reasonably expect to get a clearance through controlled airspace and seemlessly handed over to the next unit, could make far greater improvements in infringment numbers and the severity of each infringment, than beating the pilots with a big stick.
dp
