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)

That advert is horrid. The very definition of FUD and attempting to profit from it.

EGLM & EGTN

In addition to this, commercial aviation operators are now also considering taking private legal action against infringers where they cause additional expense and inconvenience to the airline concerned. Typically, fuel for missed approaches, additional hold times, diversion costs (in terms of both fuel, time and expenses), not to mention recovery of transport costs for all passengers that subsequently land at a different airport to that planned. For example, did you know that for a single infringement, it could affect up to 30 airlines, delay 5,000 passengers, and cost the airlines up to £50,000 in additional fuel burn?

That would be an interesting development.

Last Edited by Fuji_Abound at 18 Jul 22:04

I’m hoping that GPS track showing no infringement would get you out of prosecution (no need for court) but maybe that’s me being an eternal optimist

But as already discussed the tolerance applies only if you are speaking to the ATSU which “owns” the airspace.

Is this written down somewhere? I mean you could infringe the Gatwick airspace while getting a basic service from the Gatwick Director, with no transit clearance?

I suspect that even if true it won’t help much because, in the UK, VFR traffic almost never talks to the owner of a TMA. So say flying past the London TMA, talking to Farnborough Radar, gives you no protection AFAICS.

That would be an interesting development.

Yes, but I think if it was possible it would have been done many years ago. Airlines are mostly run by pretty aggressive people. Would the airspace manager not be first in line for suing (i.e. NATS)?

I’m hoping that GPS track showing no infringement would get you out of prosecution (no need for court) but maybe that’s me being an eternal optimist

I reckon it would if the bust was only lateral. Then the argument would be GPS v. radar, and it is obvious which would win in a court.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

An airline has no more right to compensation for the consequences of an infringement than I have a right to compensation because I am delayed on the motorway after a truck crashes.

And yes they would sue NATS, not the infringer. This is obvious on a practical level because NATS has money and is worth suing.

EGLM & EGTN

Peter wrote:

Is this written down somewhere

It has been written somewhere on this thread or on its brother on Flyer by an ATCO.
Your point about Farnborough vs LTMA is valid. That’s the exact point that ATCO was raising.

Nympsfield, United Kingdom

Fuji, where did you find that paragraph?

Those May decision numbers show a big shift. There is now nothing whatsoever to support Timothy’s original assertion that 80% get no further action.

May decisions show:

55% get the GASCO course
17% get no action at all
33% get no action if you also define the warning letter as no action, but the CAA appears to define it separately. I don’t know whether I’d consider a stern letter saying that this was going on my record to be ‘no further action’ but this could be viewed differently.

There is no detail on the 7 warning letters. My assumption therefore is that the CAA lacked any proof that would support further action.

What about those where the pilot cannot be identified, of which there must be many – especially ATZs? Are these just dropped and don’t make it as far as the ICG so they don’t appear in the figures?

EGLM & EGTN

BeechBaby wrote:

Fact, the UK is one of the most legally corrupt countries in the world

Bold statement. I think you’re talking nonsense.

Darley Moor, Gamston (UK)

Xtophe wrote:

As mentioned the GPS altitude is not the same as the baro altitude

If you have a Garmin G5, go into setup mode, and into the diagnostics screen and there is an option to turn logging on. Make sure there is a microSD card in the device.

Then your G5 will record all its parameters (e.g. GPS position, indicated airspeed, GPS ground speed and the barometric altitude, and the altimeter setting in the device (albeit in Freedom™ units rather than hectopascals, but the conversion is easy enough) in a comma separated file on the microSD card.

Andreas IOM

on its brother on Flyer by an ATCO.

I would severely question that comparison

Here on EuroGA we would never permit a CAA or NATS employee posting under a nickname and picking fights with people; that is equivalent to your local police chief going down the pub incognito and propositioning your wife and when you punch him he puts your name on his sh1tlist We have similarly “dealt with” (not banned) numerous people who were doing covert product promotion while working for the vendor. There are also other issues on that site with close relationships between certain people…

Posting normally is fine, of course. A number of NATS people are on EuroGA and large numbers of NATS and CAA people read EuroGA.

A lot of ATCO posts there are disingenuous, as well as being total Stockholm Syndrome victims, working as they are in a highly political and aggressively managed company whose management is monitoring all social media. The possibility that CAS busts are not actually rising is absolutely not entertained.

55% get the GASCO course

That looks about right for that month, if you take the approx CAS busts and the max capacity of the Gasco process (c. 250/year currently).

What about those where the pilot cannot be identified, of which there must be many – especially ATZs? Are these just dropped and don’t make it as far as the ICG so they don’t appear in the figures?

Those swell up the total numbers, and swell up the numbers of “no further action” cases. This must be true since there is no “unsolved crime” category

Most non Mode S will be in this category, unless they do something big.

Due to the time lag, it will take about a full year to be able to work out how many got what.

What is interesting is this new text

I am sure this is not true since I have met plenty of people who were first time very minor infringers and who went straight to Gasco. Something doesn’t add up. One possibility is that you don’t need to be presented to the ICG to get sent to Gasco… which would imply that you can get sent there by just the one guy running this.

Then your G5 will record all its parameters (e.g. GPS position, indicated airspeed, GPS ground speed and the barometric altitude, and the altimeter setting in the device (albeit in Freedom™ units rather than hectopascals, but the conversion is easy enough) in a comma separated file on the microSD card.

I doubt that would work unless you got a good lawyer. In the UK, evidence needs to be collected and safeguarded continually in a specific manner. For example if you take a video showing some locals smashing up your car, the police will not touch it because the video has not met the evidence requirements. This exact thing happened to a friend of mine. The fact that faking a video is damn difficult is a point lost on the system. The video needs to be done by a “private detective” (most of them are ex CID) who is “independent” and knows how to handle evidence.

So it would be an argument between the way you collect the evidence and the way NATS collect the evidence. And I bet you anything they have had this looked at before and they have a “process” in place which includes e.g. baro measurement calibrations, with traceability back to the reference, etc… If NATS don’t know the gold plated equipment calibration routes then nobody does. If a weather station is to be used for prosecutions then the equipment will be traceable and regularly calibrated.

It would also be expensive to defend because this stuff is not documented anywhere AFAIK. It would cost you 5-6 digits to defend it.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top