Peter wrote:
NATS maintain (or have access to) a huge database of pilot details. For over-2000kg this is maintained by Eurocontrol, because they send the IFR route charge invoices out. They also have the AFPEX user database, which is probably almost all pilots in the UK, even if almost none of them use it today. I visited their AFPEX team about 10 years ago when I was writing this article; I wanted it to be correct.
Of course. My point was more that for visiting pilots and aircraft, for example someone from France, is the posiiton that they would be written to in France inviting them to attend the GASCo course – or Belgium, or Germany, or Holland. Or is it the case that a complaint would be made direct to their regulator, who would then suspend their licence (and if so for how long?), and it what circumstances.
Clearly, this will be of great insterest on a European forum so visiting pilots are aware of what may await them if they infringe while in the UK.
Of course, I appreciate any N reg oeprating in Europe is in a special situation, although again how do you establish on what licence the pilot is operating the aircraft, although i fully appreciate if the N reg was based in France and the pilot was resident in French they could only operate the aircraft in France with French papers, but would be on FAA papers when visiting the UK.
Anyway the whole point is how are other pilots from Europe (those not on N reg which will be the vast majority) dealt with?
Do we have any information on how many of these have infringed and what the consequence has been?
The soundness (or otherwise) and the application of the policy are one thing, but I’m trying to resist the temptation to bang that drum too hard because as we all well know infringing is technically a criminal offence and the alternative would seem to be prosecution. That’s not to say the CAA couldn’t improve their policy and methodology – it is obvious they could – but that is not where I would focus my energy.
The bigger issue as far as I’m concerned is the statistics that have driven the CAA to this position.
Based on a gradual but continuous year-on-year decline in GA and the now almost-ubiquitous presence of moving-map GPS technology, I cannot accept that there is genuinely a continued increase in infringements. Even if there were, it would indicate a systemic problem rather than just sub-par individuals that need to be addressed with a ‘splat the rat’ policy.
A few points on this:
1. We are told that the compulsory MOR situation for ATC regarding infringements has been in place for some 12 years, and thus increased reporting cannot be a factor. It may be the case that the policy has been in place for some time, but it is obvious that compliance with this policy is now close to 100% whereas before there was definitely some latitude, however it happened. We have all heard the stuff where controllers have nudged infringers out, and most of us know pilots who this has happened to (if not ourselves), and these didn’t lead to MORs or regulatory action. Somewhere in the system, there was wiggle room. There may have been a policy, but perhaps people turned a blind eye.
2. Increased use of Mode S has enormously increased traceability. Without widespread Mode S, because of the relatively unique UK setup where the CAS controller is usually not working the outside traffic nearby (and thus not working the infringer at the moment the infringement occurs), the first obvious step in the tracing process is lost – the controller infringed upon does not have the callsign of the infringing aircraft. Thus the process of identifying the infringer starts off down a chain of phoning other ATC units, which may or may not get you the registration. If this doesn’t identify them (plenty will be talking to no-one) then one is reduced to a dedicated resource (or a review of the tapes) ‘following them home’ to see where they went and trying to work it out that way. If they go into a small field or strip that keeps no records, or the records are ambiguous (four aircraft arrived at about that time), then the trail may go cold here. If the aircraft descends quite low and is lost to radar not in the vicinity of an obvious destination then it may be impossible to identify exactly where they went.
3. The Barton effect – in the more relaxed non-CAS environments, some folks are suddenly deciding to report everything where previously they wouldn’t have bothered. This has gone as far as to lead to discussions over what one is actually required to do when entering or leaving an ATZ, with the revelation that almost none of us are actually complying with the requirements (state position and altitude when entering or leaving).
So, increased reporting and increased traceability.
I keep asking this last point and it is not much picked up on, but I am genuinely interested to know that of those infringements where no further action is taken (or just a letter – is that no further action?), in how many cases would it actually be possible/practical for the CAA to take further action if they wanted to? I.e. how many of these are either unidentifiable or un-proveable? I suspect a lot, if not most.
This has gone as far as to lead to discussions over what one is actually required to do when entering or leaving an ATZ, with the revelation that almost none of us are actually complying with the requirements (state position and altitude when entering or leaving).
The requirement to report (height? rather than altitude?) when entering and leaving an ATZ is crazy and I’ve never heard it complied with, and neither would it possible to comply with it on a busy frequency or at a fly-in, or mass departure etc.
Peter wrote:
What is the advantage to ATC of a flight plan?
The reason they give is less workload. That’s all I know. Some have already filed FP (through IPPC) for years for every little trip they take. It’s like bank principle I guess, everything is done through the net. I got no better explanation. 
To be honest though, IPPC is simple to use, both on PC and phone, so it’s more of a change than a change for the worse.
skydriller wrote:
From the way you are talking it appears that the controlling agency for that airspace is the same as that providing flight information services for the surrounding area and that they WANT to talk to you if you are nearby
Basically. There is the tower for the TWR/CTR, “Approach” for the TMA handling all approaches and all information inside and below the TMA, then Norway Control handling control and all information everywhere outside. At least that’s the basic standard with some minor variation depending on time and traffic. What you say about known traffic is important. It won’t make you immune to busting airspaces, but when they know where you are, and what your intentions are, then there aren’t really any problems for anyone.
Graham – that is a vry good post.
I think there are a few issues that have been mentioned now numerous times, but there just doesnt appear to be any answers to these questions forthcoming, which is a great pity.
and then when there are some answers, and you drill down into the detail, it seems to draw attention to more problems (as an example my earlier post about how foreign pilots are dealt with, and the suggestion that GASCo is a much better solution for them, than being reported to their local authority, but without us / they having an understanding how GASCo is a practical alternative?).
I can only say again that I always thought the whole point, is the regulator engages with the regulated so their is a proper understanding of policy and procedure. That I thought was the whole concept of the parties engaging together and working to achieve a common goal. Just look at all the information put out about the speed awareness courses – it is very open, you can see exactly how it works and how drivers are selected, what happens if you are a visitor from Europe etc etc. So, you may disagree with the policy, but at least the policy is clear.
.. .. .. but then of course with other similiar examples there is a whole host of stats, so you have some basis for drawing factually based conclusions on the extent of the problem and whether the solution is actually working. Again, we are seeing none of that.
I also simply dont understand how you can base the whole policy on rising infringements when every indication seems to point, on a like for like basis, to this being highly unlikely. Even if it were the case, the “old” pilots have worked with the system for a while, so why would they be infringe more? So, if it is the new pilots, why are the PPL training issues not being targeted, as clearly that would seem to be the source of the problem? However, again something helpful like how may hours an infringer has flown and how long they have held a PPL, doesnt seem to be a set of data that is provided, which would be invaluable in deducing the source of the problem.
and I am getting a bit tired of reading – well it is a whole lot better than a load of prosecutions, and we should be grateful, and what do you expect us to do, infringing is illegal and must be dealt with.
Well, the first is obvious and so is the second. Neither are disputed. What is disputed is a “penalty” these days needs to be shown as a means to a solution to a problem, it needs to be shown to be proportional and fairly applied to a given set of circumstances, and there needs to be adequate data to enable everyone to assess whether the policy is working and is effective. At the moment that does not seem to be the case.
Re CAP1404, isn’t this a document drawn up by the enforcers themselves? It is like the local farmer drawing up a notice that a dog seen off a lead in his field (with sheep in it) will be shot. He is entitled to do this, BTW, so this is a good comparison with the CAA. So every time he shoots a dog, even one which was off the lead for 1 minute, he can point to the document and say his action was in accordance with the farm’s policy. The fairness and effectiveness of the policy is periodically reviewed by a committee, comprising of the farmer, his wife, his son, and two of his drinking mates who are also sheep farmers.
The point has often been made, not least by a well known “flying lawyer,” now a judge, that the regulator should not also be the prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner with no assessment or scrutiny from an outside independent CPS or other source.
Fuji_Abound, surely if you don’t want an element of the CAP 1404 process, in particular an invitation to attend the AIAC, then you could always decline and request your event be dealt with via an alternative option, again detailed in 1404?
If you fundamentally object to the use of a course or you feel uncomfortable with the selection of participation offers then would it not be most effective to lobby and/or challenge the CAA directly or members of the AIWG who oversee and scrutinise the process? All the major GA alphabet organisations are represented and many members have had detailed sight of both the course and the Infringement Coordination Group who sit to apply CAP 1404 to individual cases.
I take Mike’s point about a Regulator determining the processes it then applies but in the case of CAP 1404 I do know how involved all members of the AIWG were in the development, implementation and audit of of those particular procedures. I am also aware how influential some of those GA members were in prescribing a course as an alternative to more draconian measures. For that reason I don’t see the formulation and application of CAP 1404 in quite the same negative way as some correspondents.
Cub wrote:
surely if you don’t want an element of the CAP 1404 process, in particular an invitation to attend the AIAC, then you could always decline and request your event be dealt with via an alternative option, again detailed in 1404?
This has been raised before and is a non-option.
Declining to attend the AIAC (indeed declining to engage with the process at all) will inevitably lead to prosecution.
And while it might be fun to have one’s day in court, even if you win then it’ll cost you more than just coughing up for the course.
In any case, people would probably not actually be disputing the ‘offence’ (except in a small number of cases), they would be disputing the resulting sanction (the AIAC). Proceeding to court and pleading guilty, one is not going to get away with a lesser sanction. The court will see to that, because they will view such a case as a waste of court time will want to encourage future cases to just accept what the CAA hands down.
That’s before we even start on how little the average magistrate is going to know (or want to know) about flying.
Cub wrote:
I am also aware how influential some of those GA members were in prescribing a course as an alternative to more draconian measures.
The problem with the course is that I believe they are getting the wrong audience.
I believe they’re getting experienced, relatively high-time GA pilots who have been guilty of a lapse in concentration. The audience they should be getting are those who are genuinely poor at flight planning and navigation.
I might change my view if those who run the courses stuck their heads into this debate and said “You know what, most of the course attendees are pretty clueless and I’m not sure how they even navigated to the course venue. They absolutely needed this course because their planning and navigation skills were awful.” Somehow though, I don’t think that’s the case.
