If things are applied sensibly as you write, and leaving the persecution aspects aside for the moment, it would be fine, but unfortunately we live in a time where rules get applied with no common sense, if not by the practitioners, then definitely by the CAA.
So if they are guidance and treated as such – fine.
But as absolute values, they make no sense. In your converging example, would you really redirect someone at 7,500ft if an obviously slow aircraft climbs to 4,700 ft ? Probably not, you would keep an eye on it.
There are bits of the Gatwick CTR where the edge of the CTR is less than 2 miles from the approach path. An aircraft trundles into it. If there was no convergence (let’s assume it tracks parallel to the approach path), would you really break off the aircraft on approach? Again, you would probably keep an eye on it.
But you will expose yourself to the increasingly dominant “rules are rules” brigade… which is happy to cause millions of damage by shutting down traffic for virtual volcanic ash, and airports because there a rumours of drones.
Cobalt. I think we are describing the same thing. A degree of pragmatism rather than the strict application of ‘separation’ criteria. As a controller I have to make a judgement about ‘unsafe proximity’ in relation to an infringement. To help me manage and apply this consideration I have some recommended separation values that I should endeavour to achieve if I consider my aircraft and an infringement in unsafe proximity. In some of the scenarios you describe I may well, depending on position and performance of the infringement target, that they are not in unsafe proximity and I would not apply the recommended values.
Peter. I am not sure what could be done to address your paranoia about the background and capability of the people involved in this stuff.
I can only take myself as an example. I have been an air trafficer man and boy but I am also a GA pilot and passionate about special events, fly-ins and air displays with a particular love of the LAA part of the spectrum.
I am no longer close to infringements or directly involved in their management (which is why I am able to comment here) but have worked tirelessly to try and address the risk posed by some infringement events in a proactive and proportionate manner. You clearly judge that I have failed in my endeavours and that is a judgement that I guess you are perfectly entitled to but me and people with a similar passion and background in air traffic, the services and GA are the people that apply for these jobs. The check and balance is achieved, in the case of infringements, by the AIWG, members of which are drawn from many of alphabet organisations and indeed are represented on your forum by at least one member who doesn’t fit your demographic of concern.
You may consider we are all doing the wrong thing and the wrong way but I simply don’t see it that way and I will continue to explain what is done and why, particularly if I consider you have just got it wrong.
Constructive debate or am I wasting my time?
Peter. I know nothing about any £99 course. AFAIK GASCo are the only approved provider of the AIAC and I would have to say that I feel we are extremely fortunate to have that particular organisation delivering the content. But, as I said, I am no longer close so things may have changed. I would think Timothy would know if another provider has been asked to do something.
I have now read your link. It is dated 2016 and appears to be offering ‘unofficial’ coaching and training in relation to the on-line test as well as as tailored syllabus for those people that have been directed to seek remedial flying training. I guess you pay your money and take your choice. I understand most remedial flight training is followed up by a check ride with a CAA Staff Examiner to ensure the prescribed remedial training has been embedded.
That guy doing the £99 course is still touting for business, it was on Facebook last week. He’s ex-RAF.
He implies that he has delivered such things (£99 plus dual rate flying as necessary) at the behest of the CAA when pilots have been required to undergo remedial training.
He also markets it at people who have been asked to take the online infringements exam. The pitch he makes is horrid, real FUD, basically telling potential customers that they will probably fail the online infringements exam and might lose their licence unless they buy his course to prepare themselves.
The point about the ex-RAF monoculture is a fair one, but as always we must be careful not to personalise the debate.
Very useful detail on BigJet and his unexpected traffic, much appreciated.
Graham. Are we talking about the same offering. Peter pointed me at Nigel Wilson who I don’t believe has ever served in the RAF although I am not certain of the point you are making with reference to time spent in the military.
QuotePerhaps people can start to appreciate that in my two scenarios, the infringing aircraft spent less than two minutes and a few hundred feet inside CAS but the risk profile of the two scenarios was completely different and consequently may have resulted in very different consequences for the infringing pilot when CAP 1404 process is applied to the management of the two events.
Cub, this and before, are very long, detailed and interesting posts, but I am afraid, I think entirely irrelevant, or at any rate, should be.
Section 143 of the CJA is clear on the basis for the imposition of a penalty, and the different consequences you set out as impressively as you do, should not be a consideration, unless the pilot could have reasonably foreseen them. Do you think there is any possibility the pilot could have foreseen where the Bigjet was in your example?
If he could not, then the penalty should be the same, unless I misunderstand the conclusion you appear to suggest. It you were driving at some other point then I would appreciate your explaining what it is.
S143 (1) of the Criminal Justice Act:
In considering the seriousness of any offence, the court must consider the offender’s culpability in committing the offence and any harm which the offence caused, was intended to cause or might forseeably have caused.
which clearly was written for deliberate acts.
How does this apply to simple negligence, where there is no intent, and nothing actually happened (so no harm)?
I think it applies even less.
Cub appears to be incorrectly suggesting that the penalty for the same infringement should take account of the actual disruption the infringement caused even though the pilot would have no way of distinguishing between the two at the time.
I have been saying ad nauseam that you should not have a range of penalties for the same offence, Here we seem to have at least three entirely different penalties for a minor infringement. Moreover, following Cub’s logic there is even scope to reclassify a minor infringement on the post event consequence no pilot could have foreseen.
