Silvaire wrote:
Why do you suppose that airspace busts are such an incredibly overheated topic in the UK
I believe it is basically commercial pressure. We have a privatised ATC system where most of it is in the hands on one large company that is owned by the airlines and at the same time possesses a lot of clout as a legacy of their pre-privatisation role as part of the establishment.
Thus NATS exerts a lot of pressure on the CAA in a straightforward contractual/business/terms of service sense, i.e. “aircraft without a clearance must stay outside the lines, that’s what the rules say, one small transgression is one too many and is completely unacceptable – you must do everything to stop it, even if that means grounding people.”
The ability of the CAA to resist this pressure is limited, although I’m told that they’re trying. As ever, it is almost impossible to argue with someone who is playing the safety card, even if their real motivation is commercial.
You may well be right but I am not sure about this. This initiative could originate in other places.
It could even be a “freelance” operation inside the CAA. My rationale for this is the behaviour of the guy running it, which is quite out of line with the normal fairly polite way the CAA does things. The CAA is often incompetent (especially in the licensing dept) but they are not crude. I am sure the present chief exec would not hesitate to throw you under a bus if necessary but IME he would do it with a very polite letter, and he doesn’t go beating people up on social media, “inviting” them for a “talk” at Gatwick, threatening forums where his name is mentioned, and then cancelling his FB profile when the heat gets too hot. Especially as the CAA prohibits social media participation (in the name of the CAA, presumably).
CAS busts happen all over Europe and it is accepted they are human errors which cannot be eliminated. Only the UK has gone out to bust 100% of the pilots (well, those they can trace, which is mostly Mode S, or ones talking to ATC at the time). There is some cost to all airlines in all these situations but mostly is trivial, on the scale of wx avoidance on a normal flight. The “shutdown” busts are of course serious but they are rare.
I recently found out that my 2019 bust involved instructions passed to an Easyjet. Surprised (I have the TAS605) I asked how far away. It was 6.5nm and 1600ft above. I could have found this out from the CAA if I wanted to argue with them (i.e. risk p1ssing off the wrong individual). It was not an official “loss of separation” but any instruction to any airliner (no matter how far away) puts a big black mark on your record. Based on my contacts in ATC outside the UK, only the UK and Belgium would have regarded this as an elevated risk. The UK, because they add 3000ft/5nm to every unverified Mode C (for a formal loss of sep). Belgium, because they separate purely laterally. This is a good example of how the UK has made a rod for its own back.
This stuff really belongs into the other thread.
Yes, the Safety card always trumps everything. As I keep saying, Arthur Scargill picked the wrong business!
This sounds like a Masters research project, or perhaps something for the CAA. We ought to help this guy. He just didn’t do himself favours by saying the same errors cause accidents as CAS busts…
The UK, because they add 3000ft/5nm to every unverified Mode C.
Latest link seems to suggest 5000ft.
Section 1, chapter 6:
10A.4 Aircraft Under Radar Control Service. If the intentions of verified Mode S altitude reporting or Mode C transponding aircraft are not known the minimum separation is for:
(1) IFR flights within Class A, C-E airspace, must be increased to 5,000 feet, or alternative approved minima within MATS Part 2; and
(2) VFR flights within Class C airspace, must be increased to 5,000 feet, or alternative approved minima within MATS Part 2.
10A.5 Unverified Mode S altitude reporting or Mode C data may be used for separation purposes within controlled airspace as follows:
(1) for IFR flights within Class A, C and D airspace, and VFR flights within Class C airspace, a minimum vertical separation of 5,000 feet, or an alternative approved minima within MATS Part 2, and surveillance returns however presented are not allowed to merge;
(2) for IFR within Class E airspace, except against aircraft displaying VFR conspicuity or a Frequency Monitoring Code, a minimum vertical separation of 5,000 feet, or an alternative approved minima within MATS Part 2, and surveillance returns however presented are not allowed to merge; and
(3) for IFR flights within Class E airspace, against aircraft displaying VFR conspicuity or a Frequency Monitoring Code, whenever practicable, pass traffic information and if requested by the pilot or when deemed necessary by the controller, suggest traffic avoidance advice.
https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SI2019-06.pdf local copy
You are right. Previously published stuff was 3000ft for civilian airports and 5000ft for military ones. This is new. It will certainly help to produce more business for Gasco.
I may be wrong but I think “alternative approved minima within Mats part 2” may be down to 3000ft for some airfields in some circumstances.
flybymike wrote:
If the intentions of verified Mode S altitude reporting or Mode C transponding
So does that mean that non transponding in CAS, while in radio contact, must be separated 5000ft from IFR flights? That’s crazy!
I can conceive they cannot “trust” that I am exactly at the altitude I say I do, but when I fly in the turbulent, and say I’m 1000 ft, it’s unlikely I’m going to be at 3000.
I suspect it’s just typical poor drafting, and that radio contact would deem you to have known intentions.
Only if they have your altitude verified. OCAS, this typically happens on a Traffic Service, only. Or that weird thing called a deconfliction service which is usually unobtainable.
So does that mean that non transponding in CAS, while in radio contact, must be separated 5000ft from IFR flights?
It means they add 5000ft to your Mode C altitude, and if there is an airliner within that, it is a formal loss of separation. The poor ATCO gets locked into a dark room for an hour and then gets court martialed (only kidding) 
If you are non TXP then you are deemed to be below CAS.
Peter wrote:
gets locked into a dark room for an hour and then gets court martialed (only kidding)
I thought that was what happened at GASCo?
Peter wrote:
If you are non TXP then you are deemed to be below CAS.
I have crossed the City EGLC zone on vintage / non transponder. Coordinated well in advance (15+ minutes, since Luton handed us over to Thames radar without having any idea of our next intentions (bravo!)).
Maybe that’s only possible when heathrow EGLL is landing to the east (not passing near City)
