The short answer is that in future, and for the benefit of anyone reading this thread, I would have thought that any telephone calls should be dealt with by “no comment”, if there are any matters you wish to ask me then you are welcome to set these out in writing. No one should be expected to deal with any of this by telephone, especially because come what way the result will almost certainly mean a permanent black mark on your record. Do not be deceived in thinking it may not and it would seem in a lot of cases it does.
I agree, although I suspect the CAA caller makes it implicit very early on that a refusal to take the call will result in a suspension of the license 
UK ATCOs have for years been required to report an infringement on form CA939 CA939 local copy which as you can see uses the word “offender” throughout and there is thus an automatic “criminal” label.
On one UK site, a former NATS ATCO has claimed that CA939 was no longer used within NATS in recent times, but this is clearly the policy regarding danger areas.
BTW, I did a count of MORs mentioning infringements for Sept and they do closely match the CAA busts figure for September. It should thus be possible to produce a table of where the busts occurred, by what aircraft type, etc. It would take maybe an hour. It would however cause a storm because the MORs are supposedly confidential. But it would at least be an educational exercise – unlike the useless stats here which are being published only because of FOIA applications.
Hypothetically speaking I would find it difficult to take a call at a random moment lasting more than a trivial amount of time, most of the time, most days.
Me too, and anyway I very much doubt the CAA man is making many more such phone calls to his “clients”, now that a number of the highly compromising calls have been recorded and published.
Peter wrote:
It should thus be possible to produce a table of where the busts occurred, by what aircraft type, etc
There was such a report published. I don’t think it had exact aircraft type (e.g. “PA28” “C172”) but at least SEP, helicopter, MEP etc., location of bust. That’s how we know so many of the MORs were being filed by Barton.
I have just spent an hour collating the Sep 2020 MOR listing by location and type. May have missed a few but here it is
Nothing on the PDF says it is confidential, and at least hundreds of people have access to this data.
It is as expected. My observations are:
If I get asked to remove this data I will copy the request here. The 1st page says
and the last line there makes a mockery of suppressing the open publication of the data there.
Thanks for spending the time putting that together. The diversity of types is particularly interesting.
There are some interesting ones though.
2xC182 busts of the Airway – coincidence or same aircraft?
C525/C510s are hardly likely to be pootling about VFR, likewise PC12s – so I wonder how those busts happened.
The Stansted TMZ busts – who would guess a Mooney wouldnt have a Transponder? In fact most of those.
Regards, SD..
Bizjet/PC12 busts, of which I am familiar with some, and met some on the gasco “course” too, are likely to be more “suspicious” than with light GA as regards the circumstances involving ATC. The traffic is IFR but departing from G needs to get the departure clearance and if this is slow coming, it puts the crew in a difficult position, 10x more so if it is a foreign crew which expects things “to just work”. And same landing in G; there is a certain amount of dodgy MOR stuff relating to this sort of thing which is a 100% sure trap for any foreign pilot. ATC know this and correctly handle these types with much priority (compared to say a TB20) but it doesn’t always work out.
Anyway the table shows a wide variety of traffic types and it is obvious that trying to smash GA with a hammer, as the CAA is now doing, is not going to work.
Some of the MORs are hilarious, or offer a funny insight into the minds of some people in ATC (why file an MOR?), like this one (TBM700), and there must be a few hundred or more people having a laugh every time a new MOR list comes out
There are a few MORs suggesting total pilot incompetence, but overall it supports the assertion that CAS/DA/RA/etc infringements are random events with a wide variety of distraction-type causes. One old-timer instructor posted this on a UK site, which is an eye-opener:
I very reluctantly left FlyOnTrack [a project to research GA safety issues] after more than ten years of dedicating an enormous amount of time and energy to it, as the role had a condition I attend AIWG [the sentencing committee for CAS busts, basically]. In the months leading up to walking out, i discovered enough to know I could no longer maintain personal integrity by remaining a part of it. I was disappointed no other member(s) insisted on a clean up, or expelling a couple of individuals from it, and a return to previous values if the group continued, but perhaps they, like large ships, take longer to turn
I see nothing here that should be confidential. To the extent the type information could directly relate the incident to a particular pilot, the CAA could just as easily provide the information exactly as you have Peter, but not recoding the type of aircraft. At least we would have a better idea the areas that are causing “all the problems”. It would be interesting to see more specific geo data because I do wonder if over time we would find there are certain choke points where infringements are more likely to occur.
This is all vital safety information and it is a disgrace it isnt published by the CAA.
It would of course be fascinating to see the data over a period of time.
There is so much in this data that I think could be vital to a constructive safety intitiative that is being kept from those that really matter.
Is it possible to file a MOR on the whole matter?
