Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

CAA Annual Magazine

I think it is interesting.

CAA Annual Magazine

[ local copy ]

One thing that stood out was in the article about the “airspace infringers course”:

“Another interesting point that comes out is transponders outputting incorrect height info, so it’s well worth checking them. You’d think that flying 400ft below controlled airspace would be safe enough, but one pilot (not in this group) was thought to have infringed vertically because his transponder had a 450ft error which placed him in controlled airspace, and he didn’t even know it.”

This seems very odd – if it had been shown to be an avionics fault, and the pilot not actually infringing, why was he mandated to go on the infringers course? Also, given transponders only have a resolution of 100 feet, do they really bust people for a 50 foot vertical bust? I’m thinking in particular somewhere like the Manchester low level route where by necessity you pretty much have to fly at the maximum allowed altitude to be able to comply with the “land clear” rule. I have to think there was something more to this guy having to attend the infringers course.

Andreas IOM

More than likely, yes, because initially you get the bogus tutorial and exam with the 25 year old question bank

BTW, Bingo_Fuel, looking at your email address I very much doubt you will ever get any forum notifications or PMs delivered, and it’s no use me emailing you about it

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

But why would you be even “sentenced” to doing the tutorial and exam if it turned out to be an avionics problem and the pilot was not actually busting anything? And transponder problems do happen, I was once called by Ronaldsway asking about another aircraft based at our airfield (apparently Scottish Control were trying to get hold of them) after the transponder in their Cherokee 180 had somehow reported them at FL380…

Andreas IOM

Because the current system in the UK wrt airspace infringement is “guilty until proven innocent” once it has been decided that your infringement is significant.

Nympsfield, United Kingdom

Based on my own experience, as I wrote in the link above, I think the 2 or 3 people in charge of deciding the pilot’s fate are not particularly interested in discussing the details…

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

But even if “guilty until proven innocent”, once you’ve shown an avionics fault, you’re proven innocent, no?

Andreas IOM

If you take it to a court, sure

If I got busted for busting CAS and it wasn’t my fault, I would obviously opt for the court. But what if you can’t afford a good lawyer?

It’s a bit like tax investigations. HMRC doesn’t want you to take it to the Commissioners because they might lose, whereas without that they will get a nice fat settlement from you with a 100% certainty, and the whole thing will leave a nasty taste in your mouth which is the other main objective

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

BTW, Bingo_Fuel, looking at your email address I very much doubt you will ever get any forum notifications or PMs delivered, and it’s no use me emailing you about it

Thx for the Heads-up but I have control

Without putting too fine a point on it, BF, the problem with bogus email addresses is that if they get an email sent to them, not only the email (obviously) doesn’t get delivered but the sender gets blacklisted, which is really nice (not) for the wider community here which then finds that PMs etc do not get delivered. If you know something about SPF, DKIM, RBL, etc, you will know… Accordingly we remove such email addresses, which has the secondary effect that the person cannot login anymore. I am not going to spend time finding out whether your email is really bogus so if it is, I suggest you change it.

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

Back to Top