If the CAA under the current regime starts to believe that switching off transponders is an issue, the most likely reaction would be warning letters, seminars and prosecution to those who do…
If transponders are switched off to prevent identification, then prosecutions and warning letters might prove tricky.
flybymike wrote:
If transponders are switched off to prevent identification, then prosecutions and warning letters might prove tricky.
In traffic court there are deliberately heavier penalties for failing to identify the driver than for the original offence.
I don’t think that the best way of dealing with transponder use is hunting people down and prosecuting them, but if that’s what the CAA decides to do, it’s not hard.
I often read of primary targets being followed to their point of landing and the airfield being called to identify them. From memory, that happened twice in the last batch of eighty reports I just read.
I would guess that if there were an airprox with an airliner because of deeming, the GA aircraft were followed home on radar and was found not to have been using a working transponder (or even, possibly, having removed or disabled the transponder) then all hell would break loose for the pilot.
But that is to miss the point. Not using a transponder is to put the lives of yourself, your family and those of unknown others at risk. You could end up killing a bunch of people in order to avoid a GASCo course. Is that really preferable?
I just don’t think people are so stupid as to take such risks and life and death decisions for such reasons, when it is so much easier to use SkyDemon not to infringe (the proportion of infringers properly using VFR moving maps is still very low.)
But if people really are switching off their transponders, and there is evidence to show it, then there needs to be a response that includes elements of education, training and enforcement.
I agree that switching off transponders is a truly terrible idea. It is dangerous and inconsiderate to other airspace users.
Timothy wrote:
I don’t think that the best way of dealing with transponder use is hunting people down and prosecuting them
We all don’t think that the best way of dealing with infringements is hunting people down and prosecuting them.
Yet, the CAA does exactly that.
the GA aircraft were followed home on radar and was found not to have been using a working transponder (or even, possibly, having removed or disabled the transponder) then all hell would break loose for the pilot.
I suppose prosecution for removing a transponder would beg the question whether a pilot should also be prosecuted for failing to fit a transponder to an aircraft to which one could be fitted.
Cobalt wrote:
We all don’t think that the best way of dealing with infringements is hunting people down and prosecuting them.Yet, the CAA does exactly that.
Really? 1400 infringements and how many prosecutions, exactly? Less than 1% of the total.
There is so much hyperbole spoken in this thread, it’s ridiculous. Are we trying to inform people or just scare them? Classic FUD.
The Gasco thing costs from £200 (if you can walk there from your house in the morning; nobody can if you look at the locations) through to over £500 (hotel plus travel) and is far more convenient for the CAA than a prosecution, and is just as effective in (a) the cost and above all hassle to the “defendant” and (b) the deterrence value; the knowledge that IAW CAP1404 his license will be removed on the next event.
Around 20/month get this sentence, without the CAA having to prove anything. They can just work off a radar track and the Mode S ID on it. CAA+NATS already have the pilot’s details.
The latest bill local copy contains this interesting clause
(4) In any appeal where the commission of an offence under section
101 is an issue requiring determination, the CAA must prove that
offence according to the same burden and standard of proof as in
a criminal prosecution.
and together with the latest DfT announcement containing
‘De-criminalising’ airspace infringements
things are going to be changing.
A series of personal attacks has been removed. Repeatedly posted / rapidly re-posted personal attacks will result in a ban; usually on the first, ahem, offence. Guidelines.
Timothy wrote:
Really? 1400 infringements and how many prosecutions, exactly? Less than 1% of the total.
Timothy, that is beneath you. You know the point that is being made. It is just as bad as the claim you are making, to pretend to argue a point that isnt being made.
The reason for so much FUD is just this. It is down to a failure to give straight answers to reasonable questions, and to think that most people wont see straight through dealing with the questions in a straight forward, open and transparent way.
I recall being told about a particular matter by a very senior civil servant that getting straight answers was harder than pulling teeth – I can fully understand what he meant.
I have actually come to the conclusion that I no longer understand what any of the members of these working groups actually do? There has been so much comment and criticism of this disasterous policy and yet clearly those involved think everything is well and good. My original conclusion that it is a jolly good old boys club that achieves nothing but thinks it is very important is I suspect a pretty good assessment.
Electronic conspicuity is great for pilots and awareness when flying. I use pilotaware and do appreciate the extra information. However when the there appears to be such a heavy handed approach by the CAA and we have online tests with incorrect questions / answers and posters being put out with blatant false statements. Is it any wonder people lose faith in the system and may think it’s better to just try to have a quiet life and attempt to go under the radar.
Having been made aware of what the CAA will try to do when desperate to prosecute it does concern me.
From the perspective of he user, the distinction between an actual prosecution in court, and the process that precedes it, is indistinguishable.
In effect, being sent a letter by the CAA is a notice of intended prosecution, and the outcome is some penalty or a “reeducation” which is often perceived as a penalty. The technicality that a formal prosecution was not started makes no difference, the process is a prosecution process which stops short of going to court.
Really? 1400 infringements and how many prosecutions, exactly? Less than 1% of the total.
Of around 2 million “speeding tickets”, less than 200,000 go to court, so less than 10%. That does not change that 2 million offences were prosecuted by the authorities.
