Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

National CAA policies around Europe on busting pilots who bust controlled airspace (and danger areas)

In theory, you should not have a MAC bellow 500ft,

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/55407

EGKB Biggin Hill

@RobertL18C

Jacko, wearing my health and safety hat, would like to add DON’T try water skiing in a TRIKE :)

I agree, and that was precisely the conclusion of the force and stability analysis in Section 3.2 of my 2015 review of the technique.

I do know of one pilot who has managed to water-ski with tricycle undercarriage. However, I take that as evidence that an exceptional pilot can place and control an airplane in unstable equilibrium rather than proof that it’s a fine idea for the rest of us to try it.

Glenswinton, SW Scotland, United Kingdom

The August 2019 CAA enforcement numbers are out here.

They let off 5 students with a letter; they have to do that

They have also brought back that dodgy online exam – 14 got the pleasure of educating themselves on a 1990s PPL QB It would be interesting to hear from anyone who got this route, to find out if the QB has the same dodgy questions. 2 years ago I spoke to the CAA guy [the one who threatened legal action if his name is posted here] and he said the QB is fine because if you get all the “ok” questions right you still get a pass mark… Most likely this is a politically savvy move to pre-empt the DfT (which is well aware of what the CAA is doing in this department) implementing this.

22 got sent down to Gasco. The nice income stream for the ex RAF mates of the CAA ex RAF infringements team “charity” which runs this sub judicial ~£400 fine imposition scheme is being successfully maintained

This

again confirms that if you got Gasco, next time your license is removed. What is not known is how you get it back.

So, again, the UK CAA campaign to ensure that the transponder circuit breakers in GA aircraft flying in UK airspace get adequately exercised is rolling along nicely

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Today I had another of those “interesting” bad UK airspace integration (not a complaint about the controllers themselves)

Flew Newquay EGHQ → North Weald EGSX.

On arrival, was routed north of Luton, and then through the Luton area, at 4000 ft. Then cleared to descend to 1500 ft then further. Those who know the airspace there (picture below for those who don’t) know that if you descend a bit rapidly from overhead luton, you’ll leave the TMA through descent (at 2500), and then you aren’t explicitly cleared in the next bit (Stansted CTR with base at 1500) which you will enter laterally if you continue on track / rate of descent.

I saw no reason to plough though at a rapid rate of descent when 500 ft / min could take me on a right base at my destination (and would remain in CAS until essentially getting onto that right base). This would have me never leave CAS until the destination: I’d leave the TMA directly into the stansted CTR (and then the CTR through descent)

There was absolutely no indication from ATC of needing to be below 1500 by / before, or asking to increase my rate of descent (forcing to leave the TMA before the CTR), but I asked “Confirm clear to transit though the Stansted CTR” and they said they’d “call stansted” (leading me to think they think a clearance might not be implied). A minute later (and about that much before the CTR) I was switched to Stansted who told me cleared. No time to discuss semantics (if something had previously been implied or not), as everything was happening quickly and doing the pre-landing checks was more important.

So, it worked this time, but I keep having the impression that had I not “pushed” for a clearance confirmation, I might have infringed while merely following ATC instructions. I might ask for some clarification to the CAA or NATS to ask what were they expecting me doing, (and what they expected me not to do)

Last Edited by Noe at 22 Sep 19:10

I had what seems to have been precisely the same situation recently, descending out of CAS towards Shoreham, from France (can’t recall which exact flight it was but I posted this comment here at the time). I avoided re-entry of CAS during the descent but asked London Control if that had indeed been necessary; the guy’s reply was along the lines of “not really; I would not have minded myself, but it was probably the right thing to do”.

His very friendly approach was great – and given no specific instruction to remain OCAS after leaving CAS technically correct – but in the present day CAA environment I think I would have liked to have recorded both the GPS track (which I always do anyway) and the sound track… It is known that if there are proceedings (short of a court case) against a pilot, only the CAA gets the ATC tape; the pilot has no access to it.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I’ve just spent the last two hours reading some of this thread.
The whole time I was shaking my head and waiting for the other shoe to drop. Clearly it didn’t.

Which had me wondering, “why don’t we all just chip in 100 monetary units to make a legal defense fund for ourselves, and have a vote for cases that should be defended?”
Then it hit me, that’s exactly what AOPA is for.

Where the heck is the AOPA in the UK?

Paying a measly $65/year in the US (and donating for good causes) keeps exactly this type of legal creep from happening there.

So, where is the UK AOPA? …

Last Edited by AF at 23 Sep 22:18

AOPA have been fairly subdued on the matter There is a brief article on the problem in their latest magazine which refers to “unrest” on the internet forums, (doubtless this one) but the general tone of the article was to follow the CAA party line.
Some say that part of the problem in this respect is that Martin Robinson of AOPA (if I’m allowed to mention individuals by name) also sits on the board of GASCO who run the infringement courses.

Egnm, United Kingdom

flybymike wrote:

Martin Robinson of AOPA (if I’m allowed to mention individuals by name) also sits on the board of GASCO who run the infringement courses.

FACEPALM

The AOPA doesn’t exist to represent the government interests.
It exists to represent the Owners and Pilots… before the government.

https://pilot-protection-services.aopa.org/

I didn’t see anything like this on the UK site…
In fact, the flavor of the UK site is anything but similar to AOPA.org, which is all about pilot advocation and protecting freedoms to fly!

flybymike wrote:

Some say that part of the problem in this respect is that Martin Robinson of AOPA (if I’m allowed to mention individuals by name) also sits on the board of GASCO who run the infringement courses.

Facepalm indeed (we seriously need a larger palette of smileys). Is this a fact?

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top