Did you mean to say that as it came across?
Possibly not. I was just distinguishing between those not prepared to put in the effort to become proficient and those who are afflicted by a disorder about which they can do nothing.
What would you have done?
If I was landing there, I would have orbited, a bit further away, because 2.5nm, at 2300ft QNH, is too close to land from (easily).
If I was not landing there I would have flown on, avoiding their ATZ. Your legal obligation is only that.
Somebody reading out war and peace is common (not just in the UK); I have done many go arounds due to not being able to get the “final” call in.
As I mentioned elsewhere, the CAA is now encouraging the reporting of ATZ busts.
Indeed. However, IMHO, while they swell the infringment numbers, most of them would not be actionable in a court due to poor evidence. Basically in nearly all cases, unless you can twist the arm of a nearby radar unit to look up their radar records, and the aircraft was either Mode S or an unusual scenario with Mode C, the standard of evidence is no better than one car driver calling the police and saying another driver was speeding. On the Gasco session I did they quoted one case of an ATZ bust of Barton, where (following such an eye witness report) Manchester radar later provided the supporting radar data, so I guess somebody was badly enough p1ssed off to pursue that. The whole thing smelt really bad given that Manchester gave the pilot a transit through their Class D but dropped their service the instant he left their CAS, enabling him, flying under a lot of pressure due to a line of CBs, to immediately bust the Barton ATZ, but in the UK “crappy service OCAS” system the pilot was in the wrong. I would expect Biggin to pursue ATZ busts vigorously.
most of them would not be actionable in a court
I’d love to know the basis under which a DA bust could be prosecuted in a court. I asked the CAA but was just shouted at and abused.
Timothy wrote:
I’d love to know the basis under which a DA bust could be prosecuted in a court. I asked the CAA but was just shouted at and abused.
Would the charge not be endangering an aircraft?
Whether it could be made to stick or not is another matter.
The more I think about the whole busts thing, the more I think that what they really need to do is separate out the stuff that is actually actionable (i.e. pilot identified and there is a conclusive radar trace) and present that separately.
The hearsay reports of ATZ busts etc and the stuff where the pilot is difficult or impossible to trace is a separate problem, I feel.
@Timothy – what do you reckon they’d think of considering things like that?
There is too much potential abuse from those that believe that abuse is the best way of furthering their ends for me to comment on that.
I’m not prepared to engage in a surrogate “politics of infringements” discussion on here.
Timothy – I know you dont agree, but that is not the case.
Your views are very much respected. I think there is a distinction between what you perceive as abuse and passionate debate.
I have seen no abuse, just robust debate.
I’d love to know the basis under which a DA bust could be prosecuted in a court.
Maybe it can’t be, but (if so) the CAA is sure to know that, and they will not prosecute. The CAA has a very long history (cultivated especially under the previous regime, Mr Weston I believe, who was pretty clever) of not prosecuting, preferring instead to teach people a lesson, or even “settling on the court steps”. Anything to avoid high quality defence lawyers getting stuck into the nooks and crannies of the ANO, creating a precedent.
Regarding French ATC, I think it is a difference in priorities. But actually the UK is the odd one out in Europe. AFAIK in every other country the ATC staff is govt supplied.
Other things which really screw up the UK are e.g.
"My point to the CAA was that if DAs are really RAs or PAs, then they should be designated as such.
The response was to call me, IIRC, irresponsible, inexperienced and ignorant, or some such combination of words (though quickly followed by an apology).
It would be great to get a legal opinion.
