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)

kwlf wrote:

Maybe, but it’s an argument I would prefer not to have.

Again, I believe this to be a cultural thing. While Sweden certainly have “official” ICAO 1:500 000 maps, many (most?) light GA pilots fly using 1:250 000 maps published by a subsidiary to the Royal Swedish Aeroclub. Or more likely, they use SkyDemon… There is simply no discussion about this.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

That would have to be because

  • Sweden allows infringements with perhaps just the usual ATC telling-off; not a criminal offence action like the UK does, and/or
  • all Swedish maps, private and CAA, are 100% accurate
  • changes to airspace are never done in between chart publication dates

Kwlf is right that if you fly with the latest official chart and infringe, then they cannot bust you. Well, a court case would fail. But actually it is more complicated:

  • the CAA 1:250k or 1:500k charts come out only once a year but there is a website somewhere carrying changes and you are supposed to consult that before any flight
  • you are supposed to read the AIP for any airspace changes
  • you are supposed to get enroute notams and check for anything affecting the route

We’ve done this before and the satnav products should work fine but they are a “lesser defence”. Unfortunately there are few if any reports of cases where somebody got off a CAA action due to an error in a satnav product. I doubt anyone would be rushing to publicise such a thing However, reading between the lines of the CAA reports, I think there is an increasing number of cases where people did get off, whereas in the early days of these stats nobody was thus listed. Of course the CAA offers no explanation, and would decline any FOIA application, citing GDPR and I doubt anybody has the appetite to pursue this these days.

I now run Foreflight in UK airspace and have not found any errors. However I also paid the extra to get the 1:500k CAA charts to show up on FF so I have a double-check. Still, I won’t fly below the 2500ft LTMA; I go all the way around, at say 4200ft, way out over the sea if necessary. I am sure the CAA is happy; reducing busts by suppression of GA is just fine…

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Airborne_Again wrote:

There is simply no discussion about this.

I think none of this is problematic, unless it suddenly is In a way the existence of “official” data is for the authority to cover its a$$. One inevitable consequence is that your a$$ isn’t, if you do something wrong that is covered in the official data, but is not in for instance SD

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Yesterday I busted Split LDSP CTR because I forgot at which point I was supposed to contact them after departing from Brac LDSB Consequences – nothing as usually with relaxed Croatian ATC – just polite warning – something like “Orbit to the left now and climb to FL120 at current position, FYI just entered Split CTR without permission” followed by “Complete left turn and continue direct to ZAG in climb, IFR starts when passing 4000 ft”, shortcutting my route for some 20 NM.

LDZA LDVA, Croatia

Example from France here. Unlike the “no prisoners, bust everyone” UK approach, this sounds like a talk with an instructor on what went wrong.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Yes that is normal here. Sometimes it is for clarification one telephones the ATC to apologise.
Generally one also writes a REX (return on experience) so that others can learn too.
In this case instructors were asked to brief pilots, when doing control flights of one kind or another and remind them of the dangers of changing their mind during a flight. In that you will ,during the planning worked out your best flight /route and will of course have avoided the Class A but if you change that plan you must take into account that the threat of entry into ClassA is still there.
But as I wrote, this is the usual way CAS busts are dealt with here.
I think we are slightly different to the UK where ATS is concerned. For instance the head of UK CAA was quoted as saying that most incidents in the UK are down to a pilot doing something illegal. We don’t accept that here.
Secondly UKCAA Safety sense 8 regarding ATS says that OCAS from ATS " pilots will get a traffic service (maybe).
The same leaflet goes on to inform how to get permission to cross a danger zone.
Here, SIV will give you a traffic service for known traffic, automatically. No maybe.
And you don’t need permission to cross a danger zone. It might not be advisable if active, but you do not need permission.
That’s why I have written before that we have a different culture when it comes to GA.

France

most incidents in the UK are down to a pilot doing something illegal.

I wonder who said that. It’s not only obviously wrong but shows a total lack of understanding of flying a plane in the GA environment.

The same leaflet goes on to inform how to get permission to cross a danger zone.

Hardly practical in most cases. And the UK busts DAs and ATZs same as Class A or any other CAS.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I can post the name and his title plus exact quote if you think it is okay to do so.

France

If it was said publicly then it is in the open already.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

The statement was made in an interview with David Chapman Director of the CAA’s Safety Regulation Group not long after he was appointed.
“If you analyse the accidents, and there are plans for more work in this area, you find that in a large number of cases.the accident flight had some element that made the operation of the flight illegal.”
Re a question about SRG’s strategy
“The Airspace and Safety Initiative was built to support the ATSOCAS work. Part of that project involved ACEP the airspace and safety communication and education programme.
That brought together people.from NATS, the CAA, the military, commercial air transport and from GA….”
The second quote came before the first in the chronology of the interview.
IMO this shows that many of the items being complained about in this thread were actually deliberate measures by the regulator. YMMV

France
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top