Alas it’s not possible to get beyond the first page without providing specific identity information.
I would guess (and it is only a guess) that the consequences for an ATCO would be rather greater than attending a GASCo course.
And indeed it is only a guess. ATC (and airlines, and the RAF) have the benefit of Just Culture. For GA pilots, there is only punishment because “the system” is perfect.
Actually we do come across a very small number of what I have dubbed “instructed to infringe” events, and obviously they are not laid at the door of pilots. In the 1500-odd I have analysed, I guess I have seen maybe three.
Do you serve on the ICG, @Timothy?
How long after filling the questionnaire do you get your “sentence”? Now that the deed is done, I don’t like waiting much for the sentence.
Really sorry to hear of your mishap Noe. Thank you for posting about it, too!
IME (just two occassions, 2017 and 2019) the “CAA sentencing” time is about 4 weeks, from when the CAA get their questionnaire form completed.
If you get Gasco, you get 90 days to do it. Gasco offer 3 locations, one each month.
Peter wrote:
Do you serve on the ICG
Oh goodness me, no, I am a mere worm at the bottom of the pile who can only dream of such exalted places.
I was talking of my experience doing the Causal Factors analysis, both for AIWG and FASVIG (as was, now A4A).
Could be simplified by dropping the wedding cake to the ground, but is that what we really want?
I’d prefer a half way house – Less stepped bases and each base fillet being larger, as no pilot is serious enough to step up or down that many times in such little distance travelled.
The London City CTA is another example of complexity with little value.
Not that we are likely to have the slightest influence on airspace design (the changes of which happening in the UK I would put at zero), but if we were, under the current aggressive CAA regime a bust will still be a bust, no matter where the CAS edge is. So where CAS lies is not the main issue.
However the complexity of CAS is clearly a factor in busts. For a given complexity, if you send say 100 pilots to route around it, say 10 will make a mistake (of various kinds). If you simplify it, say 5 will make a mistake.
It is also clear that a high % of busts have an ATC complicity component. ATC are never “wrong” because you cannot touch CAS without a formal clearance, but a lot happens where there is ambiguity about the expectations of getting one, and in a situation where ATC keep you holding on, or there are issues on a handover, only a very discliplined pilot will execute Plan B in time. So “the system” will continue to produce a certain frequency of busts connected with transit requests (responses to which were delayed, delayed, standby, standby, and sometimes ultimately forgotten about). If you sent the above 100 pilots with a mission to get a transit, some % will end up infringing. I did such a bust, quite some years ago. I was waiting for ATC to coordinate a transit, while orbiting, and in the orbit I nipped some Class A. Eventually, after much (distracting) discussion, they told me they cannot coordinate and can’t help. Then I noticed the bust and did a -2000fpm+++ (sh1tting myself and with the VSI absolutely pegged on the bottom stop; just like the 2019 one I did) descent while still orbiting. Nothing was said. Probably pre-CAIT and anyway they owned that Class A. But ATC is never “wrong”, and since the factors are not analysed (the pilot just gets punished) nothing useful comes out of it. Again, you don’t need a PhD to see the human factors angle.
Timothy wrote:
probably with retraining not just of the individual but of the unit to ensure it doesn’t happen again. I would guess (and it is only a guess) that the consequences for an ATCO would be rather greater than attending a GASCo course.
My grip here is not with the actions of the controller per se, but with the system that gives you bad IFR routings and ends up pushing you to fly VFR instead. I would never have infringed had I had an expectation of a good IFR routing (I would have been IFR, on autopilot, with no need to do last minute plan changes)
As quick write-up about what I did (never good to give too much info):
I had been very delayed for my departure by someone not bringing back the airplane in time (and essentially not telling me about it until the time they were supposed to be back).
I was flying from North Weald EGSX to Quimper (south West).
Given the expectation of bad IFR routings (initially to something like Dover, as usual) and/or staying VFR low, I chose to to try to make up time and do a direct VFR transit (though City and Gatwick) and then pick up IFR.
I called City pretty much immediately after take off and requested an transit, was told to stand by. I slowed down, heading for city, and then started orbiting. It seemed to me as if there was only one other light aicraft doing the transit (maybe they don’t allow more than one into the zone). Since I heard they were about to leave, I started orbiting, clear of the CTA (and at an altitude below the CTA).
On the start of my 2nd orbit, I was called back, given a squawk, but then told it would be another 5 min delay as there was an inbound arrival. (had I been initially cleared, I would have cleared the zone before they arrived).
At that point, I said I’d route around and was told to 7000 and call en route. 7000 I did, but remained on frequency, as I was busy executing plan B. Skydemon had changed the plate to the NATS area control one automatically, and when glancing at it I mistread the boundaries (“brain fart”, and the chart is also harder to read track up, since it’s only made for north up. I know the altitudes of the CAS very well in this area, just the “shapes” are identical and mistook the larger one for the smaller one), and climbed into the CTA. I was about 400ft inside when the controller called me, asked if I was on frequency, as I was in his airspace. I was at first surprised, but started a descent, and on examining, realised my mistake. In total, I climbed to 2000ft where the base is 1500.
On the controller side, it would have helped to get a callback earlier and be warned about potential delay, but I don’t see that as a “mistake” they did, or that would warrant any sort of action.
Given my detailed analysis of the situation, factors, and detailed corrective actions for myself (avoid these VFR transits for optimisation, plan the plan B on the FMS if one choses for a transit, amongst a couple more), I think a slap on the wrist should be appropriate, since I think I’ve given more than enough way to prevent reoccurrence.
PS: I also made it extremely clear that while I think there are systematic factors that could help prevent these sort of things in the future, this was fully my error.
@Noe, yes you did transgress, and you have admitted it, you have also demonstrated that you understand why you transgressed and have shown what you have learnt and how you would avoid such a transgression in the future. You have also, on this forum given sufficient detail for others to learn and avoid such a transgression in the future. I cannot for the life of me see why any trip to Gasco will enhance your knowledge of why you trangressed or that of others and I also fail to see how there is anything to be gained for a CAA in dishing out any sort of punishment whatsoever, other than a letter saying that it was noted (a slap on the wrist perhaps). Unless of course there is a financial benefit to be had for someone in or attached to the regulatory chain.
Given that the bloke who decides what to you with you will almost certainly read the above, the outcome on this one will be very interesting.
Thanks for the candid write-up. Seems like a very easy mistake to make, and I’d never be so bold as to say that wouldn’t happen to me.
gallois wrote:
how there is anything to be gained for a CAA
Quite a lot for them to gain from taking action, sadly.
For the individuals involved, it helps them look like tough ‘take decisive action, get stuff done’ -types which helps their career prospects.
For the organisation it helps make it look like they’re doing something to counter a problem that NATS (and others) will be putting a lot of pressure on them over.
Thank you for the write up.
It will be interesting to hear of the response.
