Yes well, while we have to deal with this complete mess I think it’s a poor starting point for crossing a line in space to be a crime. Especially when the system is so complicit in it happening in the first place.
Also, it’s one thing to consider the ‘victim’ in terms of sentencing, but quite another to allow them into the room when you’re deciding whether or not to prosecute. Far be it from me to tell you anything about the law, but I’m pretty sure that when Victim Impact Statements were dreamt up the folks involved were thinking more of little old ladies who’d been mugged rather than large companies who’ve suffered a financial loss because the CAA can’t organise airspace properly.
But while we’re at it, let’s go all out with that involve-the-victim stuff. The place that ends up is Muslim countries where it’s a death sentence or pay a tonne of cash to the victim’s family.
And presumably when I’m stuck for two hours on a motorway because some idiot has caused a pile-up through careless driving (again, a crime) then I’m going to get compensated for my time and fuel? No, thought not.
The airlines are no more entitled to have these costs covered than we are entitled to have costs covered when we’re delayed on the roads. The world is a busy place, there will be delays, get used to it.
Unless of course you start from the position of commercial traffic having an inherent greater right to use the sky, which is a view I am convinced that most within the system subscribe to.
If you don’t think that the victim has a place in the process, you are out of step with the Zeitgeist.
I have wondered if there ought to be more highly serious incidents to open the eyes of some politicians and their business tycoon friends, to demonstrate why inappropriately regulated infrastructure privatisation has led to overpricing, underfunding and a lose-lose situation for all parties except for those at the very top.
They probably do have a place in the process, just not in discussions on what the law should be or who gets prosecuted and why.
Airlines are not victims, not by any stretch of the imagination.
Why do you insist on repeatedly picking at some small point of my overall argument rather than tackling the general gist of it?
Hmmm; I distinctly recall a member of the judiciary vigorously arguing that victims should not have a say in the punishment; I just can’t find the post(s) right now.
Having read much of Mark Twain I would agree.
I read somewhere, something along the lines that Airline representatives have indicated that the airlines are no longer willing to shoulder the costs incured by delays relating to an infringement.
It may have been in various places (it is a standard seminar FUD tactic) but it was recently posted on a UK GA site on FB by someone (who was trying to cultivate an ex RAF appearance, so presumably well informed on how the UK aviation regulatory system works just below the top level) selling post infringement courses for £99 
He would not confirm that the CAA sends him people for corrective training following license suspension.
Graham wrote:
They probably do have a place in the process, just not in discussions on what the law should be or who gets prosecuted and why.
I would say that any influence they seek to have is along those lines. The kind of thing I have heard said in corridors and over lunch is “we should stop messing about and start prosecuting all of them.”
Luckily, that is not the CAA view and we have the system we have.
My only point was to respond to Peter’s suggestion that
things cannot get any more harsh in terms of punishment of GA pilots.
Things could get a lot more harsh than 80% of pilots being given nothing more than a letter if the situation were not being so capably managed by the CAA.
Graham wrote:
Why do you insist on repeatedly picking at some small point of my overall argument rather than tackling the general gist of it?
Because the Devil is in the detail.
There is a tendency (not necessarily of yours, but in this kind of discussion) to throw in random “everyone knows”, “people keep telling me” type “facts” and then building from there.
I have tried, for 24 pages (well actually for about eight pages, then I lost the will to live for about the next 12 
) to throw a little Realpolitik into the discussion.
You can try to tackle what is seen by a few people as an acute problem by talking about big strategic changes, like changing airspace design or how airpace usage is perceived, but it ain’t going to wash the baby.
I am just suggesting that we can make a few simple reforms to try to soften the perceived blow.
What simple reforms are you suggesting?
Of course the airlines think everyone should be prosecuted. They probably also think that no-one should be allowed to fly at all except them. Governance 101 is resisting commercial interests, one that the CAA has failed on with the Farnborough airspace decision. I’m sorry but I don’t ascribe them any special credit for resisting the airlines calling for everyone to be prosecuted – it’s the very least I expect them to do.
But do the CAA actually want to solve the infringements problem, or just reduce the flak they get from the airlines and ANSPs? The current approach suggests the latter.
Graham wrote:
What simple reforms are you suggesting?
Just the little things we discuss on the WG. Publication of better stats (work in progress) is an example. LAITs; Moving the CAA towards fully endorsing moving maps; more widespread availability of TMC/Listening Squawk; the “Take Two” initiative; sponsoring academic work (a PhD student) on pilot distraction.
There are other groups looking at wholesale airspace design, universal conspicuity etc. but those are long, long term projects (probably beyond my flying career). We on AIWG are trying to ameliorate within the current framework.
Our biggest problem is making people aware that infringement is an issue. There are a lot of pilots who are not engaged in any way (that is, they don’t read CAA publications, magazines or forums, don’t attend Safety Evenings, many don’t even belong to a club) and we have to think how to address them. That is often the source of the “prosecute them all” sentiment, as even they are likely to hear of people getting big fines or being suspended following prosecution.
It’s really a tactical, rather than strategic, management group.
Oh…RPS is the latest target.
