kwlf wrote:
Granite also differs from airspace in terms of being readily visible.
Airspaces have never been as visible as they are today (due to GPS, etc.). Just watch some hours of Fligtradar e.g. in the vicinity of Frankfurt class C: Instead of keeping a let’s say 5 NM margin (which would be easily possible), which would give them a good safety margin, they are trying just to scratch the green line on their GPS.
Off_Field wrote:
This is a big statement, is there any way to verify this?
One could start searching by reading this thread!
LeSving wrote:
On the other hand, speeding is indeed legal if you do tell the police and close the roads etc. It’s called Rally
Don’t know how things work in Norway, but in Germany that would be total BS. Just telling the Police that you do a “Rally” doesn’t help you with any kind of traffic fines. If you want to do a Rally, you need to apply for it, fulfill lot’s of requirements and – most importantly – must not start before you get a permission!
Same way airspace “infringements” are legal if you ask for ATC permission before. It’s called “clearance”.
But that was not what you proposed.
I think that is what the US does for class D your trabsponder ON and two-way comm, even if they acknowledge you calllsign by “N789CV, standby” you are OK to fly in Class D, if they want you to slow down they do,
If they want you out of airspace they will tell you “N789CV, remain out of Delta”
ATC simply don’t give a cent about VFR transits in Class D, they police VFR & IFR arrival and departure traffic flow to the letter, the rest of VFr transit is just roams free and all working nicely
Now of course one can get padantic on this and says this does not work at all 
If you want to see how airspace and traffic is managed try to land on Florida coast when a series of thunderstorm line is hitting the various airports with various VFR gaps, IFR gaps, no fly zones, few closed few airports, few open airports, IFR inbounds, traffic on low fuel, few pan-pans, few maydays…their way just works and ATC are just on top of it, probably one has to be there to understand the level of ATC action and how they manage a random IFR/VFR traffic flow and sort the mess to see what I am talking about
Other countries ATC are stuck in institutional inertia, sh**ty systems, zero integration and crappy airspace procedures, nothing else !
Ibra wrote:
Now of course one can get padantic on this and says this does not work at all
Or one can be realistic and see that in these US you are referring to ATC-controllers get accused for killing people because they could not provide flight following or even dared to ask a pilot where he is and to push ident. That’s really the kind of environment I want to fly in!
And you also might want to talk to a pilot who get busted because of touching a presidential no fly zone (that got established after the pilot already had departed) to figure out how exactly these US care about airspace infringements.
Malibuflyer wrote:
One could start searching by reading this thread!
I have followed this thread all along, I also pointed out to you the evidence of the chap who got busted and sent on a gasco course for a 9 second 32ft bust taking avoiding action when you didn’t believe anyone was actually busted for 100ft infingements.
Given the published data I think it’s very difficult to state about the majority of infingements without knowing more. Many of the stories posted here I would not say warrant the bust em all treatment of the CAA.
I just don’t think it’s reasonable to blame the pilot every time, particularly with complex airspace funneling people to choke points and the other variables that one encounters when flying around, particularly in the south of england.
Most of this stuff is not related to safety. Only a tiny % of infringements are a safety hazard. It is an institutional issue, where somebody wants to look good and implements a “smash them” policy.
And, ATC services are heavily linked to funding policies so if you set up a system which operates cost recovery, you get the near-useless system which the UK has. That is then an entirely political debate, with no rational discussion possible. If you want a bit of fun reading what happens in such a system, read this.
I could not disagree more with what you say.
Please give supporting evidence that pilots “do not care about busting airspace”.
Your analogies to driving detract from a sensible discussion, and are frankly quite ridiculous, as is comparing CFT and airspace busts.
No doubt everyone would love to be able to give airspace a 1000ft vertical and 5 mile lateral wide birth, but I challenge you to fly any 100nm trip in England in Class G and achieve this.
Regards, SD..
skydriller wrote:
Please give supporting evidence that pilots “do not care about busting airspace”.
Sure – just from the last couple of posts:
“when you didn’t believe anyone was actually busted for 100ft infingements.”
“quite ridiculous, as is comparing CFT and airspace busts.”
“Most of this stuff is not related to safety.”
“Speeding is illegal because speeding is fatally dangerous, proved over and over by statistics,”
It’s all saying the same: Airspace infringements are not that relevant because it is not a safety issue. Therefore we don’t care as much as we would about anything that would kill us.
It’s exactly what I’m saying: Airspace infiringements don’t happen because they are unavoidable. They would be as avoidable as hitting the ground. If we just took it as serious avoiding hitting the ground. Many pilots rationalize this not taking as much care by claiming they are not a safety issue anyways.
skydriller wrote:
No doubt everyone would love to be able to give airspace a 1000ft vertical and 5 mile lateral wide birth,
So no it’s up to you to provide evidence for this. Don’t know enough about the UK but living under an airspace where those 5 miles lateral could be easily achieved, it’s absolutely not “everyone” (as you could easily check yourself by Flightradar), and not even the majority that “loves” to stay away 5 miles from airspace where possible…
Statistically, some rate of infringements is unavoidable, and thankfully every CAA in Europe has de facto accepted this – because they are not going after every pilot, with a “punishment” procedure. Except the UK…
Germany has a theoretical €50,000 fine but doesn’t use it. Most pilots just get a bollocking; I have this from German ATC.
The reason some rate will always be happening is because we are not flying in a perfectly behaving and fully automated system. If every flight was done on autopilot, laterally and vertically, and routes were fully programmed and using absolutely current data (with auto input of TRAs etc), and there was no weather, then infringements could be totally avoided.
It’s the same argument with self driving cars. In a perfect system they will never crash. The reality is very different and current technology has absolutely no idea how to make it work (how to emulate a human); the problem is so immensely complex.
The reality of flying, VFR OCAS, is that a lot has to be done on the move. You ask for one transit and don’t get it. So Plan B. Then you need a different transit, and don’t get it. So another re-plan. Then you get conflicting traffic which takes some attention, during which you are approaching some CAS at 150kt or whatever. Or a passenger is terrified of some piece of cloud and also takes some attention. That is reality.
Some countries have a nasty and difficult to understand airspace design but ATC doesn’t operate it and doesn’t need to because it is joined-up in service (France is the main one in this department). Others have a nasty and difficult to understand airspace design and do operate it absolutely strictly (the UK, which has the added bonus of disjointed ATC services). Others have simple airspace, and some of these have good ATC (e.g. Croatia) and some have unhelpful ATC (various candidates there, all in southern Europe). And much of Europe has almost no GA
There are various examples of strict enforcement. For example the €10k fine / aircraft confiscation on a French nuclear power station ZIT (much folklore around that one but nobody in France wants to discuss actual cases), and the US is pretty strict on TRAs (while having a really good system in all the other ways).
My point is: accidents << loss of visual separation << loss of ATC separation* << managing traffic flow << CAS busts by VFR
The scales are logarithmic so putting every CAS bust as accident or reducing CAS busts to accident levels is just nonsense, there is load of complexity involved there
*loss of ATC separation is usually not applicable to VFR flights in most airspace classes but most of them comes from “unkown traffic” and disjoint airspace structures and junky ATC procedures (don’t offer service on my airspace boundary = I will have one roaming inside one day, sometimes it’s an examiner with 30kh and enough captain strips than my logbook)
In other places/industries these are called “operational errors” and people just learn to mitigate and live with them….
Malibuflyer wrote:
“quite ridiculous, as is comparing CFT and airspace busts.”
I wrote that. It is yourself that has tried to compare flying and driving. If you are going to quote me, please use all of the quote so that it is relavent, as at no point have I ever said that infringing airspace is frivolous – it is you that is suggesting that crashing into the ground is on a par with an airspace infringement of 32secs for 100ft while the pilot concerned is taking avoiding action to prevent a MAC – I would suggest that the avoiding action is a priority. FTAOD, I wrote :
skydriller wrote:
Your analogies to driving detract from a sensible discussion, and are frankly quite ridiculous, as is comparing CFT and airspace busts.
Malibuflyer wrote:
As said before: In most cases it would be extremely easy to not infringe by just keeping 5 NM lateral distance instead of “scratching the line” on the GPS.
You are suggesting that a 5nm buffer would solve the infringement problem, I am telling you that in the country with the most controversial Airspace Infringement policy in Europe, that planning a 100nm trip in Class G with that kind of buffer isnt practically possible in the Southern half of the country due to the airspace structure, how would you like me to prove it to you? I do know that the UK CAA has a “take 2” policy (200ft/2nm) which is at first glance sensible, but even that cannot be applied at many, many locations in the UK due to airspace.
Regards; SD..
