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)

Xtophe wrote:

embassy is very diligent in forwarding the MOR

Making an appearance at the next Gasco seminar:

EGHO-LFQF-KCLW, United Kingdom

Some people have way too much time, while being quite good with photoshop.

I did a local today, on the Shoreham “open day”. Lots of traffic, with at least 50% of planes which I totally know have a TXP installed not showing anything, from the moment of takeoff, onwards. I reckon most of the Annex 1 community has implemented the “obvious MOR avoidance action”, and perhaps 50% of the rest have done the same. The legacy of the CAA “infringements team”… I hope “they” sleep at night. I know I wouldn’t.

@Peter you got away very lightly. Count yourself lucky.

You mean the 2003 ZIT one? They could not do much because I flew all the way home. It was also pretty disgusting to say nothing at the time and just ask for the name of the pilot. What is ATC’s job??

I’ve heard various stories about €10k fines / aircraft confiscation for the nuclear station ZITs but no actual confirmations AFAIK so maybe people just get a “stiff interview”. Logically that would be better because a 10k fine / aircraft confiscation will have a zero learning value; it will merely remove that pilot from the flying population permanently, with him slagging off the DGAC all over social media for the rest of his life.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I think the 10k fines are a possibility but I have never heard of anyone actually getting a fine.
But the stiff talking to and the interview takes up a great deal of time and is by all accounts very unpleasant. You would proably be expected to write a REX as well, to tell everyone how unpleasant it is.
What do you mean what is ATCs job?
Infringing a “P” zone, it is the gendarmerie of the air that you have to deal with not ATC and they have the power to intercept or have you intercepted.

France

One would reasonably expect a radar controller, in contact with you at the time, evidenced by the dedicated unit transponder code, to advise you of the infringement.

They are not obliged to (definitely not in the UK where there is definitely no assured service level for VFR, and probably not anywhere else either) if you are VFR OCAS traffic, but it is still a reasonable expectation. In the case I had the controller obviously knew I had infringed but he didn’t tell me; he just asked for the pilot’s name. You could not make it up, as the saying goes And some wonder why so few ATCOs participate on forums… Why would a controller, aware of an infringement, say nothing and ask for the pilot’s name, presumably so he could put it on the report? One guess might be that he failed to notice the infringement until too late, but didn’t want a record of that on the tape. The CAA told me at the time that they had a number of such cases from France and they took a dim view of them. But they had to do “something” because the DGAC requested action against the pilot.

Anyway, this is nearly 20 year old news. The current UK pilot busting scheme is a much bigger fish to fry, since it has pretty well destroyed the relationship between pilots and ATC, and rendered “TCAS” useless for much low level traffic.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

This local copy is absolutely hilarious.

A “Just Culture” is one where honest mistakes are accepted, but wilful violations are not. Due to the non-punitive reaction to honest mistakes, safety reporting increases. This allows identification of further, hidden, risks and allows these to be mitigated, improving safety for all. Where investigations are carried out by the authority you can have confidence that “Just Culture” will be abided by and so can engage fully without the worry of punitive action for making an honest mistake. The improvements to safety that result from a wholesale embracing of “Just Culture” are for the benefit of us all – this is the fundamental driver behind “Just Culture” and is why we should all embrace it.

How can they write this with a straight face, and at the same time run a system where 100% of busts must be MORd by ATC? The result? You can see the numbers here of pilots punished for “honest mistakes”. 100% of busts are honest mistakes; nobody does this deliberately and to suggest (or imply, as the above piece does) otherwise is utterly disgraceful.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I was listening to someone reporting how an alleged infringement of an ATZ went – apparently the CAA guy (perhaps “he who shall not be named”) grilled the alleged infringer for 45 minutes for an alleged infringement of less than 30 seconds before declaring “this phone call is going nowhere” and putting the phone down. A GPS track showed no infringement had taken place. It was dropped with no further action.

Andreas IOM

No idea if it works in practice, but the UK CAA has a complaints procedure

One would hope any quality department would keep track of the number and cause of complaints, and if a pattern emerges identify and address the root cause

EGHO-LFQF-KCLW, United Kingdom

I have heard some similar phone call recordings with this chap (one of them later ended up in the public domain but with voice disguised to avoid legal action) and the attitude is very recognisable.

The one I had – reported here – was perhaps the most amazing of all but sadly I didn’t record it.

I think the real Q is how is it possible for this to continue for so long. Individual cases can have 2 or even 3 sides to the story but the torrent of complaints, over years, cannot be explained via anything other than a high level of “protection” – perhaps by using the “ex RAF club” within the upper echelons of the CAA. Of course now the very head of the CAA is ex RAF so nothing will change. He might actually be a really good guy but he will never be able to dismantle that setup. It is as good as a masonic lodge; the only difference being that women cannot join the masons And it is mirrored in NATS, so it is stitched up at both ends.

The complaints procedure cannot be used. I have read of some people trying it and been told it is not applicable.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

During a recent briefing, the UK CAA said 9% of all infringements thus far in 2021 were caused by 13 pilots.

I reckon it will be a similar thing elsewhere, but it is an interesting commentary on the GA community

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

During a recent briefing, the UK CAA said 9% of all infringements thus far in 2021 were caused by 13 pilots.

Core question would be if these 13 pilots are “randomly spread” across the country or if they are “the” 13 FIs at two airfields which are in a particular difficult airfield situation.

Germany
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top