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)

Ibra wrote:

What if the pilot had intentionally planned to fly through that RA by asking a clearance? (as always you avoid if you don’t get one).

In the BAF line of reasoning this is not a problem at all as by asking for a clearance the pilot has demonstrated that he is aware of the RA and therefore has done his homework.
The point is that for just filing the flight plan the BAF assumes that the pilot failed to recognize that the route is going through a RA (which is probably true) and that the reason for that is failure of the pilot to apply due diligence in planning (which is most probably not true).

Germany

the pilot failed to recognize that the route is going through a RA (which is probably true) 

Do you know how this was flagged? was it mannual or automatic? if something automated then why such flag was not available to pilot when he submitted his FPL?

For controlled IFR, most of us rely on tools to tell us if a route cuts trough restricted & prohibited areas and puts a good faith in FPL system as well as ATC guidance

In the other hand, I usually fly IFR through uncontrolled airspace where I get crazy on due diligence (1h to plan) to make sure I am not messing it up: NOTAMS, VFR charts, AIP digging…but when filing Eurocontrol in airspace & airway, I tend to relax and take it easy (5min to plan), isn’t this what “IFR in Airways & Airspace” is all about?

Last Edited by Ibra at 24 Jan 13:37
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

Ibra wrote:

Why they can’t … or restrict the use of L610 Airway from AIP?

Well, they have! L610 is marked i AIP-Germany as CDR1 between MAMOR and UNKUL at FL80-FL150.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

So you could file FL120 in L604 (in Charlie) or FL80 in L610 (in Echo) as they are “permanently plannable” in AIP? and fly through on lost comms even if they are in EDR170?

Last Edited by Ibra at 24 Jan 14:09
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

Ibra wrote:

Do you know how this was flagged? was it mannual or automatic? if something automated then why such flag was not available to pilot when he submitted his FPL?

Manual – the controllers at DFS “complained” there were so many flight plans they could not clear as planned because it would lead through that RA. Instead of looking for the error in the system the DFS claimed it is the pilots fault.

Germany

Ibra wrote:

So you could file FL120 in L604 (in Charlie) or FL80 in L610 (in Echo) as they are “permanently plannable” in AIP? and fly through on lost comms even if they are in EDR170?

I haven’t checked L604, but L610, yes. Unless the route was withdrawn in the Airspace Use Plan.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

As Malibuflyer has written, this is a very backward step by the German authorities.
These days most of us will file a IFPL through something like Autorouter and once validated and acknowledged we would expect to fly that.
If we can no longer trust the system there is a problem, especially if it involves getting fined for doing what you expect to do. If this space is not available it should be notified to Eurocontrol as such or if its an on and off thing then it should be for ATC to vector you through the area.
Other wise we are back to manual planning and checking each area one wants to transit, checking each Notam and replanning over, under and round active restricted zones.
For anyone who has tried to find a more direct route than the ones on offer from Autorouter or Rocket Route one realises that the system is no longer set up for it.

Last Edited by gallois at 24 Jan 16:57
France

Just seen the Dec 2021 UK MOR report.

They are still busting plenty of pilots for 100ft into CAS. One did the Manchester LLR at 1400ft (100ft in) and caused real havoc.

Also CAT at FL80 was “in conflict” with this 1400ft traffic.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Surely ATS has to write a report as part of their duties in most countries.
IMO the real issue is what happens after the report. UK seem to treat as a sanction either through a costly retraining regime or cautionary letters or even withdrawal of licence privileges.
Whereas in France for instance people accept that errors occur, own up to it and express how they should have avoided the situation so that others can learn from it.
From a glance at the FFA REX there are usually at least one or two inadvertent entries into controlled or restricted airspace a week and one can read what happened, why the pilot thought it happened, what s/he should have done differently etc. At the end there are conclusions from a safety advisor and sometimes a recommendation for clubs or in serious circumstances that maybe the pilot should take a flight with an instructor. That’s usually the end of it.

France

Surely ATS has to write a report as part of their duties in most countries.

Not sure I agree; it is a huge waste of ATCO time. They hate doing these reports. And telling a pilot to turn90 deg left or whatever is all a part of their job.

This stuff started only a few years ago in the UK, and the # of reports has gone up 10×.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top