I agree that telling people to turn 90° left or better still warning people that they are about to enter controlled airspace is part to the ATS job
However if an aircraft strays into controlled or restricted airspace, it is part of their job to note that, especially when it might mean diverting or deviating other traffic. Somebody might ask why.
As I wrote, it is what happens to the note and the ramifications which seem to be the problem in the UK as seen from this thread.
You can fly at LFPN at 1500ft QNH or even at 1700ft QNH (200ft inside Paris TMA) without jets going to Orly losing their IFR separation and the CDG holding stack is melting down 
Just to clarify for Manchester: it’s not Golf, the airspace has changed it’s Class D from surface but now has low level route limited to 1300ft QNH (see VFR map), many people still fly it on 1500ft QNH like it was Golf from old days…
The equivalent in France would be a climb after being cleared into CTR to CTA or TMA, it’s not like entering controlled airspace on 7000 not talking to anyone, you are already in controlled airspace, you get assigned 7376 on entering LLR, your are talking to ATS and limited to max 1300ft QNH !
PS: I have done that corridor at 700ft QNH clocking 165kias, it was safer vis-a-vis the airspace above as I did not sped much time inside
@Peter, why did he have to divert traffic that was 8000-1500=6500ft away? I thought the “bubble” is supposed to be 5000 for an unknown traffic, and all traffic in the corridor is “known” as they are all flying with a listenning squawk, so it should have been even less than that. Was that ATCO bored and felt that it would have been great if he generated an extra MOR?
The funny bit is if they thought that with more MORs and diversions they can harm the pilot and, I don’t know, initiate a license suspension (?), they failed – it was student, judging by the report. :)
I was not making comment about particular airspace such as around LFPN.
My.comment was 2 fold, firstly that AIUI, ATS makes record of all movements in their area in case it is needed.
My second point was that it is not just in the UK that pilots infringe airspace.
The difference between the UK and France is how it is handled afterwards.
I can’t believe pilots don’t infringe in other countries, so how are these infringements treated in those countries?
Below I give a google translation from this weeks REX.
Description of the event:
CTR penetration without clearance
During the LFXX LFMV flight, after a normal dialogue with the approach but with a quality of 3/5 at their request, I switched to the tower frequency; the quality is not better and very
cluttered after having repeated my announcements I think I hear the clearances and continue my flight with the feeling of a misunderstanding between the tower and me
After landing I am put in touch with the tower which tells me that they have not received my messages
Declarant’s comment:
During this first solo flight in a CTR I had to undergo tunneling (goal to be achieved) forgetting to consider that poor radio communication during clearances
must be considered as a breakdown and apply the instructions recontact the approach and or 7600 on the transponder and return to uncontrolled terrain
In the parking lot I reprogram the radio and test it with the tower, no more worries and I return to LFXX
After thinking it over, I am thinking of a contact fault in my headphone jack or a frequency error.
Feedback
THIS IS THE (I just realised I can’t think of the phrase) Feedback from the powers that be and penalty.
Title: Class D CTR penetration without clearance
Pedagogical summary:
The student had prepared his navigation correctly. He had previously made it in double order.
He thought that despite the lack of clearance from the tower, he considered that control had taken him into account in the traffic and continued on his route until landing. The frequency displayed at that time seemed to him correct, with poor reception and heavily congested. He did not doubt one of a frequency error. This explains why he did not have the reflex to display the carrier on 7600.
Summary of the action plan:
Corrective actions: Radio control immediately after landing, briefing of the student by the controller.
After authorization to return to the departure site, debriefing with the instructor.
Preventive actions: Edition of a REX and a CRESAG.
Publication of a safety sheet for the attention of all students and pilots of the flying club
All I am saying you won’t get flagged for flying at airspace base in France and the consequences is zero
You need to be +300ft inside airspace for ATS to mannually trigger whatever they should trigger
In UK, CAIT can flag you in airspace even if you fly -300ft under it due to technicalities that neither you or I could grasp as it’s too complicated (something to do with Markov Chains or Max Likelihood estimators combined with QNH, STD, QFE, RPS, PEC, TXP errors), then it’s MOR, NATS letter, CAA letter and probably GASCO, it’s just different you have to fly 500ft bellow controlled airspace base in UK, 1000ft to be damn sure
Not busting airspace is a good thing, I suggest everyone does like me and avoid it with good margins, still one has to understand the limitations behind the reporting system and the fair & just culture behind it: it has no tolerances even has negative ones like a speed limit is 90kmh where you have to drive at 75kmh, which every engineer on earth would agree it’s unfair, no wonder why people switch off their TXP OFF and fly bellow airspace on their altimeters…
Markov Chains?
CAIT works, as far as anybody can tell because it is all top secret, but fairly obviously, by comparing your txp pressure altitude, adjusted for the QNH of the owner of the CAS, and if they match, or above, and your txp code is not among those issuable by that CAS owner (in the UK any CAS transit gets you a custom txp code), it triggers a warning, which the ATCO can’t easily miss, and which obviously gets logged.
And there is zero txp error margin. Not 200ft or whatever. Zero.
Reading the MOR listing is really quite sick. It shows what a weird culture has developed in this area.
why did he have to divert traffic that was 8000-1500=6500ft away
No idea. The +5000ft artificial cylinder is a great device for the UK ATC system to beat itself up with and to create conflicts which don’t exist (no other country does this; all been discussed further back) but as you say this is new. The text also mentions something about blips merging; maybe that’s a new requirement where the pilot is not in radio contact so can’t formally confirm his altitude.
I did read a PhD on a new version thag predicts infringements, I am not sure if it’s what is in production and if it’s what is reported? It runs some fancy monte-carlo sampling with kallman filters and statistical estimators I have done less maths when working in nuclear reactors and jets engines !
Not that you also have to spend sometime inside CAS to get flagged, 10 seconds or 15 seconds?
It will be good if implementation details are published at least pilots would know how to avoid getting flagged?
That’s funny… fairly new too, 2015. I think CAIT is older.
Also CAIT warns within seconds of being inside CAS.
Peter wrote:
And there is zero txp error margin. Not 200ft or whatever. Zero.
A post in the PPL/IR forum described a recent infringement event where the CAA appeared to have accepted normal altimeter and transponder tolerances. That is, a MOR was filed and after some exchange with the pilot, the case was closed without any transponder check being needed.
If this is a new policy of the CAA, then it is for the better.
That is what I would expect IF the pilot gets a lawyer engaged.
But few will. The whole system is set up so that few will.
At best, if there is a policy change, you get the threatening letters, from NATS, then from CAA, then the “we have been appointed as EXECUTOR of the MOR…”, then a sentencing letter, and then you argue about it. Now you have something you have to disclose to your insurer, for a start… and then they “might” let you off. It’s barking mad.
If someone knows more detail, they should post it here where people will see it, instead of a private site read by (when I was there, 40 people) 
