@Malibuflyer, which bit of “the boundary is an absolute altitude, it just in practice cannot be determined to any higher precision than the altimeter in front of you.” Is hot true?
Specifically, how do propose to determine your pressure altitude other than by using the altimeter in everyday flying?
Simply put, we are all expected to, and entitled to rely on out altimeters to remain at a safe height above terrain, at an assigned altitude, or outside controlled airspace or restricted areas.
What else do you think is required?
Malibuflyer wrote:
ATC has to keep 1000ft separation between IFR in airspace and the traffic OCAS, they can not clear any IFR traffic into the lowest 1000ft of CAS and therefore there is no legal way to switch vertically between CAS and OCAS.
Only in Germany… In other countries ATC has no problem with this. German ATC applies an actually senseless interpretation of the rules.
Peter wrote:
They must be counting hits…
What do you mean by “hits”? You need to log into the forum. So over 250 distinct people have logged into the forum during the last 7 days.
I saw the stats over 10 years. They had a few hundred members and only 40-50 ever visited the forum. It was a discussion topic, and was simply accepted. Most people just never visited. They joined up, and forgot about it. It’s the way these things run. Look at our fly-in telegram groups. You get 50 people, of whom 40 actually never participate.
Well, maybe times change? I’ve seen the stats now. PPL/IR Europe arranges a fair number of online seminars and 50+ people show up. In their last physical meeting before the pandemic, in Erfurt (a SOP seminar), again more than 50 people were physically present. (I know because I was there.)
I’m surprised the ATCO turned that traffic over a mile higher than the infringer – while it’s true they are unverified, they would still be unverified had they correctly been at 1300’. Would the ATCO have turned the “conflicting” traffic had the unverified been at 1300’? If not, why not?
I always have the pressure altitude showing on my transponder so I can check it’s correct every time I fly, I also have 2 altimeters (a mechanical one and a Garmin G5, both which show the same when set to the same QNH, so I can be reasonably sure if I set them to 1013, then the transponder can be checked to be also accurate simply by checking that the display which has a 10ft resolution matches the G5). I really don’t like using the Manchester LLR much, and I’m becoming strongly of the opinion that if Manchester isn’t particularly busy, to call them and ask for a clearance at, say, 1500’ (or higher) which is a more reasonable altitude to cross over Warrington, rather than stooging along down at 1100’ QNH. I always rememeber the story about the time a Canberra hurtled down the Manchester LLR at 400 knots…
One data point since the “Bust ’em all” policy was put into place: I was leaving Barton once, and while in contact with Barton Info, they said “say altitude” (which I did, and it so happened to be 500 feet below the CAS base and still just in Barton’s ATZ). They then came back and said that Manchester Approach was seeing me at 3500’. I offered to turn off the mode-C as it was evident it was not reporting the correct pressure altitude. I received no followup from this from anyone, even though the “bust ’em all” policy was already in place so either the Manchester app ATCO was satisfied and didn’t file a MOR, or a MOR was filed but the CAA decided that based on what was written in it, then obviously there wasn’t an infringement and so didn’t follow up. That event was what prompted me to begin project to replace the old GTX320 and its encoder with a modern transponder.
Most pilots probably don’t know whether their transponder is accurate or not, because they have a transponder and encoder that looks like this:
…the only way a pilot can verify these is to ask ATC what they are showing, and most of us aren’t in the habit of doing so!
As you wrote in the Brexit post:
IMHO I think the CAA needs to get its house in proper order first, starting with a P45 for at least 75% of its workforce (I use the term “work” with much hesitation), and 100% of the ex RAF club running this crazy scheme
I now wonder, is that a CAA policy? I have found recently some indications that it might not be, and the source of all evil and all RAF personnel this policy might actually be in DfT, and CAA are just an outsourcing department that deals with aviation within a framework (“shut up and swallow”) created by DfT.
Sure; you could well be right. The CAA is an agency subordinate to the DfT. They don’t like to see it like that, but that’s the fact. All major policy issues, and anything with an international political angle, is owned by the DfT.
Obviously somebody allowed the current CAS busts enforcement policy to start off, and somebody has allowed it to carry on. I have no idea who this was. I’ve asked many people who are close to it and they don’t know either.
During 2021, the Gasco “charity” made £22600 out of this nice scheme 
Expenses close to zero, running this “course” over zoom.
While I’d prefer more to be pushed towards practical training, still the annual numbers are not huge (15% course and provisional suspensions).
It certainly did not used to be “only15%”. That is a recent phenomenon.
It could be said that the negativity of the pilot community to this which has been publicised mainly in this forum (and others) may have had something to do with the reduction in course numbers.
Yes; there has been a clear shift over the last few years. Originally, and before some FOIA applications forced the publication of this data, they were simply top-slicing 20/month for Gasco, to maximise their income (Gasco had hotel room capacity for about 20).
The % of warning letters has gone up a lot. But remember a warning letter is just “stage 1” in the process; if you do something within 2 years, you get “stage 2” – typically Gasco.
I am sure the EuroGA exposure is mainly behind this. Discussion of this topic was squashed on Flyer (I got banned from there after posting about it) and IIRC nonexistent on Pprune (which is now largely gone anyway, for GA). Flyer is packed with CAA, NATS, ex CAA, ex NATS staff. We’ve had them here too, but they gave up trying.
