Without using the “C” word, it is very dispiriting to know that the CAA (and the safety charities) work very hard indeed to keep regulatory impact, and especially prosecutions, to an absolute minimum, in the face of huge pressure from ANSPs and airlines to be more draconian (I know this, I see it first hand) and yet some keyboard warriors continue to express their opinion (whether truly held or just for devilment) that regulatory oversight is excessive and for profit.
I agree re prosecutions. They are not common. But the indications are that 100% of current LTMA stuff gets the “seminar” which given the distance and timing is a de facto fine of a few hundred quid. Most people, seeing this, will turn off their transponder, but those in charge of the CAS are OK with that because that traffic is in Class G, so not their brief.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
It has never been more straightforward to avoid airspace infringements as it is in the day and age of products such as EasyVFR or Skydemon.
But there is a huge contradiction here. Flying VFR you are supposed to look outside, not bury your head in a pad while avoiding airspaces. The fundamental separation principle for VFR is see and avoid, and the fundamental navigational and positional equipment are the eyeballs (looking outside). If flying only at one or a few place, you will get used to the structure of the airspaces and don’t need a pad, but flying from place to place, this is really difficult, almost impossible without a pad and a moving map.
The only way to really solve this is all flights are controlled flights also below TMAs IMO. We sort of have this in Norway (not really, but somehow). It’s good practice, and everyone have learned to get in contact with the approach while under the TMA. Also to get in contact well before entering under the outer most extents of the TMA.
Sometimes, and with increasing regularity it seems, ATC may direct you up into the TMA for separation, even if you are in G below. Typically they will do this to separate you from helicopter traffic. Also, there are very seldom any problems being allowed into the TMA for whatever purpose, which them becomes a controlled flight.
Still in G, there are no requirements for transponder or radio. Lots of people like flying that way. But if you do, stay out of the entire extent of the TMA’s
arj1 wrote:
Don’t forget people get technical busts here as well, i.e. XPDR sending an altitude that off by 200-300 ft (one guy at my flight school had that – it was not a bust, he had a witness with him!).
I had one last year, leaving Manchester Barton, just after departure AFIS said “say altitude”, so I read it back – I had levelled off at 1500 at the time on Barton’s QNH. 2 minutes later he came back and told me that Manchester Approach was seeing me at something like 3500. I presumed a transponder fault and told AFIS I’d squawk mode A only and never heard anything about it again.
Peter wrote:
When I get some more numbers from around the place I will come back.
The numbers on action taken is public – I think last year there were something like 1300 busts, on the order of 200 to 250 people had to take the course and there were just 5 prosecutions.
I would like to see the CAA do more.
The PPL/LAPL should have GPS moving map navigation as part of the skills test. That would instantly result in the PPL theory books having chapters on how to correctly integrate such devices into navigation excercise.
The PPL/LAPL TK is not fit for purpose full stop. It really should contain questions on listening sqwarks etc
Revalidation/renewal again isn’t fit for purpose. It should be a BFR with the one hour of groundschool on some suggested hot topic such as infringements.
Finally how many busts are due to the incorrect pressure being set? I’ve heard a statistic of 7% for my local CAS. So how about looking at streamlining the plethora that we have. Do we really need RPS?
Peter wrote:
Most people….will turn off their transponder, but those in charge of the CAS are OK with that because that traffic is in Class G, so not their brief.
Again with the “most people” and the unwritten agenda of the ANSPs. I despair.
On possibly a more interesting point, there is a discussion to be had on culpability, where I differ from the CAA and often tell them.
The dichotomy is between intention and outcome.
As an analogy consider two cases:
I see a similar dichotomy between the pilot who infringes by 32’, causes an RA, which causes departures to be stopped and a trainee controller being temporarily suspended, and the guy who flies straight across the Stansted Zone, through the ILS at procedure altitude, at a time when there happen to be no arrivals.
In the current system, the former gets more severe treatment, because there has been a separation loss and other consequences, the other might just get a letter.
In my opinion, the culpability of the latter is greater than the former, but that is not an opinion shared by the CAA and ANSPs.
Timothy wrote:
In my opinion, the culpability of the latter is greater than the former, but that is not an opinion shared by the CAA and ANSPs.
That very question is something philosophers have struggled with for centuries…
I know it seems a rather unpopular view here, but I’m really not against the GASCO course option…
I have read on another thread that you are trained at PPL level simply to fly passengers safely in VFR… When I first got my PPL some years ago -I routinely flew along the edge of controlled airspace or Danger/Restricted areas, I saw the lower extent, or the line on the map, as both target and limit.
Looking back I realise one cannot fly that accurately and I must have been in and out of the Solent zone by a few feet all the time – though I didn’t have mode S then so probably nobody could see- clearly no consequence or I’d have heard something about it since I always talked to Solent, but now I realise that it depends very much on how busy the zone is, and scudding along the edge is very bad practice. I simply wasn’t taught that and we don’t know what we don’t know.
…(In fact I did speak to one of the infringement guys at the CAA before I booked the course, because I thought they must have made a mistake “I didn’t think it was such a big deal’` said I … ‘`that’s why we’d like you to do the course” said he!)All in all I’m in favour of additional training for pilots who are straying beyond their home circuit, especially if they’ve been subject to a MOR. A classroom day is cheaper and more impactful {through shared discussion) than a flying lesson and all in all I think a proportionate response to what, on my course at least, seemed genuine minor mistakes, often technical or momentary in nature but with disproportionate impact compared to what the pilots would imagine.
I had a MOR in September for infringing Middle wallop ATC. How do they judge you actually infringed?
Interesting how the two GPS tracks differ:
How is that an infringement? The radar track shows you outside the dotted lines.