Unauthorised entry into CAS

[WorkingHard]

What would you have done? Flying perfectly calmly North/South at 2400 feet just below CAS in receipt of RIS. mode C giving correct read out, when very quickly a potential collision occurs from the port side. Most sensible thing is to CLIMB very rapidly to avoid the conflict and thereby entering the CAS. Quite illegal of course but in the circumstances the controller agreed with the action. Now if that results in a report to CAA and it is acted upon where does the pilot stand? There is no defence of course and we have seen some CAA prosecutions that appear to defy logic or justice. Your views would be welcome.

[J.A.F.O.]

Oh, I'd have remained legal and crashed and died taking many others with me.

Don't see that you had a choice really.

[bookworm]

Of course there's a defence!

(3) It shall be lawful for the Rules of the Air to be departed from to the extent necessary:
(a) for avoiding immediate danger;
...
(4) If any departure from the Rules of the Air is made for the purpose of avoiding immediate danger, the commander of the aircraft shall cause written particulars of the departure, and of the circumstances giving rise to it, to be given within 10 days thereafter to the competent authority of the country in whose territory the departure was made or if the departure was made over the high seas, to the CAA.

Get your pen out.

[Cusco]

If the controller agreed it was the thing to do, presumably he saw no problem on his screen at the time and I doubt if you've got 'owt to worry about, as the situation wouldn't have been reported.

If it goes further however, then thank goodness you're a member of AOPA (well you are aren't you?), 'cos you'll likely have Tudor Owen on your side.

If you're not a member of AOPA, then it's too late now.

'Nuff said?

Safe flying

Cusco:bored:

[WorkingHard]

Thanks people. just need a grain of comfort now and again. Yes most definitely a member of AOPA. my membership number is single digit so been there a long time.

[Genghis the Engineer]

The rules say there must be an inquiry - if you acted correctly, the odds are that's what will be found out. Yes, get AOPA on side, but I'd not worry unduly.

G

[panjandrum]

Compare with the advice/requirement for pilots to follow TCAS RAs. I don't think TCAS discriminates between CAS and outside CAS, just to follow it.

So it is quite conceivable for aircraft (flying outside CAS)when following a TCAS alert to enter CAS as a result. (Indeed I am aware of at least two occasions when this has happened)

So yes, you did break a rule, but if you prove you were required so to do 'to avoid immediate danger' then I cannot see that this would ever be taken to court.

[boomerangben]

Working on the basis that IFR separation would be 1000', going up would be good, or indeed so would going down. But I have to question the sense of flying as high as CAS will let you. Too many other people do it too - fly at 1850' or 2250' and watch everyone else get in a tangle above you.

[S-Works]

It did not take long for the words of wisdom to come and advise a pilot who was flying along perfectly legally that he should have been flying at a different alltitude. In fact on the same theme perhaps working hard should have just stayed on the ground or flown somewhere else full stop?

Get real, below CAS is below CAS we are all entitled to use the space right upto the limit. If we start steering clear even further then all we are doing is expanding CAS even further.

[WorkingHard]

Thanks bose-x, I was just thinking the same. Legal height is legal height period. There are a few controllers who have criticised pilots for flying "too close" to CAS in the past and should know better. Now on a similar vein what is your response to a controller who cannot offer a service but wants you to squawk for "indentification purposes" when you are clearly o/s but close to a CAS boundary? What is the benefit to either party?

[Aussie Andy]

Hi guys,what is your response to a controller who cannot offer a service but wants you to squawk for "indentification purposes" My response is "JFDI"... where's the harm in it?
it might help the controller feel confident that you are where you say you are
this is more important in certain cases (like EGLC) where some older airspace boundaries exist even though cvertain permutations of current approach procedures and faster speeds mean that part of the approach may take place OCA... would we prefer them to increase the amount of controlled airspace?
pre-GPS people gave a wider berth to controlled airspace - now we can fly right up against the little line on the moving map, so given the above there is greater potential risk and so the controller might be interested to keep an eye on us, not unreasonably
it costs nothing
it's just a bit of give & take
if you are not flying within CAS then you have nothing to worry about; if you are then better that they advise you of this, surely?!
Not to do so IMHO is kind of paranoid and uncooperative - after all, we often get services that they are not obliged to offer us (OK, maybe they should be obliged to give us e.g. RIS when we want it, but the fact is they are not). As part of good airmanship we should aim to be cooperative wherever possible: OK, the favour is not always returned I'll grant you, but to take the opposite stance would seem to entrench "us and them" too much and potentially make matters worse.

Andy :ok:

[bookworm]

Compare with the advice/requirement for pilots to follow TCAS RAs. I don't think TCAS discriminates between CAS and outside CAS, just to follow it.

That's a good comparison, and in the case of following a TCAS RA in breach of the Rules of the Air, the commander is still required to report the incident to the CAA:

http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/pdf/aic/4P194.PDF

[AlanM]

As AA says....why not!?

The LCY zone and Thames is a good example.

If you ask for a radar service from this Non-LARS unit I will do so if not too busy with my primary task. If not, ident with a FIS can help you and me and others:

1. AS most people fly up the line now just East of LCY zone, we can warn the IFR inbounds about you (they start their descent just outside the zone at 3000 feet). If you are identified then your Mode C if on is also verified.

2. If you have asked for a RIS, but you are given a FIS, I will IF TIME PERMITS upgrade it temporarily to a RIS so that I can give accurate traffic info IF there is one BANG on your nose at the same level.

3. If after identification, you stray towards CAS, we will try and dig you out. Not too many people get prosecuted if we correct the navigation! Saves paperwork/avoiding action/legal costs!

As for flying up at 2400 (or the base of CAS) - well the base is in fact 2500 feet so you could be 2499! However, should you pop up to 2600 due to turbulence/thermal activity/too busy sightseeing and an aircraft gets avoiding action then you will probably be traced and asked for an explanation.

I prefer to be 21xx feet for that very reason....(as well as everyone else being at 2400..... You would be amazed at how many 7000 squawks I can see at weekends remaining at 2400 feet!!)

[boomerangben]

Bose,

Did I say that he was doing anything illegal? I agree, we have the right to use the airspace to the limits. All I was mearly trying to point out was that there are other altitudes to fly at and if that makes your day more enjoyable because you are not always having to dodge others (or indeed risking a CAS bust), then why not use them? Anyway, my mind is at rest, the lower altitudes are going to remain quiet.

[S-Works]

Ben, not going to fall out with you about this. He did not ask for sage advice on where you felt he should have been.

He was flying legally so that should be the end of it.

[High Wing Drifter]

below CAS is below CAS we are all entitled to use the space right upto the limit
Absolutely! I too can't understand this "wide berth" requirement. Next thing is we'll have a buffer buffer... I should be able to skim the edge or bottom of a zone and not cause flights to divert, TOGA buttons to be engaged nor a general quickening of the R/T tempo.

[WorkingHard]

It does seem when one asks for comment there is a degree of paranoia creeps in. I try and be as co-operative as possible with controllers and even if a service is not offered or I dont require one I try and ensure a controller is aware of my intentions, route etc. if it is required. I was just asking the reason. As for being at 2400, I was there to avoid other traffic and rather than decend I chose to go up to maximise ADF and VOR signals being used at the time. It is a partnership out there NOT them and us and both sides are guilty of getting it wrong sometimes.

[Aussie Andy]

Sorry if I got you wrong WH... at least we've answered your question re- "what's in it for either party", hope it helps!

Andy :ok:

[WorkingHard]

Aussie Andy - no apology necessary. It is good to get all kinds of comments, especially from those with more experience. I am not a low time pilot nor do I have a vast experience (only about 5000hrs) compared to many so I try to learn from others rather than make all the mistakes myself. By and large the UK controllers are an excellent bunch who treat everyone with the help,courtesy and understanding expected. Just a very very small few forget they are in a cosy office and the pilot is in an environment that is easy to get into difficulty occasionaly.

[AlanM]

WH - your points are noted.

So would you prefer not to be given a squawk then to aid you just in case should you have a problem?

pilot is in an environment that is easy to get into difficulty occasionaly

[WorkingHard]

AlanM - no not at all. Having never been on the ATC side I was asking what is the benefit and have received a variety of answers. Perhaps the way I phrased the question should have been considered more carefully. I am all for having whatever help is available in most circumstances.

[AlanM]

WH - I look forward to providing you with a free, no obligation squawk soon!!