Airspace Infringments

[Fuji Abound]

There is some discussion about the new consequences of airspace infringements elsewhere. With the aim of reaching a wider audience I was wondering how well known the new policy is, and to understand pilot's views.

It is said that even the most "minor" infringements may result in an automatic course attendance or licence suspension, and it is also said that every infringment must now be subject to a formal report by the controller.

What are your thoughts?

[Jan Olieslagers]

I don't know what you are talking about. Any sources/references, perhaps? Or another effect of the so-called Brexit, in one particular country?

What is this "new policy"? Who defines it? Where is it documented?

[Dave Gittins]

I'd also like to know what new policy is referenced. I sit on the Gatwick Local Airspace Infringement Team (pretty much all large airports have a problem and hence a local team) and haven't heard from the CAA representatives that policy has changed / is changing. I guess Fuji is saying he has heard that more and stricter consequences are going to be enforced.

Infringements should be and always have been taken seriously and our aim is to try and prevent them because we have to fight hard enough to keep some airspace to fly in as it is; without abusing what we don't have.

Education encouraging "better" behaviour is the key to that. The aim of the team is to improve the situation and simply doling out punishment is not going to either endear us or promote participation in better infringement avoidance.

[Fuji Abound]

My understanding, and it may be wrong, is that all infringements involving NATS result in a mandatory report, with the controller being relieved from duty while the report is made. Other airspace controllers are being firmly encourage to report infrigements which of course include any ATZ sor perhaps designated danger areas activated by NOTAM or otherwise.

There then seems to be some debate as to what happens next. Some say that there has been a significant increase in the number of pilots who are referred to the GATSCo course who is the CAA's chosen provider for re-education, along similiar lines to traffic speed awareness courses. The pilot pays the cost and probably ends up with a nights hotel stay. It would seem there is no reference to instructors any longer, which, in the past was often the case. It would seem felt this has been well promulgated through CAP1404 and elsewhere.

It would seem that GATSCo has the contract with the CAA and the income now forms a signifcant part of their total income from the other charitable work they undertake.

Some beleive the new approach will prove very effective, others are less certain.

[Jan Olieslagers]

"seems" .... "seems" ... "some beleive (sic!) " ... "it would seem .... " "believing ... "

and anyway it seams to applaye to youkeey ayrspaisse only, no wurrees ofer hear...

Factual verifyable information, please!

[Fuji Abound]

Jan - I dont understand? I didnt realise this was only a form for stating facts.

I dont know the answers, and have said so.

If you, or others do, doubtless you will tell us?

[Jan Olieslagers]

Hm, I must admit I had begun to develop some doubts myself, analysing the P P R U N E title, - the "R" bit in particular :) Then again, the "P P" does not really apply to private flying, either, so this chapter is a bit out of bounds for the original vocation anyway. Still, I am curious as to why this rumour is aired right now, is there any particular change aloft? In other words, WHAT IS GOING ON ? WHAT MAKES YOU POST THESE RUMOURS?

And yes, I suppose it is due to my training, as a (non-professional) pilot and in my job, but I do prefer to stick to known facts.

[Dave Gittins]

Hi Fuji,

I am not aware that infringements automatically require a controller to be stood down (the Controllers at LGW are ANS not NATS - not that it would make any difference).

It may well be the case if a serious or life threatening event occurred but not if there was a simple (and I don't mean to understate the seriousness of infringements) event that required an airliner to be turned early to avoid a light aircraft close to or even inside an airspace boundary that posed a relatively low risk but no actual threat. An infringement could also be a PPL flying at 2510 ft with nobody else near. It's still an infringement, and might set off a radar alarm but it doesn't pose a risk so no stand down and probably no report, just a statistic to be noted.

From what I understand from the CAAs lead on airspace (who is an active PPL himself), the first thing they want is better education and fewer infringements and the last thing they want to be seen as is heavy handed or retributative.

Have a look on https://airspacesafety.com

[Fuji Abound]

“Controllers will first try to maintain or regain separation between the infringing aircraft and any other traffic before trying to establish contact with the infringing pilot. If contact can be established the situation can be resolved very quickly and the controller will assist the pilot in vacating the airspace. The controller is required to file a report on every infringement of controlled airspace, and where the event is more severe in nature, the controller may be removed from duty and be unable to plug back in until the initial investigation process is complete.” NATS

This is NATS statement. I see it does say the infringement must be more severe in nature, but the report is mandatory in all cases.

Do Gatwick operate in a different way? I must say I have always found the Gatwick guys superbly helpful and have had many clearances both through the zone and via the threshold - thank you.

Jan - no worries no offence taken. I agree the facts are good, I am not sure of the facts, hence the careful wording. This may be of concern, or not, there are some pilots who are less than impressed and see the changes as the start of a zero tolerance policy, there are others than are clearly a lot more relaxed, and then there are those that simply dont know until (and if) they make a bust and find themselves on one of the courses with (it would seem) a rather do not pass go attitude to anything they may have to say in their defence.

[Jan Olieslagers]

Ok, ok, thanks, fair enough. But why NOW? What has changed?

[Fuji Abound]

Ok, ok, thanks, fair enough. But why NOW? What has changed?

For me, its topical, no other reason. The change is fairly recent, and if it is a change to zero tolerance, then I wonder how many pilots are aware?

Many of us will recall the days not very long ago this was not the case, so for that reason it seems to me its topical, and more than worthy of discussion.

I definitely wasnt aware of who is running the courses, the process involved in awarding the contract, and the real cost of going on the course. I have also been discussing whether it will have the desired benefits.

[Jan Olieslagers]

The change is fairly recent
What change?

[shiningstarofcheso]

“There is some discussion about the new consequences of airspace infringements elsewhere.”

Confused - can we clarify what the official (CAA / NATS etc) source or reference point is for the “new consequences”? Or is this an opinion on what might change?

Thanks

[Sam Rutherford]

This is a very odd thread.

[Jan Olieslagers]

I wonder about the "elsewhere" bit, too. Vague, certainly. On purpose? Like as not. Why? Another mystery.

[LookingForAJob]

....and it is also said that every infringment must now be subject to a formal report by the controller.EU regs that have come into effect in the last few years may be relevant here. Reg 376/2014 makes reporting of certain events mandatory by specific persons - including PIC, controllers and flight information service officers - and reg 2015/1018 very specifically includes airspace infringements as one of those events.

[Fuji Abound]

I hope there is no mystery.

In late 2017 the CAA developed a course with GASCo, the cost of which the CAA funded. GASCo is a registered charity.

GASCo received about £42K from these courses in 2018 at £200 per person per course. This would suggest somewhere over 200 pilots attended the course. Around a 1,000 pilots infringe a year. Of those infringments a percentage are ATZs, danger areas etc, and a percentage do not involve GA (military etc). We can make a reasonable guestimate of the number of pilots attending the course as a result of infringing 'NATS airspace" for example. Maybe its somewhere around half of the remainder.

If you infringe it is fair to say a probable consequence is course attendance, rather like a speed awareness course. It is said that when you add up the costs of a stay in a hotel, a loss of a days earnings or a days holiday etc the cost of the course is perhaps £500 or more, so it is also a significant financial penalty.

There have been some requests under Freedom of Information for data to enable the impact of these courses to be assessed. The data has not been forthcoming because it is said the data would reveal information that could be considered personal.

That is a brief summary of the issue. There are many facets of which I wasnt aware, and I suspect, but maybe entirely wrong, that may be true of others.

It also seems appropriate there is a wider discussion whether this is the "right" approach and it is being administred in the "right" way. Inevitably there are views on both sides of the divide.

[rarelyathome]

Fuji. Are you IMCR on the Flyer forum? How many other fora are you asking the same question on?

[Fuji Abound]

Yes, two other places, because I know some pilots read more than one forum and obviously, some do not. I was interested to see the wider view on this matter.

[Victorian]

I very much support Fuji's initiative in raising this issue here. It has been exhaustively discussed in another place, but my perspective is somewhat driven by being present at a recent presentation by one of the CAA actors. This presentation featured an apparent spectacular rise in the rate of infringement in the last year or so, without being calibrated in terms of the reporting rate. When pressed on this point, the presenter was unconvincing and some of the audience, self included, were left to wonder if there is any real rise in infringing behaviour at all.


During the presentation, 5 episodes of what CAA regard as 'successful' prosecutions were presented. It turned out that two of these involved instructors, and not private pilots at all. A third involved a chap who had flown here from America (!) and infringed on a UK leg a Notam'd RAT resulting in an alleged close call with an airliner. The very substantial fine levied was justified because, apparently, he had failed to update his moving map the previous evening. No mention of the fact that someone flying here from the US might have expected to encounter joined up ATC, cohesive airspace design and flight following for a VFR trip in what is said to be a first world country. And certainly no mention of the fact that public officials, supposedly responsible for airspace policy, have presided over an airspace shambles where VFR pilots are supposed to switch from one ATC thiefdom to the next every few miles, give their life history each time and dial in a new squawk code, while being completely unaware of how helpful or otherwise the next controller, whoever that is, is going to be. And get fobbed off with some nonsense called a 'Basic Service' where collision avoidance is discretionary.


In this environment it's hardly surprising that many VFR pilots avoid radio contact, or worse (it's suggested), switch off their transponder altogether because (it seems likely) it is the imposition of Mode 'S' that has facilitated the increase in the reporting rate. Or resort to 'home made' remedies like moving map displays that may or not display Notams and ingenious but incomplete and unofficial collision avoidance systems, rather than talking to controllers. After all, there's even the nonsense of 'listening squawks' because controllers are apparently too busy to talk to pilots anyway.


What's needed here is a genuine recognition from the 'authorities' that UK airspace design, management and operation is of very poor quality and needs radical overhaul closely following the lines of the service provided to VFR pilots by the FAA. Rather than the single minded pursuit of individual pilots who, let's face it, can be any one of us after a moment's lack of concentration in this aerial minefield that we call 'home'.

[destinationsky]

There is no new policy or procedure in place. If an infringement is deemed to be serious enough a provisional suspension will likely take place with referral to the GASCO course or, in extreme circumstances, legal action will follow. The only "new-ish" part of this is the likely increase in chances of suspension. The stats are not improving so something needs to be done. We have examples at our airport of people switching off transponders to avoid being caught, deciding to enter controlled airspace without approval because the controller sounded busy etc etc. These show shocking displays of airmanship and those involved deserve to be prosecuted.

The exception to all of this is, if you can prove you did everything to avoid an infringement (use listening squawk, moving map etc) then mistakes will never result in prosecution. Mistakes do happen but you need to do everything to mitigate infringements during your pre-flight brief. Fly with an up to date chart, read your NOTAMs etc and display good practice.

UK airspace design is pretty poor and in some cases, confusing. However, if you do not understand a piece of airspace then grab some time with an instructor to ask some questions on how to navigate around it.

[Dave Gittins]

My understanding of the issue, from information I have gathered at our local AIT meetings is that the situation is getting worse. That appears to be caused by people who don't use the aids and the help that are available. No use of moving map, poor flight planning, not using a LARS, switching off transponders. If you have taken all reasonable care and still managed to make a mistake, you won't be castigated. However if you have taken a cavalier attitude then you most likely will. I simply want to be able to use the airspace I am allowed to in the best way possible because I enjoy it. I am none too happy when the amount I can use is likely to be reduced to give more protection to commercial aviation who pay the bills from people who threaten it.

[Pittsextra]

Question. When will there be some CAA guidance upon the use of moving map and the demonstration of effective use becoming a feature of the practical test prior to initial licence issue or ongoing revaluation process.

[LastStandards]

Question. When will there be some CAA guidance upon the use of moving map and the demonstration of effective use becoming a feature of the practical test prior to initial licence issue or ongoing revaluation process.

It's on the way - no timescales as such yet, but colleagues without/within are working on it, as part of a larger process on infringement management. Sadly long overdue, but the wheels do turn eventually!!

[TheOddOne]

Meanwhile in the real world, we're teaching students how to use the moving map installed in the panel and showing them Skydemon on a tablet. Other VFR software is available (apparently you have to say this sort of thing so as not to get accused of advertising...)

Actually, the most serious infringement in the past 12 months was someone who claimed to usually use a moving map and chose not to. He apparently generated a plog calculated for a flight he then abandoned and re-used on a different day when the winds were completely different. You can't legislate against this kind of behaviour!

TOO

[Pittsextra]

Well sire it sounds like total idiocy but then perhaps equally so is when authoriry have this multi year problem, where they suggest the use of a moving map is a large part of the solution and indeed suggest the lack of one is not very clever..... except they dont even offer any guidance as to how to use one.

its all well and good individual flying schools offering things piecemeal but that doesn't fit best practice and standardisation and what if the best efforts of a school are wrong?


It's on the way - no timescales as such yet, but colleagues without/within are working on it, as part of a larger process on infringement management. Sadly long overdue, but the wheels do turn eventually!!

not good enoigh is it? Why not even a timescale? Here is a thought how about employjng some extra bodies and getting things done in a timescale that fits peoples expectations in 2019.

[destinationsky]

Part of the issue is falling under the EASA banner. We cannot change our training (whether it is amend existing or introduce new) without jumping through the EASA hoops so it is not as straight forwards as you may think. EASA is the over arching authority, and before anyone starts banging the Brexit drum, we will still follow EASA after October.

Another change that is required is to standardise the biennial flight check. Include an airspace crossing and some form of infringement/airspace awareness. Set a syllabus for it, don't leave it to the instructor to do what they feel like doing.

[hoodie]

destinationsky, "The biennial flight check" isn't a check.

Part.FCL Revalidation by Experience requires 1 hour with an instructor; it can't be passed or failed and it can be used to gain additional skills - whihc it wouldn't be able to if fundmanetally cghanged to have a rote syllabus as you suggest.

You're solving one alleged problem by minimising the value many people get form the current Reval requirements. So not that simple.

Regarding the current culture of coming down hard on infringers; at first sight it all seems reasonable, but there is a disturbing number of stories out there that suggests a "Just Culture" is not applied well. It would be great to discuss this objectively, but it doesn't seem possible to do so online as too many people immediately get defensive or high-handed. Not all of them pilots.

[destinationsky]

I am not suggesting it should be pass/fail. I am suggesting that it should contain either a set list or suggested list of items that should be covered to standardise it. SOME instructors/pilots use it as an opportunity to go for an hour bimble and some actually use it for a valuable refresh of skills that may have not been practised. In some circumstances, pilots will not see the value of this hour and do anything to make it easier for themselves. This does happen.

There is a just culture within infringements and the aviation industry as a whole. If a pilot infringes and they are open, honest and willing to learn about it then the whole episode is used as a learning exercise. It is those pilots who refuse to accept they have done wrong (despite evidence showing they have!) and argue and do everything they can to get out of it, are the ones who go against just culture and don't promote the correct attitudes. And those who know they have just infringed and decide to switch off the transponder have a special place reserved for them....

Sadly, it is the few that ruin it for the many.

[Pittsextra]

Guidance is just that it doesnt require any legislation to be passed here or at EASA. Seems odd doesnt it that we must infringe in order to take the learning point? Its also odd that the trend of airspace infringement isnt coming down and nobody sees fit to find an alternative solution. Funny old world.

[TheOddOne]

It would mean a minimum of a 2-hour round-trip flight from here to enter any Class 'D' airspace. The best we can manage is an ATZ crossing.
The biggest problem we have is with visitors not calling the local radar unit and then flying through the final approach track. All quite legal in Class 'G' but shockingly bad manners. Sometimes the radar unit will phone me and ask me to have a polite word - 'You were in Class 'G' but...' sort of thing. The last thing either the radar unit or us want is Class 'D', thank you very much!
I'd be very much against any prescribed list for the revalidation instructor flight. I used to work for a large multi-site training organisation that had a list of things to cover on the 2nd year flight which was also used for their own proficiency check for hirers. It was such a large list you had to rush through it - quite unsatisfactory and counter-productive, I found. But they were paying me wages, so one went with the flow.
Then they went bust.
Nowadays, I sit down with the pilot and discuss what flying they've been doing recently and what they'd like to do. I say 'I have a little list' which concentrates their mind!
You can even turn a local bimble into an interesting exercise, practicing diversions, for instance, seeing if you can get an accurate heading and an ETA to a nominated location.

TOO