Pilot Fined Following Serious Infringement
Stansted would not only be Class B in the US, it would also have a 30nm radius Mode C veil, not the piddly little TMZs it currently has. Airspace busts tend to be less of a nuisance simply because the larger airspace affords more protection to commercial traffic.
Historically (until Europe interfered) GA in the UK has been very lightly regulated, so long as we kept to the "open FIR". The GA lobby ensured that controlled airspace was kept to the absolute bare minimum so any infringement automatically impinges on commercial flights. The benefit of having Class G everywhere instead of Class E is that we can go IFR without having to ask anyone's permission, a right not enjoyed in FAA-land.
Fortunately the CAA lack the legal authority to suspend licences. Whereas an FAA bureaucrat can remove your right to fly at the stroke of a pen, the CAA can only take you to court where you are at least innocent until proven otherwise.
Historically (until Europe interfered) GA in the UK has been very lightly regulated, so long as we kept to the "open FIR". The GA lobby ensured that controlled airspace was kept to the absolute bare minimum so any infringement automatically impinges on commercial flights. The benefit of having Class G everywhere instead of Class E is that we can go IFR without having to ask anyone's permission, a right not enjoyed in FAA-land.
Fortunately the CAA lack the legal authority to suspend licences. Whereas an FAA bureaucrat can remove your right to fly at the stroke of a pen, the CAA can only take you to court where you are at least innocent until proven otherwise.
Stansted would not only be Class B in the US, it would also have a 30nm radius Mode C veil, not the piddly little TMZs it currently has. Airspace busts tend to be less of a nuisance simply because the larger airspace affords more protection to commercial traffic.
It's a significant responsibility, something I personally take very seriously, that will continue once ADS-B Out is implemented in 2020. Other times I fly within a Mode C veil with more equipment, in the other aircraft.
Of course, I can only agree about "Europe interfering". It's a cancer with no solution in sight that I can see, directly in opposition to 1000 years of superior English law. Do something, now.
Last edited by Silvaire1; 20th Apr 2013 at 06:26.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stansted would not only be Class B in the US, it would also have a 30nm radius Mode C veil, not the piddly little TMZs it currently has. Airspace busts tend to be less of a nuisance simply because the larger airspace affords more protection to commercial traffic.
Compare movements out of Stanstead and Luton to the likes of John Wayne (SNA) / Burbank and these are totally accessible to VFR traffic, over flying, doing circuits, etc....
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Englishal, Stansted's passenger numbers are slightly higher than Tampa and San Diego (both Class B). Stansted handles 8 times more passengers than Burbank and double the number of John Wayne. Stansted's movements are predominantly 737s (no spamcans landing there due to £500 landing fees), so 300+ 737's and bigger landing per day. Not quite what you would see at Burbank.
There are many busier airfields, in terms of movements, in the US than Stansted that mix spamcans with jets. The difference is that they have 2, 3, 4, or even more, runways. Stansted has a single runway, with a 737 landing every 3 minutes all through the day - which, by the number of aircraft movements per runway, is busier than MIA, EWR, JFK and similar to LAX.
Would the FAA be so lenient of an aircraft flying through the approach for LAX without permission and no transponder?
The recent AOPA video about the glider pilot who was locked up for 2 days for flying somewhere he was allowed to, due to over-zealous law enforcement officials, shows that the US can be more draconian and paranoid than Europe at times (hard to believe!).
There are many busier airfields, in terms of movements, in the US than Stansted that mix spamcans with jets. The difference is that they have 2, 3, 4, or even more, runways. Stansted has a single runway, with a 737 landing every 3 minutes all through the day - which, by the number of aircraft movements per runway, is busier than MIA, EWR, JFK and similar to LAX.
Would the FAA be so lenient of an aircraft flying through the approach for LAX without permission and no transponder?
The recent AOPA video about the glider pilot who was locked up for 2 days for flying somewhere he was allowed to, due to over-zealous law enforcement officials, shows that the US can be more draconian and paranoid than Europe at times (hard to believe!).
Last edited by wb9999; 20th Apr 2013 at 08:30.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We'll we'll have to agree to disagree. Stanstead and Luton don't seem to me like a Class B airport (I've flown into them in the past).
However, on the subject of the USA, one can fly into Hawthorn, which is essentially right next door to LAX, VFR with no clearance required if one wants. In other words the airspace around LAX is designed in such a way that it protects the aeroplanes arriving and departing LAX, but doesn't put unnecessary restrictions on other airspace users. In the UK they like to splat a great bit bit of CAS around an airport "just in case". Bournemouth is a good example - how many 737's fly around 4 miles north of the airfield below 1500'? Not many!
So although not defending this chap in his cub, he was right to say that at 800' he was well away from commercial air transport - just like you could fly at 800' (actually up to 2.5k) right next to LAX (a mile) and not be busting their Class B airspace.
Agreed about the transponder requirement, the US would require Mode C in this area, though you could get a dispensation from ATC beforehand. And the FAA come down hard on anyone who does bust airspace - though there is also the NASA program where one, if they think they have busted airspace you can file a report yourself, and then this protects you from prosecution. Seems like a good idea....
ASRS - Aviation Safety Reporting System
However, on the subject of the USA, one can fly into Hawthorn, which is essentially right next door to LAX, VFR with no clearance required if one wants. In other words the airspace around LAX is designed in such a way that it protects the aeroplanes arriving and departing LAX, but doesn't put unnecessary restrictions on other airspace users. In the UK they like to splat a great bit bit of CAS around an airport "just in case". Bournemouth is a good example - how many 737's fly around 4 miles north of the airfield below 1500'? Not many!
So although not defending this chap in his cub, he was right to say that at 800' he was well away from commercial air transport - just like you could fly at 800' (actually up to 2.5k) right next to LAX (a mile) and not be busting their Class B airspace.
Agreed about the transponder requirement, the US would require Mode C in this area, though you could get a dispensation from ATC beforehand. And the FAA come down hard on anyone who does bust airspace - though there is also the NASA program where one, if they think they have busted airspace you can file a report yourself, and then this protects you from prosecution. Seems like a good idea....
ASRS - Aviation Safety Reporting System
9. Enforcement Policy
* Administrator’s Responsibilities. The Administrator of the FAA will perform his or her responsibility under Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.) subtitle VII, and enforce the statute and the 14 CFR in a manner that will reduce or eliminate the possibility of, or recurrence of, aircraft accidents. The FAA enforcement procedures are set forth in 14 CFR part 13 and FAA enforcement handbooks.
* Enforcement Action. When determining the type and extent of the enforcement action to take in a particular case, the FAA will consider the following factors:
o Nature of the violation;
o Whether the violation was inadvertent or deliberate;
o The certificate holder's level of experience and responsibility;
o Attitude of the violator;
o The hazard to safety of others which should have been foreseen;
o Action taken by employer or other government authority;
o Length of time which has elapsed since violation;
o The certificate holder’s use of the certificate;
o The need for special deterrent action in a particular regulatory area or segment of the aviation community; and
o Presence of any factors involving national interest, such as the use of aircraft for criminal purposes.
* Enforcement Restrictions. The FAA considers the filing of a report with NASA concerning an incident or occurrence involving a violation of 49 U.S.C. subtitle VII or the 14 CFR to be indicative of a constructive attitude. Such an attitude will tend to prevent future violations. Accordingly, although a finding of violation may be made, neither a civil penalty nor certificate suspension will be imposed if:
o The violation was inadvertent and not deliberate;
o The violation did not involve a criminal offense, accident, or action under 49 U.S.C. § 44709, which discloses a lack of qualification or competency, which is wholly excluded from this policy;
o The person has not been found in any prior FAA enforcement action to have committed a violation of 49 U.S.C. subtitle VII, or any regulation promulgated there for a period of 5 years prior to the date of occurrence; and
o The person proves that, within 10 days after the violation, or date when the person became aware or should have been aware of the violation, he or she completed and delivered or mailed a written report of the incident or occurrence to NASA.
NOTE: Paragraph 9 does not apply to air traffic controllers, who are covered under the provisions of the Air Traffic Safety Action Program (ATSAP), as described in the ATSAP Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
* Administrator’s Responsibilities. The Administrator of the FAA will perform his or her responsibility under Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.) subtitle VII, and enforce the statute and the 14 CFR in a manner that will reduce or eliminate the possibility of, or recurrence of, aircraft accidents. The FAA enforcement procedures are set forth in 14 CFR part 13 and FAA enforcement handbooks.
* Enforcement Action. When determining the type and extent of the enforcement action to take in a particular case, the FAA will consider the following factors:
o Nature of the violation;
o Whether the violation was inadvertent or deliberate;
o The certificate holder's level of experience and responsibility;
o Attitude of the violator;
o The hazard to safety of others which should have been foreseen;
o Action taken by employer or other government authority;
o Length of time which has elapsed since violation;
o The certificate holder’s use of the certificate;
o The need for special deterrent action in a particular regulatory area or segment of the aviation community; and
o Presence of any factors involving national interest, such as the use of aircraft for criminal purposes.
* Enforcement Restrictions. The FAA considers the filing of a report with NASA concerning an incident or occurrence involving a violation of 49 U.S.C. subtitle VII or the 14 CFR to be indicative of a constructive attitude. Such an attitude will tend to prevent future violations. Accordingly, although a finding of violation may be made, neither a civil penalty nor certificate suspension will be imposed if:
o The violation was inadvertent and not deliberate;
o The violation did not involve a criminal offense, accident, or action under 49 U.S.C. § 44709, which discloses a lack of qualification or competency, which is wholly excluded from this policy;
o The person has not been found in any prior FAA enforcement action to have committed a violation of 49 U.S.C. subtitle VII, or any regulation promulgated there for a period of 5 years prior to the date of occurrence; and
o The person proves that, within 10 days after the violation, or date when the person became aware or should have been aware of the violation, he or she completed and delivered or mailed a written report of the incident or occurrence to NASA.
NOTE: Paragraph 9 does not apply to air traffic controllers, who are covered under the provisions of the Air Traffic Safety Action Program (ATSAP), as described in the ATSAP Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
he was right to say that at 800' he was well away from commercial air transport -
That comment is not correct! How do you know that without seeing the radar traces of his movements.
800 feet across the approach or departures tracks?? Remember this guy had no clue where he was butsing not only Stansteds airspace but Luton as well.
So his aviate navigate communicate statement was meaningless as he did none of those things.
Any of us as pilots can and do make mistakes the sign of a good pilot is one who identifies that mistake and rectifies it quickly.
The Bad pilot will make a mistake not even notice the mistake and then in his confusion make subsequent mistakes.
This pilot was a bad pilot.
The most telling point was the fact that he actually tried to defend himself and his actions in court rather than eating humble pie and trying to learn something.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 20th Apr 2013 at 10:11.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: lONDON
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I totally agree with the comments above - well said Pace.
Traffic inbound to Stansted or Luton and within the CTR is not in level flight and descending on the ILS. The fact that he was flying at 800' and was at the position he was against the Ryanair aircraft is fortuitous and nothing more. Knowing he was lost, could see Stansted Airport but still choose not to call ATC is irresponsible in the extreme.
Traffic inbound to Stansted or Luton and within the CTR is not in level flight and descending on the ILS. The fact that he was flying at 800' and was at the position he was against the Ryanair aircraft is fortuitous and nothing more. Knowing he was lost, could see Stansted Airport but still choose not to call ATC is irresponsible in the extreme.
Last edited by Zorax; 20th Apr 2013 at 10:25.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Englishal, nobody knew how high he was (and judging by the rest of his actions, I doubt the pilot himself knew!), and as Pace says, we don't know where he was in relation to the approach or take off path. A rogue aircraft on the approach path at 800ft a mile from the threshold is going to cause a lot of disruption.
Stansted has many more passengers than Burbank or John Wayne, and I said earlier, comparable with Tampa or San Diego. Stansted also has more passengers than Kansas City, Cleveland and Pittsburgh (all Class B). US Class B is based on passenger numbers and IFR movements (it appears that VFR traffic is not a criteria), and so I am confident in saying that Stansted would be Class B in the US.
You're confusing the issue of flying through airspace without either clearance, radio contact OR transponder with what this guy did. Sure you can fly into somewhere like Hawthorn without one or two of those, but try doing it without all three. Hawthorn is Class D and towered. Fly overhead their airfield heading towards LAX without radio and transponder (and so nobody knows what height you are or where you are planning to go), and see what would happen. Do you think that aircraft on approach at LAX will continue their approach?
Stansted has many more passengers than Burbank or John Wayne, and I said earlier, comparable with Tampa or San Diego. Stansted also has more passengers than Kansas City, Cleveland and Pittsburgh (all Class B). US Class B is based on passenger numbers and IFR movements (it appears that VFR traffic is not a criteria), and so I am confident in saying that Stansted would be Class B in the US.
You're confusing the issue of flying through airspace without either clearance, radio contact OR transponder with what this guy did. Sure you can fly into somewhere like Hawthorn without one or two of those, but try doing it without all three. Hawthorn is Class D and towered. Fly overhead their airfield heading towards LAX without radio and transponder (and so nobody knows what height you are or where you are planning to go), and see what would happen. Do you think that aircraft on approach at LAX will continue their approach?
Last edited by wb9999; 20th Apr 2013 at 11:10.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That comment is not correct! How do you know that without seeing the radar traces of his movements.
Obviously not across the approach path unless reasonably far out.I agree this chap was a cock and an idiot, which is why he should be forced to have remedial training and new flight test IMHO. Hawthorn is class D - albeit US class D which is handled differently and more like an ATZ in the UK but you are right you would need a radio as a minimum.
PS one of my buddies did circuits at Lindbergh Field when we were fresh PPLs
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPrune is a rumour network and so never lets the facts get in the way of a good rant. I assume the posters here all know the full facts and so their measured criticisms take full account of all of the evidence. However, in case one or two people here were not in court or privy to the statements and exhibits I want to make a few comments.
This pilot made mistakes but hindsight is a wonderful thing and the pilot himself would, I suspect, be the first to acknowledge that given the same situation again he would have done things differently.
This was a case in which there was never an actual identified collision risk. Had there been, the pilot would most likely have been charged with negligent or reckless endangerment. As far as the infringements were concerned, they were at the western edge of the Stansted zone and the eastern edge of the Luton Zone. In terms of physical penetration of the airspace they were relatively minor, I have certainly seen far worse. Neither involved the approach paths – and yes I have seen the radar traces.
The suggestion that the lack of a collision came about because of luck was contained in a statement from a NATS witness who set out the different layers of theoretical protection and was commenting from an air traffic control perspective. The major issue, as some have rightly identified, was that although ATC had the aircraft on radar throughout, they had no height information and therefore had to assume that he could potentially be at any height and thus provide a conflict that would not be as easy to resolve as it would have been had they known his height. Further, the lack of a transponder would render TCAS useless, although as ATC had him on radar there was no aircraft relying solely or even partly upon TCAS to hopefully avoid him. Silvaire1 has it spot on.
This pilot made a navigational error (who hasn’t at some point). He realised his mistake when he saw Stansted and turned away to get himself well clear. In doing so he went slightly too far and entered the Luton zone but again corrected and turned away. His major mistake was in not contacting Stansted on the radio, but as I say hindsight is a wonderful thing.
As far as the licence was concerned the lack of validity was a failure to renew rather than lack of currency, medical or qualification. He isn’t the first pilot to make this mistake and he won’t be the last whilst there are still so many variations in licences around. There is a similar situation with photocard driving licences; which many people do not realise only last 10 years. I was in a case recently where, during a discussion about whether a driving licence was genuine or not, an eminent Q.C and judge got his own licence out to compare it only to realise (when it was pointed out they expire) that his had expired two years earlier. You will note that the Magistrates imposed no penalty for this offence.
Please understand I am not trying to defend the pilot, merely inject some clarity into the arguments. As a lawyer who served more years than most of my clients I have found that it is generally useful to hear all of the evidence and establish the facts before deciding upon guilt and more importantly, the sentence.
As to some specifics:
As to inability to acknowledge wrong doing – I am not sure where that comes from. He pleaded guilty which is a pretty good clue that he was acknowledging that what he did was wrong. He gave his explanation to the court, it’s called mitigation and he is entitled to do so. The newspaper report makes a few selective quotes but does not provide a complete transcript nor necessarily put it in context. Do you suggest that a defendant should go before the court and say “please give me the maximum sentence in order to show my contrition”? If you get caught speeding will you decline the offer of a £60 fixed penalty in the hope that you will be fined thousands to show how sorry you are? Of course not.
Dealing with another aircraft popping out of clouds in front of him at 250 knots, what clouds. This was a VFR Cub at 800’ in VMC. Can you enlighten us as to the weather that day and, having regard to his position, why an aircraft travelling at 250 kt would pop out of cloud in front of him? What he did was to point out to the court that he was in VMC and flying accordingly.
How do you know there was no remorse? How do you know he has never tried to apologise?
Well that seems like a good argument to ban all VFR flying. I fly a 65 hp Cub and whether it’s at 250 or 100 kts any aircraft in my six is going to be going faster than me so as I’ll never see them and I will never be able to avoid them, unless of course they see me.
You cite the PSA 182 accident. This occurred in 1978. The FAA launched the TCAS programme in 1981 in part as a result in part of that accident. Those filter mechanisms were not in place to prevent that accident.
How do you know what he did? He never denied the incident and would have happily undertaken further training and/or a ride with an examiner. He never got the chance. He was happy to discuss the matter with the CAA but other than asking for his paperwork they never interviewed him but, without warning or further discussion prosecuted. Sadly (or luckily for me at times) this seems to be happening more and more now. There was a time when the CAA often dealt with offences (particularly airspace infringements) with a conditional caution, i.e. that they would not prosecute if the pilot concerned undertook a similar flight with a CAA examiner to prove his competence. This seems to happen less now. I do not make this point as a criticism but point it out as a fact. In this case the pilot was never given that option.
Do you know the pilot then? You speak from a position of personal knowledge and authority that he will continue to be a loose cannon, that he has learnt nothing from this or the large amount of money it ended up costing him?
No they don’t. The Air Navigation Order obliges the CAA to be satisfied that UK-licensed pilots are and remain competent, qualified and fit persons to exercise the privileges of their licences. If the CAA becomes aware of information from any source of a nature that leads it to conclude that it can no longer be satisfied with respect to competence, qualification or fitness, then the CAA may vary, suspend or revoke the particular licence.
Where the CAA has cause to doubt the competence, qualification or fitness of a person to continue to exercise the privileges of a licence the most likely action is provisional or substantive suspension of the privileges (not revocation) until the CAA can again be satisfied in these respects. Where a licence is revoked on grounds of not being a fit person, this will most commonly take place because the licence holder has demonstrated a propensity not to comply with rules and regulations through committing a series of acts over a period, which may or may not involve actual or alleged criminal acts.
The courts have no power to suspend or revoke a licence but the CAA does.
Pace, I know a number of these comments are yours. Please don’t take it personally as I very often agree with the sentiments expressed in your posts. However, on this occasion I'm not convinced that you commentbeing in possession of all of the facts.
As I said earlier, I'm not trying to defend anyone, merely trying to inject a bit of factual clarity into the arguments.
This pilot made mistakes but hindsight is a wonderful thing and the pilot himself would, I suspect, be the first to acknowledge that given the same situation again he would have done things differently.
This was a case in which there was never an actual identified collision risk. Had there been, the pilot would most likely have been charged with negligent or reckless endangerment. As far as the infringements were concerned, they were at the western edge of the Stansted zone and the eastern edge of the Luton Zone. In terms of physical penetration of the airspace they were relatively minor, I have certainly seen far worse. Neither involved the approach paths – and yes I have seen the radar traces.
The suggestion that the lack of a collision came about because of luck was contained in a statement from a NATS witness who set out the different layers of theoretical protection and was commenting from an air traffic control perspective. The major issue, as some have rightly identified, was that although ATC had the aircraft on radar throughout, they had no height information and therefore had to assume that he could potentially be at any height and thus provide a conflict that would not be as easy to resolve as it would have been had they known his height. Further, the lack of a transponder would render TCAS useless, although as ATC had him on radar there was no aircraft relying solely or even partly upon TCAS to hopefully avoid him. Silvaire1 has it spot on.
This pilot made a navigational error (who hasn’t at some point). He realised his mistake when he saw Stansted and turned away to get himself well clear. In doing so he went slightly too far and entered the Luton zone but again corrected and turned away. His major mistake was in not contacting Stansted on the radio, but as I say hindsight is a wonderful thing.
As far as the licence was concerned the lack of validity was a failure to renew rather than lack of currency, medical or qualification. He isn’t the first pilot to make this mistake and he won’t be the last whilst there are still so many variations in licences around. There is a similar situation with photocard driving licences; which many people do not realise only last 10 years. I was in a case recently where, during a discussion about whether a driving licence was genuine or not, an eminent Q.C and judge got his own licence out to compare it only to realise (when it was pointed out they expire) that his had expired two years earlier. You will note that the Magistrates imposed no penalty for this offence.
Please understand I am not trying to defend the pilot, merely inject some clarity into the arguments. As a lawyer who served more years than most of my clients I have found that it is generally useful to hear all of the evidence and establish the facts before deciding upon guilt and more importantly, the sentence.
As to some specifics:
“Most disturbing is his inability to acknowledge any wrong doing and making it out to be a fuss about nothing.
He almost claims that his superior skills would have avoided any collision risk with another aircraft maybe travelling at 250 kts maybe popping out of the clouds in front of him?”
He almost claims that his superior skills would have avoided any collision risk with another aircraft maybe travelling at 250 kts maybe popping out of the clouds in front of him?”
“The most telling point was the fact that he actually tried to defend himself and his actions in court rather than eating humble pie and trying to learn something.”
Dealing with another aircraft popping out of clouds in front of him at 250 knots, what clouds. This was a VFR Cub at 800’ in VMC. Can you enlighten us as to the weather that day and, having regard to his position, why an aircraft travelling at 250 kt would pop out of cloud in front of him? What he did was to point out to the court that he was in VMC and flying accordingly.
“The problem here is not so much the violation itself but the lack of remorse or acceptance that this pilot had shown a complete lack of airmanship and very poor decision making.”
“How well does he see and avoid other traffic coming at 250kts from his six o'clock?”
“Of course no risk of collision because of the filter mechanisms in place”
“Had he put his hand up and stated that he had messed up and wanted training so that he did not cause such a problem in future I for one would have a lot more sympathy.”
“As it stands I wish they had removed his licence for a year because he is the type who will continue to be a loose canon creating problems for the rest of us in the future.”
“Fortunately the CAA lack the legal authority to suspend licences.”
Where the CAA has cause to doubt the competence, qualification or fitness of a person to continue to exercise the privileges of a licence the most likely action is provisional or substantive suspension of the privileges (not revocation) until the CAA can again be satisfied in these respects. Where a licence is revoked on grounds of not being a fit person, this will most commonly take place because the licence holder has demonstrated a propensity not to comply with rules and regulations through committing a series of acts over a period, which may or may not involve actual or alleged criminal acts.
The courts have no power to suspend or revoke a licence but the CAA does.
Pace, I know a number of these comments are yours. Please don’t take it personally as I very often agree with the sentiments expressed in your posts. However, on this occasion I'm not convinced that you commentbeing in possession of all of the facts.
As I said earlier, I'm not trying to defend anyone, merely trying to inject a bit of factual clarity into the arguments.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting contribution, Legalapproach. To address one of your comments, which I touched on earlier:
The risk is that he could be hit by a 737 coming from his 6 o'clock doing 250kts (probably with a good 150-200kts of overtake on the Cub). He has no prospect of 'see and avoid' even on a CAVOK day. The jet that's eating him up from behind may be descending, and the cub may be below the nose and therefore outside the field of view of the airliner. See and avoid is unlikely to work and this is exactly what happened in the PSA crash, now referenced on this thread three times. Exacerbating this are the facts that TCAS will not work with a non-transponding target, and primary radar returns from a cub are probably quite unreliable, especially in lowish level clutter. When I'm not flying Boeings at Stansted, I fly a similar light aircraft for fun and it is actually quite stealthy.
The pilot concerned, screwed up, not maliciously but he still screwed up. There are of course multiple layers of protection to avoid midairs, but through this chaps negligence, not just one but several layers were invalidated. The risk, cost and disruption are significant and that is why it is entirely appropriate that he should be held to account.
Obviously the risk of collision is higher flying VFR in uncontrolled airspace and there are limitations to 'see and avoid'. All parties operating VFR in uncontrolled airspace know and accept the lower level of protection. Also probably 90% of traffic outside controlled airspace is doing not more than 120kts. There is no reason to infer that VFR flying should be banned. Stansted controlled airspace however is not a place to fly VFR and not a place where a lower level of protection is acceptable.
Dealing with another aircraft popping out of clouds in front of him at 250 knots, what clouds. This was a VFR Cub at 800’ in VMC. Can you enlighten us as to the weather that day and, having regard to his position, why an aircraft travelling at 250 kt would pop out of cloud in front of him? What he did was to point out to the court that he was in VMC and flying accordingly.
The pilot concerned, screwed up, not maliciously but he still screwed up. There are of course multiple layers of protection to avoid midairs, but through this chaps negligence, not just one but several layers were invalidated. The risk, cost and disruption are significant and that is why it is entirely appropriate that he should be held to account.
Obviously the risk of collision is higher flying VFR in uncontrolled airspace and there are limitations to 'see and avoid'. All parties operating VFR in uncontrolled airspace know and accept the lower level of protection. Also probably 90% of traffic outside controlled airspace is doing not more than 120kts. There is no reason to infer that VFR flying should be banned. Stansted controlled airspace however is not a place to fly VFR and not a place where a lower level of protection is acceptable.
Last edited by Torque Tonight; 20th Apr 2013 at 13:18.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: lONDON
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Legalapproach
Are you sure about this? If the pilot was routeing from
I suspect it was the eastern edge of the Stansted zone.
I'd also be interested to know how/why you had access to the radar traces. Are you able to share?
As far as the infringements were concerned, they were at the western edge of the Stansted zone and the eastern edge of the Luton Zone. In terms of physical penetration of the airspace they were relatively minor, I have certainly seen far worse. Neither involved the approach paths – and yes I have seen the radar traces.
en route to Cuckoo Tye in Suffolk to Tisted in Hampshire
I'd also be interested to know how/why you had access to the radar traces. Are you able to share?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Torque Tonight
Yes, I'm well aware of the theoretical risk and I fully understand the point but the pilot was addressing the facts of his own particular case where ATC had him on radar, where there was no conflicting traffic and where he was away from any obvious flight paths. In his mitigation he was pointing out to the Magistrates that he was in VMC with good flight visibility which would reduce the risk compared with the situation in IMC i.e. it would give both him and any other aircraft the opportunity to see each other. This was coupled with the fact that his height would put him well below any commercial traffic. Because of the way the NATS statement was drafted, the magistrates (who might know nothing about flying) might be left with the erroneous impression that without SSR and/or TCAS there would be nothing available to any pilot that might prevent a collision.
If there was a 737 descending through 800' at any of the Cub's positions somebody else would already be having a seriously bad day.
Yes, I'm well aware of the theoretical risk and I fully understand the point but the pilot was addressing the facts of his own particular case where ATC had him on radar, where there was no conflicting traffic and where he was away from any obvious flight paths. In his mitigation he was pointing out to the Magistrates that he was in VMC with good flight visibility which would reduce the risk compared with the situation in IMC i.e. it would give both him and any other aircraft the opportunity to see each other. This was coupled with the fact that his height would put him well below any commercial traffic. Because of the way the NATS statement was drafted, the magistrates (who might know nothing about flying) might be left with the erroneous impression that without SSR and/or TCAS there would be nothing available to any pilot that might prevent a collision.
If there was a 737 descending through 800' at any of the Cub's positions somebody else would already be having a seriously bad day.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zorax
Yes I am sure. The aircraft entered the Stansted Zone from the North East roughly on the centre line but tracking west, it then then tracked down the western edge before turning away towards the Luton Zone where it entered into the eastern corner closest to Stansted, came out turned back into the zone momentarily before turning away again. The Luton infringement was very minor. This is in the public domain because it was produced in court in evidence.
Suffice it to say that I have seen the radar traces and other evidence in this case.
And, for the avoidance of doubt it was a Super Cub and not my L4, if that's what you're thinking
Yes I am sure. The aircraft entered the Stansted Zone from the North East roughly on the centre line but tracking west, it then then tracked down the western edge before turning away towards the Luton Zone where it entered into the eastern corner closest to Stansted, came out turned back into the zone momentarily before turning away again. The Luton infringement was very minor. This is in the public domain because it was produced in court in evidence.
Suffice it to say that I have seen the radar traces and other evidence in this case.
And, for the avoidance of doubt it was a Super Cub and not my L4, if that's what you're thinking
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: lONDON
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Legal approach
Not wishing to split hairs but your posts are at odds with each other:
Didn't involve the approach paths but roughly on the centreline? That takes some doing!
Not wishing to split hairs but your posts are at odds with each other:
Neither involved the approach paths – and yes I have seen the radar traces.
roughly on the centre line
Didn't involve the approach paths but roughly on the centreline? That takes some doing!
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All this mitigation reinforces my opinion that he has very little understanding of how his actions affect everyone around him and how the systems work at major airports.
He could not have known at the time whether or not ATC had him on radar. What obvious flight paths? Jets are often vectored and therefore do not follow any published routes. I'm sure he wouldn't be familiar with the published SIDs and STARs anyway, and as he was lost that would be no help. The 'see and avoid' mitigation is not valid, as discussed. Not talking to ATC, no knowledge of his height, no knowledge of his intentions, all airliners pass through 800ft twice per flight anyway, etc, etc, etc.
In defence and mitigation the pilot seems to assert that he had it all under control when clearly he did not. His understanding is weak and his decisions were bad. His impression that everything was rosy is simply a result of everyone around him picking up the pieces. Blissful ignorance - not acceptable in 'serious' environment such as STN.
He could not have known at the time whether or not ATC had him on radar. What obvious flight paths? Jets are often vectored and therefore do not follow any published routes. I'm sure he wouldn't be familiar with the published SIDs and STARs anyway, and as he was lost that would be no help. The 'see and avoid' mitigation is not valid, as discussed. Not talking to ATC, no knowledge of his height, no knowledge of his intentions, all airliners pass through 800ft twice per flight anyway, etc, etc, etc.
In defence and mitigation the pilot seems to assert that he had it all under control when clearly he did not. His understanding is weak and his decisions were bad. His impression that everything was rosy is simply a result of everyone around him picking up the pieces. Blissful ignorance - not acceptable in 'serious' environment such as STN.
Stansted controlled airspace however is not a place to fly VFR and not a place where a lower level of protection is acceptable.
Legalapproach - very nice write up, a pleasure to read.
Last edited by Silvaire1; 20th Apr 2013 at 13:59.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: BFS
Posts: 1,177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silvaire
With idiots like this about, with a clear lack of SA, navigational skills and ability to accept blame perhaps you're right.
However most of the time Vfr traffic entering class D does so legally.
With idiots like this about, with a clear lack of SA, navigational skills and ability to accept blame perhaps you're right.
However most of the time Vfr traffic entering class D does so legally.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zorax
they are not at odds - "roughly". Lack of precision on my part. To be strictly accurate it was in fact to the west of the centre line by about half a mile and 8 miles out and tracking west ie away from the centre line.
Torque tonight
I made the point in my post that the newspaper report contains only a limited part of the mitigation. Were does he assert he had it all under control and everything was rosy? As an example of the accuracy of the reporting the Newspaper report states he was over the airports when the closest he got was just over 4 1/2 nm miles as he tracked down inside the western edge of Stansted.
Really? I never realised. You will note that the point I made was that no airliner would be at 800' in any of the positions the Cub was in. Would you expect an airliner to be climbing or descending through 800' at 10nm from the runway (hardly a stabilised approach) or at 6nm 45 degrees from the centre line or at 4.5 nm parallel to the runway?
As for obvious flight paths the likelihood of finding an airliner at 800' in the TMZ between the Luton and Stansted zones or on the edge of either control zone is?? You say you fly from Stansted, have you ever been at 800' in any of these locations in a Boeing? And I suspect you know better than I do the usual routings into and out of Stansted.
The pilot made serious mistakes and has been punished for them. The point is not that he was aware of everything going on around him and had calculated accordingly but, as was recognised I believe in the investigation into the incursion, that he did not create a real or significant risk of collision but did create disruption.
they are not at odds - "roughly". Lack of precision on my part. To be strictly accurate it was in fact to the west of the centre line by about half a mile and 8 miles out and tracking west ie away from the centre line.
Torque tonight
I made the point in my post that the newspaper report contains only a limited part of the mitigation. Were does he assert he had it all under control and everything was rosy? As an example of the accuracy of the reporting the Newspaper report states he was over the airports when the closest he got was just over 4 1/2 nm miles as he tracked down inside the western edge of Stansted.
All airliners pass through 800' twice per flight anyway
As for obvious flight paths the likelihood of finding an airliner at 800' in the TMZ between the Luton and Stansted zones or on the edge of either control zone is?? You say you fly from Stansted, have you ever been at 800' in any of these locations in a Boeing? And I suspect you know better than I do the usual routings into and out of Stansted.
The pilot made serious mistakes and has been punished for them. The point is not that he was aware of everything going on around him and had calculated accordingly but, as was recognised I believe in the investigation into the incursion, that he did not create a real or significant risk of collision but did create disruption.
Last edited by Legalapproach; 20th Apr 2013 at 15:10.