Worrying trend by CAA on Infringements

[Brian Hope]

Following on from the DfT's recent announcement that it is seeking for fines for pilots guilty of breaches of the Standardised European Rules of the Air would become limitless, today the CAA have announced a new policy on Licence suspension whilst alleged infringements are under investigation.
You can't help feeling that it has been decided that a move away from education and a Just Culture approach is in order and a good beating with a big stick is a better approach.
There are those amongst us who believe the increase in infringements has more to do with changes in the way they are reported - and the types of events that are now reported. It is better surely to work together to find out why infringements occur and how we can improve flight training and on-going education to eradicate the issue. I cannot but feel this new approach will serve only to alienate the Authority and broaden the already sadly wide cooperation gap between commercial and GA flying.
In its already parlous state, GA needs this like a hole in the head.
The CAA announcement:

LICENCES TO BE PROVISIONALLY SUSPENDED FOR INFRINGING PILOTS
CAA publishes details of new process

Pilots who infringe controlled airspace could have their licences provisionally suspended while the incident is assessed, the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has announced today. The decision is the latest attempt to try and reduce the number of infringements occurring in UK airspace - which remain worryingly high despite previous attempts by the CAA, air traffic service providers and General Aviation (GA) representative bodies to tackle this serious safety issue. In 2015 there were over 1000 infringements reported to the CAA.

Under a new process, a pilot who is identified as having infringed controlled airspace, a Danger Area or Restricted Area, could have their licence or licences provisionally suspended, while the details of the incident are investigated and follow-up action considered. The CAA is committed to delivering a speedy resolution to any investigation and will only impose a suspension for as long as necessary.

Details of new infringement events received by the CAA are assessed on a weekly basis by a team of experts made up of in-house pilots, investigators and air traffic controllers. If an incident is deemed to reach a certain level of seriousness then the licence of the pilot involved will be provisionally suspended until further notice (the criteria used to determine the level of seriousness of a particular infringement has also now been published http://www.caa.co.uk/cap1404). Depending on the outcome of the subsequent follow-up action, a decision will be made about lifting the provisional suspension.

The CAA has always acknowledged that the majority of infringement events are unintentional but some do have a significant impact on the operations inside Controlled Airspace. All events, however, carry some risk. Some events clearly show inadequate pre-flight planning, poor airmanship, or insufficient pilot knowledge. In a few cases, a deliberate intention to fly into Controlled Airspace has been found and there have been instances of multiple infringements by the same pilot. It is likely that in these circumstances pilots will have their licences suspended.

Following a recent serious incident at the beginning of the flying season, when a Red Arrows display was severely disrupted because of an infringement, the CAA has provisionally suspended the licence of the GA pilot involved.

Despite today’s announcement the CAA will continue to focus on tackling infringements through education and training and opt for provisional suspension or legal enforcement in more serious cases. The CAA is fully engaged in the Airspace and Safety Initiative campaign with GA representatives, air traffic control providers and others to promote awareness of the risks of infringement.

The CAA’s Rob Gratton, Chairman of the joint Airspace Infringement Working Group, said:
“The number of infringement incidents in the UK has not seen any serious decline in recent years, despite the strenuous efforts of the CAA, GA representatives and many others. Therefore, we really do feel that this measure has become necessary. We hope that this decision will bring home to those pilots who do infringe the gravity of the situation. Any infringement has the potential to be a very serious safety incident. We need to see the numbers decline urgently.

”We will be working with the GA community and in particular, the Future Airspace Strategy VFR Implementation Group over the coming months and developing our education work. We are hopeful that this continued engagement activity will lead to a reduction in these incidents and enhance aviation safety.”

[John Dean]

Whatever happened to being innocent until proved guilty. Surely it cannot be right that your licence is suspended before any investigation takes place. What if you were subsequently found to be innocent - how would the CAA compensate you for the unreasonable suspension of your licence?

If I commit a serious road traffic offence, my driving licence does not get taken away before I have been before a court and found guilty.

[Seanjd]

A shame that this action has been deemed necessary, but having read CAP1404, the process carried out prior to the decision to suspend a pilots licence, appears to me, to be constructive and fair.

[P5151]

Brian

I am in two minds about this, generally I prefer the advise and improve approach, but I was at the display when the Reds had to stop their display and everyone there saw the aircraft fly across the Reds flight path.

This person had clearly not read the notams and I believe needed to have his/her knuckles rapped. With the fantastic soft wear we have available these days, Skydemon and the like there really no excuse for this.

[Brian Hope]

Hi Steve, I agree that we have better systems these days and there is no excuse for not checking Notam. However, CAA is talking about over 1000 infringements and I'm not convinced that we really understand why so many busts are happening. Failure to check Notam is not causing anything like 1000+ infringements, my guess is that that is quite a small number of busts, albeit that they have the potential to be high profile events such as a Red Arrows display.
There would seem to be a training issue here, a lack of understanding of route planning and/or route following so we should be trying to discover where the weaknesses are and remedying the problem(s).
Who are the people getting into problems? What aircraft do they fly? Are they owners of hirers, low time or high time, regular flyers of just doing the minimum, fly on their own or with another pilot, use GPS or rely on map reading. No doubt there is a mix but there will almost certainly be recognisable trends. I haven't a clue what they are, have you? Has the CAA?
I don't see the logic to the Dft's or CAA's approach. GA has taken an active lead in affordable conspicuity devices (PilotAware) and navigation software (SkyDemon etc), it has shown itself to be actively trying to resolve the infringement issue. It's time DfT and CAA funded a study to discover why the infringement problem is happening so we can all better understand it and adopt worthwhile remedies.

[mikehallam]

Brian, et al,

Looks more like the Dft/CAA are going to be using the miscreants' money to pay for the investigation, and not taxpayers money, or diluting other funds !

More to the point, are so far those they've jumped on been BMAA or LAA etc. members ? - who one hopes are diligent enough to check notaminfo.com and/or other simple on-line devices (all free).

If they really are outside our groups, perhaps even semi-commercial mavericks in their hundreds - well that's surely their look out. It's hardly worth the LAA getting their knickers in a twist over defending them or even worrying how to educate them - provided we do look after our own.

mike hallam.

[Chris Martyr]

Superficially, at first glance it does appear as a bit draconian, but as Sean says, reading through CAP-1404 , I gained the impression that it is a certain sort of infringer they are trying to nail and it does almost seem like they are trying to fit a profile to and identify any "regular customers".
They certainly don't appear to me as being super-keen to pull peoples licences, but I have a feeling that they're looking for the guys who are good at making all the holes in the Swiss cheese line up at the same time.
I can sort of see where Mike is coming from when he asks if this is necessarily a BMAA/LAA type of problem. Of course, we would all like to think that it's not , but I think that these days, aircraft from both camps embrace a pretty wide spectrum , so it isn't just the traditional old school types using chart, compass and pencil who are up there flying in PtF type aeroplanes , there are at least twice as many more PtF types with fully loaded cockpits full of aero-bling larruping along on auto-pilot. So if there is a common profile of the average infringer, it would be interesting to see .
I still can't help wondering though, if all the modern day equipment that is so taken for granted by many is actually helping to exacerbate CAS infringements, as it certainly hasn't decreased them .
Recent postings elsewhere have titles such as 'Do I need a paper chart if I've got SkyDemon' . Another comment on a separate post was "If I'm looking out of the window, how do I know where the controlled airspace is" . So , you can see why guys like Irv Lee are kept so busy these days.
Theoretically , with all the technology available there shouldn't be any airspace busts at all, look at the accuracy of these darn things, but I have a feeling that to some , the thrill of getting right up to that big old invisible curtain has what Alan Bramson called a "moth to a candle" type of allure , and may just be a causal factor.
I seem to remember chuckling when NatsAware first emerged and John Brady's column led in with the headline "Let's make 2010 the year of the navigator". The reason I was chuckling was because it was a few pages on from an article about veteran LAA'er Don Lord, who has never had a GPS in his life.
He probably would have agreed that every year is the year of the navigator !

[Cookie]

More to the point, are so far those they've jumped on been BMAA or LAA etc. members ? - who one hopes are diligent enough to check notaminfo.com and/or other simple on-line devices (all free).

We have provided support, guidance, and training, to a number of LAA members over recent years who have found themselves the focus of the CAA's attention either through airspace infringement or other transgressions. Needless to say, where it is in the best interests of the member, I favour and pursue a solution via PCS provided education and training.

Cookie

[John Price]

Hi Brian,

Do we know weather these figures, 1000+, are for aircraft that infringe CAS without a clearance ie climbing into CAS/entering a CTR/CTA etc.

Or are they for not complying with an issued clearance ie climbing through Fl80 when cleared to Fl70/cleared into the zone not above 2000' and entering at 2300'.

It would be interesting to know if they are all bundled up together because there may be a multitude of factors involved.

John.

[Brian Hope]

To be honest John I do not know. The CAA and/or NATS must have details of each infringement. When the June mag has gone to press I' ll try to find out if the detail is available.

[Chris Martyr]

Hi John,
I guess it would be something of a relief for recreational flyers if the stats did include those that fly at FL.170 + , it would probably dilute the figures a bit. But there are two letters that keep on cropping up in the document attached to Brian's original posting : GA !
I think we all know who it is aimed at.. Us ! As far as the Fed's are concerned , we're all potential transgressors and it probably doesn't take much of a shortfall in planning to be bumbling along in open FIR and all of a sudden find that you've ended up either vertically or horizontally on the 'naughty step'. I'm sure that if you were to poll 10 different pilots about their preparations for flying an x/c sector, you would find 10 different answers. Not that any of them are wrong, but if I may revert to an expression used earlier , it's the ones who are always getting the holes in the Swiss cheese lined up that I believe they are attempting to expose.
I've known people who will jump into an aeroplane, fly from one airfield to another and just rely on their electronic aids to do it.
Part of the cockpit preparation for jet-jocks is to confirm all the waypoints in their nav database are correct, even if it is a route that they fly several times a week.
It is a little disturbing that there appears to be no let up in CAS infringements , despite the forward march in technology [ or maybe even because of it]
Whether you're a chart, plotter and chinagraph type , or a bells and whistles merchant , the old CAA adage about p*ss poor planning is as relevant now as it was for Alcock and Brown.
Do flying schools still teach students about grass roots type navigation techniques ? I actually don't know the answer to this one. I personally wouldn't want to see a GPS or a tablet device in sight in a flight school aircraft. At least , not until the candidate has gained the skills to navigate by conventional means.
But I have a feeling that one or two may not agree on that one.

[John Price]

I think that the problem is far to interdependent on multiple factors, and the aviation industry as a whole needs to take a Holistic approach to it all.

Airspace was designed for aircraft designed in the 40's and operating in the 50's.
That was 60 years ago!

Airlines want the highest efficiency possible thus their flight profiles reflect this, but in reality modern aircraft can climb like homesick angels and descend like dead ducks, but this mode of operation is poor.
Twin pilot fully equipped aircraft flying in CAS under IFR making mistakes.
I must of read hundreds of reports that 'GA executive aircraft was cleared to descend to FL150 aircraft seen descending through FL140 pilot advised. Pilot appologised'

The GA sector want as much open airspace as possible so we can enjoy a multiple of 'Air sports'.

The GA sub set ' Executive Aviation' want the best of both worlds.

The CAA, thus has come up with an airspace model, that frankly, isn't fit for purpose due to complexity.
A quick example here is take this weekend. There is the Duxford airshow, so its going to be very busy just North of Stansted. Allied to this there is the spot landing competition at North Weald, which is under the Stansted CTA and in a TMZ ( mode s only but there are ways round that). Both are located in the busy transit lanes around the CAA created bottlenecked SE of England. I would be amazed if this goes off without issue.

The basic training module for PPL and associated non professional licences etc. were designed in the 70's-80's ( although I freely acknowledge that they have changed a bit over the last couple of years).
The inability of recreational pilots to obtain simple easy to digest briefing material. ( I know that this has also changed with the introduction of IT systems such as Skydemon). But if you learned to fly 'back in the day' you may need to look at training on new electronic aids.

Learning to fly in an aircraft that cruises at 90-90kts (C150-C152). Then buying a share in a fully equipped RV that can cruise nearly twice as fast.
A quick side note here, was the NATS chap telling me that he dreaded spring when on the first good weather weekend, new Cirrus pilots would launch off into the sky and be about 5minutes behind the aircraft. Well at 180kts that's 15miles!

Possibly the worst, is the Pilot who just doesn't care or can be bothered.

The reluctance of the CAA to even look at GPS when the rest of the world was fitting it into anything.

NATS believing that it should control all airspace, and give everyone a bill, and then not understanding what small GA operations want or can afford.

The list can go on forever.

I think the phrase is 'buggers muddle' is a good one.

John.

[FlyOnTrack]

Quite a few issues above... I'll try and answer a few bit by bit, but I've got a few pressing things today so it might be done piecemeal...
if you do preflight planning, recognise distraction in the air, have such things as up to date chart, preferably have some sort of GPS device* that you know and understand, your 'freedoms' are not being threatened by a policy to temporarily suspend people whom if you knew what had been happening, you might actually agree you don't want have in the air at the same time as you. Your freedoms are threatened by a few pilots, perhaps at your airfield, perhaps people you know, perhaps even in your syndicate, who are posing a serious risk to me when I sit as an innocent passenger in the back of some commercial flight. Leaving aside thoughts for the bereaved families and friends involved, just have a look at what one participant in the sport of pistol shooting did for other pistol shooters in a few minutes at Dunblane, and think what you have to lose because of the guy in your syndicate who uses a transponder but can't even be bothered or was never taught to use ALT, and the FI/CRI who did the last biennial, or the syndicate check, but didn't bother to spot that and explain how this can be the GA equivalent of that meteorological flap of a butterfly's wings that sets off the tornado - it doesn't happen whenever a butterfly flaps a wing, but when the conditions are right, the end result is disastrous for others.
(*and let's drop the 'CAA don't want GPS' nonsense, GPS nav is part of the PPL syllabus, it's time you redirected the pointing finger at the schools who won't include it, prefering to rely on trusted techniques that seemed to work in the 1960s with insignificant airspace and pupils preselected for their thinking and mental arithmetic skills, flying every day)
Very quickly, it is REALLY useful to know the top reasons for infringements, as you can then recognise them happening to you, and break what in accident terms is often called the error chain. They are:
-Lack of (proper) Preflight planning. If you can't for some reason use http://www.ais.org.uk efficiently, why not use Skydemonlight either on a PC (http://www.skydemonlight.com) or as an app? It's free, it's easy to use.
-Misidentification of a land feature (see Radar replay number 10 on FlyOnTrack for a great demo of this)
-Mis-read the chart (often associated with lack of study in the preflight phase)
-Pilot workload (once you know this is a problem leading to infringements, it is possible to recognise it and do something about it)
-Pilot Complacency -"I've flown in this area many times, I was flying with a mate and just enjoying ourselves chatting, I never thought about the fact there was a strong Easterly wind for the first time in 6 weeks)
Now these were the main reasons, and you can read 34 incidents in condensed short form on http://flyontrack.co.uk/atc-pilot-reports/ and knowing about them, you might be able to avoid them yourself, but I've been looking at a sample of recent reports and an extra factor is very noticeable because it was not there before - and that is cockpit distraction by new equipment, or equipment new to the pilot. Basically something like a new transponder or new Comms fitted over winter, pilot has not experimented on the ground at all and has a preconceived idea of how the user interface works, and then decides to learn the hard way in the air that it doesn't work that way, and becomes completely distracted by it.
The airspace we have was designed early 1990s, not 60 years ago, and the complicated design and multiple steps is because the GA insistence was that it must be minimal area (or perhaps I mean volume). This pre-req leads to the complex steps we have today. Was anyone else at the early 1990s meeting in the Eastleigh social club when the new Solent airspace was presented - something like 9 different CTAs? I was the one who asked 'why so many, why so complex?', and if you were there, you would remember the despair on the presenter's face, and the answer along the lines "this is what YOUR GA representatives insist we have, it is so complex as they won't agree to anything that isn't the minimum area/volume. We could do away with some steps and complexity by simply a slightly wider/longer CTR that might not bother you to any extent, but your reps will not attend without a guarantee of minimum area".
Still feeling you might be suspended? Have a look at radar replay 8 on flyontrack - (forgive the error saying it is a CTR, it is clearly a CTA). The pilot is using all the safety nets he can, listening squawk, ALT, etc, and he climbs too early. Problem solved in what? Thirty seconds, no Luton departures stopped, and what's more - NO FOLLOW UP! All that happened was a counter of 'listening squawk saves the day again' went up by one.
If you want to see a close Dunblane moment for GA, try radar replay number 3 on flyontrack.co.uk and then consider it was one of six in two years. Pilot with an aircraft with 'ALT' but not using it because he never did - AND the instructor checking him out on the previous flight never noticed/commented/kicked him where it hurts, but nearly the end of your freedom and perhaps 100 lives, but instead, luckily, just a TMZ that seems to annoy people even though you can enter with radio contact and without a transponder.

[C Rule]

I have a worry about a system where the regulator acts as investigator, prosecutor, judge and jury.. Further more prior to a full investigation takes sanction against the accused.
What price natural justice and habeas corpus?

[Chris Martyr]

if you do preflight planning, recognise distraction in the air, have such things as up to date chart, preferably have some sort of GPS device* that you know and understand, your 'freedoms' are not being threatened by a policy to temporarily suspend people

Always interesting to see Irv's viewpoint when it comes to these issues. He is, after all in behold of a whole shed load of facts and statistics.
I don't think that anyone on here though is in 'GPS denial' as Irv hinted in his asterisked comment and I wouldn't mind betting that pretty much all of us use it to a certain degree, some possibly more reliant than others, but that's not the point is it ! Whether your methods are more traditional or latest 'state of the art' , it still comes back to the p*ss poor planning aspect.
The points that Irv brings up :

:
-Lack of (proper) Preflight planning. I
Misidentification of a land feature
-Pilot workload
-Pilot Complacency - ad .

All these points are as old as the hills aren't they ? So why are these old chestnuts becoming more and more frequent ? Have the latter generation of pilots been brought up believing that as long as they have their tablets up and running ,then filling out a good old fashioned nav-log is a total non-requirement.

I know that some will link this in with the modern day airspace politics , but I don't think that is really what is at the heart of this matter , it's really down to personal standards and hopefully , Mike Hallam is right in his assertion that it may not necessarily be the grass-roots aviators who will get caught up in the cross-hairs of this campaign.