How the CAA handled my 3 airspace infringements.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 авг 2024
- These are the letters I received from the CAA after I had responded to the 3 infringements:
INFRINGEMENT 1: August 2019 (not June 2017 as I say in the video)
Letter from CAA:
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) Pilot Licencing Department has been assigned Executor of a Mandatory Occurrence Report which alleges that the pilot in command (PIC) of C172, G-BJWI was involved in an infringement of the Solent CTA-5 (Class D) on 30 August 2019 at 1331 hours UTC.
The CAA investigates actual or alleged breaches of regulations and other occurrences that directly or indirectly impact on aviation safety and, will consider whether the person concerned is competent to hold the applicable licence, rating or certificate and to exercise the associated privileges.
The CAA Infringement Coordination Group urges pilots to maintain adequate separation from controlled airspace. For further information please see the attached file regarding ‘Take 2’.
The CAA Infringement coordination group noted that there may have been lapses in your pre-flight planning and would like to emphasise the importance of a focused and unrushed pre-flight planning. Please see the following link; airspacesafety...
Please take the time to look at the following link for top tips to avoid airspace infringements; airspacesafety...
The CAA now looks upon this matter as closed. However, a copy of this letter will be placed on your licensing record and may be referred to if any further reports are received in the future.
INFRINGEMENT 2: London TMA, June 2020
Letter from CAA (after my response and report was filed)
The Civil Aviation Authority Pilot Licencing Department has been assigned Executor of a Mandatory Occurrence Report which alleges that the pilot in command (PIC) of C182, N1320S was involved in an infringement of the London TMA (Class A) on 19 June 2020 at 14:55 hours UTC.
The CAA Infringement Coordination Group has reviewed both the MOR and your report and has agreed that remedial action is necessary.
In accordance with CAP1404[1], you are now required to complete the Airspace Infringement Awareness Course (AIAC) within 30 days of the date of this email.
The AIAC will be an interactive remotely facilitated course. These 2-person courses will be delivered by GASCo and you are requested to contact Penny Gould at GASCo on [tel number] for details of availability and to make your booking. Please can you notify the CAA via [email] of the date you will be undertaking the course.
If you fail to successfully complete or decline to participate in the AIAC, the CAA will review the matter further and decide whether further remedial measures or licencing action is appropriate. Licencing action can include provisional suspension, suspension, limitation or revocation of a pilot’s licence.
INFRINGEMENT 3: (with video footage here • My 3rd Airspace Infrin... )
Letter from CAA (abbreviated):
The safety department within the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has received a Mandatory Occurrence Report (MOR) of an airspace infringement relating to an event when you, as pilot-in-command (PIC) of a Cessna 182, registration N-1320S infringed the Class G Lee on Solent Aerodrome Traffic Zone (ATZ) on 17 August 2021 at 0850 hours UTC. The aircraft was observed flying west to east through the southern part of the ATZ indicating an altitude of 1,400 feet amsl, in breach of Rule 11 of ‘The Rules of the Air Regulations 2015’. Rule 11 details the requirements to entry into the ATZ during the notified hours of watch. In the case of Lee on Solent Rule 11(4) applies and, as commander of the aircraft, you were required to obtain information from ‘Lee Information’ flight information centre to enable the flight to be conducted safely within the ATZ. Aerodrome Traffic Zones (ATZ) are established to provide protection to aircraft at the critical stages of flight when departing, arriving and transiting overhead the aerodrome.
.......
Therefore taking the above into consideration, the ICG has agreed that, in accordance with CAP1404[1], remedial action is necessary in order that the CAA can assure your competency. You are required to complete the following training, at an Aviation Southwest at Exeter Airport, within 90 days of this letter. This training is to comprise:
Ground school/theoretical knowledge training focusing on:
Threat and Error Management;
Pre-flight planning;
Airborne decision making, including contingency planning;
Contingency planning; and
Integration of and effective/proportionate use of VFR Moving Maps.
A minimum of three (3) hours of VFR navigation flight training to include:
a minimum of two (2) hours of navigation using Dead Reckoning Technique; and
a minimum of at least one hour integrating the use of VFR Moving Maps.
Here's a link to the GasCo Airspace Infringement Awareness course document: drive.google.com/file/d/1LT8J0HjzZbM5GBbYZw0YGGrxhcf0lGZ1/view?usp=sharing
(In your video description:) ..."A minimum of three (3) hours of VFR navigation flight training to include:...a minimum of at least one hour integrating the use of VFR Moving Maps".
Why is this last requirement NOT mandatory in basic PPL training these days? (I know this question doesn't affect you), but CAA should mandate the use of moving maps into basic training syllabi, and get rid of whizz-wheels and other useless "old-school" techniques 👿 🤔
I think part of it is that the airspace is so complicated in the UK even as compared to neighboring countries such as France. I obtained my EASA license in Iceland and fly VFR regularly in the UK and I’m not sure what I would do without SkyDemon! As a rule of thumb I file IFR if I can, and if not then I always communicate as much as possible with ATC. Even then, after thousands of hours of flying all over the world I still struggle with the complicated nature of UK procedures. Thanks for the video, and good job at recognizing your weaknesses and working to remédiate them.
Thanks Sarah, that's a very helpful comment for my continued self improvement.
I think that these kinds of honest videos collectively help GA pilots, it’s easy for any of us to pass judgement but we’re all going to be guilty at some point of a lapse. I think you have a refreshing attitude of taking it on the chin and being keen to take actions to avoid further infringements.
Thanks Neil.
Thank you for your candid video. Air space infringements are not only an issue in the UK. As aviation regulator in the Netherlands we are trying to reduce infringements by improving awareness. Your confession shows, and please don’t take this as an insult, that the expectation of the level of knowledge and awareness that we expect from GA is possibly a bit too optimistic and there is work to be done. Our current approach to AI is to actively engage with the PiC to try to ascertain why the AI happened so that we both can learn from the situation. It is very time consuming but we think this is more effective than sending a reprimanding letter. This has led us to revise some of our complex airspace structure and introduce other measures such as the listening squawk. Needless to say if you are a repeat offender you will face consequences.
I completely agree with your assessment that the expectation level of knowledge among GA pilots, especially amateur hobbyists like me (as opposed to people working towards their ppl) is difficult to meet. I do try to stay current with all the regulations but it’s hard!
Revalidating after 10+ years, I’ve forgotten so much. Your video in some way spurs me on to focus on important aspects of airmanship.
Keep up the excellent videos.
Thanks Philip. The airspace awareness presentation in the description is well worth a read. In fact I’d have done well to revise it!
Always a positive thing to share our experiences, good and not so good. Honest feedback Charlie which I know you wanted to share to inform and remind others. Large viewing numbers highlight the interest in the topic. Well done for sharing, other pilots might have wanted to brush it all under the carpet!
Thank you Tim, I hope others feel the same!
Thanks Charlie - as ever your candour and balanced approach makes it really watchable and easy to understand. PPL renewal nearly sorted now and this pointed to so many useful issues - many thanks
Thanks Patrick. It’s great to know it’s helpful to some!
refreshing to see such honesty. Thnak you - Bit worrying the individual doing that last phase was, at best, badly briefed or badly prepared or both.
This is what I like about Your tubes. You reviel your misstakes witch is really helpful for the rest of us.
Good to know it's helpful, that's the hope!
Very open and honest video. I completed my first solo the other week at Gamston flying school and I’m now working on Navigation. Thanks for sharing 😀
Congratulations! It’s a great feeling isn’t it? Good luck with your navigation. I’m retraining for my navigation as part of my 3rd infringement response.
@@CharlieLamdin it was very surreal for sure. I love your videos btw. I was surprised to see you didn’t have more views/subscribers to be honest! Keep at it, your numbers will blow if you keep making the quality content like you have been.
Thanks! Don't worry, I'll be keeping at it. It's cathartic, enjoyable, great diary keeping and above all has been the sharpest improvement in my ongoing aviation skills of anything I've ever done!
That's quite a bubble that they create! Kudos for your candour.
Thanks. Love your RUclips name! Dead reckoning is something I now have to revise and redo as a result of the 3rd infringement!
@Charlie Lamdin thanks! I've just bought a share in a Grumman, so I'll be flying and uploading regularly again soon!
It’s an ICAO (EASA) requirement when applying reduced separation using radar in controlled airspace D and up. Standard separation is already 5nm or 1000’ between IFR controlled flights (sometimes 3nm in an approach environment) of which the intentions are known. For unknown climbing or decending traffic there is a standard 5000’ buffer. Since the intentions of the infringing traffic are unknown the max separation criteria apply. Hence the 5nm, 5000’ bubble.
Thanks for sharing. I think it is really good to talk about own mistakes, which helps other pilots.
The UK seems to be very hard against each tiny infringement, it is a continuous discussion on several forums. Your first CTA infringement for example wouldn't have led to any consequences over here in Germany, except for getting corrected over the radio by FIS or ATC. Other countries just require two-way radio contact with ATC in order to enter CAS. This all makes the chance of entering a "trap" somewhere even higher.
P.S. In most European mainland countries, an ATZ may only be entered upon arrival or departure of that particular aerodrome. Transits are normally not allowed. However, I highly doubt any CAA in let's say Czech Republic or Poland would persecute a pilot for an ATZ infringement in class G.
Thanks for your perspective that’s very interesting to hear.
Hopefully to help clear the ATZ situation up. An ATZ will have the same category of airspace that it sits within. So as an example for a large airport with Class D surrounding, the ATZ will be Class D so normal procedures apply to communicate with ATC. Some ATZs fall within Class G airspace. As with Lee on Solent. The requirement here in order not to infringe on its airspace is contained within the Air Navigation Order. It details that an aircraft must transit in safe manner. Thus meaning that two way radio communication is a mean of complying with the ANO to transit the ATZ as you receiving appropriate information from the airfield for the transit. If the ATZ does not respond on the radio, provided you make blind calls on the frequency and comply with circuit direction etc, this is another way of complying with the ANO. Hopefully that helps with the understanding.
Thanks Sean, that's helpful. It did boil down to a lack of airspace knowledge on my part.
That's a bit of an interpretation of Rule 11. It makes a lot of common sense. As a result of being common sense, I'm sure it is not the interpretation of the CAA.
I agree with Christophe Mutricy - "If the ATZ does not respond on the radio..." then unless the ATZ is notamed inactive, I would keep clear, not barge through making blind calls. Also the CAA (viz Barton) reckon you need more than a "standby" on the radio to call it "two way communication".
The trouble really is that if you have PPR, you already have permission, but the CAA view effectively means that an A/G operator has to give you permission, which he actually is not entitled to do - he can give advice only. Hopefullly commonsense will prevail one day...
Great informative video Charlie. Thanks.
Please can you send the link to the Airspace Infringement Course presentation Charlie? Thanks 👍
Here's a link to the GasCo presentation: drive.google.com/file/d/1LT8J0HjzZbM5GBbYZw0YGGrxhcf0lGZ1/view?usp=sharing
Since you were using skydemon did you have the notifications turned on on your headset?
Yes I did, but due to my mis-conception and incorrect assumption about ATZs, I didn't think flying through it was an infringement. I knew it was sub-optimal, but I checked for traffic both looking out and also on my conspicuity. I'm now firmly aware of Rule 11!
I suppose the atz situation is you are your own ATC. I wonder how an aircraft without radio could transit an atz, or simply could not.
My understanding on ATZ transit… anything over 3000ft is fine to transit but courteous to let them know. Under 3000ft needs conversation with tower or blind call. If you think about it 2000ft is standard join height (1000ft separation from circuit height) so 3000ft is 1000ft separation from join height. Don’t forget those heights are QFE too so if you’re on QNH you could be much lower than your altimeter suggests.
@@CaptainGarratt ATZ top boundary is 2000ft above aerodrome elevation. 1 foot above that and are technically fine to progress without contact. However, agree that if close (say 1000ft vertical on boundary) should contact them.
@@boboliver4941 ah cool. Good to know.
Charlie, I appreciate your candour, but why were you transiting overhead a very busy GA airfield at 1600 feet without even thinking of talking to the tower?
Regardless of whether you knew you were legally obligated to make contact, it is simply poor airmanship (and a failure of common sense) to sail through an ATZ well below OH join height and not tell anyone. Given you already had two airspace infringements under your belt I do have to question your thought process at the time.
Nevertheless, thanks for an informative and insightful video.
Hi F P T, it's a fair question, and I think there were a few separate factors that contributed to it. The 1,500ft ceiling conditions (worst than the 2,500ft forecast) and reduced visibility meant that my primary focus was the weather, and being on high readiness for a weather diversion. Lee-on-Solent was one of the airfields I was ready to divert in to, and I think that subconsciously led me closer to it. A separate factor was that having been on the radio with (the very helpful) Bournemouth ATC, and a Class D zone transit, I also had a sub-conscious expectation that they might alert or warn me of any airspace, which most ATC stations often do. Thirdly, Lee-on-Solent had no activity at that time. I was looking out intensely, I had my on-screen conspicuity showing me the location of other aircraft, and the weather conditions had also reduced GA traffic to mostly Instrument or commercial training flight. Finally, there was my ignorance of Rule 11. It was marginal VFR. None of these are in any way an acceptable excuse, they are simply my assessment of the contributing factors that led to the infringement happening. It wasn't a planning failure, it wasn't a situational awareness failure, it wasn't a skills failure. It was a knowledge failure. I didn't know that ATZs were to be treated with basically the same care as all other controlled airspace. if I had known that, it wouldn't have happened.
I don't understand how it can happen,it my day we had adf/ ndb no GPS and if you had an infringement you had a 4000 pound fine ,so you honed your nav skills not to do it.
Oh what I wouldn’t give to have been able to fly GA back in the day!
I don't have the same sentiments about the CAA and it's drive for 'safer skies', you may have been a 'naughty boy' and seeking solace from the very organisation that wants to stop us flying, but that is your choice to praise the CAA. I was forced on the 'awareness course' and found the organisers self serving and undeniably arrogant. One guy was furious that he was on the course as he was 'flown' into Solent airspace by Bournemouth Radar and was told to make a complaint to the CAA by the organisers (he'd already done that but found himself on the course as they operate a closed shop on this). with a completely unblemished record until the day my fate was decided, I was sitting with CFI's instructors and commercial pilots who had at some point committed a very minor infringement (back in the day when CAIT didn't exist just got a telling off over the phone and nothing more - you didn't do it again). But mine was extremely irritating as a transponder misreading height from a club aircraft (no argument, you had to attend - no prisoners etc - even after said transponder was found to be faulty), another chap was in for the same offence where his Tspx was reading intermittently 2000ft out - ATC told him to turn it off and he still got a letter to attend. The day was interesting as I met a lot of other pilots (one an old friend I'd lost touch with), although I didn't find it quite as illuminating but did find a lot of angry pilots who were caught in the 'system' and it seemed rather an opportunity to make money with a bit of safety thrown in. Nobody had committed what seems to be now treated as a capital offence against CAT (by what the course leaders were trying to infer) and I still have the 'offence' on my licence forever more which will affect insurance. I do think that the pilot training should include airspace infringement avoidance and certainly spend more time with technical aids to fly, the paper map and stopwatch is fine if you're flying in the middle of the US, but the UK? I have CAA charts from 1979 and now - there is no comparison as airspace has ballooned in the last 20 years and certainly learning to fly and operate post PPL is now more of a challenge today regardless of experience, hopefully this kind of instruction would give everyone the gravity of exactly what you're letting yourself in for.
Sounds very frustrating. Do you really think the CAA wants to stop us flying? What would they do then?!
@@CharlieLamdin The CAA although funded by UK Tax, favours CAT, it's easier, they can tax it and there's no argument. GA is in the way, all us PPL's , glider pilots and other such licence holders using airspace that has a high income potential and taxation benefit for CAT- although how you train new commercial pilots would be a mystery unless they ring-fence some GA flight schools. For as long as I have known, that's 43 years now, many colleagues and friends have referred to the CAA as the 'Campaign Against Aviation' - take from that what you will. If you've been involved or indeed had to deal with consultations from the mighty CAA and airspace grabs, you'd know what I'm talking about. Some still get through with staunch opposition in favour of CAT. It's hard enough to keep licences going without the plethora of regulation changes, particularly over the last 10 years, where even the admins at Gatwick don't even know their own rules, but are happy to say NO or just make you wait. To be fair they have improved slightly over the years. The problem is they don't need GA, call it flighty safety issues operating hobby aircraft against CAT, or just plain good old over regulation to disenfranchise the hobby pilot from the aviation industry, I find it quite abhorrent in how the CAA gets away with it.
Thank you for your video, I always find this sort of content useful and an educational experience.
However, I am shocked at how little disregard you have when driving, why are you going along filming! Surely you can wait until you get to your destination, or like the rest of the clip, film out of the car and in a separate setting!
Glad you find the videos useful. Filming while driving is just like talking to a passenger while driving. They’ve change the law recently so I can no longer hold the camera while filming, but I’m a child of the 80s and spent 15 years driving and using mobile phones when it was normal and not illegal (before texting and driving started happening which is the very dangerous thing) so don’t be shocked, it was well within my personal limits!
I don't know anymore about flying, are we really free up there when we have to answer to the CAA or ATC every so often while enroute, I find it annoying having to always pay attention to the radio. I just want to fly and not have to answer to anyone, thats real freedom!
Well if you remain outside controlled airspace, you are free!
@@Planky-The-Plank lol
G,day from Sydney Australia.
In your initial pre flight planning of the track you would fly, why did you want to fly so close to classified controlled airspace and a mandatory broadcast zone?
🇦🇺🧭
Hi John, it's a regular route for me, so it's the shortest. But on this particular day my primary concern was the low ceiling, which makes me always prefer a coastal route, less chance of unintended VFR into IMC and CFIT. Finally, because I knew the weather was marginal, I also wanted to fly a route with plenty of diversion options. This route gave me multiple diversion options along almost the entire route. I hope that makes sense. I'm comfortable with controlled airspace transits and do them on a regular basis. In many ways I prefer them, so I wouldn't normally look to specifically avoid them.
This is a useful PDF explaining the ATZ dimensions and rules regarding communication to transit.
airspacesafety.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/AerodromeTrafficZone.pdf
Hope it helps.