On 17 April 2011, the Essex Radar Air Traffic Controller observed on radar an unknown aircraft tracking northwest through Stansted Transponder Mandatory Zone 2. Two passenger aircraft inbound to Stansted and one outbound passenger flight were in potential conflict with the unknown aircraft. Mode S interrogation showed that the aircraft registration was
Saturday 25 May 2013 11:07 UTC
This forum is for anything to do with light aviation
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/503/CAA%20Pro ... elease.pdf
"On 20 January 2011, an unknown aircraft was observed on radar within Stansted Transponder Mandatory Zone – 2. A passenger aircraft inbound to Stansted had to be vectored clear."
You only get hung if they have to re- route traffic .
Due to recent budget cuts the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off.
Skype : pilotshop.nl
The two events appear slightly different. The earlier event (Mark) had to be traced without the use of SSR, so that appears that the Transponder was either off or completely broken. By the way, is this the well-known aerobatic pilot? The later event (John) seems to have at least a partially functioning transponder (aircraft reg found through Mode S) but possibly without the Alt Reporting function working.
I do find some of the fines odd. Particularly the one on Page 5. The pilot appears to have made a genuine mistake, and (perhaps mistakenly) taken what he thought was the best course of action, and landed right in the lap of the CAA, resulting in total almost £7k.
In comparison, the first two on Page 1 and both on Page 4 involve cases of deliberately flying without insurance, CofA (or equivalent) and in contravention of a "no-fly" instruction from the CAA. Yet it takes these four cases, found by CAA investigations, in total to reach the same fees as the one pilot on Page 5.
I'm sure Timothy will correct my understanding of the legal system, but if the fees covered go to the CAA, why not punish the deceiptful a little harsher and save the rest of us a few pennies?
Indeed, but he was in class G (albeit a TMZ), why would CAT need to be vectored?
Because the controllers wouldn't have know the aircraft was outside of CAS.
At a guess, because he didn't have Mode C selected, so as far as the controller knew he could have been inside the class D. That's the whole point of the TMZ - Mode C is mandatory ( unless in communication with or permission obtained from Essex Radar)
This is sort of what's confusing me. The TMZ seems to have turned things on their heads. Prior to the TMZ, a (for sake of argument) mode A squawking aircraft would have been assumed to be in class G (below 1500') unless the controller knew otherwise. This is like the 1500' stubs that surround a number of airports. Now, with the TMZ, it appears that the assumption is reversed and that it's assumed the aircraft is in CAS unless proven otherwise.
Have to say, I've always found this assumption not to be in CAS hard to fathom, but I've been told that that was the case on more than one occasion.
The solution seems to be to have working mode C.
When will mode S in these areas become compulsory? The AIC mentions an exemption.
I looked into last years prosecutions:
'Causing to be delivered for carriage on an aircraft a chain saw containing petrol'
(conditional discharge in this case, but costs)
I wonder how much difference that makes in an aircraft filled with petrol.
Do I need to search passengers for petrol filled lighters?
Is there a threshold?
It's a tough one, and few people outside aviation would be comfortable with it.
The only "solution" is mandatory Mode C/S, or a ban on "uncontrolled" traffic.
The reason Europe has not (yet) had a GA-CAT midair is through luck, assisted by a number of factors
- when gawd made the sky, he made lots of it
- most GA does not bust CAS
- ATC keeps a watch (effectiveness limited to participating traffic)
- most GA flying at "hotspots" (like the Stansted/Luton gap) is doing short burger runs and knows the area
- most of Europe has virtually no GA
- most GA flies very low and won't bust most CAS even if no navigation is taking place
- CAT climbs steeply and rapidly reaches levels at which ~99% of GA pilots never fly (not so true for descents though)
- enroute, CAT flies far too high for GA to reach it
The TMZ is IMHO an excellent way forward. They have them all over the place in the USA, following a GA-CAT midair (or few).
BTW, does anybody know what caused MikeT (the senior NATS ATCO) to suddenly and comprehensively leave?
Setting of fines, costs and compensation is more complicated than just equating the seriousness of the offence with a financial penalty; it also takes into account the impact on the defendant and his ability to pay.
If someone is on benefits of £60 per week, fining him £150 and having him pay at £5 per week will have a greater impact than making a CEO pay £150, which he will not even notice leaving his credit card. Thus the CEO gets a higher fine for the same offence, trying to equalise the impact. Fines go to Central Funds.
Costs go to the prosecutor, and have to be justified as reasonably incurred, though, where the prosecutor is the CPS there is a scale of charges so that time is not wasted accounting for the minutes spent by prosecutor on each case file. Once the prosecutor submits their costs, the court will determine (a) if they are reasonably incurred and proportionate and (b) whether the defendant has the means to pay. The costs are not a punishment, but simply to reimburse the prosecutor for some or all of the costs disbursed. The court can order that none, some or all of the costs are paid by the defendant, depending on means and circumstances.
Compensation goes to the loser or victim. They can be for actual loss (cost of replacing the window, or insurance excess) or for injury or distress. In the case of loss, the court likes to see evidence (invoice from the glazier) but can make a judgement call. In the case of injury or distress there is a recommended scale, which is used as a starting point in setting the level of compensation. Again, compensation is only set to a level that the defendant can pay, so someone on benefits who has knocked down a railway bridge would not be expected to pay hundreds of thousands.
For completeness, there is also something called the Victim Surcharge, which, despite its name, goes to Central Funds. It has been a flat £15 for all fines raised, but is about to be massively expanded to cover all disposals.
Does that help?
Not sent from my iPad.
Who is online
Login / Register