[Flyin'Dutch']

As we have often said, the present CAS 'dog's dinner' is the way it is because of the need to accommodate various groups interest, as far as it is possible. It could be made simpler, no doubt, but would probably end up being bigger.

Bigger is better innit?

[peterh337]

It would also help if NATS/DPA would redesign the current dog's dinner of airspace so that it would not require a degree in cartography to work out which particular bit has which restriction

The thing is that if you use GPS, there is actually no problem navigating around the airspace.

Especially now with the 6000ft TA, so you don't have 5500ft and FL055 next to each other

Airspace is not going to go away. When you get a PPL, it is an ICAO compliant private pilot's license (licence ) which entitles you to fly all over the world. It would be disingenuous to take £10000 off a punter and then tell him he can fly only in the UK because he has been taught only visual nav (DR) and this works only in UK airspace where the CAS shapes have been carefully redesigned to facilitate DR (e.g. by following motorways).

The reason for probably 99% of infringements is the c r a p pilot training, still stuck in WW1, which the training industry has NO commercial incentive to change (it has NO mandate to turn out pilots who can fly from A to B) and the CAA is not going to do anything about it because - despite popular belief - they are not trying to destroy GA and the PPL training business, which they would do if they tried to suddenly force it to modernise.

The FAA has dealt with this by mandating, on an FAA checkride, a demonstration of the installed equipment. As obvious competitive pressures cause US schools to modernise their fleets, it is no longer possible (for most schools) to circumvent GPS training - even though GPS is not in the syllabus. In the UK, they can circumvent it because not only it isn't in the syllabus but also a demonstration of installed equipment is not required on the skills test. The bigger FTOs have GPS installed but they actively sabotage GPS training by ensuring that the GPS database is not current which prevents GPS being used (at all) in the IR flight test. So even a fresh JAA IR holder cannot fly in Europe's IFR airspace - which is probably merciful since he has not been taught how to develop Eurocontrol-acceptable routings

Until somebody grabs this bull by the horns, nothing is going to change.

That is a question better directed at Mike himself.

Not answering emails. I thought perhaps something upset him badly, or maybe he got a top job somewhere and didn't want to leave a trail of postings (hence the very unusual step of deleting all of them).

[PaulB]

.....or maybe he got a top job somewhere and didn't want to leave a trail of postings (hence the very unusual step of deleting all of them).

How does one delete all one's posts? It seems like a very time consuming thing to do unless there's some automatic way to do it.

[peterh337]

You can't. The server owner has to do it.

All you can do is edit your posts and replace each one with a dot or whatever. I did that on another forum One could write a script for it if one wanted to.

[Keef]

How does one delete all one's posts? It seems like a very time consuming thing to do unless there's some automatic way to do it.

An admin can do it. Mike was one.

[bookworm]

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 agree. I was also surprised by the one on page 10. It's not clear what incident was equated to endangerment, but the narrative describes a pilot making an emergency landing without a radio call after sustaining what might have reasonably been expected to be serious airframe damage. I can only assume that it was lead up to the initial collision that was the issue, but if so, why the emphasis in the narrative on what happened afterwards?

[Delta Juliet]

Bookworm,

Take a look here for more explananation http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/494166-latest-caa-prosecutions.html

and also here: http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=71152

[will c]

The reason Europe has not (yet) had a GA-CAT midair is through luck, assisted by a number of factors

Unfortunately not true - see http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/beech.htm - entry 5 30th July 1998.

[skydriller]

Not exactly in line with commercial airline ops though:

30 July 1998; Proteus Air Beech 1900; near Lorient, France: The aircraft was inbound to Lorient on a flight from Lyon when it collided with a Cessna about one mile (1.6 km) off the coastline. Both crew members and all 12 passengers were killed. The pilot of the Cessna was also killed. Just prior to the collision, the pilot of the Beechcraft reportedly had requested permission to take a detour and overfly a mailboat.

But it is technicaly a GA-GAT collision and a very sad occurance.

Regards, SD..

[peterh337]

That one was OCAS, I believe.

A GA-CAT midair in Class G would "merely" cause the CAA to ban CAT ops in Class G.

A CA-CAT midair in CAS, with the GA busting the CAS, would be something else...

[daysleeper]

That one was OCAS, I believe.

A GA-CAT midair in Class G would "merely" cause the CAA to ban CAT ops in Class G.

Or more likely every regional airport with any CAT would get a class D zone and connection to the airways system, severely limiting and fragmenting the remaining class G.

Actually that may be the best case scenario for GA. The media firestorm after a CAT on GA mid-air might end up with a complete ban on private flying.

[peterh337]

The media firestorm after a CAT on GA mid-air might end up with a complete ban on private flying.

If OCAS, it would make the CAA look very bad and IMHO something drastic would be done. Probably yes, more Class D.

If in CAS, it would make GA look very bad but I can't see the UK banning GA. I can see a lot of TMZs, which I don't regard as a bad thing because the % of GA which genuinely cannot carry a Mode C transponder is miniscule. Like now, there would be exemptions for those few non-transponding types (mandatory ATC contact) to ensure a known traffic environment under the stubs.

Hey, we might even get mandatory GPS "familiarisation training" in the PPL syllabus.

I think Europe has been most fortunate, given the WW1 PPL training and the often c r a p standard of PPL-level flying and the number of low-base CAS stubs. It's thus far got away with it, for a combination of reasons as I listed earlier. I like the UK airspace system (it's very free) but this is such an obvious weakness.

[Timothy]

If there were a lot more Class D, maybe more pilots would recognise it for what it is, a piece of Class G that you need clearance to enter. It is not, in itself, a barrier to free flight. Yes, there are some Class D zones where free VFR flight is difficult - Gatwick, Manchester and Stansted come to mind - but that is (by law) only because there is so much IFR traffic that it needs protection.

If a Scottish island with four movements a day got Class D, then for nearly all the time free VFR would be available.

It is the very resistance of the CAA to grant Class D to anything but the busiest airspace which has led to the belief that Class D implies busy and therefore inaccessible airspace.

If you fly VFR in France you find a very different attitude, whereby most requests for clearance to enter Class D are met with a Gallic shrug followed by the controller turning back to Le Foot on the TV and you being left to get on with it.

It would be a problem, of course, for non-radio, but there must be a limit, in the days of cheap and efficient handhelds, to how much airspace planning is centred around non-radio traffic. (And I speak as one who has flown quite successfully to and from Switzerland non-radio.)

[peterh337]

If a Scottish island with four movements a day got Class D, then for nearly all the time free VFR would be available.

That's true only if officially firmly supported policies are in place to prevent the ATC unit operating its own "policy".

Europe is full of such unaccountable "policies". The UK has / has had a few around the place, and some of Europe is packed with them. Switzerland's Class C over the Alps is one ludicrous example, forcing flight at FL129, above terrain rising to 11000ft+
http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/crete/alps1big.jpg

If everybody followed ICAO airspace classifications i.e. VFR is OK anywhere Class B-G then there would be hardly any point in doing an IR and no point at all in doing the EIR (except in the UK and Italy), and almost virtually no point whatever in getting an official instrument qualification for anybody willing to, ahem, do a bit of "VFR in IMC", especially in a half decent performance aircraft.

one who has flown quite successfully to and from Switzerland non-radio

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=55621&hilit=12+year+engine&start=45 ?

[Timothy]

That's true only if officially firmly supported policies are in place to prevent the ATC unit operating its own "policy".

There are. If you are not granted access to Class D when you believe that there is no reasonable reason to keep you out, you can file an MOR, and ATCOs know that. Almost all ATCOs are more than willing to grant access to Class D if it is safe to do so, and it nearly always is.

http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=55621&hilit=12+year+engine&start=45 ?

Dang! I knew I should keep my mouth shut