Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1704583
@IMCR

The Airspace Infringements Awareness Course is from the requirements set out in CAP1404. GASCo assisted the CAA in developing the course and facilitate it on the CAA’s behalf.

https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalappli ... il&id=7389

Airspace Infringements Awareness Course
The Airspace Infringements Awareness Course is a one day course run by CAA-approved organisations. It is designed to collaboratively increase awareness of mitigation measures and the impact of infringements. Successful completion of the course entails: provision of required identification to the course provider; timely arrival to and completion of each programmed element; and full participation.

Pilots will be required to cover the cost of their attendance.


It is not a “GASCo Infringement” Course and I politely ask you to re-phrase the title of this thread. Otherwise it could be found defamatory by those that provide their time and effort, many pro bono (ie. for free), to “saving lives in GA through education”.

Thank you.
#1704591
I have attended three Airspace Infringement Awareness Courses, what would you like to know?

With regard to the mix of people on the courses, it is very difficult to judge. By way of introductions, people are offered to say their name and what they fly, very briefly, at the start of the course. The presenters or indeed GASCo are not aware of the qualification of the attendee or the reason that resulted in them being asked to attend. During the day there is a break in the morning for about 15-20 mins and then lunch. If, you choose to indulge your fellow attendees with your circumstances or listen to their story that is entirely up to you but this is not either encouraged or discouraged by the facilitators who focus completely on delivering the content and getting people to think about what they can usefully take away from the day and apply.

I reiterate the offer to facilitate a longer 'off-line' discussion if you wish?
#1704606
Cub wrote:I have attended three Airspace Infringement Awareness Courses,


But I'm sure that wasn't as a paying participant though Cub . :D

In which case , that probably makes you the ideal person to ask . I'm sure that IMCR's question was meant in good faith and he's probably wondering if there is any common denominator in the people who transgress CAS .

If there is a faction within the GA fraternity that are significantly 'better' than others at doing it , then it would be interesting to note .

I do feel though however , that the only commonality is that ;

A. They're pilots.
B. They've made an airspace transgression.

If anybody actually can be slightly more specific , then I would genuinely be very interested to be enlightened .
As I'm sure would a few other contributors . Unfortunately though , I am left wondering if this will be a 10 min argument , or the normal 1/2hr one .


[ Right ,,,,,I'm off . :lol: ]
#1704623
An account by someone who was required by the CAA to attend one of the courses:

'I infringed controlled air space last October.

I received a letter from the CAA asking about the circumstances and I replied in full with a detailed explanation about how the PTT switch had gone U/S at a critical time while over the Irish Sea. This led to a breakdown in communication and caused consternation among my nervous passengers who were afraid, as we were out of sight of land, not in touch with anyone and unable to call for help if it went quiet upfront.

The CAA gave me the option of attending an ‘Airspace Infringements Awareness Course’ or taking the matter further. I grabbed the chance to do the course and duly attended a hotel near Arundel.

There were 17 other offenders on the course. They were an interesting crowd including, the old, the young, ATPLs and Instructors. Which just goes to show that anyone can infringe airspace. One top bloke appeared in his own private EC120 and landed on the front lawn which gave him a bit of cachet.

The course is presented by three very experienced pilots and it opened with registration where we presented our licences and photo ID. We were then given voting fobs and pens together with a little course workbook. This booklet had all sorts of alarming info like the total number of infringements together with aircraft type, (Mostly SEP), types of airspace and the most infringed aerodromes, of which Heathrow comes first by a country mile.

We were also presented with a booklet entitled ‘The SkyWay Code’ which is published by the CAA and contains lots of useful info that used to be in the front of pilot guides. It calls itself a guide to private flying rules, regulations and best practice. I presume that with the onset of paperless flying many pilots do not have these useful little books and notes to refer to.

‘The SkyWay Code’ is designed to provide private pilots with easy and quick access to the key information they need and includes:

Pilot responsibilities
Pre-flight checks and flight planning
Airspace rules and regulations
Using aerodromes
Risks and Emergencies
Flying outside the UK
Links to useful safety and regulatory resources

It also includes examples of:

Radio phraseology
Tables to work out crosswind components
Ground marshalling signals.

‘The SkyWay Code’ can be found at: www.caa.co.uk/General-aviation/ Safety-information/The-Skyway-Code/

This involves up to 30,000aircraft requiring diversions, delayed take offs and hold ups in the sky, these affect 5,000,000 passengers and can cost up to £50,000,000 in additional fuel costs! We were shown some videos of very hairy flights by pilots who were quite clearly well lost, bimbling straight through the Heathrow Zone for instance. Normal separation for aircraft under air traffic control in controlled airspace is 1,000 feet and 3nm but if an infringer enters controlled airspace that is increased to 5,000 feet and 5nm. That can back up landing aircraft all the way beyond Rockall!

The course continued with ‘The Causes of Infringement’ where we were all invited to give our reasons for the cause of our own infringement. I gave equipment failure which is true, but the most popular reason was distraction. There were others of course including: ‘Lack of Planning’, ‘Temporarily Unaware of Position’ (i.e. lost!). However ‘Wrong Altimetry’ and ‘Sudden Weather’ were among the other causes.

I was involved in a discussion about the selection of QNH for the ASR then travelling long distances and finding that airspace was infringed by a height bust as a result of increasing pressure along the way. There are a number of TMAs where QNH setting locally is obligatory as a result.

Transponders can have errors of up 125 feet and there was other talk about increments and errors in altimetry.

After lunch we were told about how to best ‘Prevent Infringements’, then there was an airspace quiz including new RMZs and TMZs. We were given a personal strategy for avoiding infringements and were asked to evaluate the information we had received. Everyone was very complimentary about the course and the instructor / presenters.

I thoroughly recommend this course to pilots of all aircraft and flying devices. It is useful and thought provoking.

The courses and availability are published by GASCo at: www.gasco.org.uk

Kind regards and Happy Landings,'

Roger Bell


Roger wrote this for the Flying Farmers Assoc but kindly agreed for it to be replicated so that others might understand the process and not fear it.
#1704775
"I received a letter from the CAA asking about the circumstances and I replied in full with a detailed explanation about how the PTT switch had gone U/S at a critical time while over the Irish Sea. This led to a breakdown in communication and caused consternation among my nervous passengers who were afraid, as we were out of sight of land, not in touch with anyone and unable to call for help if it went quiet upfront."

And he got sent down to Gasco for that??

Is this a joke?
#1704780
peterh337 wrote:"I received a letter from the CAA asking about the circumstances and I replied in full with a detailed explanation about how the PTT switch had gone U/S at a critical time while over the Irish Sea. This led to a breakdown in communication and caused consternation among my nervous passengers who were afraid, as we were out of sight of land, not in touch with anyone and unable to call for help if it went quiet upfront."

And he got sent down to Gasco for that??

Is this a joke?


No, Sir, but are you sure of the exact facts from that short description in the paragraph? :cyclopsani:
#1704793
gaznav wrote:An account by someone who was required by the CAA to attend one of the courses:

'This involves up to 30,000 aircraft requiring diversions, delayed take offs and hold ups in the sky, these affect 5,000,000 passengers and can cost up to £50,000,000 in additional fuel costs! We were shown some videos of very hairy flights by pilots who were quite clearly well lost, bimbling straight through the Heathrow Zone for instance. Normal separation for aircraft under air traffic control in controlled airspace is 1,000 feet and 3nm but if an infringer enters controlled airspace that is increased to 5,000 feet and 5nm. That can back up landing aircraft all the way beyond Rockall!'


Roger wrote this for the Flying Farmers Assoc but kindly agreed for it to be replicated so that others might understand the process and not fear it.

Too many weasel words from GASCO. I can never trust someone who uses the phrase "up to", it smacks too much of "think of a number, double it, add a zero".

Of the 5 (?) recent stories/anecdotes in this forum from/about people who have attended the course, we know that 3 of them are experienced, competent, qualified & current pilots making small errors for a few seconds under high workload. I wonder what relevance long winded radar replays and discussions about some clearly clueless pilot wandering all over the Heathrow approach would have to these pilots.
#1704797
gaznav wrote:An account by someone who was required by the CAA to attend one of the courses:

This involves up to 30,000aircraft requiring diversions, delayed take offs and hold ups in the sky, these affect 5,000,000 passengers and can cost up to £50,000,000 in additional fuel costs! We were shown some videos of very hairy flights by pilots who were quite clearly well lost, bimbling straight through the Heathrow Zone for instance. Normal separation for aircraft under air traffic control in controlled airspace is 1,000 feet and 3nm but if an infringer enters controlled airspace that is increased to 5,000 feet and 5nm. That can back up landing aircraft all the way beyond Rockall!

The course continued with ‘The Causes of Infringement’ where we were all invited to give our reasons for the cause of our own infringement. I gave equipment failure which is true, but the most popular reason was distraction. There were others of course including: ‘Lack of Planning’, ‘Temporarily Unaware of Position’ (i.e. lost!). However ‘Wrong Altimetry’ and ‘Sudden Weather’ were among the other causes.



At least I see I'm not the only one who is slightly miffed at the phraseology.... UP TO.... used by your average civil servant when he wants to scare the bejesus out of you.

But seriously, when I hear about the calibre of candidate infringing and then they show a muppet 'bimbling through Heathrow', I have to ask - what benefit do they expect to achieve?

Paint me skeptical but if an FI, a CPL or ATPL infringes because he's not gained the correct QNH or a temporary work overload occurs which means the pilot accidentally cuts the corner of CAS, what does showing how our muppet treats mayhem benefit them? Unless they show said intruder being shot down by AA missiles, they'll think: well, at least I didn't do that......

When I also hear people claim to have not infringed but to have been judged guilty without any evidence provided, sorry, this is where I have to question the whole system.
#1704801
flybymike wrote:Can’t wait to “grab the chance to do the course.”


Am sure you can attend if you want, ask Gaznav.