Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
User avatar
By AlanM
#1705904
defcribed wrote:Well, you're welcome to go flying rather than read it or post on it...

The range of fines in those prosecutions is surprising. I guess they must be multiple of income. Fairly big fines for false medical declarations but some very small ones for serious airspace busts.

I love the titles - CAA Successful Prosecutions. Would love to read about the unsuccessful ones - do we think there are many?


Surely someone consciously falsifying documents is worse than an airspace infringement? (Which everyone on here says MUST be accidental)
By Longfinal
#1705909
A million years ago I was based at RAF Honnington which is in Suffolk. Closing time in the pubs was 2230. When last orders was called we used to go about half a mile up the road into Norfolk where the closing time was 2300 so we could carry on.

This thread’s a lot like that.
User avatar
By Full Metal Jackass
#1705956
Cub wrote:
Full Metal Jackass wrote:
kanga wrote:.. but if it comes to a prosecution, successful or not, the pilot's name will be public ..

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=112833


Colour me skeptical but I thought we should be working towards avoiding infringements, a prosecution is all well and good but for the sake of learning from the mistakes of others, shouldn’t the infringements be shared rather than the punishments „pour encourager les autres.“


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Perhaps in lieu of prosecuting the more serious or repeat infringing pilots, we should consider delivering some form of educational course, based around the causal factors that lead to infringements?

Perhaps we could get a highly respective aviation safety charity to deliver the course on a cost covering basis in order to ensure the focus is on lesson learning, safety and a ‘Just Culture’?

FFS

Tim was correct. This really is the Dementor thread. Sucking the will to live out of GA.


I still don't think you're getting my drift.Let me first say I applaud Gasco for what they are doing but I still think we are not putting the horse in front of the cart. First things first, let's assume that the pilot didn't set out to intentionally infringe. Therefore we can say that he made a mistake - with me so far?

By examining and openly discussing why a pilot infringed, without identifying the pilot or aircraft registration, the chances are that other pilots could avoid making the same mistake. And even if only one pilot avoids that mistake, it's one infringement less.... shouldn't that be the emphasis - allowing learning before the fact, not educating after?

As pilots, we are all prone to err, this is indisputable. Therefore why can't we have the issues which arose which lead to a pilot to infringe be made public such that the rest of us can learn from them? I learnt from a mistake a friend made and when I found myself in the same situation, I recalled what he'd done, I avoided infringing. I'm not sure I would have been so fortunate, had I not heard his precautionary tale.

And that is why I wish for the days when I could read the reports as to why infringement happens in order to learn - because if you ain't learning in aviation, it's time to give it up....

PS: Just heard about a flying club sending an email to all their pilots, making them aware about a possible issue in a Moving Map software which meant that the default levels for blending out airspace varied - on individual iPads; on one, it defaulted to an altitude which meant that a particular piece of Class D airspace overhead would have automatically been blended out and an infringement could have been the result.
User avatar
By Miscellaneous
#1705957
Full Metal Jackass wrote:PS: Just heard about a flying club sending an email to all their pilots, making them aware about a possible issue in a Moving Map software which meant that the default levels for blending out airspace varied - on individual iPads; on one, it defaulted to an altitude which meant that a particular piece of Class D airspace overhead would have automatically been blended out and an infringement could have been the result.

How about more detail so we can learn from it and prevent becoming victims? :wink:
User avatar
By FlarePath
#1705960
Not trying to be picky as this thread has a tendency to turn normal people into a baying mob, but I cannot understand how a piece of software that eliminates critical airspace is a problem, for those like me that always draw my route on a real chart then look at the route and take note of where I really shouldn't go is surely fundamental to not making a balls of it then claiming your overheated/airspace eliminating gizmo was at fault.
User avatar
By Miscellaneous
#1705963
FlarePath wrote:...for those like me that always draw my route on a real chart...

You're part of a very small minority. :D
User avatar
By GrahamB
#1705965
Not trying to be picky as this thread has a tendency to turn normal people into a baying mob, but I cannot understand how a chart that is out of date before it is even published is a problem, for those like me that always use properly configured and updated software for planning then look at the route and take note of where I really shouldn't go is surely fundamental to not making a balls of it then claiming your paper chart, missed airspace labels and manually calculated wind corrections were at fault.
User avatar
By FlarePath
#1705966
You're part of a very small minority. :D



How very sad and indicative of the "modern way" just to make sure, I am not an old RAF type dinosaur who thinks all things GPS are the sperm of the devil, but there are some fundamental things that still need to be done irrespective of how good modern gizmos are, such as drawing a route and using it to avoid places that will get you in trouble.

unlike the SA response in the previous post that implies the a certian piece of software that offers rolling updates therefore is never out of date, so you can trust it 100% to keep you out of trouble good luck,but not everyone uses or needs it just as I use a Garmin Aera 500 that is updated once a year to coincide with the chart update and serves very well, and combined with SD light I dont feel the need for anything more.
Last edited by FlarePath on Sat Jul 13, 2019 9:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
By Balliol
#1705971
People always miss the wood for trees and it descends into blah about paper/GPS/Ex RAF/MDR etc but I think there is a very real point and debate required about pre flight “route study” or “having a mental model” (whatever you wish to call it) of what you are intending to do and what airspace and terrain is a factor.

Often on tests I ask people what is the general situation with the airspace around where we are going to operate and get blank looks - I really recommend some kind of generic “We are alright up to 3000’ in this area, we won’t climb above 3500’ unless checking exactly where we are, and we mustn’t go North of Wellesbourne due to Birmingham’s airspace” type model is thought about before trips
User avatar
By FlarePath
#1705972
If I knew how to create a poll I think it would be interesting to see how many actually draw a route on a chart before taking to the air rather than just inputting a route into their chosen GPS and taking off.
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1705976
I can help you with that.

Bit busy today but will get back to you tomorrow.

In the meantime can we close this thread?
User avatar
By PaulB
#1705979
FlarePath wrote: I think it would be interesting to see how many actually draw a route on a chart before taking to the air rather than just inputting a route into their chosen GPS and taking off.


Why on earth would you need to do that when the GPS route gives you a route that can see relevant airspace horizontally (either on a CAA/NATS chart or custom chart) *and* a vertical view *and* an automatically produced plog with the chosen altitudes for each leg.

Why would a dog leg line on a paper chart be better? (Haven’t there been a number of infringements of the Birmingham 1500’ zone around Coventry because people misread the paper chart and didn’t spot the 3500’/1500’ line? A vertical moving map view makes it crystal clear.)
By malcolmfrost
#1705985
I think Flarepath is betraying the fact that he probably hasn't actually used any of the new tablet planning/nav tools.
You draw a line on a map, which is up to date, and has all the Notams and weather available. It then warns you of any problems, applies the wind and then you follow the line on the map. You don't input a route into a GPS like 20 years ago with all the issues of data entry.
Personally I still output a PLOG and carry a paper chart but rarely need to use them.
  • 1
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19