AIRSPACE
INFRINGEMENTS – BACKGROUND STATISTICS
What is an
airspace infringement?
A
flight into a notified airspace that has not been subject
to approval by the designated controlling authority of that
airspace in accordance with international and national
regulations. Such airspace is considered to be:
Note:
VFR
traffic cannot infringe Class E airspace because under ICAO
rules neither an ATC clearance nor a radio communication is required
to enter or operate within it, unless filed national differences call
for one or the other (or both). IFR traffic can infringe
Class E airspace when not in receipt of a clearance to enter it.
Aerodrome
Traffic Zones, where these exist in Class G airspace.
Airspace
restrictions, such as: Prohibited, Restricted and Dangers Areas,
Temporary Reserved Airspaces or airspace notified by a restriction
of flying in accordance with national requirements.
Who
infringes?
All
sectors of the aviation community- commercial, military and GA - are
guilty of committing airspace infringements. Infringement reports -
through the Mandatory Occurrence Reporting (MOR) scheme (see below) –
which tend to be filed by air traffic control units - form the basis
of infringement statistics to which the CAA and the Airspace
Infringement Working Group will refer in the course of their work.
Although it is recognised that many infringements are resolved ‘on
the spot’, these mostly go unreported and therefore may not
form part of the official statistics.
How
often do infringements occur?
Statistically,
roughly five infringements occur every three days. The majority are
attributable to GA pilots and most, but not all, involve controlled
airspace - primarily Control Zones serving airports and also Control
Areas and Airways. Those occurring outside controlled airspace tend
to involve Aerodrome Traffic Zones (ATZs) and Danger Areas.
Infringements of Restricted Airspace (Temporary) (RA(T)) associated
with air shows or Red Arrows displays (often both) also feature.
Infringements
occur throughout the year, but there is a clear cyclical pattern to
when they occur. Unsurprisingly, peaks are traditionally reached
during the summer months – good VFR conditions encouraging more
pilots to fly, sheer numbers alone increasing the probability of
infringement – with troughs emerging with the onset of autumn
and winter. The arrival of spring brings with it a steady monthly
rise in reported infringements, leading to again to the annual summer
peak.
Where do
infringements occur?
Some airspaces are more
infringed than others. Why? Several factors come into play.
Firstly, most infringements occur in southern England and so can be
attributed to more congested skies and a complex airspace structure.
Secondly, the statistical evidence the CAA has to hand can be
affected by aggressive reporting regimes at particular airfields,
although conversely a reluctance by many ATC units to formally report
infringements can hide true occurrence levels and patterns. Another
factor which should not be overlooked is the impact major air events
can have on the scale and pattern of infringements; RA(T)s protecting
these are infringed despite the best efforts of event organisers and
the aviation community in general to make pilots aware of their
establishment. Sheer weight of numbers of VFR aircraft flying to and
from such an event can lead to a number of infringements of adjacent
controlled airspace, danger areas and the like by participating
aircraft. Furthermore, external factors such as the 2001 foot and
mouth crisis and the immediate effects of September 11 2001 can
curtail aerial activity (and thus the probability of infringement) or
heighten awareness and observation of infringements from a security
perspective.
Finally,
the number of infringements attributed to GA pilots must be
considered within the context of the number of GA pilots and
aircraft, and the number of flights and hours flown by them. BBGA,
on their website www.bbga.aero,
state that there are over 8,000 GA aircraft in the UK, representing
more than 90% of UK-registered civil aircraft. No statistics are
available to show exactly how many GA flights are undertaken and how
many hours are flown in any given year, but it is probably safe to
say that that those flights resulting in an airspace infringement
represent a small proportion of these. That does not suggest there
is not a problem, as each infringement will carry with it some degree
of flight safety risk. Infringements are caused by all sectors of
the aviation community and every effort should be made to reduce the
number of occurrences.
Supporting Graphs
The
following graphs have been constructed using MOR data held by the
CAA. MORs are submitted in accordance with the requirements of CAP
382 ‘The Mandatory Occurrence Reporting Scheme’.
The objective of the MOR Scheme is
to contribute to the improvement of air safety by ensuring that
relevant information on safety is reported, collected, stored,
protected and disseminated. The sole objective of occurrence
reporting is the prevention of accidents and incidents and not to
attribute blame or liability.

The
graph above shows the total number of reported airspace infringements
per calendar year from 1996 to 2006. The increases in 2005 and 2006
are believed to be attributable to stricter infringement reporting
requirements arising from the NATS infringement ‘Destination’,
rather than an increase in the actual numbers.

The number of reported
infringements is seasonal in nature – the better the weather
(traditionally during the summer) the greater number of aircraft
flying at any time. Therefore the possibility of an airspace
infringement increases. The previous graph shows the highest, lowest
and mean number of reported infringements per calendar month from
January 1996 to December 2006, plus monthly values for 2006.
NATS
infringement ‘Destination’ launched June 2005
The rolling 12-month
total helps to illustrate the impact of the NATS infringement
‘Destination’ reporting requirements, the introduction of
these coincided with 2005’s emerging summer increase. Of not
is the relative consistency in the number of Airproxes over any given
12 month period, and what appears to be an emerging ‘plateau’
in the latter part of 2006. This may indicate the true scale of the
infringement problem; it has long been accepted that the number of
reported infringements did not necessarily reflect the actual number
of occurrences (ie pre-‘Destination’).

Of
significant concern is the safety impact of infringements.
Infringements represent a major collision risk, and each year a
number of Airproxes and losses of separation arise from them. The
percentage rates shown above have been obtained by dividing the
number of Airproxes resulting from an airspace infringement divided
by the number of reported infringements. A further 10% of reported
infringements result in a loss of standard separation.
While
approximately 84% of reported infringements reported in 2006 were
classed by the CAA as having a low Airprox risk, represented a
technical loss of separation and/or resulted in a slight

increase
in ATC workload, the remainder carried a higher risk (plus associated
impact). 15.5% of reported infringements resulted in an Airprox or
actual loss of separation plus a significant increase in ATC
workload. The remaining 0.5% resulted in what CAP 382 refers to as a
‘Serious Airprox’, in which there was a large reduction
in safety margins associated with a serious loss of separation.
GA = General Aviation
AOC = Aircraft Operators Certificate (ie airlines)
Mil = Military
Unknown = not identifiable, could be any of the categories
above
Approximately
three quarters of all reported infringements were attributable to
General Aviation pilots during 2006. Whilst there are annual
variations, the 2006 values have been broadly consistent since at
least 2000.
Of
the various kinds of airspace structures (Control Zone, Control Area,
airway, Danger Area, ATZ, etc), those associated with airfields –
‘terminal airspace’ – are most the most often
infringed. Each year around 85% of all reported infringements will
occur in airspace established to protect aircraft at the critical
stages of flight – landing and taking off. As can be seen in
the following graph, the majority of these occur in the South East of
England – in or beneath the London TMA.
The
London TMA ‘hot spots’ in the Stansted and Luton areas
are shown in the map extract below. Each numbered circle represents
an infringement – red for Airprox and orange for loss of
separation; all others are shown in yellow. Note also the number of
infringements occurring in the westerly portion of the London Control
Zone – the can seriously impact upon Heathrow operations and in
the most severe of cases can curtail Heathrow arrivals and departures,
affecting dozens of aircraft in the air and on the ground, and
thousands of passengers. The resultant delays and avoidable fuel
burn will often have significant operational, economic and
environmental impacts.

Prosecutions
An
airspace infringement may result in prosecution, however the CAA
views this as an option of last resort. As can be seen from the
supporting data, infringements leading to prosecutions represent a
very small proportion of the overall number of reported occurrences.
The number of prosecutions has progressively diminished, whilst the
award of other measures such as ‘Formal Conditional Cautions’
has increased.
|
year
(note 1)
|
infringements
(note 2)
|
ARE
investigations (note
3, note 4)
|
as
% of MOR infringements (note
5)
|
Formal
Caution (note
4, note 6, note 7)
|
Prosecutions
(note 7, note 8)
|
|
|
|
2000
|
344
|
9
|
2.62%
|
0
|
5
|
|
|
|
2001
|
314
|
13
|
4.14%
|
0
|
9
|
|
|
|
2002
|
326
|
44
|
13.50%
|
4
|
17
|
|
|
|
2003
|
376
|
51
|
13.56%
|
15
|
10
|
|
|
|
2004
|
341
|
45
|
13.20%
|
15
|
8
|
|
|
|
2005
|
517
|
52
|
10.06%
|
22
|
5
|
|
|
|
2006
|
630
|
40
|
6.35%
|
19
|
5
|
|
|
|
2007
|
267
|
3
|
1.12%
|
4
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2000-2006
(note 8)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
year
(note 1)
|
infringements
(note 2)
|
ARE
investigations (note
3)
|
as
% of MOR infringements (note
4)
|
Formal
Caution (note
5, note 6)
|
Prosecutions
(note 6)
|
total
Cautions/ Prosecutions
|
as
% of MOR infringements
|
|
total
|
2848
|
254
|
8.92%
|
75
|
59
|
134
|
4.71%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOTES:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.
Calendar year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.
Source: CAA MOR Database.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.
May include investigations into infringements not subject to MOR,
eg on the basis of police report(s).
|
|
|
4.
ARE data correct to 24 April 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.
As % of infringements subject to MOR.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.
'Formal Cautions' and 'Formal Conditional Cautions'. Latter may
include recommendation for further training as an alternative to
prosecution.
|
|
7.
May include cautions/prosecutions arising from investigations
conducting during previous calendar year.
|
|
|
8.
May include cautions/prosecutions arising from investigations
conducting during 1999.
|
|
|
The
Airspace Infringement Working Group (AIWG)
The
AIWG is a CAA-sponsored industry working group established to monitor
airspace infringement data and identify trends in order to instigate
remedial action through the appropriate regulatory or industry body
in order to minimise the incidence of, and risks associated with,
airspace infringements. In particular AIWG will consider whether
airspace design or pilot awareness are features of the pattern of
infringements.
In
fulfilling its functions, AIWG will consider infringements of all
types of airspace by all categories of pilot. In addition, it will
carry forward the findings and recommendations of the SRG-led study
into identifying the causes of infringements by GA pilots (the 'ON
TRACK' project).
Having
considered statistical or other evidence, AIWG will make
recommendations and take action through its members to alleviate
potential problem areas. These recommendations may be UK-wide,
site-specific, or user-specific.
Finally,
AIWG is responsible for the establishment and management of the
‘Flyontrack’ website, the purpose of which is to
encourage the aviation community to post comments and suggestions
associated with GA-related airspace infringements for the CAA’s
consideration and subsequent action.
The
following organisations are represented on AIWG: the CAA Directorate
of Airspace Policy and the Safety Regulation Group (Flight Operations
Inspectorate (General Aviation), Personnel Licensing Department; Air
Traffic Standards Department) and the Corporate Communications
Department; NATS Ltd, Ministry of Defence, Airport Operators
Association, GASCo, GATCO, invited representative(s) of GA community
(including PPL-IR), a member of the ‘On Track’ project
team and other invited participants as required for specific issues.
Useful
websites:
|