I don’t get personal… my interest is GA, and promoting and supporting it.
The issue with LAM OCAS absent a traffic service is Stapleford carrying out IR(R) training and operating on A/G.
RobertL18C wrote:
The issue with LAM OCAS absent a traffic service is Stapleford carrying out IR(R) training and operating on A/G.
I was between Damyns Hall and Thurrock. If I had been closer to Stapleford, I would have called them, though, even then, the risk of collision is very small indeed (actuarially, if nothing else.)
Anything to do with Class G airproxes is always going to be bullsh1tted over because the flying, no matter how reckless (but if VFR compliant), is not illegal, even (in the majority of Europe) with a nonexistent or defective transponder.
In any country with privatised ATC it gets even more political because the govt doesn’t want to pay the ATCO salaries for providing a radar service in the said airspace, and anyway there is no ICAO obligation to provide separation.
In the UK, the money would be better spent on education e.g. getting people to have their transponders on. But… that means more of them will get sent to the Gasco £400 “re education” for busting CAS, which is exactly what these pilots want to avoid. Currently, most of the “victims” did have their Mode S transponders on 
And without wishing to start yet another ADS-B thread, I believe the same issues will apply there, plus it will never be mandatory in Class G, VFR.
You may as well argue that smoking causes cancer, while collecting tax from it.
Following on from the GASCO thread, what views are there please about the Airproxboard.org?
My experience:
I have reported three times. I think they came to the wrong conclusion once and got it right twice.
An investigation where they don’t come back to ask supplementary questions is an odd process.
Like the AAIB, they take far too long to report.
For light GA, VFR in VMC, there are few, if any lessons from the final report. It’s nearly always poor lookout, which the reporter(s) already knew.
The useful reports are the odd ones, Typhoon v flexwing microlight, etc.
Reporting & participation is optional, but pilots who don’t engage face criticism.
Nothing they conclude feeds into any other formal process for adoption by the authorities/industry, except perhaps the military.
Next time I have a near miss due to poor lookout, with nothing to learn, I probably won’t report.
Posts moved to existing thread.
