Aveling wrote:
CAA claim that “most infringements could be avoided by moving map”
Well, this is true on the most basic and literal level – if you have a moving map and are constantly looking at it to make sure you avoid airspace, then you will avoid airspace.
But it doesn’t necessarily follow that someone who always carries a moving map and uses it as their ‘primary means of navigation’ (a massive no-no with the CAA and training establishment until quite recently) will never infringe airspace.
There is an awful lot of faulty-cause-and-effect in the lines that get trotted out by the aviation establishment.
Timothy – thank you for the reply.
I get frustrated with the argument that you had better not whinge too much with what we have, it could be worse. It may be true, it may be pragmatic, but it is wrong and defeatist.
What we have exists because GA is so hopelessly fragmented and badly represented that it is at the complete mercy of the authorities, which may well be benign (as Timothy would argue), but that may be just for now, or maybe just one person’s opinion. I appreciate it is unlikely that will change. AOPA UK is a complete disaster, with falling membership year on year, and now selling off its offices to make ends meet. Of course it is largely ignored, and, in any event, is so close to GASCo, AOPA UK not likely to protest. The other ABC organisation are even less of a force when it comes to regulation outside there specific sphere of influence.
However, much the intention may be sound, we have an example of a policy ill thought out, badly publicised, badly conducted, and, so far, with very little evidence that it is, or will, be effective.
This forum has done more to promote the cause that anyone else has managed in the last two years.
It is even more unfortunate that those involved have totally missed the big picture as they rush between one committee meeting and the next, which is that if you are going to change policy, the most important element is to make sure you have everyone on board first. There are so many ways every pilot could have been reached out to, whether or not they read this forum, or belong to a club, but of course that opportunity has been completely missed.
As I indicated earlier, somebody is trying to get this discussion shut down.
An email has been received from the chap in charge of infringements at the CAA threatening legal action over his name having been mentioned.
A request for which post was the perceived problem got a response that he doesn’t read the forum and got the information from a 3rd party.
His name and CAA position are all over the internet, FB, Linkedin, etc, etc, but this is not worth the hassle on what is a community site with negligible income, so instances of his name (both first name and second name) have been removed. Please don’t post any reference to him by name as it results in really unpleasant emails and extra work.
Peter I am confused. What legal action could be taken except to force the removal of his name? Surely a simple request so to do would suffice and only if ignored would one threaten legal action. Does this reflect the stance of CAA people in general that the “big stick” is an auto response to anything? 
I cant believe that a person in charge of policy would raise such an objection. Its like not being able to mention Boris and UK policy in the same breath. I am afraid if you do the job, and take the pay cheque, you had better take ownership as well.
An email has been received from the chap in charge of infringements at the CAA threatening legal action over his name having been mentioned.
That’s pretty weird. An official in a top position in an official governmental agency gets upset if his name is mentioned?
No person can stop another person mentioning them on the internet unless it’s actually libel, harassment or some other offence.
If action in such circumstances were possible, the Guardian comments section would not be full of people saying that Conservative politicians are responsible for starving poor people to death.
Yep, legal action will be a waste of more money.
The gentleman in question has been formally introduced when giving public presentations on CAA policy on this matter which I have attended. His identity is already way out there in the public domain, and has been mentioned on other fora as well as this one.
It ain’t no secret.
You folks on the island have a very strange humor 
So i suggest : He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named aka the Dark Lord. Sounds very appropriate.
Big dick, big stick ?
Just look at the WH.
PS i believe certain correspondence disqualifies you as gentleman. Think that applies not only to me :-)
