Yes indeed there can be a time skew. However, the September numbers show 1 in 6 failed it
So something is going on.
Do we know if the errors from the tests have been fixed?
I just watched the youtube video linked, It’s frustrating to know that money was wasted producing it. It seems more geared to toddlers than pilots.
Perhaps that’s how they regard the target market.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
I wonder what the real cost of GASCo is? I assume its a small room at a second rate hotel? I assume you pay for your own lunch? So I am guessing its one, or is it two, retired bods happy with a bit of pin money and trip off the same party line each time? Whats the basic profit on each day run?
This bit has been done before on another forum, and during that discussion someone who is involved with Gasco claimed that the courses were being charged for on a cost-covering basis and that Gasco didn’t make any money.
20 attendees x £200 = £4,000 revenue per course. The meeting room will cost a few hundred, another couple of hundred for the presenters expenses, thus it looks like quite a good margin. If you gave me a business opportunity to deliver one-day training courses that I can staff with volunteers for £4,000 a go then I’d bite your hand off.
Perhaps there are some reasons why the declared costs might be higher. Perhaps they are not business people or fussed about saving money and thus the hotel manages to get the rack rate out of them (which no business would pay). Perhaps the volunteering is not quite volunteering – this goes on in plenty of charities. Perhaps they ascribe a load of IT costs to the project.
This isn’t unique to Gasco. Plenty of charities have woken up to the fact that conducting business-like activity is a very useful addition to traditional fund raising. All you need to do is convince some organisation, public or private, to engage you to provide some service – usually training or education of a sort. Standard creative accounting techniques are used to make it look cost-neutral, and what really helps to make it look good is the handy fact that those actually engaged in delivery are not being paid.
Graham – I do wonder whether it really is charitable work. I know the Charities Commissioners apply a very wide interpretation, but the standards of a charity to who the CAA contract should be above reproach – awarding a contract to a charity of this nature seems to me to be highly suspect. One wonders for example just what the reaction would be if the speed awareness courses were run by charities?
I would be amazed if the “Blazers” delivering the course are not receiving substantial renumeration. GASCO has lost the respect of the pilot community by undertaking this task.There are a certain breed of ex aviator many years out of currency and often with no relevant experience to the present challenging environment who seek to keep an involvement in aviation whilst supplementing their pensions.The modern bureaucratic rule bound Royal Air Force produces exactly the “wrong stuff” for the regulation or any other role in civilian aviation.
It is very strange that GASCo dont disclose the qualifications or the background of the “Blazers”.
Is anything known of these people? For all we know they could literally be anyone?
Bios of the Regional Safety Officers who are also involved in delivering Infringement courses can be found on the GASCo website within seconds for anyone who can use the internet. Is attacking individuals who give up their time to help deliver GA safety events and evenings now the next step then? So people that have the flexibility and time to do this kind of expenses only role are often retired folk who have pensions to pay the bills? Well that’s a shock isn’t it? Of course you won’t see that in charities, parish councils, volunteer organisations across the UK then…
GASCo turns over about £180k, my local McDonalds drive thru does about 10 times that a year. A robust debate about the regulators approach to infringements is one thing, but trying to spool up conspiracy theories about a small scale charity trying to do good things for GA safety…come on folks
For the avoidance of doubt, I’m not having a pop at the presenters at all – that was other people. I don’t see them as ‘blazers’. They’re probably pretty decent people, though I may be suspicious of their agenda (or the agenda they are delivering) – but that goes for anyone.
The CAA and GASCo can do what they like (though one could argue the CAA ought to be putting it out to tender) but please don’t try and tell me with a straight face that this is not a very profitable gig for GASCo.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
the qualifications or the background of the “Blazers”
Don’t care.
I judge the credibility of what someone is saying based on the points they make and the logic of their argument, not their qualifications or experience.
