The CAA would simply cancel your license (which they can do without any court action or indeed any oversight) and then you would have to engage a lawyer to sort it all out 
I think we can conclude that the Gasco “Course” is neither a course or a seminar.
Attendees are required to listen and not contribute. Given the apparent secrecy as to experience and reasons for requirement to attend being shared with attendees or the GA community, the course is unlikely to contribute to safety in any material sense.
The “course” is simply an alternative to prosecution and as such GASCO are acting on behalf of the prosecuting authority by providing the alternative and less punative disposal.
A Charitable purpose is at odds with running such disposals in support of a prosecuting authority. It fundamentally undermines the stated intent of GASCO if it creates the subjective response of pilots as recorded here.
At a policy level from the CAA they have, by adopting this approach, created distrust, fear of prosecution and this has and will continue to lead to adverse air safety issues in the future.
I too have altered my behaviour as a result of this policy and if the 1610 posts so far on this are accurate so too have many others. At my local field most transponders remain off for local flying. it is illogical and crazy that we feel we need to do this but as Peter says
Peter wrote:
otherwise your license goes POP (and no doubt your insurance goes up because licensing action in aviation is a VERY BIG THING, normally reserved for complete headcases). It is a totally crude escalation which is totally disproportionate to the “crime”.
Things are going mad here; what a frenzy over the requirement to remain outside controlled airspace. I have to say that I can’t believe pilots are encouraging each other of operate with transponders switched off. I am so pleased I no longer fly north anymore. It is not the CAA, NATS or GASCO that should be feared or mistrusted, it is ourselves. I hope this is the voice of a minor part of British general aviation.
I don’t think the CAA could cancel your licence after you have completed the “course” and they have closed your file, merely because you are dissatisfied with the service provided by GASCO.
The first port of call for such a complaint would presumably be your local Citizens’ Advice Bureau and/or Trading Standards Office with a short letter setting out what you see as the deficiencies of the GASCO “course” – no attendee input permitted, no tailoring of content to attendees’ experience and needs, poor pedagogy etc.
If they decide to take up your case, you can sit back and let them get on with it.
I believe that GASCO’s customers have an obligation to do this, and that GASCO should welcome it. If nobody complains about a monopolist service provider, the service is unlikely to improve.
As for the CAA, I think they are on thin ice, requiring customers to purchase a service from GASCO which could perfectly well be provided by any ground school or Class Rating Instructor.
So far this year (Jan-Oct 2019) there have been 25 pilots who have had their licence suspended.
The number seem to be increasing as time goes on (4-5 per month since June except for September when there was none). Presumably it’s gone up as time goes on as more people have already attended a GASCO course and therefore have the potential to infringe again post course. At this rate we’re probably looking at circa 50+ suspensions next year.
Is that justified?
What happens to these pilots? Do they get their licence ‘unsuspended’ after some training or attending another GASCO course? Do most of them forget about flying and walk away? That would be great for NATS as it’s one less pilot able to infringe, but terrible for GA as it’s one less pilot participating in our activity and supporting the overall infrastructure, and probably putting off other pilots or potential pilots with their “horror story”.
As bad as the GASCO course is, I’ve been very concerned about the provisional suspension right from the very start of this policy. I was told on another forum by he who must not be named, that these would be reserved for the most extreme cases.
Is this really warranted simply for second infringement which in all likelihood was not a “Muppet incident” but a minor mistake that was quickly sorted?
172flyer wrote:
Things are going mad here; what a frenzy over the requirement to remain outside controlled airspace.
It is not the requirement to remain OCAS but the genuine fear of prosecution/ licence suspension or worse that drives this response. All pilots will surely recognise the need to comply with the law and not to breach the limits. However where in some places the limits are so tight and so dependant on correct pressure setting and any breach is reported and not first pointed out by ATC even when receiving a “service” then even responsible careful and considered high hours pilots are reacting this way.
I have previously expressed doubt that the CAA would actually go ahead and automatically suspend your licence following a repeat infringement within 2 years of attending GASCo.
Looking at the stats though, perhaps they do.
As dublinpilot says, it would be very interesting to see what that provisional suspension means in practice for the people it actually happens to. What is the cost in time and money of getting it back, and just how much humble pie would one have to eat? I’d imagine at this point the private chat at Gatwick becomes non-optional if you ever want to fly again.
What happens to these pilots? Do they get their licence ‘unsuspended’ after some training or attending another GASCO course?
The CAA busts dept quotes heavily from CAP1404, which is silent on this.
The data published thus far shows zero cases of repeat Gasco “sentences”, but one of the Gasco presenters told me (in June) that they have seen “some repeat customers” so the CAA data is probably sanitised to push the image that there is zero life after Gasco.
that these would be reserved for the most extreme cases.
One would think so, logically and in terms of “proportional justice”, but that’s not what the CAA published data shows.
I think that your license is suspended at “Gasco+1” but clearly there is a route to getting it back (basically because, while most UK GA is skint, a % of the targets will be rich and angry and will engage a 10k/day QC) and for some reason they don’t want to publish it (well, obviously, for maximum FUD value). It is a great case for another FOIA application… maybe somebody will have a go.
As the EuroGA mod/admin and in possession of a number of unsavoury emails from you know who, I would expect an extremely aggressive reception at Gatwick.
The main UK GA “chat site” pulled the plug on all discussion of this topic, presumably under pressure from the CAA, not to mention due to complaints by all the NATS staff who are on there under nicknames
The main UK GA “chat site” pulled the plug on all discussion of this topic, presumably under pressure from the CAA, not to mention due to complaints by all the NATS staff who are on there under nicknames
… or maybe the mods were just fed up …
This thread is intriguing and to be honest rather ridiculous in parts. I have just look at at the statistics and can’t see that any licences were taken away permanently. Maybe a pilot who was provisionally suspended might like to post, anonymously of course, what happened to him/her. I’m sure one of the 20 or so frequent this site I for one am fascinated by the process which if you spend time looking at the numbers and words against the CAP1404 makes some sense.
