Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

National CAA policies around Europe on busting pilots who bust controlled airspace (and danger areas)

Fuji_Abound wrote:

There are only two links – so it isnt difficult to follow the link to “Airspace Infringement Course”. Excellent, clearly here is a good opportunity for GASCo to provide some background to the course, the lecturers, its purpose, its achievements, infact anyhting that might inform and inspire confidence in the interested reader.

What do you get when you select the link?

Moreover, it may dawn on you that having given your personal details which they acknowledge will be added to their database, and perhaps after you have read the privacy policy, you realise they are storing this information electronically without giving any assurances as to with who and how the data might be used.

That’s not how I understood the privacy statement. It states that they will use the data to send you information and for handling course registrations. As far as I understand GDPR, if that’s what they tell you, they can’t use the data for anything else.

If you register and log in you get reasonably good information about the course. The only thing I am really lacking is more information about the lecturers. And of course the six pages of terms and conditions you have to agree to is a bit silly.

But what’s interesting is that they explicitly say that discussions are part of the course — “The course consists of a four hour interactive presentation and activities including discussions and exercises on all aspects of airspace infringements, in a relaxed and informal atmosphere.” Indeed you are required to “[participate] in group discussions to the best of [your] ability.”

Yet we have heard here that discussions are actively discouraged?

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Airborne_Again wrote:

Yet we have heard here that discussions are actively discouraged?

As Balliol says, we have heard much on here that is inaccurate, but no amount of giving accurate information changes what is said.

EGKB Biggin Hill

Capitaine wrote:

Gasco accounts from companies house website (can’t remember if this has already come up):
application_pdf_pdf

Edit: source is https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04425086

Absolutely!

.. but its called transparency. How many people know, or indeed want to go, searching around Companies House for an organisations accounts?

Never mind that if they did, they might think the registered name would be GASCo – which of course it isnt.

There is a reason most organisations of any reasonable size publish their accounts on the about section of their web.

There is also a reason why most charities make it clear on their lead web page that they are a registered charity and their registration number.

GASCo clearly would prefer to do none of that.

Airborne_Again wrote:

“The course consists of a four hour interactive presentation and activities including discussions and exercises on all aspects of airspace infringements, in a relaxed and informal atmosphere.” Indeed you are required to “[participate] in group discussions to the best of [your] ability.”

Yet we have heard here that discussions are actively discouraged?

Well, Peter and others may wish to recount their personal experience again?

Airborne_Again wrote:

That’s not how I understood the privacy statement. It states that they will use the data to send you information and for handling course registrations. As far as I understand GDPR, if that’s what they tell you, they can’t use the data for anything else.

https://www.fly2help.org/privacy-policy/

Here you go. I just happened to select the first I found in the aviation sector. It isnt difficult, it is all there, very clear, very concise and they dont do CAA contract work but can manage to get the basics right. In fact just look at how clearly they explain what they do, how they operate, who runs the charity, even the fact that it is a registered charity and its registration number. I wouldnt have imagined it was that easy.

Timothy wrote:

As Balliol says, we have heard much on here that is inaccurate, but no amount of giving accurate information changes what is said.

Actually, I have seen very little information from either GASCo, or the CAA regarding this matter. What I have seen are denials that the course is filled according to the absence of sufficient attendess, which were then retracted, numerous statements by the CAA that are simply wrong (and you have acknowledged as much), and the CAA being literally forced to produce statistics only after criticism by the Commissioner following Freedom of Information applications. I am afraid it is a pretty tawdry record, of which it is very difficult to see how a public body could be proud.

I have no doubt there are some inaccuracies on this side of the fence, but it is hardly surprising given the complete absence of accurate information in the public domain.

I think the manner in which Gasco was engaged by the CAA to process the “top twenty” infringers each month is probably no more than a bunch of ex RAF old chums looking after another bunch of ex RAF old chums.

This goes on everywhere…

Over the last say 30 years (I started in business in 1978) the UK has gone from an often corrupt place, with backhanders being fairly common, and working on the basis of who you know, to one of the most transparent countries I know, in terms of transparency of both corporate and official (govt, etc) behaviour.

But remnants of the old ways of doing things still carry on, in places.

However, let’s not get sidetracked. I don’t think Gasco is responsible for CAA’s policy. They just happened to be in the right place at the right time. Retired Air Commodore XYZ, whose diameter gets larger at each annual photo opportunity (do google/images), probably had a nice lunch with the right people and got the job. They were already running the CAA “Safety Evenings” – another excrutiatingly boring and patronising presentation aimed at 5hr/year pilots who are really proud to fly with a compass and a stopwatch, wear a yellow jacket at lunch, regard G-P-S as a dirty word, and queue up at the end to have their logbooks stamped that they attended (not kidding; I saw it myself).

I don’t think Gasco’s “course” is worth anything (looking at who ends up on it, mostly, their “message” is wasted on an audience which predominantly uses GPS and mostly did a brief screw-up, and got done mainly because they had Mode S, and their “criminal offences” were artificially inflated in seriousness because the UK adds the 5000ft or whatever) but I don’t think that was the intention, which is to make everybody drive hundreds of miles (on average), stay in a hotel (the thing starts ~9am), spend another 200 quid when they get there, and generally end up with a foul taste in their mouth, so they don’t misbehave again.

The real issue is the CAA “bust them all” policy.

Gasco just happens to be the last step before – per CAP1404 – your license is suspended.

And lots of people get Gasco on their first infringement, so we have a really aggressive system which is going to have nasty side effects, over the coming years.

Lots of people already turn off their transponders, lots more will in the future, the CAA will implement the obvious kneejerk reaction (TMZs, etc) because that’s all they know, there is zero interest in Just Culture or relevant human factors, and it’s all going to get out of hand because they will be busting another load of people for TMZ busts…

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I really like this bit of the CAA/GASCo “about the course” flyer:

The course will normally be held in convenient hotel conference rooms at locations throughout the UK. There is sufficient choice of venues and dates offered in order that prospective delegates can find a venue and date that are reasonably convenient for them.

When we examine the list of venues we see that the expression “at locations throughout the UK” actually means “at four locations in the southern half of England”.

It seems fair enough for the chap-who-cannot-be-named to ignore the existence of Wales and Northern Ireland (I mean, who could be bothered with them anyway?). But fully 55% of us Jocks (and a few of our sheep-shagging cousins in Cumberland and Northunmbria) are going to be a bit miffed if Mr Gratton or one of his colleagues in Sussex has decided to anticipate the result of IndyRef2 and move Hadrian’s wall south by 150 miles

Last Edited by Jacko at 25 Nov 23:19
Glenswinton, SW Scotland, United Kingdom

Jacko – thats brilliant :=) you just couldn’t make it up, and there is Timothy wishing more of the information discussed was factually correct.

I wonder how many pilots in the North infringe, and which course they attend – oh I know, we arent told, that would be inconvenient.

Of course there are instructors at most airfields in the UK, you know chaps, the places pilots occasionally frequent, but guess what, the instructors are not to be trusted, because a few of them have been sent packing to GASCo. Surprisingly, they can be trusted though to sign someone off to fly a 12 seater twin over a puppy farm – oh dear, what have things come to?

Can we name he that cannot be named now?

They were already running the CAA “Safety Evenings” – another excrutiatingly boring and patronising presentation aimed at 5hr/year pilots who are really proud to fly with a compass and a stopwatch, wear a yellow jacket at lunch, regard G-P-S as a dirty word, and queue up at the end to have their logbooks stamped that they attended (not kidding; I saw it myself).

I did attend one of these, and got a stamp in the log book. It was congenial, interesting with the majority of pilots also flight deck crew with quite a few in the 20,000 hour plus category of experience. No one felt patronised. I would attend one again.

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom

Can we name he that cannot be named now?

Obviously you legally could (after all his emails to me were headed CAA OFFICIAL and any threats are totally empty as well as completely ridiculous) but it would just cause more hassle. Everybody knows who it is. His name is on the bottom of hundreds if not thousands of CAA PDFs announcing restricted areas, etc. Used to have a title of Principal Director of Airspace Policy and recently changed to CAA Infringements Lead. Curious, actually, since the latter title is the title of somebody else in the CAA (formerly NATS, seconded to the CAA) who I bumped into recently. Both ex RAF ATC.

Bear in mind that if I manage to infringe again, even for seconds, they will go after me like hell because I am a mod/admin here and have permitted this topic to be discussed. I will get the absolute maximum.

I did attend one of these, and got a stamp in the log book. It was congenial, interesting with the majority of pilots also flight deck crew with quite a few in the 20,000 hour plus category of experience. No one felt patronised. I would attend one again.

Clearly, you didn’t do it in the glory days of Mr Cockburn

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top