Fuji_Abound wrote:
Peter’s example further exposes the potential danger of making reports with the consequences we are seeing when, in fact matters could have been far better resolved in some other way. I mean, if an examiner departs, and presumably remained in the ATZ, and presumably still with two way comms., and then announced the intention to perform a PFL, how could this result in a bust? As ever, I guess there was more to it, but it seems extraordinary.
You can’t bust an ATZ ( to the extent you can ever) if you never leave it.
JasonC – indeed, although we dont know (from Peter’s account) whether he did leave the ATZ for a very short time. It seems a very strange incident, and I cant imagine why Barton would want to p*** off a local instructor / examiner anyway – but who knows, there seems to be some strange goings on.
While I have no idea, if there is a particular “problem” with Barton, one has to wonder why the CAA arent equally asking why? I was a frequent visitor to Elstree in the good old days of a particularly colourful AFISO who was very well known. He could give you hell for no justifiable reason, and in the end the matter was addressed.
I would reiterate the importance of co-operation, all parties working together, and being prepared to ask questions as to why there seem to be some local black spots – it usually means that the problem in those black spots is wider than you might imagine, and if you really believe in promoting safety, understanding why is far more important than sending pilots to GASCo.
There is no difference between this and the higher level of busts in the SE. There are very good reasons why, and it is far more important the underlying reasons are addressed, than the attempts to justify a policy that does not achieve this.
The CAA simply are not promoting safety – they are promoting GASCo, they are placating NATS, and they are causing a loss of trust between controllers and pilots.
I was told he left the ATZ briefly.
I accept we often not hear the whole story, but busting anybody for most of these incidents smells bad no matter how you shake it.
The bottom line is that, by now, some 2-3k pilots have had all 3 of these:
Compared to most human activities, GA is a considerable hassle as a hobby and consequently few pilots who actually fly anywhere (and thus are likely to bust) are shrinking violets, with a good sprinkling of Type A personalities, and thus unsuprisingly there are a whole lot of people out there who are massively p1ssed off. Anybody who gets Gasco certainly will be.
So, [the man whose name must not be mentioned] is having to deal with a load of people who advise him of their lack of happiness in no uncertain terms. And that is not going to get you a lower “sentence”! Like with all enforcement professions, getting cocky with the CAA will always bring the whole roof on your head. Especially as it is the same man there writing the letters and thus apparently making all the decisions, so things can “get personal” quite easily. I’ve seen this come through really clearly in CAA and related (Gasco) presentations where you can just see that somebody got busted extra for a bad attitude. In the UK, that is how the police operated too (pre-CPS so many years ago now). They often ran a “very personal” campaign.
Something that interested me a few pages back was the comment that commercial and military pilots were treated much more leniently than private pilots. Is there any legal basis that allows them to do that. Is it true?
An opening post on the Flyer forum several months ago claimed that the allegedly high number of infringements reported at Barton was having a serious effect on the livelihood of the professional pilots concerned.
On a general note I would guess that most airline and military misdemeanours are dealt with internally, but I have no idea if that’s the case.
If I was a commercial pilot flying GA too, I would be exceedingly careful flying GA in the UK now. Especially if I was instructing, because of the obvious factors: distraction potential, and doing a lot of hours.
Perhaps that is why all the PPL training I ever had was done along the coast and at 2000ft, and this level is usual in the UK. The CAS base is 5500ft.
No way would I do any mentoring now. Anything with significant passenger interaction is a great hazard to your license now.
Serving military have their in-house process. See here. It is based on Just Culture. For private pilots, there is no JC; you just get busted. The lucky ones get a warning letter on the 1st one.
The courts, after they formally charge you with an offence.
I can’t post what I know of actual cases but the route to a court hearing is a high risk one and you are likely to end up with an engine full of rust because all timescale guidance falls away (CAP1404, and actual CAA practice).
You cannot get a court hearing unless you do something bad enough for the CAA to prosecute you. The only other way is to withold co-operation on the normal process (not attend Gasco, etc) but what if they just suspend your license and leave it like that? You will never fly again. You cannot get into a criminal court yourself 
Peter wrote:
Especially as it is the same man there writing the letters and thus apparently making all the decisions, so things can “get personal” quite easily.
The rather elementary mistake that he who must not be named has made is thinking that he can run a busting and enforcement operation like this and at the same time continue to be everyone’s mate in GA circles, on forums and on social media. Aviation is a sector with lots of big personalities and people who want everyone to know that they’re a major ‘name’ in the system, so I don’t think it occurs to anyone to try and do anything like this relatively anonymously, nor can one rely on others involved not to brag about their involvement.
His name is attached (with a highly specific job title) to an awful lot of stuff that gets published by the CAA and when you factor in a bunch (or a handful) of those people who like to make it known that they’re ‘involved’ in the system posting on forums it doesn’t take much detective work to work out who’s driving what. It would be much harder to determine who was behind a particular initiative in HMRC or the DVLA for instance.
So because the whole operation is ill-conceived and counter productive, you get a lot of very forceful criticism from the pilot community (at least, from those who are not afraid for their livelihoods or otherwise have little skin in the game) and because the details are easy to work out that criticism gets directed in a very concentrated fashion in one direction.
We then hear from various quarters that the person feels they have been bullied, harassed, etc. There have been all sorts of ludicrous suggestions that what is posted here and on Facebook might be considered malicious communications, libel, etc. But conveniently the CAA lawyers advise against action – I wonder why. The person concerned withdraws to a position of not talking about their work outside of actually being at work, which is what they should have done from the start if they wanted to run this operation.
Thankfully things seem to be improving based on the latest figures. Whether the criticism leveled here and elsewhere has had an effect, I cannot say. The Barton situation (their interpretation of Rule 11) remains a serious problem and I am putting together a letter which will go the various appropriate places later today. I will post a copy on here.
I seem to recall reading on the Flyer Forum that Barton has been doing an ADSB trial with their AFISOs.
I really hope that the two aren’t connected as it would be sad if the promotion of ADSB is tarnished by its use “getting people done”…
