Also 7600 will not open CAS for you, you still need clearance
That’s not strictly true if on an IFR flight, because you have the Lost Comms Procedure 
How exactly that would work in reality is anybody’s guess…
I think the ATC guy who said that did not think about 7000 & 2000 IFR OCAS without FPL
Peter wrote:
Roughly 10 years ago I was at a presentation at NATS at Swanwick and the subject of 7600 came up. The senior NATS guy said you will get shot down (by the military).
Which is clearly bollocks. Why would you murder the crew of a light aircraft because they lost communications? Even if someone squawked 7500 you wouldn’t shoot first and ask questions later.
Ibra wrote:
squawking 7600 is not RT specific you can do it when you see hot CHTs nothing to do with radio issues or comms failures
I think you are confusing 7600 with 7700 which is the general emergency code. 7600 is definitely RT specific!
Thanks for pointing that, mid-week confusion 
Graham wrote:
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.
I suspect the reason we have any form of qualifications is that it is a test of breadth of knowledge, and ability to meet a certain minimium standard.
Would you want to be treated by a doctor, that claimed to meet a standard, but had not demonstrated so? Rather you than me. The same might be said of a pilot.
I agree there are many ways perhaps to obtain a standard, but they are less certain. I also agree in any singular argument you also make a sound point, but in this case these characters are being tasked with performing a regulatory finction in a setting which should require a wide experience. However they gained that experience, we should be told, so we can judge if they are charlatans. Personally I suspect they are charlatans, or they have no integrity, because the whole basis of this process is impossible to justify.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
Would you want to be treated by a doctor, that claimed to meet a standard, but had not demonstrated so? Rather you than me. The same might be said of a pilot.
That’s a strawman and completely different to what I said (quite some time ago!)
Graham you are right, senior moment. You will need to remind me though of your context as I would have though subject to my reply would have been similiar.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
You will need to remind me though of your context as I would have though subject to my reply would have been similiar.
What I’m getting at is that I consider arguments on their merits and the evident (or otherwise) analytical and critical reasoning skills displayed when they are being made.
In the aviation context it is clear enough to me that just because some is an ATPL/high hours/CAA/NATS/RAF or whatever it is no indicator that what they say makes much sense or is well thought-out. In fact I tend to find that the keener someone is to point out their credentials in support of their point, the less likely their point is to have much merit and the more embedded they are in ‘the system’ the more systemic bias they display. It’s the same phenomenon as the tradesman who tries to justify his iffy work by saying “I’ve been doing this 25 years mate” instead of explaining why he’s done it that way.
It’s a world apart from suggesting that qualifications are not necessary in certain professions.
Graham wrote:
What I’m getting at is that I consider arguments on their merits and the evident (or otherwise) analytical and critical reasoning skills displayed when they are being made.In the aviation context it is clear enough to me that just because some is an ATPL/high hours/CAA/NATS/RAF or whatever it is no indicator that what they say makes much sense or is well thought-out. In fact I tend to find that the keener someone is to point out their credentials in support of their point, the less likely their point is to have much merit and the more embedded they are in ‘the system’ the more systemic bias they display. It’s the same phenomenon as the tradesman who tries to justify his iffy work by saying “I’ve been doing this 25 years mate” instead of explaining why he’s done it that way.
It’s a world apart from suggesting that qualifications are not necessary in certain professions.
I agree.
I am sorry I did take your post completely out of context not realising it was much earlier. I apologise.
I think my comment was about the people who run these courses. My concern is that given they are conducted in a regulatory capacity i think it is reasonable to expect some background on who is actually taking the course in terms of their qualifications (if any) and creditials. The point was made that this type of training properly conducted is quite specialised if it is to do the job intended, and not simply dependent on the person being a skilled pilot. More to the point, and adopting your criteria, it would seem from the reports I have read, that the people concerned have failed to grasp the basic concept of how a course of this nature should be run, making me even more suspicious that GASCO think any old pilot who can be paid as little as possible will do. Re-education is a skilled business and needs to be conducted properly if it is to achieve the objectives intended, represent value for money, and not to ridiculed in the way almost universally it would seem to be in this instance.
