Peter wrote:
I really hope I never have to appear in front your bench.
I hope that for everyone, but am disappointed on a regular basis.
Timothy – to be fair you repeatedly miss the point.
The accusations are seat filling and / or undue process.
Both concerns would be easy to allay, and should be allayed, even if only of concern to a few.
All your protestation and mine would amount to hot air if the data and the process were published in a clear and meaningful way.
The point is the answer is so easy, the fact its not forthcoming, is entirely where the problem exists.
You know as well as I, if this came before a Court in some way certain disclosures would be required and that would be an end of it.
Why does it take ump-teen FOI requests to extract basic information?
As I have said matters are in hand through formal channels, such a shame this should be necessary.
And do you think that deletions of posts making arguments that don’t fit the desired world view are due process?
I’d rather be tried by the CAA or CJS than here 
No-one is being tried here, that’s the difference.
Graham wrote:
No-one is being tried here
Oh, I don’t know. Comments like
I really hope I never have to appear in front your bench.
Clearly are a form of judgment, as are all the comments about how CAA officials operate and so much more.
If you make a post slagging off the forum, you can expect to get a robust response.
Also very few people would agree.
That is since October 2012. Compare and contrast, as they say, with [insert your favourite forum].
The comments about the decision process are easily based on the published info, and the info which should be published but a part of it was extracted by some people under the FOIA. That is what you should be debating. But it’s really hard to do so, isn’t it?
The deleted post was way way off topic, pure mischief making, and not even worth moving to the usual place.
Timothy
as are all the comments about how CAA officials operate and so much more.
I dont see why? How the CAA operate through its officials is the matter being debated. The debate is about the policy, not the individual.
However, BTW again this doesnt answer the questions, it is just more hot air, I am afraid.
Simple questions, simple answers.
Perhaps someone can tell us how many GASCo courses there are a month?
and, how many pilots attend each course?
Timothy wrote:
Clearly are a form of judgment, as are all the comments about how CAA officials operate and so much more.
No, they are me (or someone else) giving my/their opinion. It’s not a judgement of any sort and no consequence comes from it.
Are you suggesting said officials should be above comment/suspicion/scruitiny?
Perhaps someone can tell us how many GASCo courses there are a month?
One – at least until recently.
and, how many pilots attend each course?
That is not known but the capacity is stated on their forms to be c. 25, though one delegate reported a stated capacity of 35. On the one I did, it was 20 present, as per my report posted earlier.
So the July one (15 people) presumably wasn’t filled to capacity, which I think from our point of view is a good thing.
PS: I might be making a mistake, there is obviously a delay between people being told they need to attend the course, and attending
