The 15 reported as sent to Gasco are just the ones sent there via ICG (the committee) decisions. The number sent to Gasco via non ICG decisions (i.e. the one guy making the judgement) is not known.
The data on how many got what and via which route and which month is not available. If it was, and say for a particular month 15 got sent to Gasco via the ICG route, and a delegate who attended that month reported 25 present, then we know that 10 got sent there via the individual’s decision. But actually even that would not work because if you get sent to Gasco you get a choice of 3 locations… The only way to get any idea of how many are getting Gasco with the committee bypassed will be when a whole year’s data has come in. My feeling is that it is 5-15 a month. And a year or two later Gasco accounts will be published which will show the Gasco infringement course income; I can’t remember if that shows the gross income however.
Again it seems to me very odd in the whole pilot community no one can / will say how many attend each month say over the last year, and by which route. It should hardly be a secret, and I would guess there are pilots who know, who are reading this. It would be helpful.
I have some data from PM’s I have received.
Has anyone (I don’t care enough about it) tried asking gasco themselves?
My electronic form for 6/7 infringement had a deadline of 29/7. I got the decision at 10.18 on 29/7. No further action, record on my file.
Thank maroraigh. When in that timeframe did you reply to the Q? And did you get emails from north NATS and CAA requesting you to fill same Q from different links?
Clearly someone here has been busy, since I was contacted by the CAA Airspace Infringements Lead (formerly Principal Airspace Regulator), regarding the proposition above that some are sent to Gasco via the ICG and some are sent to Gasco via a non ICG route.
He states “is factually incorrect and not in line with a CAA process or policy”. I sent him a long and very polite email (checked by some other people) detailing how reading the published CAA stats lead to this and other conclusions discussed in this thread and invited him on EuroGA to inform us appropriately. He replied, bluntly stating various things including “will not, read or subscribe to” the forum and offered a face to face meeting only.
My view is that such private meetings (which as discussed further back have been offered to a number of people prominent on GA social media) would be pointless as this is a matter of interest to the whole community. Convincing someone personally of something is of little use to others, regardless of whether the meeting is held under an NDA.
Being an unpaid volunteer, I have no interest in pursuing this.
I replied the morning after I received the link. I think I only got one email.
I received it 15/7, with the infringement 6/7.
It may depend on the airspace. For NATS airspace you would tend to get 1 email from NATS and then 1 email from CAA.
A similar but not identical questionnaire from each.
OTOH if NATS can’t immediately trace you… I am sure there is a system.
Some transparancy with the data could help this all rather easily.
Peter wrote:
He replied, bluntly stating various things including “will not, read or subscribe to” the forum and offered a face to face meeting only.
Obviously he wants to convince you he is a good guy, a nice guy, which he most probably is. But, good guys often do things that cause bad effects, with no ill meaning. Which is precisely the reason why stuff like this must be open and transparent. It’s not the intentions that count nor the symbolic value (if any), it’s the real world effects exclusively.
