Or maybe they want to explain what’s really going on, and the ringleaders don’t want to hear that, as it might reduce their opportunities to lead rings.
Gosh, yeah, Timothy hits the nail on the head as always. Having been born with a silver spoon in my mouth, in one of the world’s richest countries – a paragon of democracy, too
I always wanted to be a proper mafia ring leader, along with my hero Joe and his appointees who ran the country so well, whose portraits we worshipped in every classroom. And now my dream has come true, for a mere 60 bucks a month 
Timothy – what I find very strange is you have told us you are a magistrate, so your judgement should be good and sound, you are convinced that the policy as applied is fair, there is no seat filling, and its open and transparent. To have reached that view you must therefore be fully aware of, and have independently considered, the evidence. You must know that every attendee of GASCo passes through the official committee process, and the seats are not filled in any other way.
What I dont understand is why it should be such a big secret. If you know beyond doubt that is so, I can see no reason why you would not say so.
If there is doubt in your mind then equally I see no reason not to say so.
In exactly the same way, I see no reason why the CAA would not wish to publish a clear policy statement and release the data in support. They may not wish to post here, but that is exactly the purpose of the various official circulars at their disposal.
Its not as if the questions being asked have not be read. We know they have.
So, let me ask you, do you agree the questions are reasonable? If not, why not?
If you do agree, how are you comfortable being part of this process in the way you have described, and yet not insisting these questions are addressed? For me, in all conscious, I would be uncomfortable with representing the rank and file of GA, but yet going along with this charade. On the other hand if you have asked they be addressed, and they havent, again in all conscious how do you square this with your repeated support of the current policy?
Please, again dont misunderstand me, and its not personal, I just cant reconcile the views you have expressed with the lack of public evidence to support those views from which I can only conclude you must be very certain of your position, and utterly convinced there is nothing of concern.
As to the discussion in general we heard a great deal earlier from Cub of this parish who again appears to have some detailed knowledge, but has now left the discussion telling us that his role is remote. i would ask the same questions, because in coming to the defence of the policy, you must be satisfied the concerns expressed here are entirely without merit.
Timothy wrote:
I have a meeting with [name removed on CAA request] on Wednesday, I could suggest it, if you like?
Hopefully this is not out of scope: but could you get some clarification on what process is followed for foreign pilots? This is of personal interest to me, as I have a foreign pilots license and don’t live in the UK, but virtually all my trips will involve flying in the UK, and inevitably around the most infringed pieces of airspace in the UK (the Manchester area).
While I make strenuous efforts to never infringe, an infringement is merely an incorrect QNH setting away and since I have mode-S (and will NOT ever turn my transponder off) I know they will come after me if I were to make such an error. I hope the answer isn’t “we try to get the issuing state to revoke the license immediately”, and at least similar consideration is given (warning letter or GASCo course) if you’re not a UK PPL.
I am sure that I have answered all this before, but:
“Yes , let’s not try to make it better for fear of making it worse” is hardly a constructive proposition.
It can be the best on offer.
But Timothy do you think enough or even anything at all being done to address some the multitude of systems failures such as RPS?
I have no problem with the GASCO course and I don’t think for one second that the CAA is being unfair but what I do think is nothing else is being done. When clearly it should be.
I have no problem with the GASCO course
You would have, if you read CAP1404 and the published CAA stats and realised that anybody who gets sent on it faces a loss of license on the next occassion they touch CAS
It’s like most people have no problem with getting 3 points on their license… until they get to 9 points. The Gasco course is equivalent to getting 9 points, and clearly most people on it (all those I spoke to) are first time infringers. So, it’s like a speed camera which gets you 9 points, at 30.1mph.
The Gasco course itself isn’t a huge issue. It merely wastes a couple of days of your life, listening to a fast and mostly one-way presentation, and a few hundred quid, which on the scale of aviation hassles is not a big thing. It is a big wasted opportunity but so is half the stuff in the GA training sausage machine… Getting a polite bollocking from ATC following a nip of CAS – like one used to get, for all the years I remember, and like the rest of Europe does – is more effective.
Bathman wrote:
But Timothy do you think enough or even anything at all being done to address some of the multitude of systems failures..?
Welcome to my life. It is largely dedicated to addressing the multitude of systems failures.
such as RPS
High on the list, for a number of different reasons. It was going to go with the 18,000’ TA, but that quietly (though not necessarily permanently) died a death. I think that GA universally want to be rid of RPS, but it remains important to the military, so we still keep getting given it by LARS and MATZ “controllers”.
A solution is being worked on.
Peter wrote:
Getting a polite bollocking from ATC following a nip of CAS….is more effective.
What evidence do you have for that?
You could equally turn that around and ask what evidence do you have that hitting UK GA with a big hammer is going to be any good.
It will reduce infringements, sure. Not hard to do given the ongoing decline in GA. Accelerate that a bit and job is done!
I’ve had more correspondence with the CAA and they are not averse to producing a list of answers to specific questions, to be published generally (not for any particular forum’s benefit, I am told) so maybe this is worth looking at.
