LeSving wrote:
An official in a top position
I don’t think he’s in any way in a ‘top position’.
His role would probably be described as middle management. He’s just the guy who happens to process infringements.
This sort of behavior from the CAA only seems to highlight a number of the concerns raised. Threatening legal action based on information from a third party which he hasn’t bother to verify and is very easily checked.
I struggle to understand how one gets into that sort of mindset unless they feel they can wield power without having to have any reason behind it.
I’m upset because my publicly available information has been mentioned on a forum seems a bit ridiculous.
One does question whether he should remain in post given the truly dreadful way this whole debacle has been handled.
I would still like to know how GASCo came away with a contract that we still don’t know the terms of, and how the contract was tendered.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
dreadful way this whole debacle has been handled
I don’t think being a bit slow to deliver statistics can be called a debacle. The “gentleman in question” is applying the policy that has been agreed by his superior. He might have a hand in writing the policy but not the whole responsability.
I meant the whole policy, there are very few parts of it that show the hand of any experience.
On the contrary, I think it shows plenty of experience.
Unfortunately organisations like the CAA, when hiring people into positions of responsibility, tend to make the mistake of placing too much importance on career background and ‘relevant experience’ over the more important factors of intelligence, objectivity and critical reasoning skills.
What would be your policy to deal with infrigers?
And I’m not talking about the (long term) policy to reduce systemic reasons (airspace design, FIS, …)
I’m talking about if you were given an opportunity to rewrite CAP1404 and/or seat on the ICG.
So now the plan is to get him fired? While saying that he lacks intelligence, objectivity and critical reasoning skills?
You should hear yourselves, hiding behind your play-names while criticising him for not wanting his name bandied around social media.
And then you ask why people don’t come on forums for a discussion?
How is anyone planning to get someone fired? All I can see is someone questioning if he is suitable for the role. Which given that he is sensitive to having his name mentioned seems a very reasonable question. A long running theme in this is thread is about transparency and being open with what is actually going on.
So his publicly available information should not be mentioned on a forum? And you think it is sensible to threaten legal action based on someone telling him his name has appeared on a forum?
I’ve just had a call from the CAA do discuss my MOR.
While I haven’t found out about the sentencing yet, I was very impressed by the level of thoroughness they put in to answer every single of my comments or points I had made in the MOR.
They didn’t call to do any blaming (or say patronizing stuff), but instead went on to educate about all the points that failed – and I did actually learn some things (Standard Routes, ATC procedures, even skydemon behaviour). They were very open to discuss some other points I brought in the call – I never had the impression they were calling “to give a bollocking”.
I have to say I couldn’t really have asked for a more positive experience (well, short of, “sh!t happens, don’t do it again, no MOR or follow up” 
)
