Martin being there at Gasco isn’t necessarily a bad/facepalm thing.
If you think the Gasco process isn’t great, there were groups out there who seriously wanted high fines and/or every licence suspended on every slight infringement, no matter how minor. These people placed 100% of the blame on pilots while refusing to acknowledge their own issues.
Thank goodness these people weren’t allowed to achieve their objective.
We have some people in AOPA, Gasco and at the CAA to thank for this.
James_Chan wrote:
Martin being there at Gasco isn’t necessarily a bad/facepalm thing.
I don’t know more about UK GA aviation politics than what I’ve read here, but I do see it as problematic that the CEO of an association formed to protect the interests of GA pilots (i.e. AOPA UK) is also on the board of an organisation which is economically dependent on enforcement actions by the CAA (i.e. Gasco).
GASCo and the AOPA existed long before this course was put into place. Honestly, I don’t believe GASCo are in it for the money.
The problem isn’t the course, or GASCo. The problem is the systematic refusal to look at the systemic issues that cause such a high level of infringements in the UK, and the “political correctness” of anyone who dares to say it’s not 100% the pilots fault being shouted down (e.g. the reaction Timothy related earlier in this thread). The recent airspace enquiry also said the UK airspace system is not fit for purpose (but will this be acted on? I suspect not, just like the Red Tape challenge has not really been acted on).
While pilots certainly make errors (and in some instances, you can’t really blame anyone other than the pilot for an infringement) the numbers will simply not go down until systemic issues are addressed.
It is public knowledge that James Chan is (or was) a UK AOPA activist.
Martin Robinson’s joining of Gasco was posted a long way back in this thread. It’s also public knowledge.
such a high level of infringements in the UK
This is imaginary. The UK has relatively few infringements. See e.g. here.
The rising numbers in the UK are caused wholly by polishing the reporting system – as described further back.
James_Chan wrote:
If you think the Gasco process isn’t great, there were groups out there who seriously wanted high fines and/or every licence suspended on every slight infringement, no matter how minor. These people placed 100% of the blame on pilots while refusing to acknowledge their own issues.
There are always tyrants in the midst. It isn’t about compromise with these types, it is about the advocation of freedom, which is only as good as those who fight for it.
Sitting on both sides of the fence (ala being on a board that disciplines pilots and being the head of the pilot advocation entity) is certainly a conflict of interest.
If a judge is presiding over a case where he is also a beneficiary or involved in any way, he is immediately recused.
How is this any different?
It is public knowledge that James Chan is (or was) a UK AOPA activist.
Thanks James, never met you, but appreciate your advocation!
In my line of work, the UK were rather innovative in that they calculated the opportunity cost of motorway collision investigations to determine what the local economic losses were when the roads stopped. Brilliant, exactly what I considered many times while stuck in traffic on poorly planned infrastructure.
The key was, they determined that it was worth spending 10million pounds on technology to speed that process up and open the roads. First country in the world to do that. Brilliant.
This is no different. Engineering airspace and coordinating with those shareholders who use it is worth investing in.
I know Europe is small, but if everyone isn’t careful and having a bit of foresight, the coming carbon taxes will put the final death knell in aviation here (unless everyone switches to electric).
What does carbon tax have to do with airspace penalties?
Easy, the fewer GA aircraft flying, the less GA voice, representation and presence, and therefore the easier it is to put the screws down on our annoying little aircraft. It will only be jets and turboprops flying if we’re not vigilant about these matters.
AF wrote:
a board that disciplines pilots
GASCO doesn’t discipline pilots. The CAA’s Infringement Coordination Group (ICG) is doing the disciplining.
GASCO is just delivering the training session that ICG has mandated as punition.
GASCO doesn’t discipline pilots. The CAA’s Infringement Coordination Group (ICG) is doing the disciplining. GASCO is just delivering the training session that ICG has mandated as punition.
I fail to see how dividing it into it’s smallest entities makes a difference. Either you are a part of the solution, or you are a part of the problem. You cannot be both, unless you are into it for the money and fame 
Which is an odd position to take considering you officially represent one of the parties.
Xtophe wrote:
mandated as punition
I was going to ask if that word was cromulent, and it turns out that it actually is (although the dictionary does say it’s “obsolete”).
alioth wrote:
word was cromulent
It was just a gallicism in this case
alioth wrote:
cromulent
You learn something new every day.
