I thought Noe got asked for his side of the story and was able to offer mitigating factors in his defence?
Although a sceptic might argue that since the story was being told on a forum, the powers-that-be had an excellent PR incentive to be very reasonable indeed on that particular case ;-)
alioth wrote:
As Timothy has reported, if you use the FMC and have Mode-S they will call you if it looks like you’re going to infringe.
They do in some places (Solent, Farnborough for example) but probably not in others (Heathrow, Gatwick, Manchester). Having said that, my only FMC “save” was at Stansted, so it clearly depends on workload.
Graham wrote:
Although a sceptic might argue that since the story was being told on a forum, the powers-that-be had an excellent PR incentive to be very reasonable indeed on that particular case
I would leave that to a sceptic to argue; no-one with a grasp of reality would think that, though I guess they might still say it.
Timothy again going as close as he dares to posting a personal attack.
Easier to slur someone than typing up a reasoned argument.
Of course the CAA was reading the thread about Noe.
It would usually be so, but the reaction is such that only a sceptic wouldnt doubt this is a very sensitive subject, which is closely monitored, and which has the hall marks of a very poorly thought out and administered policy that is not driven on the grounds of safety, but rather on the grounds of commercial interest. When you have been around long enough you get to a have a feel for when these things are wrong, and this is one of those occasions that just hits you in the face.
Who is actually in charge of the policy? I feel a formal complaint coming on.
Graham wrote:
Although a sceptic might argue that since the story was being told on a forum,
I did send them a very detailed email (with causes / analysis of other factors / suggestions to improver), rather than just replying to the MOR.
Our conversation addressed specific points on my email (which I also shared online). It wasn’t just a case of “I was flying a bit close and got distracted”, which probably wouldn’t have warranted any sort of interesting conversation between me and them
Has anyone tried that and not been given any explanation?
To be absolutely explicit clear (not that I’ve seen anyone even remotely suggested this), we never mentioned online stuff (and there even wasn’t a suggestion of so, but I don’t see either why they would), and so there wasn’t even any suggestion that I write something that shed them in a good light – I wrote very candidly, describing things how they were (or how I perceived them).
Noe – I have no doubt that you have set out your position very clearly and I, for one, am very grateful.
My comment at any rate, was that however individuals are dealt with the “chat” surrounding this whole debacle is closely monitored and those responsible are very aware that the policy is suspect if only because they consistently resist answering the qeuestions asked, and providing the data that would support their case.
It wasn’t just a case of “I was flying a bit close and got distracted”, which probably wouldn’t have warranted any sort of interesting conversation between me and them
Has anyone tried that and not been given any explanation?
It is an interesting Q what people put on the MORs.
One POV on MOR writing is along the lines of “I busted airspace, so I busted airspace, so what is there to say other that I did it, I am really dreadfully sorry, I won’t do it again, please slap my hands and let me go home”.
That is what I did, and got the dodgy online exam in 2017, and got Gasco in 2019. On the latter I just wrote that I took up a 91 year old former pilot for what was probably his last flight, and while watching the GPS extremely carefully I got distracted while talking to him for a couple of minutes. I judged that I could not really say more than that with a straight face. I also said I have stopped doing sightseeing flights. But maybe I got it wrong, and somebody was looking for an essay, demonstrating a degree of effort and more importantly humility?
OTOH I did this in March, when busts were low relative to Gasco processing capacity and most people busting in the winter get Gasco on the first offence.
And I reckon that’s what most infringers will do. They don’t write a lot. Actually many pilots – as much of the population – can’t write well and do all they can to avoid doing a lot of it. I think most people will think that whoever reads the stuff in the CAA is not really interested in details but wants to see a good grovel. After all, that is how we have all been taught to interact with the aviation establishment generally (ATC, CAA, airport police, etc). Constantly reinforced at seminars and such. Much of that establishment is ex military and that is the image which is repeatedly put across of how they see the world. I know this is often wrong.
the “chat” surrounding this whole debacle is closely monitored
Clearly Noe wrote up a long writeup to explain how his infringement happened. It probably helped his case, although it is also blindingly obvious that the whole of (relevant) NATS and CAA have been reading this thread, and the potential for a massive PR own-goal (by sending Noe to Gasco) was fully appreciated. It would have also totally undermined every CAA apologist posting here.
You can get an idea of who has been reading this thread by who from NATS / CAA (the two are joined by a revolving door, and the head infringements guy from NATS is now back at the CAA, again, as of June 2019, according to his LinkedIn profile) has been posting here, under nicknames whose real identity is completely known elsewhere on UK social media 
Noe wrote:
To be absolutely explicit clear (not that I’ve seen anyone even remotely suggested this), we never mentioned online stuff (and there even wasn’t a suggestion of so, but I don’t see either why they would), and so there wasn’t even any suggestion that I write something that shed them in a good light – I wrote very candidly, describing things how they were (or how I perceived them).
I most definitely wasn’t suggesting there was any quid pro quo.
But they knew you were posting the details and they could tell from reading your posts that you’re articulate and objective. Had you been a semi-literate ranter (more Flyer than EuroGA) they’d probably not have cared, but in the circumstances they would have been insane to GASCO you.
Graham – exactly so.
