What I find so stunningly arrogant is that it would seem the vast majority of pilots on these courses do not require the vast majority of the course content which would seem to be directed at the “numpty” pilots (sorry for the term) who, for various reasons, really do need some help. It appears there are very few of them on the course. Of course those that are, need completely different training.
How one course can possibly fit all, utterly defeats me?
Hence, my call for returning responsibilty to the instructors and examiners. Re-training should be on a one to one basis, focused and targeted to address the pilot’s specific needs and the reasons for his infringment, which is exactly what happens in the commercial world with sim specific training.
At a push, it would even be possible to design an on line course which requires specific input from the pilot to ensure the course is completed. Almost all professional training has migrated in this way because professionals have neither the time or inclination to travel. These courses would seem effective enough for other professionals so why they would not be effective for pilots, I do not know?
Sad to say this is a money making operation for GASCo and an attempt to demonstrate that the regulator is doing “something” with complete disregard to its effectiveness.
Of course GASCo dont even have the comfindence in their own staff to publish exactly what training their lecturers have had in this form of education or give any indication as to their qualifications. Personally I doubt their competance to deliver these courses?
Lord save us.
the vast majority of pilots on these courses do not require the vast majority of the course content which would seem to be directed at the “numpty” pilots (sorry for the term) who, for various reasons, really do need some help. It appears there are very few of them on the course. Of course those that are, need completely different training.
Precisely.
But there are so few of them that you could never run a course and make money out of it.
And if you put say a half a dozen of them in a room, you would have no videos available which showed anybody outside the room 
Fuji_Abound wrote:
I gather any discussion is firmly resisted
As a professional educator, I find this unbelievably stupid. Unless, of course, the point really is to punish rather than educate.
To re-iterate previously written notes, I can confirm
As to what the objective is, there will be differing views. The presenters did work hard to get their messages across (if somewhat arrogantly, IMHO, but that is quite a normal tone for “aviation authority” presentations IME; I believe it comes from their organisational background) but they were mostly lecturing to the wrong audience. Since the audience stats must be known to the CAA, this leads to the conclusion that the main purpose is to leave a foul taste in the delegate’s mouth so he doesn’t do it again. The average delegate probably spends best part of £500.
Peter wrote:
I believe it comes from their organisational background)
Of course, to state the obvious, as any body involved in education would know, exactly the wrong people to be presenting such a course.
It shows an abject disregard for the nature of the average GA pilot – who is not ex RAF, and unlikely to be a jobsworth of some sort, rather a successful business man, professional or even commercial pilot, none of who would be receptive to such an approach.
This one is well worth a chuckle, from the latest notes on the increase in Infringements around Bagshot by the Regulator.
1. Some good sense there – yes, use a GPS,
2. Ah yes, an air traffic service – this will help PREVENT infringing – good luck with that,
3. See 2,
4. Sound advice then – a pilot needs to think in three dimensions
To sum up, obvious, dubious, and blindingly obvious.
Ah yes, an air traffic service – this will help PREVENT infringing – good luck with that
Funny thing. This works perfectly in Norway. No need for GPS either (considering you have a general knowledge of your position). And if you still are nervous, you can always ask for permission to fly up into the controlled airspace, which solves all infringement issues, but this also requires you know your position or at least a squawk.
I just wonder. What will happen if everyone demanded air traffic service, squawks etc ?
LeSving wrote:
What will happen if everyone demanded air traffic service, squawks etc ?
I would guess “unable due controller workload”
One has to ask why the guy in that AOPA magazine report wanted to be anonymous. After all, Gasco know exactly who you are because they tick off your name when you walk into the room. And the CAA guy knows exactly who was sent to which Gasco session. The only realistic reason is to avoid a perceived risk of reprisal (revenge) by the CAA guy, if this pilot is caught infringing again. This is a very poor climate in which a regulator should be operating, if ostensibly trying to educate rather than punish. Notably, practically everybody else who has been sent down to Gasco is also keeping their mouth firmly shut.
Anyway, the usual website is now showing September data, although they forgot to change “August” to “September”
The August numbers are
If Sydney Dekker ever got a job at the UK CAA, the entire infringements dept would resign. This video is a must-watch (one of many of his)
He is a pilot, too, and makes some very interesting points there also.
