In the aviation regulatory circles, dominated as they are nowadays by non pilots, being a “pilot” does give you loads of extra credibility, particularly if you are ex ATC, because then you tick every box which can humanly be ticked when it comes to demonstrating a total conquest of the entire encyclopedia of aviation knowledge.
And if you are ex military, you have learnt to speak with confidence, authority and above all impact. These guys totally shine at conferences and presentations. I’ve seen them! I’ve even interviewed some for a job.
Even if you just occassionally fly some old heap which according to google/images doesn’t even have Mode S so you are pretty safe from getting MORd. Not that, of course, anything would happen to anybody in the CAA who got MORd 
Peter wrote:
Even if you just occassionally fly some old heap which according to google/images doesn’t even have Mode S so you are pretty safe from getting MORd. Not that, of course, anything would happen to anybody in the CAA who got MORd
Now, I know you are making a point about something(one?) here… but my periphery knowledge isnt such that I can actually figure it out…
Nooo; nobody posting on the forum 
The difference is that almost 50% of NATS is privately owned while DFS is 100% owned by the FRG.
I think the danger is that the semi/quasi commercial operators of ATC are free to use subcontractors to actually run the ATC. This adds one additional layer into the equation and the semi/quasi commercial operator are not really an operator anyone, but are merely monitoring the situation. This monitoring is alone enough to make all hell brake loose, if one single wrong person is in charge. All it requires is one person at the wrong place.
Whoever is the person in charge, I would be very happy to offer at my expense to take them for a circuit of Heathrow and Gatwick in a twin with them acting as PIC. We might both gain some benefit from the excercise.
I’m in charge. When can we go ;-)
What would be the UK CAA punishment for accidentally setting the wrong transponder code in the air? ( As at Schiphol ) Death by Typhoon?
My (forgiven but recorded) Airspace Infringement was altitude while setting code on a transponder poorly positioned for bright sunlight from one angle.
LeSving wrote:
I think the danger is that the semi/quasi commercial operators of ATC are free to use subcontractors to actually run the ATC
Found a document about this by AVINOR. It’s 2-3 years old, but still reflects their plans in a broad perspective. AVINOR Flysikring AS is a company owned by AVINOR. The purpose of that company is to handle ATC for both civilian and military aviation. For civilian airports there is free competition for these services. AF AS has already lost Kristiansand and Ålesund to a Spanish company Saerco (of all things). Pretty weird IMO. The concept of NOT choosing your own company to do the work is pretty amazing. What other weird things are these people able to do is what I am thinking.
All en route and connected technologies and services will never be open for free competition. AF AS will handle this because this is considered to be critical public infrastructure. Norway Control will be Norway Control for all foreseeable future.
The CTR and approach services can be open for free competition. IMO, how everything en-route is considered to be critical public infrastructure and approach and CTR is not, also seems pretty weird. No explanation is given though.
Further they write that the department of transportation hired a british company, Helios, to assess how to best de-regulate the tower and approach services. Their recommendation were dismissed right away; too risky, too many uncertainties, and the necessary needs of the Air Force were not taken into consideration. Their suggestion was to do this as fast as possible with packages of airports for the open market indiscriminately (Why on earth did they hire a british company to do this in the first place? mind boggling). Later on they conclude that experience from Sweden (the way it has been done) was good, and that together with the Air Force, it is decided that an array of airports will never be open for the free market.
And then comes the real funny part, Remote Towers (RT). RT is something AVINOR is developing together with AF AS and a couple of private companies (Kongsberg and Indra Navia) The first commercial flight was done on October 19 this year, and 15 additional airports will follow in close succession (2020-2022) with 20 more coming in from 2022. They will all be run from Bodø at the Remote Tower Center, by AVINOR Flysikring AS. So it is back to square one, because it’s impossible to compete with remote towers using manual towers. The Air Force, together with FS AS will be doing testing for military usage at Rygge.
Lots of strange things is going on. Lots of strange things can happen tomorrow due to this. If we suddenly find ourselves under a similar “bust them all” regime as the UK, is not something I would expect, but it wouldn’t surprise me one bit. If the Helios recommendation were followed, we would be several steps closer in that direction already today. Because the Helios suggestion would disintegrate the total structure into small pockets or islands competing with each other in being “the best”, with no overarching goal of optimization, or even cooperation.
I wonder when European ANSPs spot the obvious and move the remote towers to India?
LeSving wrote:
The CTR and approach services can be open for free competition.
Where is the line drawn between enroute and approach? In some (smaller??) countries this is handled by one and the same facility AFAIK.
