Timothy wrote:
I wish it were possible for more people to read more reports. It might change some perspectives.
Can the reports be published, but anonymised (like CHIRP, or NASA ASRS)? I would like to read them.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
I wonder how many pilots in the North infringe, and which course they attend – oh I know, we arent told, that would be inconvenient.
The north is an infringement hotspot (particularly around Manchester). There ought to be at least a couple of GASCo courses a year held near or at Barton.
Fuji – I would leave off GASCo because they aren’t the problem and attacking them doesn’t help the overall argument. The policy is the problem and the GASCo course just a symptom. Apart from anything else, it allows those who support the present CAA policy to discredit you by saying “look at that crazy bloke attacking a charity” and in doing so distract attention from your legitimate criticism.
We can all be more diligent in our flying, but clearly some of us here disagree with the CAA on the best way to encourage that extra diligence and indeed the degree to which it is possible to reduce airspace infringements (to err is human, etc.)
I will loop back to the point Timothy made on the thread about GNSS approaches. The CAA are losing so much credibility that it is not surprising that people start to consider them ‘probably wrong’ rather than ‘probably right’ as a default position.
Timothy wrote:
You can’t look at half a dozen selected ones, to get a picture you have to look at hundreds. Who wants to do that?
I do.
Is there any way (even by signing an NDA) that I can do this?
There ought to be at least a couple of GASCo courses a year held near or at Barton.
Which is still barely half way to the north of England. These CAA chaps should get out a bit more, or maybe just learn to read a map. They might notice that the UK currently extends some 450 miles north of Manchester…
Never mind that the effect of UK CAA’s policy is to make us all think twice about when and where to squawk, the real scandal is this CAA/GASCo scheme’s grotesque and gratuitous carbon footprint.
We’re facing a climate emergency and what is the CAA doing about it? It is forcing pilots to rack up thousands of needless motorway miles a year.
The GASCo courses ought to be webinars, open to all who wish to attend and at minimal cost to the planet.
Graham wrote:
Fuji – I would leave off GASCo because they aren’t the problem and attacking them doesn’t help the overall argument.
That is a fair point – and you may well be correct. I had thought about giving them a break before.
My concern is that they appear to have become part of the problem, and I suspect will resist change at all cost, because they have foound themselves with such a lucrative source of income. After all, here we have a charity that occupied an important niche with sound and genuine aspirations of improving GA safety, that has decided to move away from its core activity, and for what reason? It surely cant believe its reputation will be enhanced by becoming involved in this disasterous initiative, so one can only surmise it is for other reasons, none of which has merit.
If I were GASCo I would at the very least want to clean up my act, and that would aslo mean that we might have some much more meaningful data forthcoming about this whole matter, and, far far more importantly, gleen some understanding of whether or not it has any evidence that it is a worth while safety initiative.
Frankly, and it may come across as being slightly mad I know, but it still sits very uncomfortably with me pilots are expected to attend a safety course run by some dubious outfit that trade out of a cabin at Rochester that wont even tell us what qualifications their trainer have and who, I might add, appear to be self employed. Unfortuantely the fact that the CAA chose to award them the contract drags both parties very much into the discussion, because, had the contract been awarded to a company that was able to conduct itself professionally then at least there might be once less argument against this policy.
Never the less you do make a valid point.
Jacko wrote:
The GASCo courses ought to be webinars, open to all who wish to attend and at minimal cost to the planet.
Kendoon02
Jacko
Glenswinton, SW Scotland, United Kingdom
Of course, it is blindingly obvious, but you make an excellent point, that clearly needs to be made.
Professional education has almost comletely moved on line – guess why? Of course the CAA and GASCo are still in the dark ages, we know that. Either that, or as other have said, the course is not really about education, but about exacting a penalty on those that transgress.
As I have said many times before, the obvious route where required is a chat, a flight, or whatever level of retraining is required with a local instructor at your local airport – except the CAA do not trust their own instructors to carry out this work. Mind you, frankly I am beginning to not even believe that is true. I think we need to look elsewhere for the true motives behind this disaster.
Time to venture back after weeks of following silently but I cannot bite my tongue any more. The amount of rubbish written here is unbelievable and culminates in the post by Jacko. He refers to a climate emergence yet he flies and most likely does more harm to the climate in a month than 20 cars driving to a course I am sure. The rest is equally unbelievable.
Sit back and read the rest. I hope non-aviators do not venture onto this forum. Move to the Channel Islands and take up sailing like I have. It’s more relaxing and the people involved are a much nicer group of enthusiasts.
172flyer wrote:
He refers to a climate emergence yet he flies and most likely does more harm to the climate in a month than 20 cars driving to a course I am sure.
Yes, I find sailing far more relaxing, but the only other forum I contribute to gets just as excited about certain issues, although at least the regulatory touch has so far been small. Just wait unitl we decide that every skipper should pass a test before they can be in charge of a sailing vessel! That should get them (you) going.
Mind you (and I am teasing now), you will need to be careful coming from islands where there is no duty, or hardly any duty, on Avgas. Moreover, strange as it maybe, but having done the maths, it is surprising by the time you take into account that an aircraft pretty much goes in a straight line, then many singles are very fuel competitive compared with cars – I agree of course, not as efficient, but in the case of some ultra / microlights there is very little in it. Jet A1 of the Diamond variety I would guess are more efficient. Taking the DA42 to south of France I reckon I used less fuel than driving.
While I know you arent fortunately under CAA governance, if you infringed on a trip to the south of the UK, how would you honestly feel about being required to attend a course in Oxford (or whereever they might be?), to be fresh and ready to go at 9am, no excuses?
I’d have thought the answers to the “why not online?” question are blindingly obvious.
1. If it’s online then it’s hard to charge £200 for it (with a straight face, at least.)
2. It loses the inconvenience factor and thus the deterrent factor.
3. Most people either go to sleep or get on with something else during long online training sessions.
It’s a good question to ask though, since it helps pick apart the real motivation for implementing it.
