Jacko wrote:
They might notice that the UK currently extends some 450 miles north of Manchester…
Nope, nothing really up there except midges.
Well I think that this thread has lost its way.
I think that sometimes the CAA takes an overly conservative view around things like GPS approaches. And one can certainly criticise a certain policy around enforcement of airspace busts. It might be right, it might be wrong but I don’t know enough about it. I do know that airspace infringements are a major issue which affects aviation and is is largely caused by private pilots in GA.
But this thread has become a paranoid rant. They came up with the equivalent of a speed awareness course in the UK. GASCO is an outsourced provider of these courses. Why the obsession with individuals and their motives?
I also object to the vilification of ex-RAF pilots. I know many current and ex-RAF pilots and they are, without exception, tremendous professionals. Amazingly trained and taught to take calculated risks as a way of operation. Yes they tend to have a rather ‘conservative’ view on aviation matters but so do airline pilots. Perhaps that is a correct approach and GA pilots are a little too laissez-faire?
Play the policy, not the man/woman. And I am sorry but I agree that the conspiracy aspect of this thread is clear and very unfortunate.
I presume that you cannot mean that the “issue” is the number of mid air collisions between private GA pilots and CAT, In which case I submit that the issue is caused by the current CAA policy and not by GA pilotsI do know that airspace infringements are a major issue which affects aviation and is is largely caused by private pilots in GA.
flybymike wrote:
I presume that you cannot mean that the “issue” is the number of mid air collisions between private GA pilots and CAT, In which case I submit that the issue is caused by the current CAA policy and not by GA pilots
No, there are too many infringements – in particular serious ones. This has nothing to do with how a policy is enforced. Things like airspace design in this country are certainly partly to blame, but BA 737s aren’t the ones infringing.
Again, I am not talking about how infringements are enforced which I don’t have direct knowledge of. To turn it around, you aren’t suggesting CAA policy causes infringements?
Of course I’m not suggesting that.
A 737 cannot infringe CAS which it already occupies by right. Infringements can only occur from those outside CAS which is predominantly GA.
No, there are too many infringements – in particular serious ones.
There are very few serious ones, and no one argues that they should not be dealt with seriously but the vast majority are minor ones which will never be eliminated. The “issue” is not the manner of enforcement for major ones, only the minor ones.
flybymike wrote:
There are very few serious ones, and no one argues that they should not be dealt with seriously but the vast majority are minor ones which will never be eliminated. The “issue” is not the manner of enforcement for major ones, only the minor ones.
Understood. Never eliminated, but could certainly be reduced. This is the right debate in my opinion. The whole CAA/GASCO everyone is out to enrich themselves thing is absurd. As is the RAF cabal ruling aviation regulations.
I am not for a moment suggesting everyone in aviation regulation is perfect. Nor are all pilots. But if the policy is wrong, what is the right policy?
This whole thing has now really got out of hand.
Jason, as a moderator on the PPL/IR forum, you will be aware of the offensive material deposited there by Timothy, about me and others. You deleted one piece yourself.
Now you know what it is like to deal with that sort of stuff, posted by a very clever individual who knows (or thinks he knows) precisely how far he can push things. And I am sure you enjoy it no more than I do. A key difference is that – like most volunteer outfits – PPL/IR needs energetic volunteers.
Timothy also states that
“… that kind of language is the language of EuroGA, where I am the devil incarnate, together with [the CAA guy who demanded anonymity; he’s not getting anonymity on PPL/IR, is he, despite anybody being able to join up for the 100 quid or whatever, and read past posts] and the board of Gasco … many things in that debate that range from honest misunderstanding to outright lies … The Gasco board, the CAA and both their lawyers consider the material on the EuroGA thread actionable for libel, and some of the harrassment individuals have received on social media criminal under the Communications Act 2003, but everyone who has been involved in litigation including myself, are advising not taking civil or criminal action…”
The above libel allegation is obviously bonkers.
A suggestion is also being made that somebody got harrassed and EuroGA is something to do with it. This is hardly the case; the chap in question is well known on the UK sites, plus FB, and has been for years. Somebody might have got really upset over something, but this is nothing to do with EuroGA.
It’s now got to the stage where 90% of the hassle I have to deal with (as admin) is generated by 1 person – and one who is taking obvious care to not generate GA related content which might be useful to somebody! I have now had enough of this. Timothy was already warned recently that if he repeats something he did (a fast repetitive re-posting of offensive/personal material; a 100% sure way to get removed from anywhere else on the internet) he will be banned. Accordingly, I have given him what I am sure will be a welcome opportunity to conserve his energy for the “private site” where he will be held in the desired high regard.
On the topic of “conspiracy”, this is nonsense. Who is alleging a criminal conspiracy?? I agree the Gasco-CAA angle has been more than adequately covered, and is a sideshow, but the rest of this discussion stands on its own two feet, based on widely known information plus the data released by the CAA.
Also, reading the above text, I am happy to note that the CAA head of infringements and Gasco are participating on EuroGA. They should be. They could be rather more constructive in explaining the current policy, however. OTOH, I am advised (at a high level in the CAA) that they are not allowed to participate (CAA social media policy) so how this works is a mystery to me.
To let things cool down, thread locked until when new relevant material appears.
It is probably time for me to start browsing Planecheck to see how much a 2002 TB20 with full TKS would fetch.
October data is out
It looks like a bunch of people busted some TRA and got done for it… I wonder which one it was? Or maybe it is another case of “enhanced reporting”? 
Otherwise, the numbers are heading back down to the usual winter levels.
November ICG decisions are out too
Notable is the reduced number (12) going to Gasco. This is either because the committee overbooked Gasco for around this time or the publicity on EuroGA (which spilt out to other social media) is making them realise that this punishment is over the top for the offence.
The data again confirms that if you have done Gasco previously, your license will be suspended next time. They make this clear every month, even though privately one is told this is not necessarily the case.
Peter wrote:
It looks like a bunch of people busted some TRA and got done for it… I wonder which one it was?
FYI, I think if you check, the highlighted number is a RA/DA or PA. Its 2 caught in a TRA of some sort.
That out of place high number does point to some probably obvious reason. It would be nice to know what it is.
Regards, SD..
It would certainly be educational for us to know what got busted.
Historically speaking they must have been serious – on the scale of somebody busting the Eastbourne Red Arrows airshow and getting a ~5k fine.
RAs DAs and PAs are not temporary so why suddenly get such a large number, especially at this time of the year when activity is down quite a bit? Years ago I spoke to ATC at Lyneham about something and they casually mentioned that about 30 microlights busted their Class A flying in a formation 
but I would suggest that is not a normal thing. You are right; the TRA number is just 2.
However, evidently, “education” is not the purpose here… For example in the Gasco session there is no discussion of what each person did to get there.
