Timothy – if you would be so kind, and assuming you agree, I think the point to take is either publish the stats. or be very clear why you cant (and I dont think confidentiality will wash).
“Why would they shoot you down for lost comm?”
Only people who think there is a “red button” to shoot will tell you that sort of crap…
Graham wrote:
I’m saying “he would say that, wouldn’t he?”
And you still think that? Then there is no hope for progress in the discussion. Maybe that’s why [name removed on CAA request] gave up?
Let’s stop diffusing / personalising the discussion Timothy. Can you think of any “honourable” reason for witholding that data?
The only general reason I can think of is that with very small or very uniform populations releasing stats can reveal personal data. For example if a company has 1000 employees, all getting paid the same, and its board has 5 people, one being the chairman and (let’s assume) the highest paid, then by releasing stats on the smallest salary, the largest salary, the standard deviation, whatever, one can infer how much the workforce, board and the chairman are paid. And the numbers might be embarrassing, obviously… but you would also be revealing personal data. I am not a statistician but those who are will get exactly what I am getting at. But in this case that issue doesn’t apply, with a sample of hundreds or more and large percentages getting sent down each route.
Has an appeal been made under section 50?
AFAIK one of the two mentioned above is doing the CAA appeal initially (which will probably yield no result) and then intends to do the formal FOIA complaints procedure. There is a third one I know about…
Timothy – I am definitely NOT getting at you because it seems to me you have been very clear as to your position and views BUT having read through the whole thread (with, I have to say no particular axe to grind as I have managed to not yet infringe or be caught up in this process, dancing on the head and all that) I feel it must be said this whole process appears to reflect very badly on the regulator.
1. As it stands, dubious grounds for refusing the release the stastics under a FOI application,
2. A policy that has been shown in numerous other areas to be ineffective,
3. A policy which is demonstrably inclined to encourage the non use of transponders and therefore impact adversely on safely of all users,
4. Anecdotal evidence of a strategy of “designed to fail” testing and money generating practices,
5. No evidence of any regulatory impact aseessment.
Some, or all of these allegations may be unfounded, but it is for the regulator to deal with them swiftly and comprehensively if they expect to retain the trust of the GA community.
Serious question; does the “regulator” really care at all about retaining the trust of the GA community? If so why not demonstrate this?
Timothy wrote:
And you still think that? Then there is no hope for progress in the discussion. Maybe that’s why [name removed on CAA request] gave up?
No, I don’t think that. Some of the GA community evidently does. But that doesn’t mean I am happy to trust anything you or [name removed on CAA request] say without question.
“Trust but verify” is my mantra, and I am generally suspicious of a refusal to release information if a good reason cannot be provided.
Or as the legal aphorism has it: ‘Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done.’
Simply stating ad nauseam: ‘Justice is done’ does not cut it.
