Pilot infringed while operating with an invalid licence(2)
Is an interesting one. Invalid in what way?
With all the multiple licences and exemptions over the last year I suspect there are quite a few pilots who think they are legal but possibly are not – and I know from personal experience that asking a flight school, instructor, or even calling the CAA may not get you the correct answer to a question.
Regards, SD..
Yes I would think it’s probably due to Covid extensions and all that. Some pilots thought they’d extended and hadn’t, or thought the extension was automatic requiring no action on their part, or some such. Don’t believe we’ve seen the invalid licence thing mentioned in the figures before.
I also read each group as discrete, i.e. the three provisional suspensions would be different people from the three repeat infringers who got GASCo. As @Peter says they probably got a warning letter first time around because GASCo was full and their bust was one of the less serious ones.
I have come to the same conclusion but this means that we have no idea for repeat infringers whether they have previoulsy had a warning letter, an on line tutorial, or attended GASCo, and, in consequence have no idea what the true escalation policy is, or whether any of the remedial actions is proving effective at reducing infringements. For example it would be useful to know if having attended a GASCo course you are more or less likely to infirnge again compared with the other remedial actions.
Yet again this reveals the complete lack of any transparency, or the provision of data in a form that can be used to judge whether any of this is effective.
I think it’s clear enough.
The first time you infringe you either get a warning letter or GASCo, depending on the relative severity of the infringement. I say relative because it all depends how severe yours is compared to the others they have that month and how many there are. It’s obvious that the basis for filling the GASCo pipeline is to first send all the second-time infringers who got a warning letter first time, then the worst first-timers until the course is full, then everyone else gets a warning letter.
From there it’s simply step-wise escalation. If you got a warning letter first time then it’s GASCo second time and suspension the third time. If you got GASCo first time then it’s suspension the second time.
What they actually do with you once you’re provisionally suspended is anyone’s guess. Quite possibly they leave you dangling for a while in the hope that you might give up flying and they can tick off that problem as being completely eliminated. If you want your licence back then I imagine the route to it involves convincing the man in charge how humble and sorry you are, how you’ve recognised your inadequacies and will be fixing them, and how much you value his benevolent intervention in making the UK’s perfectly-designed and perfectly-managed airspace a safer place for all. Then maybe a few hours’ worth of remedial training and some paperwork…
What they actually do with you once you’re provisionally suspended is anyone’s guess. Quite possibly they leave you dangling for a while in the hope that you might give up flying and they can tick off that problem as being completely eliminated. If you want your licence back then I imagine the route to it involves convincing the man in charge how humble and sorry you are, how you’ve recognised your inadequacies and will be fixing them, and how much you value his benevolent intervention in making the UK’s perfectly-designed and perfectly-managed airspace a safer place for all. Then maybe a few hours’ worth of remedial training and some paperwork…
I think that’s exactly what happens, but it isn’t documented AFAICT.
I think, looking at some cases I know about, it is for you to get yourself unsuspended. They won’t do it automatically after say 6 weeks. So if you do nothing, they are completely happy.
I don’t think your totally tongue in cheek "the UK’s perfectly-designed and perfectly-managed airspace " comment is as cynical as it looks 
On UK GA chat sites you get beaten up severely by working ATCOs who quite simply do think there isn’t a problem – as you know from a recent experience I had 
“Appeals are covered in article 267 of the Air Navigation Order 2016. Paragraph (4) of the article states that “If the appellant resides or has its registered or principal office in Scotland, the appeal lies to the sheriff within whose jurisdiction the appellant resides and the appeal is by way of summary application”.
Extract from a 29/10/2020 response to a query about the July 2020 CAP1048. The signature is Robert Courts, Minister for Aviation Maritime, and Security.
Maoraigh – I think you would need to be cautious of para. 3, which I think is equally applicable in Scotland?
(3) An appeal does not lie from a decision of the CAA that a person is not qualified to hold the licence by reason of a deficiency in that person’s knowledge, experience, competence, skill, physical or mental fitness. "
Agreed. But who decides that the “appeal does not lie from”? A Court?
The Pilot Magazine article is now online. It’s a must-read. Very well informed.
That is indeed an excellent article and well written. Well done on them for publishing it.
I have seen on another forum there is a rumour that he who must not be named ( I assume Mr G.) had been suspended from his post for a period of time.
