Graham. I fundamentally disagree. The course should comprise of those people who fall into the three categories I outlined previously I.e. med/high risk events, multiple infringers, significant disruption. The causal factors leading to their individual infringements may or may not relate to basic navigation skills which is why the core syllabus endeavours to touch on all the causal factors of infringement events.
Are you sure it is as binary as attend the course or be prosecuted? That is certainly not my experience. For example, the procedure opens for the opportunity to discuss the event/events in detail with a CAA Flight Examiner and/or then agree a tailored syllabus of remedial flight training with an approved organisation.
What all the above does rely upon is a clear understanding in the mind of the pilot as to why she/he fell into one of the three categories in the first place. Reading some of the pages of debate, I do wonder if the system is not ensuring that people actually are clear about what the impact of their individual event(s) was(?)
Nobody should be turning up for a course without a clear understanding of the circumstances and impact of their actions. Not, of course, that they are expected to share those and will never be asked. I do understand though that I would be dis-chuffed if I genuinely did not know how my ‘minute’ of in-glory placed me in a category resulting in the offer of a course.
Do we have any information on how many of these have infringed and what the consequence has been?
Fuji – see here for the FASVIG report
Just 4% were N-reg
Funnily enough this shows that N-regs are way below average, given that they feature so strongly in the “going places” community. It also shows that the UK G-reg community will be by far the hardest hit by the new policy.
No info on what happened to them, of course, but probably exactly the same as happens to G-reg pilots. As regards how they are tracked down, I don’t know but, in the UK, NATS write to the faa.gov owner database address which for UK based pilots generally shows the N-reg trustee. With better known pilots e.g. those who used to participate on the UK aviation sites and whose real identity is well known there, the NATS people who participate on those sites know exactly where to find you, so they would just email you directly in their NATS capacity 
The course should comprise of those people who fall into the three categories I outlined previously I.e. med/high risk events, multiple infringers, significant disruption.
Unfortunately, the Gasco delegate profile is nothing like that.
As posted earlier, Gasco do have some data e.g. the pilot total hours, aircraft type, etc. They could collate this and publish the statistics. I doubt they will…
And we get back to circular definitions e.g. my “multiple infringer” scenario posted above. Give it enough time and under the new regime there will be loads of multiple infringers. The rest will be flying with transponders turned off.
Are you sure it is as binary as attend the course or be prosecuted? That is certainly not my experience. For example, the procedure opens for the opportunity to discuss the event/events in detail with a CAA Flight Examiner and/or then agree a tailored syllabus of remedial flight training with an approved organisation.
IOW, re-sit PPL Air Law and maybe others, and go back to a flying school for lessons, and a skills test with a CAA Examiner. A video of one of these is shown at a Gasco course, too. In the meantime, license suspended.
Prosecution is used only in very rare cases e.g. airport shut down and/or poor attitude at the CAA interview by the pilot. Although probably sometimes the pilot disputes the allegation and then his only option is to stick a finger up and let the CAA prosecute and that is the only way to be heard. The CAA publishes prosecutions, but only successful ones.
Cub wrote:
Fuji_Abound, surely if you don’t want an element of the CAP 1404 process, in particular an invitation to attend the AIAC, then you could always decline and request your event be dealt with via an alternative option, again detailed in 1404?If you fundamentally object to the use of a course or you feel uncomfortable with the selection of participation offers then would it not be most effective to lobby and/or challenge the CAA directly or members of the AIWG who oversee and scrutinise the process? All the major GA alphabet organisations are represented and many members have had detailed sight of both the course and the Infringement Coordination Group who sit to apply CAP 1404 to individual cases.
With every respect, I dont understand why you keep saying the same thing?
I have said on so many occasions that I dont necessarily object to the process in principle. I have asked specfic questions, which I think should be officially answered.
I DONT fundamentally object to the course – where have I said I do?
I could try lots of sources to get the questions asked, but here and now the discussion is through this forum.
Questions were asked about foreign pilots and you kindly answered. The follow up questions seemed reasonable and obvious. I understand you may not know or wish to give the answers, which was why my questions were in general terms, BUT the point is (and with complete respect) we all know what you have said above is true, but it doesnt add to the discussion for that reason.
Should I have to ask these questions – NO – as I have said the answers should be in the public domain. I have drawn attention to the speed awareness course and how very differently this process is explained IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.
Were I a foreign pilot from Europe for example or a foreign friend ask me, I should be able to point him in the direction of crystal clear advice on this point, much as I could do with the speed awareness. I cant.
Cub wrote:
Graham. I fundamentally disagree. The course should comprise of those people who fall into the three categories I outlined previously I.e. med/high risk events, multiple infringers, significant disruption. The causal factors leading to their individual infringements may or may not relate to basic navigation skills which is why the core syllabus endeavours to touch on all the causal factors of infringement events.
Then we’re coming at it from totally different sides and I doubt we’ll ever agree. If you think people should go on the course because of the consequences of what they did (even when these are artificially over-egged because of the UK-specific separation criteria and the non-joined-up airspace management meaning that it takes time to get them on the RT) then I think you miss the point of a course. People should go on a course because it covers material that they are deficient need to learn, not because of the things that happened as a consequence of a mistake they made.
If you want to address infringements and reduce them then you need to look at why they are really happening. They are not happening because Mode S frequent flyers are deficient in the basic skills covered on the course. You won’t reduce infringements by focusing on the consequences rather than the causes.
And with regard to the alternatives, again those are no alternatives at all. Everything you describe will cost much more than the course, and none of it address lapses in concentration. Can you really imagine sitting down with instructors/examiners to come up with a training course designed to help you concentrate better and not nick the base of the LTMA?
For avoidance of doubt, I have no issue with an infringer, even a minor one, getting the Gasco course. It is the process which is so poorly specified and way too aggressively implemented, and the escalation in penalty is way too aggressive considering how easily anyone who does a reasonable amount of flying can climb up the ladder.
A straight £200 fine would be better though, and equally effective, because the course content mostly misses the audience.
Perhaps we need to wait and see on that?
I find it hard to believe that even the CAA would just pull the licence for a second offence as some arbitrary step in a process. Have we heard anything about licences being pulled for second offences?
Peter wrote:
For avoidance of doubt, I have no issue with an infringer, even a minor one, getting the Gasco course.
Potentially I do.
It is unjust to say that some will receive a warning letter, and some be asked to go on the course, without specifying the basis of that selection process.
For speed awareness, there are very clear parameters. For aviation it could be infringements which are resolved within x between pilot and controller and and do not cause disruption, or perhaps subject to certain lateral and vertical parameters. The CAA frequently use the term minor infringement and provide their own definition as well.
Again, IAM NOT SAYING IT IS HAPPENING, but the risk is then apparent of course filling.
I find it hard to believe that even the CAA would just pull the licence for a second offence as some arbitrary step in a process.
I too, but
But as you suggest nothing is clear.
It is unjust to say that some will receive a warning letter, and some be asked to go on the course, without specifying the basis of that selection process.
I agree. There are lots of problems. But if one was to be pragmatic, and treat it like a speeding ticket…?
OTOH that is just Stockholm Syndrome taking over because, as stated above, a few years ago you just got told off by ATC, or you phoned them to apologise and they would take no action.
How does the CAA handle commercial aircrews who bust levels? Are they sent to Gasco, too, or is that — as it should be — seen as a system failure?
