I would imagine that @Noe’s write up in the questionnaire will be much the same as what he wrote above (why wouldn’t it be?), so there is nothing to be gained from members of the panel reading it on here.
I have sat in, as an observer, on one of these meetings and, I have to say, as someone with considerable experience of judicial decision making, that I was very impressed with their approach, which was evidence driven, process driven, took into account the “engagement” of the pilot and always gave the benefit of any doubt to the pilot, and was in most respects very similar to the decision making process in a magistrates’ retiring room.
That is why I find some of the wild accusations on here, like “making up the GASCo numbers” so distasteful and risible.
Timothy wrote:
Could be simplified by dropping the wedding cake to the ground, but is that what we really want?
That would entirely depend on the airspace class and the attitude of ATC. With class C or D airspace and ATC with a “can-do” attitude and the appropriate procedures in place, “dropping the wedding cake” is probably better than today’s situation.
Timothy wrote:
write up in the questionnaire will be much the same as what he wrote above
I obviously put a bit more work in what I wrote on the questionnaire and the follow up email to the MOR responses team at the CAA. (I didn’t use “Brain fart” either).
I am the view that if someone was looking to make money out of this there would be a system of fines (I assume, that, like me, people would be much higher to pay a higher fine than the cost of the seminar, given you’d avoid taking a day off), and for now am putting some trust in the system and not sharing the more cynical views on the subject.
Hopefully I won’t get disappointed.
I have sat in, as an observer, on one of these meetings and, I have to say, as someone with considerable experience of judicial decision making, that I was very impressed with their approach, which was evidence driven, process driven, took into account the “engagement” of the pilot and always gave the benefit of any doubt to the pilot, and was in most respects very similar to the decision making process in a magistrates’ retiring room.
Timothy, please read the CAA website. It says
Most people have missed what this is [not] saying.
It says that anything NOT in the above categories is NOT decided by the committee which you sat on. It is decided by the one bloke (the one who has been inviting various people for little private talks) sitting alone.
And that is what Noe is going to get, unless one of the above conditions is met which, given the 3000ft/5000ft/5nm add-on, doesn’t take much.
That is why I find some of the wild accusations on here, like “making up the GASCo numbers” so distasteful and risible.
It may be risible but it has to be the reality. Let’s say Gasco’s processing capacity is 25 people a month. If the CAA sends them 26, Gasco have to lay on a whole hotel room just for 1 person. Obviously they could find the 1 extra chair, but the example fails for say 10 more. Their booking site limits the bookings, so some people cannot get in that time and have to do the next venue. This is the only way we can account for the % getting warning letters rising so rapidly as the atmosphere gets warmer 
There’s some interesting points there, that I previously missed:
I looks like if there hasn’t been loss of separation (which I’m not aware there was in my case) or other aggravating factors which get you the AIAC directly , you just get a warning letter:
PS: Actually, I think I initially misread the document:
It’s seems (to me) phrased as if the table above only relates decisions from the ICG, and that slightly above that, in order for the infringement to reach the ICG, it needs (as posted by Peter) :
Then we wouldn’t know what happened to the infringements that didn’t satisfy one of the conditions above.
Yes, indeed. Those who don’t get Gasco get a warning letter.
Well, 1 got the online test, so the above is not fully consistent, but looks de facto right. Basically it is saying that everybody who gets a warning letter, gets a warning letter
The other criteria are pretty broad:
Safety Intervention Measures implemented such as (but not exclusive to) avoiding action, radar vectors, cessation of departures, holding etc
Like much of CAP1404, this sentence is completely meaningless, due to the “etc” at the end – unless you choose to attribute some interpretation to “Safety Intervention Measures”. Since this could include a different heading passed to other traffic (say 120 instead of 130) the sentence simply is totally useless. It’s like me saying that you can have 3 ice creams a day unless I change my mind.
Timothy wrote:
was in most respects very similar to the decision making process in a magistrates’ retiring room.
I’m struggling to square this praise with the book you recommended a while back (The Secret Barrister) that basically says magistrates are rubbish because more emphasis is put on them having done community work than having any intelligence or critical reasoning skills.
I see no grammatical evidence of it being “praise” 
A comparison, yes.
The Secret Barrister, like EuroGA, has a mixture of some excellent insights with some ill-founded and ill-judged prejudices.
You’ll note that the only people in the book that the author does not hold in disdain are other junior barristers like herself. Everyone else (none of whom she has any experience of being) come in for the same kind of disparagement. It is rather like the atmosphere here, where people like to think the worst of other people doing things they don’t understand (whether they be regulators, ATCOs, airport managers, people who fly other things, modellers, spotters or whatever.)
I do agree with her that the CJS has been eviscerated by Chris Grayling’s cuts, from Legal Aid to to court closures, but I don’t agree about either magistrates or legal advisors. I also don’t entirely agree about junior barristers. I see many good ones, but some awful ones.
I have worked with many hundreds of magistrates, as I have flown with many hundreds of pilots, and it would be silly to say that there is no variation and every one is a perfect example. Everyone is flawed, and some are more flawed than others.
But I would say that well over 95% are extremely competent, well-trained, capable, professional and dedicated. This is particularly true of London magistrates, who are trained and assessed to a very high standard and are supported by some top-hole Legal Advisors.
Historically (I have been doing this well over 20 years) there have been some pretty poor magistrates, both in terms of competence and attitudes, but they have been weeded out by a combination of wastage, retraining and, shall we say, encouraged resignation, and they are now very few and far between. Thinking about it, I sit on a bench of about 300, and I often sit on another bench elsewhere in London, and I cannot think of a single current serving magistrate who is not extremely competent.
It is rather like the atmosphere here, where people like to think the worst of other people doing things they don’t understand
If you really believe that, Timothy, why do you spend your valuable time here?
It’s bollocks.
I really hope I never have to appear in front your bench.
