£4,600 in one month, heading towards their main source of income as well. At this rate there will be VAT on it soon.
I think the blurb above the ICG descision stats is to emphasize that the 43 descisions taken in May are not related to infrigments which happen in May.
Now considering even January had 63 infrigments then either not all infrigments are going to the ICG or a nice backlog is building rapidly. For the former as we don’t know which MOR the MAY ICG assessed it is hard to now the proportion of considered MOR to straigh away discarded.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
80 %
How do you get that? The best I have is 65% ((23+3)/(42-2)).
But in reality it should be (23+3) / some number within (64, 78, 85, 117) So between 40% and 22%
Those numbers do not make any sense. So I also suspect that the “numbers for May” in the second table do not relate to the reported infringements for May in the first table. It is really only possible to talk about the numbers in the second table.
It isnt clear if the first 7 “no action taken” did, or didnt, actually infringe – I suspect they didnt, but the CAA dont want to say this outright. “Students” could mean anything (not responsable, an instructor was aboard?) and it looks as if for one guy they are begrudgingly saying they cant prove anything, and the last that a faulty transponder still means there was technically an infringement??
So of the remaining 36, 7 received a warning letter and the rest had some kind of sanction applied. This appears to be the inverse of Timothy’s “80% have no action taken” comment as the numbers suggest 20% of those that infringed have no action taken against them and received a warning letter – The rest received some form of sanction.
Regards, SD..
Skydriller…. I hope you are not serious in your analogy. It says these are MORs looked at by the ICG; surely there will be ones that don’t fit into that list (such as LTMA busts that do not fall into :
•Loss of separation
•Safety intervention measures implemented including, for example, avoiding action, radar vectors, cessation of departures, holding
•Repeat infringement by registration/callsign
•Repeat infringement by pilot-in-command
I made an analogy?
Were we not told that ANY airspace infringement is an MOR and that this infringement process starts with the infringement being looked at by “the team” as on a flowchart I saw somewhere? Im getting lost now as to what was said where,and by who, especially with the loss of separation distances being bandied about aswel.
So you are saying is that there should be another column saying “nothing happened”…why on earth would the CAA not release those numbers too? This would surely sooth any GA fears of a big stick approach?
Regards SD..
The CAA is clearly trying to pre-empt the several FOIA processes which are probably heading to the Commissioner.
Timothy’s numbers are even more of a mystery now.
Especially with some Gasco course delegates reporting interesting numbers.
From the link with the stats
MORs are read by the ICG when one or more of the following exist: […]
So yes that exactly what we are saying. And as explained just above on the stats page the fact that the May number on the first table cannot be compared with the May number of the second because of the time the process take.
I agree with you they could have another “nothing happen” category but as the whole thread proves the CAA is not very good at communicating and allievating fears.
Peter wrote:
Timothy’s numbers are even more of a mystery now.
If the MOR assessed in May (23 GASCO courses+3 suspensions) corresponds to April (117 reported infrigement), then there was no action for 84 of them and 7 warning letters giving a combined 78% soft or no action. Pretty close to Timothy’s number.
It may simply be that 75 of the April infringements had not yet been assessed!
