That complaint is certainly extensive. He who demands not to be named’s behaviour appears to be pretty dreadful consistently. If these are accurate I just cannot see how his position is tenable.
I do wonder whether its an individual leading a culture in a certain direction, or he is just a product of the groupthink he’s surrounded with.
The website page is this. AFAIK this is still accurate, almost a year later, with the possible exception that – reading heavily between the lines of the CAA stats which deliberately tell us almost nothing useful – they are now allowing some pilots to escape getting busted if they produce a GPS track showing that they didn’t. Or it could be that some were let off because they didn’t respond to the NATS and CAA report requests (they aren’t legally required to, and anyway it is self-incrimination) as discussed previously in the main thread.
The pilot magazine article is quoted as expert witness on altimetry and SSR.
That’s 94 pages ! The plot definitely thickens 
I do wonder though. The use of unknowing? persons in a political battle against an official authority. Maybe that is OK in the UK?
The Pilot Magazine editorial article at the end seems to be pretty damning, too.
Reading through the details of how the CAA and a certain gentleman are conducting themselves is very revealing, pretty damning stuff.
However, looking at the structure and style of that document, I can’t help but remember the old saying that a lawyer representing himself has a fool for his client.
The whole thing makes me quite sad, annoyed and angry.
I have never had any run ins with the CAA. In fact, the departments I HAVE had reason to deal with, I have found pretty helpful (if perhaps understaffed).
As someone who flies commercially for a living and also flies GA in spare time, I can’t help but to think my GA flying could be potentially jeopardising my career. I appreciate that there would always be a certain amount of risk with this regardless, but it seems more so now that one CAA department could theoretically terminate my career after a couple of mistakes, and let’s not pretend that mistakes are 100% avoidable over any significant period of time.
Whilst I agree that the infringements policy is worrying, the CAA has brought us some surprisingly progressive initiatives such as SSDR and self declaration medicals.
I look forward to the video when it comes out, but hope they tone down the music/style a little.
For the record I can think of some other quangos / government departments that are a law unto themselves so the CAA is not unique in that regard. Which is not to say that it is a good thing.
Pirho’s point about commercial pilots flying GA is a good one. The case is often made that big jet pilots benefit from flying smaller aircraft that you can stall or put into unusual attitudes, so if they are discouraged from private flying then everybody loses.
A good number of instructors have lost their livelihoods as a result of this crazy policy – see the main thread which I know is now far too long for anyone to read. For sure if you fly for an airline as well that will be your income gone from that too.
Having done my two busts both as distractions while flying with a passenger, I can see how highly vulnerable an instructor is, having to watch both airspace and the student at the same time, and hopefully “instruct” too.
On the main UK site there is very little comment from the usual NATS/CAA/ATC crowd (which normally dominates this topic) so it looks like the “system” is going into meltdown over this video, and the report (PDF above). A few daft people are complaining that there are typos; well the lawyer is Dutch and English is his 2nd language!
Yes, I know several of my instructors were involved in busts back in the day. And they were competent, diligent people.
Cobalt wrote:
However, looking at the structure and style of that document
The document is absolutely crying out for a decent copy editor, too. It would get its message across so much better with someone in charge of editing it for style and content.
