Airborne_Again wrote:
Isn’t that how all legal documents are written? I think they do it on purpose.
Well, no. There’s quite a few syntax and grammar errors, some typos, and sometimes it appears to go off into hyperbole. I understand the author isn’t a native English speaker, this is why it’s even more important to have a good copy editor, otherwise the complaint faces the danger of being dismissed as “an angry rant” in the face of a well-written and (on the face of it) “reasonable” response from the CAA. Content is important, but to persuade someone, so is presentation. The content could be every bit as strong, but edited up in such a way it doesn’t turn the intended audience completely off.
The author of course has every right to be incandescent with fury after the rough treatment he got from the CAA (and after all, he’d done nothing wrong!) as are the people listed in the complaint, but it’s still important to not let your fury blind you from the need of good presentation.
The strange problem here is that the CAA does know all about what is going on. I know this because this lawyer’s material was emailed directly to the main CAA board, including the “quango queen” herself.
Yet for some reason which nobody I know has the slightest clue about, the CAA chooses to let it carry on.
The situation is clearly complex politically, because the slightest mention of this topic on say FB will get you beaten up by a few dozen NATS ATCOs. They would do the same here, except – as a number found in 2019/2020 – they can’t because of the forum guidelines. The NATS social media policy is quite strict, which is another way of saying it is fine for NATS staff to beat people up on social media, even under their full names and job titles, if the beating-up is “on message” per the NATS corporate position 
Clearly NATS are fully behind this CAA policy, and that complicates any solution. Why NATS (as well as the CAA) doesn’t see the futility of it, is a very good Q.
Peter wrote:
Clearly NATS are fully behind this CAA policy, and that complicates any solution.
Not so much behind it, as dictating to the CAA.
Can’t be that simple because the UK has loads of non-NATS ATC, yet all of them are filing mandatory MORs.
Cynical perhaps, but I think NATS has lead, some of the larger have followed for the same reason, the CAA have caved in, and then leaned on places like Barton to support their case.
I can just imagine NATS position originally. We are fed up to the back teeth with all these GA bimblers interupting our traffic flow. It is causing chaos, endless traffic delay, and WILL result in a near miss or a serious accident and then we will blame you for having done nothing to reel them in. We dont get paid to deal with GA. There migh even be a leak to the press.
Of course the more the case builds the number of infringements arent falling the more they will clamour for tougher regulation so I suspect left to their own devices we have seen nothing yet. Of course all the CAA’s strings are pulled by these stakeholders. After all who represents GA? I would love to hear the answer to that one.
I’d imagine the NATS position towards the CAA on the matter is a simple business/contractual one:
“The agreed rules are that they stay outside the lines, always. No exceptions. The only acceptable situation from our perspective is zero infringements. OCAS traffic is not our problem and you MUST deal with them. Every time they infringe, the terms on which we do business are being violated.”
This is an inevitable consequence of a fragmented and privatised system.
Graham – technically put in the correct language!
Privatising airspace (a natural monopoly) was absolutely barmy, the result of politicial dogma and hubris, and we’re stuck with it. I don’t see them ever renationalising it like they are doing with the railways.
But competition is gooooooood!
Where can I find the frequencies for the “better” UK ATC? You know, the one with functioning radar and VFR directs through the entire London TMA?
alioth wrote:
Privatising airspace (a natural monopoly) was absolutely barmy, the result of politicial dogma and hubris, and we’re stuck with it. I don’t see them ever renationalising it like they are doing with the railways.
Indeed, I do not see it improving. Even if a Labour government got in, I doubt they would re-nationalise airspace and ATC.
If the NATS/airline influence is not curbed by the CAA (and right now I see no reason for it to be) then I can only see things getting much worse from our perspective.
A little hypothesis I will put out there is that in the UK by 2030 we will have:
1. No flight whatsoever without a flight plan
2. A non-trivial charge levied for each flight plan
3. Mandatory EC for all via whichever system works best for NATS
I intend to enjoy my private flying while I can, fairly certain in the knowledge that it will be regulated and priced out of existence long before I am ready to quit due to old age.
