That was me - but it wasn’t that GASCo disagreed with the idea of the infringement course, but that they were worried that some misguided people would think that GASCo were the ones ‘punishing’ people with the course (that worry looks like it was justified judging by the comments from a small vocal minority on here, but hopefully that position has now been put right? Which is a good thing
Obviously, the Authority/Regulator is a completely different body to GASCo - which is why I believe this is currently a good solution. Now I won’t try and opine it is 100% perfect, things never are, but I truly believe that having a non-Government flight safety organisation, with experienced volunteer GA pilots delivering it, is a far better solution than what we might have ended up with. As others have said, having the Authority/Regulator doing that education would have seen certainly some more with closed minds on the course. GASCo remain committed to using education to save lives in General Aviation - so a course like this would sit firmly within its aims. I am too convinced that we can save lives through education in safety related topics - which is why I check into this forum a couple a times a day to discuss matters mainly with a safety-related content. I also learn stuff in discussion here - one of my first ‘learnings’ came from a discussion with the late, great, Dave Phillips regarding ATZ status. Discussion is good especially when backed by fact rather than conjecture, which is why I enjoy the chance to chat with folks like Tim Dawson, Lee Moore, Christian Ramsay, Balliol, Nick Wilcock and Cub (late of this Parish) plus many more who come with significant SQEP (suitably qualified and experienced person) backgrounds. But I’m not belittling anyone with a non-SQEP background either - everyone has the right to voice/question opinions on the forum, which is one of the strengths. But then we all have to be able and willing to learn from each other, our viewpoints and opinions when surrounded by sound facts/analysis.