Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By PaulB
#1705379
defcribed wrote:
skydriller wrote:
All aviators and users of airspace must obey the rules of the skies and all airspace classes no matter how much any group may disagree with them. It was clear from the evidence provided to the Inquiry by GASCo, for instance, that pilots have actively violated airspace because of personal views on the subject.


:shock: Really? Am I reading this correctly? :shock: This appears to be saying that some pilots dont like the fact that, for example, there is a Class D zone around Norwich, and so just deliberately fly through it... :shock:

I find this really, really hard to believe... :?

Regards, SD..


Likewise. I would be incredibly surprised if anyone had any firm evidence of that happening.

Witnessing a grumpy old bloke saying "sod 'em I'll just fly straight past like I always have done" in a flying club bar is not 'evidence'.


There’s a citation against the quoted comment that says GASCo oral evidence”. Presumably there’ll be info about what was said and GASCo will have data to back up the claim. If not should it be disregarded?
User avatar
By gaznav
#1705391
Yes, let’s just leave the ‘outrage bus’ in the bus garage for now please. I have not heard of this either (so I can’t claim it is true or untrue), and I can’t seem to access the supporting evidence link on the APPG for GA to read the reference material either!

Of course, it is possible, as it’s a verbal reference, that the report writer took the verbal discussion out of context? That does happen from time to time. Although it does say “it was clear by the evidence presented to the Inquiry”, so there must be something pretty unequivocal to demonstrate “that pilots have actively violated airspace because of personal views on the subject”?

The report itself does come with a pretty hefty caveat though...

This is not an official publication of the House of Commons or the House of Lords. It has not been approved by either House or its Committees. All-Party Parliamentary Groups are informal groups of Members of both Houses with a common interest in particular issues. The views expressed in this report are those of the group.
User avatar
By kanga
#1705395
gaznav wrote:..

The report itself does come with a pretty hefty caveat though...

This is not an official publication of the House of Commons or the House of Lords. It has not been approved by either House or its Committees. All-Party Parliamentary Groups are informal groups of Members of both Houses with a common interest in particular issues. The views expressed in this report are those of the group.


I'd expect that caveat, a probably necessary clarification, to be added to any report produced by an APPG.
gaznav liked this
User avatar
By gaznav
#1706049
gaznav wrote:Another interesting line:

All aviators and users of airspace must obey the rules of the skies and all airspace classes no matter how much any group may disagree with them. It was clear from the evidence provided to the Inquiry by GASCo, for instance, that pilots have actively violated airspace because of personal views on the subject.


tomshep wrote:Yeah, right.
Any comment on that GASCO?


Interestingly, listening to the oral evidence file .wav LK2-02 from around 53 minutes in (the GASCo Chief Exec), I’m not sure I draw completely the same conclusion as the Kirkhope Report has referenced in the quote above? I certainly wouldn’t say that Pilot’s “personal views on the subject” seemed to feature at all. Indeed, I thought the Chief Exec gave a very balanced, objective and measured view on the subject on behalf of GA - of course, some would say that I would say that. :

Now that it is on record, I did know that several GA pilots come to the Airspace Infringement Awareness Course in ‘a bit of a tizzy’ and that it can take until lunch to win them over that it might actually be worth listening. Someone on the Forum asked why the course is the best part of day and this is one of the reasons for that - to allow people to settle down, get used to the friendly safety environment, participate and then learn. Of course, if everyone came with a good learning attitude then the course might be a little shorter as there wouldn’t be so many objecting questions at the start of the session. I have seen the same on the 2x Speed Awareness Courses that I have attended over the 34 years that I have been driving - in fact, on one Speed Awareness Course, the Instructors asked one obstreperous individual to leave (without a refund, I hasten to add!).
User avatar
By gaznav
#1706071
IMCR wrote:Speed courses are 4 hours. I can imagine some drivers might be a lot more tetchy. Works for the speed aware people.


Not for the guy I saw kicked out... :lol:

Also, the detail of flying vs driving is a tad more complex?
#1706121
gaznav wrote:
IMCR wrote:Speed courses are 4 hours. I can imagine some drivers might be a lot more tetchy. Works for the speed aware people.
Also, the detail of flying vs driving is a tad more complex?


But in which direction? Personally, I think driving is far more intense than flying.
terryws liked this
User avatar
By gaznav
#1706188
oakworth wrote:
gaznav wrote:
IMCR wrote:Speed courses are 4 hours. I can imagine some drivers might be a lot more tetchy. Works for the speed aware people.
Also, the detail of flying vs driving is a tad more complex?


But in which direction? Personally, I think driving is far more intense than flying.


Really? Do you have to meet a minimum amount of driving time (dual and solo) to achieve your driving licence? Do you have to drive with an instructor every 2 years? Do you have to check all of the driving notices on the various websites on road closures before you go for a drive? Do you have to carry a map in your car? Do you have to check your car and sign for it before you go for a drive? What happens if you run out of fuel in your car and the engine stops? Etc...Etc...
By oakworth
#1706204
gaznav wrote:
oakworth wrote:
gaznav wrote:Also, the detail of flying vs driving is a tad more complex?


But in which direction? Personally, I think driving is far more intense than flying.


Really? Do you have to meet a minimum amount of driving time (dual and solo) to achieve your driving licence? Do you have to drive with an instructor every 2 years? Do you have to check all of the driving notices on the various websites on road closures before you go for a drive? Do you have to carry a map in your car? Do you have to check your car and sign for it before you go for a drive? What happens if you run out of fuel in your car and the engine stops? Etc...Etc...


Ok Gazza, I’ll give this a go ;)

1. How often do you fly within 4ft of your nearest traffic for hours on end, in the poorest weather possible?
2. The risk of collision when driving is significantly higher, ergo the need to be alert in order to avoid it is also higher
3. Is there such a thing as ‘air rage’, ‘tailgating’, ‘fly by shootings’ (on the plus side, there is no airborne equivalent of dogging)
4. Who is better skilled and qualified: the people you share the sky with or those you share the road with?

Your turn :)
#1706217
Personally, I think driving is far more intense than flying.


You have not been flying inside cloud with the autopilot switched off then?

Or maybe you have and the gyro started to fail, or the pitot or the static was momentarily blocked with water and you were trying to figure out which one it was....

Or maybe you have and the electrics went out while shooting an ILS causing you to lose comms with ATC and leaving you to fumble around for a backup transceiver that you stowed away in your flight bag behind you...

:D
gaznav liked this