Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1705137
The CAA Chief Executive comes before the APPG-GA tomorrow (10th July) so publication today is apposite.

Late to this thread I've only read through the report once. However the glaring omission in my opinion is the operation of CAP1616 wrt application for change in Class G.

It is airspace, but not like the bounded volumes the Inquiry focussed on. So in terms of proportionality and fairness, I question how the regulator regulates the introduction of, say, an IAP in Class G where no new controlled airspace is requested to be created.

Apart from that any spotlight shone on this vexed subject can only be to the good.
James Chan liked this
#1705177
Probably. As an ex CAA employee I have a story to tell but didn’t find a way in. Just looking at the names of the oral witnesses it’s clear I’m neither great nor good.

That said I now know the APPG-GA people are up to speed, so the finer detail of my particular issue is before them.
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
User avatar
By T67M
#1705180
That's a worryingly familiar refrain, @CloudHound. I know several people who work or have worked for the regulator or other closely aligned commercial companies, and they almost universally report a culture where "dissent from the Belgrano party line" is dealt with very firmly. That is why several very good people no longer work for their respective former employers, and is why (sadly) I don't believe anything is going to change for the better in GA.
By oakworth
#1705220
T67M wrote:That's a worryingly familiar refrain, @CloudHound. I know several people who work or have worked for the regulator or other closely aligned commercial companies, and they almost universally report a culture where "dissent from the Belgrano party line" is dealt with very firmly. That is why several very good people no longer work for their respective former employers, and is why (sadly) I don't believe anything is going to change for the better in GA.


Ultimately, it came down to who was invited to speak. Most UK airports received invitations as did some of the larger providers of ACP consultation. Given the 'unofficial' nature of the hearing, I guess most elected not to take part. However, given that the majority of input came from the GA side of the fence, I think APPG have come up with a relatively balanced report.
User avatar
By James Chan
#1705261
They are having technical issues with the website and hope to have the material available by the end of today.


Hmm... Now it asks for a username and password...
#1705324
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..
defcribed, flybymike liked this
#1705329
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'.
flybymike liked this