Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1746418
It's a relief, but he seems to be the "only" man influential enough to move things forward substantially for GA. That's a risk.
User avatar
By rikur_
#1746436
James Chan wrote:It's a relief, but he seems to be the "only" man influential enough to move things forward substantially for GA. That's a risk.

....and the risk that successors often like to get one over on their predecessors by undoing / stopping their pet projects.
A shame to see George Freeman leave - certainly didn't shy away from doing things differently.
#1746489
Was hoping to see him moved


What would be the alternative?
#1746507
flybymike wrote:
oakworth wrote:Was hoping to see him moved, oh well.

Why’s that?


His aims are worthy, but his methods won’t work in the long run. He’s politicised where he could have used his brief to encourage. So many people claim to have a direct line to him these days. Keep hearing these silly threats of ‘if the CAA don’t do X I’ll drop a line to the Minister’. The CAA can be a pain, but there aren’t many regulators who aren’t. Ultimately you need to work with not against. Got a good friend who works for a very big IFP company, he says they’ve made a decision to stay away from small airfield GNSS projects as they bring ‘too much political baggage at the moment’. Speak to any of the consultancies and they’ll tell you how much they enjoy working with GA, because you’re dealing with ‘real aviation people’, this approach by DfT is breaking down that relationship.
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
#1746537
oakworth wrote:
flybymike wrote:
oakworth wrote:Was hoping to see him moved, oh well.

Why’s that?


.... He’s politicised .....


Of course he's politicised. That's why he got the job. These jobs aren't handed out on the basis of talent or skill for the brief.... just look at the new Attorney General!
oakworth liked this
#1746565
He didn't have to though, he's a GA pilot with a political brief. He could have made clear his intentions and commitment but still taken everyone with him. It's all well and good giving GA priority for GNSS when the projects land with the CAA, but if the designers decline the work he hasn't actually achieved anything. First priority should have been to call a halt to the mistrust between parties, put in place a working group with senior reps from all stakeholders. Tell them to find a solution to a list of problems and that failure to do so will lead to imposition of solutions. Unfortunately, he's gone straight to imposition.
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
#1746577
IFP company


From what I heard the rate of approvals for instrument flight procedures at smaller aerodromes was so slow and embarrassing that eventually Grant Shapps had to step in.

Although I don't know the ins and outs, all the people I spoke to were pointing fingers at the door of CAA for all this. Mark Swan even admitted it wasn't their finest hour:
https://generalaviationappg.uk/failure- ... ce-policy/
#1746584
Broadly I think that Grant Shapps, who I don't know personally but have observed the work of, is a Good Thing, and we should be glad he's sticking around.

Far more encouraging however, is that Sajiv Javid is off. From what I pick up from the views of those whose job it is to know these things, his departure is probably a very good thing for any community in Britain who wishes to see support from government. What I hear is that SJ's political stance is ultra noninterventionist: he is very against taxpayers money being spent on business and research development type work. That is of course, the complete opposite of BJ's general view on life - he is well known for liking spending money to achieve stuff.

I suspect it wasn't the main reason BJ forced SJ to resign, but I imagine this was in the mix. His departure may well be the best thing for GA, and many other industries, and Grant Shapps is a virtual irrelevance.

Professionally I'm seeing real signs (for example google "Future Flight Challenge") of UK government starting to support GA industry development, but I rather doubt that would have continued to the same extent if SJ had stayed in place and built his powerbase behind a low-spend low-intervention philosophy.

G
#1746734
James Chan wrote:
IFP company


From what I heard the rate of approvals for instrument flight procedures at smaller aerodromes was so slow and embarrassing that eventually Grant Shapps had to step in.

Although I don't know the ins and outs, all the people I spoke to were pointing fingers at the door of CAA for all this. Mark Swan even admitted it wasn't their finest hour:
https://generalaviationappg.uk/failure- ... ce-policy/


Yes and no. Due to resource, all IFP approvals have slowed to a standstill. CAP1122 wasn’t great, the new system is better. Encouragement to process the smaller projects was needed, but could have been achieved by consensus.