Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1754825
In most regulatory environments there are graduations in the management of thing that have gone not according to the rules.

They try to differentiate between a minor honest error which has no consequences and people brazenly flaunting the rules were others have come to real harm.

The current approach adopted by the regulator does a) not seem to follow that well recognised and societal pattern and b) shroud itself in a cloud of fog.

That may all well be coincidental and not intended but the result is that this is no longer policing by consent and therefore perceived to be unjust and wrong, which leads to a poorer outcome.

Not the CAA's finest moment and very much not congruous with the 'Just culture' we know works well.
seanxair, flybymike, Kemble Pitts and 2 others liked this
User avatar
By jerry_atrick
#1754857
I just read Matt's article and I would not even call it the pre-prosecution phase. What seems to have happened is that a MOR was submitted by someone; presumably from, was it Cambridge and that the contents were sufficient to invite Matt to respond, and in the powers provided to them, they determined Matt should sit an examination. The fact that it sits on his licensing record is not a matter or criminal law (but can be used as evidence in a subsequent prosecution).

The problem I have is that Matt had, at least in is own mind if not with the CAA, disputed the materiality of his breach and that the CAA as a regulator do not provide an objective process from which Matt can dispute what will become a permanent mark against him. They are hiding behind the confidentiality requirement to withhold information. From their own website (https://www.caa.co.uk/Our-work/Make-a-report-or-complaint/MOR/Occurrence-reporting/), they state:
Confidentiality

Occurrence Reports are treated confidentially to maintain full and free reporting from the aviation community and to protect the identity of the individual in accordance with EU legislation.


Surely, the identity of the individual making the report is not provided in the detail of the report - or at least the radar traces? This does not justify withholding either the radar traces nor the text of the MOR.
Dave W, Flyin'Dutch', Talkdownman and 3 others liked this
User avatar
By PeteSpencer
#1754947
Adrian wrote:
PeteSpencer wrote:as a longstanding AOPA member their magazine actually gives me all I need in aviation circles .

As well as the PPLIR mag for a less frequent dabble.


And, based on your 23,706 posts here, Flyer gives you an awful lot too. :roll:


Works both ways: My 23 thousand odd posts will by virtue of advertising revenue have no doubt helped Flyer along a tiny bit.

Don't get me wrong I greatly enjoy following the Forum and dropping in the odd curved ball to liven things up.

Usually results in wrist slaps and threats , but this is made up for by many great memories of several flying holidays up the West coast of USA with perhaps the greatest Forumite of all time.

Now ffs get back to discussing Matt's situation which I have now read (thanks @johnm), and leave me alone. :wink:
Oh and have you read your copy seanxair?

Peter
User avatar
By flybymike
#1754955
Usually results in wrist slaps and threats , but this is made up for by many great memories of several flying holidays up the West coast of USA with perhaps the greatest Forumite of all time


God bless him :thumright:
kanga liked this
By rdfb
#1754958
I wonder if it's possible to get a judicial review of this particular vexatious aspect of CAP1404 and/or the way the CAA implements it? If it is possible, that'll cost money of course, and presumably the costs won't be recoverable.

Is the community willing to put up that money?

Alternatively, what if a pool of pilots put together a fund to be used if any of those pilots gets accused of an inadvertent infringement that does not appear to justify licence revocation pending prosecution? This could happen at the discretion of the pilot at the time (ie. "can't afford to lose my licence" would be perfectly fine). Wait until there is a pilot with the right circumstances, and then all will benefit. The goal would be to challenge an unjustified licence revocation - not the infringement itself. If that can be found to be unlawful, then the vexatious aspect would disappear.

If the answer to both of the above is "no", then I'm not sure there is much else to say about it, unless you can propose some other way to effect change in the process. We can all agree it's unjust and/or unsafe as much as we want, but that's not going to change anything.

This is something I'd expect a group like the AOPA to take up, but I'm not aware of this kind of action from any group that already exists today. If there were a group that does this kind of thing, I'm willing to sign up to a subscription.
By cockney steve
#1755285
If the individual official were to be counter-challenged by the defendant, citing malicious and vexatious abuse of Authority power to cause distress, expense and alarm , would this temper some of the more outrageous behaviour by petty tyrants?

Answerability for their actions ! :pirat:
User avatar
By flybymike
#1755319
This is something I'd expect a group like the AOPA to take up, but I'm not aware of this kind of action from any group that already exists today.


AOPA are the obvious choice but for some reason show no real interest in the matter.
User avatar
By skydriller
#1755328
rdfb wrote:This is something I'd expect a group like the AOPA to take up, but I'm not aware of this kind of action from any group that already exists today


I remember when this whole infringement/GASCO issue started, thinking that surely one of the organisations would bring it up with the CAA. There was a deafening silence from all of them.

During the first discussions on here certain individuals were prominantly arguing that the new system was all about Just Culture. Unfortunately that was all donked and removed and suddenly there was a deafening silence about it here too.

I cant help but think its all abit too late right now because there are other things that are more important to be lobbying the CAA about. But hey, look on the bright side, no-one flying means the infringements will have gone down, the system is working... :clown: :roll:

Regards, SD..
User avatar
By G-BLEW
#1755333
Skydriller wrote:During the first discussions on here certain individuals were prominantly arguing that the new system was all about Just Culture. Unfortunately that was all donked and removed and suddenly there was a deafening silence about it here too.


You're making it sound like a conspiracy theory

Three things could have happened…
1. The poster could have deleted his or her own post
2. We could have deleted it because it broke forum code of conduct
3. We deleted the thread because the whole thing encouraged 2

We definitely would not have deleted it to hide anything

FWIW, my own opinion is that the CAP 1404 process had some merit but has fallen into disrepute. I actually think the possible outcomes – ranging from a letter through to provisional licence suspension, passing things like a GASCo course on the way – are OK.

The problem is in the review phase where the mysterious and opaque Infringement Coordination Group (ICG), makes decisions behind closed doors. What follows, particularly if licence suspension is involved, is not very well defined either in scope or timescale. It also strongly discourages people from challenging the situation, and EVERY person I have spoken to who has had their licence suspended has decided that compliance is the quickest, easiest and cheapest way ahead.

Ian
Flyin'Dutch', kanga liked this
User avatar
By skydriller
#1755341
I didnt say there was a conspiracy, I said that on this, the leading UK private pilot forum, it wasnt talked about. I think it was more "self isolation", to coin a newfound phrase, but have a search yourself, after that discussion disappeared** it was made pretty clear by the moderators on here that they had had enough of it, and the topic was often refered to in jest as "that thou shalt not discuss". It only raised its head again here about a year later, when things started to go awry at Barton last year and then wider issues were discussed properly.

FTAOD, I think your magazine article is the first proper non-internet challenge that has been raised, and you are to be applauded loudly for doing so.

As I have posted here before, quite apart from the process in place not at all really living up to a proper Just Culture process, the industry is trying to apply the Just Culture of a commercial system to private individuals it wasnt designed for anyway...

Regards, SD..

**I dont know the reasons, perhaps it still exists, but I recall trying to quote from it in the Barton thread and couldnt find it despite some effort.
User avatar
By G-BLEW
#1755345
Thanks Skydriller

So there should be no doubt, there's no General Aviation subject that shouldn't be discussed (normal 'play nice' rules apply).

What sometimes happens is that the first X pages of a thread establish positions, the next few pages develop arguments and then about fifty pages are created by a very small subset of posters who are largely stuck on transmit with receive disabled. I know it's not quite as simple as that, but you get my drift.

That thread may have fallen into that category, I can't remember the details, sorry.

Thanks

Ian
kanga, TheKentishFledgling, seanxair and 1 others liked this