Sun Jul 07, 2019 3:35 pm
#1704562
I just spent a good time typing this in answers to questions I was asked to find the thread had been locked whilst typing at the suggestion of a gentleman who has made no contribution to the thread at all. Surely this is not what moderation has come to?
if so, as some will no doubt be pleased, I shall take myself elsewhere.
"In so far as the statistical analysis is concerned, and the selection process, as I have indicated previosuly, the concern is that the selection process COULD (I didnt say WAS) be biased towards ensuring there are sufficient numbers for each course. In other words, we understand the courses are run at various locations around the country (a GOOD policy, as at least pilots are not having to travel too far), and we also understand they need to be viable. A room must be hired, expenses met, etc., and there will be a minimium number of attendees required to pay the bills. We also understand that the gap between courses cannot be too great.
In the winter we know there are fewer infrigements, for obvious reasons.
So it would seem important to ensure that doubts are put to rest that selection is driven by financial necessity, as opposed to following the selection policy. The way to do this is to be clear on the cirteria used to determine the pilots that are selected to attend the course, and then, that the pilots actually selected, fit this criteria.
At the moment the CAA guidelines indicate for the least serious infrigements the consequence can be a letter, GASCo or something else (I cant recall as I type). I dont think this is sufficiently clear, and its possible, in a slow period, more people will be asked to go on a GASCo course because the places have not been filled.
As to the pilots that have written to me, it is difficult to summarise their views because I havent asked all the necessary questions. Despite what some on here may think, I have no axe to grind and no intention of interpreting the information I have to support any case. I am not even sure I have a case for that matter - I have concerns, but I hope I am sufficiently open minded that I dont feel in a position yet to answers those concerns.
I can say that most of the pilots arent nashing their teeth about the course content, and I get more a sense of resignation that if this is the penalty - then so be it. The ONLY commonality is nearly everyone has expressed surprise at the makeup of the attendees, in that they are far more experienced pilots than they would have expected. THAT is the reason I have been pursueing this particular line of enquiry because it SUGGESTS (ON LIMITED DATA POINTS) that the pilots on these courses are not the pilots we might think these courses should be directed towards.
I dont know why, and again it may be because it is a reflection of the makeup of the pilots attending the course, most are in the conjested areas of the South (broadly the SE, but including north of the Thames). If this is representative, we know that operating in this area is especially challenging and we know that small lateral and vertical infringements are very easy to make. We also know that there are some large concentrations of GA in this area. Again IF this data is correct it may well point to other and better solutions. For example their are parts of the States with comprehensive flight following. It makes infringments very difficult. Maybe, if the SE is such a problem area, the indicators are that it is the pilots that need a little more joined up support from AT, rather than hoping courses and infringement letters are the solution?
I said previoulsy, and therefore believe it to be so, that the CAA is unique in most of Europe and pretty much the rest of the world in having to balance the pressure of a commercial airspace provider with the right of all to the airspace. Again, surely we can see the dangers (I am not saying that IS happening, I dont know) that such a provider can bring an enormous amount of pressure on the regulator, without making any contribution to helping to solve the problem because the more pressure they bring, and the less they actually do, the better it is for their bottom line. Of course, if I were NATS I would say I dont want any GA in our airpsace and I dont want to put any effort into policing our airspace. Again I am NOT saying that is what they are doing, I am SAYING there is that temptation if the accountants were put in charge.
Surely, whichever side of whatever fence you might be on, you can perceive these risks and concerns and understand why it is right and proper the questions are asked without the need to be confrontial, rude, flippant, or accuse people of lieing. To do so just debases the debate, and creates even more concern, because it is a tactic so often used when there are issues to be addressed (I am NOT saying there are ISSUES).
I hope that adds some clarrity and answers some of the earlier questions."
if so, as some will no doubt be pleased, I shall take myself elsewhere.
"In so far as the statistical analysis is concerned, and the selection process, as I have indicated previosuly, the concern is that the selection process COULD (I didnt say WAS) be biased towards ensuring there are sufficient numbers for each course. In other words, we understand the courses are run at various locations around the country (a GOOD policy, as at least pilots are not having to travel too far), and we also understand they need to be viable. A room must be hired, expenses met, etc., and there will be a minimium number of attendees required to pay the bills. We also understand that the gap between courses cannot be too great.
In the winter we know there are fewer infrigements, for obvious reasons.
So it would seem important to ensure that doubts are put to rest that selection is driven by financial necessity, as opposed to following the selection policy. The way to do this is to be clear on the cirteria used to determine the pilots that are selected to attend the course, and then, that the pilots actually selected, fit this criteria.
At the moment the CAA guidelines indicate for the least serious infrigements the consequence can be a letter, GASCo or something else (I cant recall as I type). I dont think this is sufficiently clear, and its possible, in a slow period, more people will be asked to go on a GASCo course because the places have not been filled.
As to the pilots that have written to me, it is difficult to summarise their views because I havent asked all the necessary questions. Despite what some on here may think, I have no axe to grind and no intention of interpreting the information I have to support any case. I am not even sure I have a case for that matter - I have concerns, but I hope I am sufficiently open minded that I dont feel in a position yet to answers those concerns.
I can say that most of the pilots arent nashing their teeth about the course content, and I get more a sense of resignation that if this is the penalty - then so be it. The ONLY commonality is nearly everyone has expressed surprise at the makeup of the attendees, in that they are far more experienced pilots than they would have expected. THAT is the reason I have been pursueing this particular line of enquiry because it SUGGESTS (ON LIMITED DATA POINTS) that the pilots on these courses are not the pilots we might think these courses should be directed towards.
I dont know why, and again it may be because it is a reflection of the makeup of the pilots attending the course, most are in the conjested areas of the South (broadly the SE, but including north of the Thames). If this is representative, we know that operating in this area is especially challenging and we know that small lateral and vertical infringements are very easy to make. We also know that there are some large concentrations of GA in this area. Again IF this data is correct it may well point to other and better solutions. For example their are parts of the States with comprehensive flight following. It makes infringments very difficult. Maybe, if the SE is such a problem area, the indicators are that it is the pilots that need a little more joined up support from AT, rather than hoping courses and infringement letters are the solution?
I said previoulsy, and therefore believe it to be so, that the CAA is unique in most of Europe and pretty much the rest of the world in having to balance the pressure of a commercial airspace provider with the right of all to the airspace. Again, surely we can see the dangers (I am not saying that IS happening, I dont know) that such a provider can bring an enormous amount of pressure on the regulator, without making any contribution to helping to solve the problem because the more pressure they bring, and the less they actually do, the better it is for their bottom line. Of course, if I were NATS I would say I dont want any GA in our airpsace and I dont want to put any effort into policing our airspace. Again I am NOT saying that is what they are doing, I am SAYING there is that temptation if the accountants were put in charge.
Surely, whichever side of whatever fence you might be on, you can perceive these risks and concerns and understand why it is right and proper the questions are asked without the need to be confrontial, rude, flippant, or accuse people of lieing. To do so just debases the debate, and creates even more concern, because it is a tactic so often used when there are issues to be addressed (I am NOT saying there are ISSUES).
I hope that adds some clarrity and answers some of the earlier questions."