Wed Apr 21, 2021 1:57 pm
#1841947
Ian - an insightful reply and it is definitely the case the CAA can be very good.
I am also sure on the whole, the intention is sound. If the CAA have a weakness it seems to me it is to listen far more to certain factions than others, and an inbalance in keeping those happy who have the ability to shout loudest. I suppose nothing different there as with so many organisations.
I found with the debate over the IMCr it was only when there was a public petition, a huge amount of very self evident chat between pilots, and I also recall Flyer was very supportive, that meetings were hastily arranged and policy was changed.
Back to my original point, it seems so difficult for GA not to appear divided, and the more it appears divided, the more easily it is ignored, intentionally or otherwise.
I know discussion has gone around this many times before, but it is interesting even on this excellent forum, on the key issues pilots rarely seem to agree on anything or to present a united front. I hear there is a very wide feeling that the current regulatory response to infringements is not as effective as it could be, yet you would not necessarily reach this conclusion from the discussions unless you understand that the most vociferous supporters have vested interests. For example when I wrote about how it could be improved, almost all the contributors had either CAA or GASCo connections it turned out. Even on this thread I have an idea of some who are connected with the CAA.
You make a point about anonymous contributors, but actually a far more important aspect is that in an ideal world contributors should disclose their vested interests. I see this being asked a little more frequently.
I am not suggesting you do anything about it as after this is just a chat forum, but I know for example when the CAA read what is written (and you and I know they do) it can convey a view that is not representative of the rank and file, and I think it is important this is understood -
unless of course I am wrong?
I am also sure on the whole, the intention is sound. If the CAA have a weakness it seems to me it is to listen far more to certain factions than others, and an inbalance in keeping those happy who have the ability to shout loudest. I suppose nothing different there as with so many organisations.
I found with the debate over the IMCr it was only when there was a public petition, a huge amount of very self evident chat between pilots, and I also recall Flyer was very supportive, that meetings were hastily arranged and policy was changed.
Back to my original point, it seems so difficult for GA not to appear divided, and the more it appears divided, the more easily it is ignored, intentionally or otherwise.
I know discussion has gone around this many times before, but it is interesting even on this excellent forum, on the key issues pilots rarely seem to agree on anything or to present a united front. I hear there is a very wide feeling that the current regulatory response to infringements is not as effective as it could be, yet you would not necessarily reach this conclusion from the discussions unless you understand that the most vociferous supporters have vested interests. For example when I wrote about how it could be improved, almost all the contributors had either CAA or GASCo connections it turned out. Even on this thread I have an idea of some who are connected with the CAA.
You make a point about anonymous contributors, but actually a far more important aspect is that in an ideal world contributors should disclose their vested interests. I see this being asked a little more frequently.
I am not suggesting you do anything about it as after this is just a chat forum, but I know for example when the CAA read what is written (and you and I know they do) it can convey a view that is not representative of the rank and file, and I think it is important this is understood -
unless of course I am wrong?