Balliol wrote:
Bios of the Regional Safety Officers who are also involved in delivering Infringement courses can be found on the GASCo website within seconds for anyone who can use the internet. Is attacking individuals who give up their time to help deliver GA safety events and evenings now the next step then?
I can use the internet (I think) but couldnt find any background. Please post a link.
I also am more than happy to accept they have the experience to deliver the course, rather than are formally qualified to do so, however it would be useful to know their experience, and, I dont think unreasonable to ask.
As other have said, given the purpose of the course, it seems unreasonable that anyone who was adequately experienced would prevent any discussion. Far more can be learnt from discussing individual experiences that just peresenting course content that may have no relevant content to any of the attendees.
I dont see this is attacking individuals. It is a request for reasonable information about who is providing a course for which pilots are paying (one way and another) a lot of time and money.
As to giving up time – this always is brought up – personally I would rather people didnt give up their time for free, because in my experience it usually attracts exactly the wrong people – I am not saying this is the case here. I also hold to the view, because something this important is delivered for free, it does not negate questioning the quality and competance. As I have said before, the more I am told by those who have attended that in no circumstances are any questions or discussion permitted, I must immediately question the quality and competance of those delivering the course.
FWIW I will give just one example of which I have experience. Local planning committes. Lots of so called good people giving up their time – unfortunately most of them have no idea what they are doing, so often cause more problems than solutions – but they are good people giving up their time, of that I have no doubt, its just that it isnt helpful.
I think this is going after the wrong target…
I believe that the individuals involved in this process outside the CAA, such as GASCO and Timothy, do this with the best intentions, and while perhaps subject to “Stockholm Syndrome”, are not to blame for the outcome of a bad policy they did not conceive.
As I wrote before, the two presenters I saw were doing their best, but didn’t seem to acknowledge that the material being presented was really intended for the “muppet cases” that e.g. shut down Luton for half an hour. These are thankfully rare and I doubt any of them get sent down to Gasco, anyway.
If I was running the Gasco “seminars” I could not possibly fail to notice the data I had (from their online signup form) on the total hours of the “delegates”, and could not fail to realise that most of the audience will have wasted their time and money sitting there.
If they did even a show of hands showing how many hours people have, how many are instructors, examiners, jet pilots, etc, it would be a revelation, and no doubt they have realised this would not be a good idea, which is no doubt why they don’t do it, and why “chatter” is discouraged.
You can’t call it a “seminar” for lots of reasons, the main one being that afterwards a report goes to the CAA man on each delegate’s “participation performance” and only if this report is favourable does the great man close his file on you. Accordingly, they tell you at the end that everybody’s performance was acceptable and the CAA will be advised accordingly 
However, the bigger picture is not the Gasco £200-£500 “experience” as a punishment for busting CAS. The real big picture is that if you get this, you have to keep below their radar for the next 2 years, otherwise your license goes POP (and no doubt your insurance goes up because licensing action in aviation is a VERY BIG THING, normally reserved for complete headcases). It is a totally crude escalation which is totally disproportionate to the “crime”.
Cobalt – I agree, I think this is very true of Timothy, who I think does his best.
I am afraid I think it is less true of GASCo – with apologies, but I am very cynical of an organisation with their past credentials and mandate that chose to get involved with this. Sometimes you just have to accept that it is not “the right thing to do”, and personally I think it tarnishes their primary objective. After all, safety is their mandate, and their are too many indicators that in fact this isnt promoting safety. Moreover, if the CAA believe in this policy they should have taken it in house where there would have been oversight – with this arrangment we have no idea what oversight there is, we have no idea how long the contract was awarded, and we have no idea as to the contract’s terms. In any other enviroment this would be more than frowned on.
Accordingly, they tell you at the end that everybody’s performance was acceptable and the CAA will be advised accordingly.
One wonders what an unacceptable performance might be.
Presumably any attempt to discuss or question any of the issues raised by this thread would constitute instant “failure” rather than constructive discussion.
Yes I reckon if you got cocky and started to question the whole thing, they would do that…
Not a good idea. In decades past, it was known that a sure way to get prosecuted by the CAA was to do that at the CAA “interview”. And, amazingly, a few people did that. Presumably ones who didn’t care about flying anyway. But you got a CAA interview only after something really serious.
I assure you, no Stockholm Syndrome here. My eyes are wide open to the qualities of people I deal with in the CAA.
Some, like Tony Rapson (who I think I can mention by name as he is sadly departed) was pretty much ideal and perfect in every decision he made and everything he said; others, who I won’t name, are utterly unsuited for their roles; and most lie between, with some fine qualities and some foibles.
But I also don’t forget that they are all human beings coming in to do a day’s work and then going home to their families and hobbies, and there is no open season on being unpleasant to or about them because of the jobs they do. There are a number of people who I think could do better, but are still my friends because I can differentiate between them as people and them as corporate employees.
None of this constitutes Stockholm Syndrome, just retaining judgement and humanity.
Any organisation should be “bigger” than the person, and I dont really know why we talk about individuals in the sense Timothy suggests – other than perhaps when the person concerned is the CEO or MD.
I write about GASCo in the context that for me, I cant justify the course as a safety initiative. I see no evidence in the conventional sense the course contributes to the safety of GA, or, that this is the primary objective of the course, especially given the way it is constructed, and run, does it contribute in any material context to safety. For me, the organsiation (GASCo) should be “bigger” than accepting the contract, and the lecturers “bigger” than trotting out something in which they do not believe (or perhaps they do believe).
In Timothy’s human terms (with which I agree) this is even more important for volunteers. The difference is they dont have to do, what they do. They arent reliant on the income to feed the kids, they dont do it for the money. In theory therefore, the only reason they do it, is becasue they believe in what they do. If they dont believe in it, they have the luxury of refusing. That is why I am uncomfortable with the pilots that run this course, and those who run GASCo. If they really believe they are delivering the correct service within this context then that is great – I would not agree, from what I know, but at least they wouldnt be doing so for the wrong reasons.
As to the CAA, I think Timothy has hit the nail on the head. Of course there are employees who get paid to do a job, doubtless on the whole they do the best job they can, and doubtless there are aspects with which they dont agree, but its not for them, nor should they not do the job because they disagree with certain content. The CEO or head of this department must meet a different standard. I dont believe in the actions I have seen, this standard of public office is met, but hence the debate, I can only assume the gentlemen in question does.
Then there is the politics argument. We go along with it because if we didnt, it would be worse. Really? Maybe it would, but at this level I suspect this is usually a rather lame excuse. In any event, I think GASCo will do themselves far more long term damage than good, to confuse a very sound purpose with their current involvment in matters which seem to me to be soemthing that was never intended by those that established this charity.
BTW and FWiiW I guess there are those that think there is a lot of whinging on here and playing games, but I actually believe while this whole matter is of no consequence at all in the big picture, I also passionately believe that for GA it is one of the more significant examples of the most ill thought through and disasterous initiatives that has befallen pilots, and therefore worth the debate we are having, and even more importantly, worth giving those that are responsible the opportunity to defend and justify the policy (which they have consistently failed to do). I offer up just one example – Peter has made it clear that he has changed the way he operates and is clearly concerned as to the consequences of another infringment, someone who has a considerable investment at stake in his aircraft, and as much experience and dedication to training and good airmanship as most, and has done as much for GA as many, and yet faces serious conseqeunces. On the other hand I have a very good friend who is a training captain for a major airline. His co got as close as you would ever wish to a major commercial accident with hundreds of lives at stake; the consequence was further training undertaken by his employer and comfort that he was fit for duty, and in my opinion rightly so. An entirely mature and responsible decision and oversighht by the indistry – but clearly one that is not good enough for all the GA pilots on the GASCo course, who are expected to suffer ebing treated like naughty children and then have the sword of damolces hung over them for a mistake that it most cases is minor and unlikely to result in any serious consequence, with an outcome motivated entirely by political and financial expedience rather than by safety.
Cut the cr*p I hear you say – so it will -its bullsh**, and we all know it!
The GASCO course is a service which consumers pay for and which is subject to a raft of UK and European consumer rights legislation.
If the course is really as dire as is claimed, I wonder whether anyone has asked for all or part of the course fee to be refunded.
