Dodgy flying school going ons. What to do?
Not Good Airline Material
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Airstrip One
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NorthSouth,
I grant you that those who post here are presumably not in the position to produce such hard evidence. If that's what you want to hear - well bully for you, now you've heard it!
Nevertheless I have good reason to believe that there are those who could and may well do so, in which case this thread will no doubt be pulled on account of the matter becoming sub judice.
In the meantime, however, I have 5 specific questions for you, to which I would be very grateful if you could extend me the courtesy of a reply :-
(1) It would appear that you would prefer us to put up or shut up, but has it not crossed your mind that this thread could encourage such a whistleblower to emerge with the requisite evidence, or at the very least have a quiet word with the alleged offender threatening to do so if this occurs again?
(2) Failing that, if others within the organisation know these allegations to be fact, could this thread not perhaps precipitate instructor resignations (if I was there right now, I'd certainly be on the look out for pastures new - plenty of vacancies elsewhere at the moment) and/or the alleged offender having his responsibilities quietly re-consigned such that he less able to continue offending in this manner?
(3) Even if none of this happens, if the alleged incidents are perhaps now just the slightest bit less likely to be repeated in the future would that in itself not justify the peer-pressure exercised by means of this forum?
(4) Having appealed to the conscience of those of us who have the temerity to "waste the CAA's time and blacken fellow pilots' names", here's an appeal to your own : I note from your profile that you are a fellow Instructor and yet I fail to detect any strong disapproval of these alleged infringements of our professional status by an employer or the consequential diminishment of public safety standards entailed if they are proven to be true - does this not trouble you at all?
(5) On behalf of those of us who have good reason to believe the allegations to be true, I repeat to you the question which I directed to you before, and to which you have chosen not to reply in your previous post : what do you suggest would be the best course of action - to do and say nothing?
A conspiracy of silence is no longer an option in any case, and with almost three and a half thousand views of this thread so far, I suspect that I am not alone in looking forward to your reply to these questions.
I grant you that those who post here are presumably not in the position to produce such hard evidence. If that's what you want to hear - well bully for you, now you've heard it!
Nevertheless I have good reason to believe that there are those who could and may well do so, in which case this thread will no doubt be pulled on account of the matter becoming sub judice.
In the meantime, however, I have 5 specific questions for you, to which I would be very grateful if you could extend me the courtesy of a reply :-
(1) It would appear that you would prefer us to put up or shut up, but has it not crossed your mind that this thread could encourage such a whistleblower to emerge with the requisite evidence, or at the very least have a quiet word with the alleged offender threatening to do so if this occurs again?
(2) Failing that, if others within the organisation know these allegations to be fact, could this thread not perhaps precipitate instructor resignations (if I was there right now, I'd certainly be on the look out for pastures new - plenty of vacancies elsewhere at the moment) and/or the alleged offender having his responsibilities quietly re-consigned such that he less able to continue offending in this manner?
(3) Even if none of this happens, if the alleged incidents are perhaps now just the slightest bit less likely to be repeated in the future would that in itself not justify the peer-pressure exercised by means of this forum?
(4) Having appealed to the conscience of those of us who have the temerity to "waste the CAA's time and blacken fellow pilots' names", here's an appeal to your own : I note from your profile that you are a fellow Instructor and yet I fail to detect any strong disapproval of these alleged infringements of our professional status by an employer or the consequential diminishment of public safety standards entailed if they are proven to be true - does this not trouble you at all?
(5) On behalf of those of us who have good reason to believe the allegations to be true, I repeat to you the question which I directed to you before, and to which you have chosen not to reply in your previous post : what do you suggest would be the best course of action - to do and say nothing?
A conspiracy of silence is no longer an option in any case, and with almost three and a half thousand views of this thread so far, I suspect that I am not alone in looking forward to your reply to these questions.
Last edited by Blackshift; 24th Feb 2005 at 07:51.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,810
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
Blackshift:
1) you misinterpret. I have never said "put up or shut up". I have simply said that if the CAA is to be approached with a view to regulatory action then you/they/whoever they are should be sure of their evidence. Yes, if the alleged events occurred then these discussions could well bring someone out of the woodwork with the requisite evidence. I have no problem with that. If it happened, it's wrong and it should stop.
2) Absolutely agree, if the alleged events did happen and there are people in the organisation that know this has been going on, then anything which encourages a little internal reflection is a good thing. But your question is a little odd. If there are instructors in this school who have known all along that PPLs have been illegally flying trial lessons, why would *they* resign? Wouldn't it be more likely that the instructors who DIDN'T know it was going on would resign? All on the assumption that the events did occur of course. I know it's not the fashion these days but I prefer to think that people are presumed innocent until proved otherwise. Hey there's an idea - flying school control orders. Dear Mr Clark.......
3) Like I said, I'm not suggesting that this thread is somehow illegitimate.
4) No, you can't accuse me of not disapproving. Throughout, I've said that if the evidence is there then it's illegal and it should be stopped. Don't try to turn the argument round. If I saw the alleged events happening where I work I'd be the first to object.
5) I refer you to my posts on 16 and 23 Feb. You're trying to twist the argument again. Don't confuse a concern with establishing evidence of wrongdoing with some sort of complicity with breaches of the ANO. You say you believe the allegations to be true. But the legal system still (so far) works on evidence, not faith.
NS
1) you misinterpret. I have never said "put up or shut up". I have simply said that if the CAA is to be approached with a view to regulatory action then you/they/whoever they are should be sure of their evidence. Yes, if the alleged events occurred then these discussions could well bring someone out of the woodwork with the requisite evidence. I have no problem with that. If it happened, it's wrong and it should stop.
2) Absolutely agree, if the alleged events did happen and there are people in the organisation that know this has been going on, then anything which encourages a little internal reflection is a good thing. But your question is a little odd. If there are instructors in this school who have known all along that PPLs have been illegally flying trial lessons, why would *they* resign? Wouldn't it be more likely that the instructors who DIDN'T know it was going on would resign? All on the assumption that the events did occur of course. I know it's not the fashion these days but I prefer to think that people are presumed innocent until proved otherwise. Hey there's an idea - flying school control orders. Dear Mr Clark.......
3) Like I said, I'm not suggesting that this thread is somehow illegitimate.
4) No, you can't accuse me of not disapproving. Throughout, I've said that if the evidence is there then it's illegal and it should be stopped. Don't try to turn the argument round. If I saw the alleged events happening where I work I'd be the first to object.
5) I refer you to my posts on 16 and 23 Feb. You're trying to twist the argument again. Don't confuse a concern with establishing evidence of wrongdoing with some sort of complicity with breaches of the ANO. You say you believe the allegations to be true. But the legal system still (so far) works on evidence, not faith.
NS
Not Good Airline Material
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Airstrip One
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NorthSouth,
Thank you for your reply, which has indeed cleared up a few misunderstandings.
It is only fair that I likewise respond in turn to some of the points you have made in response to my questions :-
If they know about it, it doesn't mean they are happy about it or that they feel that they have any power within the organisation to do anything about it - hence the possibility that they might resign when their desire for a glowing reference is outweighed by concern for their own peace of mind, licence, and reputation.
I have asked you a simple question in order to clarify your stance on this issue, and moreover was not aware of any "argument" between us until your recent gibe about wasting CAA time (they get enough money from all of us and can get on with it as far as I'm concerned!) and blackening the name of fellow pilots (since when has pilot = good guy?).
Once again it's a straitforward question...
In your post on the 16th you suggested that SAS should have a quiet word with the alleged offender before deciding whether to involve the law. As ST replied "I doubt the individual who may be involved in perpetrating this activity would be interested in any advice given to them by a professional pilot. They certainly haven't listened to any in the past..." This is a point of view which has been echoed by others here including myself. The chap concerned has in fact been known to respond to such attempts at professional advice with an assurance that he has "done the correspondence course" - just witness the post by AP'05 to get some idea of the extent of this situation.
On the 23 Feb you appear to taunt us about missing evidence and then appeal to our conscience with regard to the poor overworked CAA and our apparent disregard for some kind of pilots code of honour. This time there is no positive suggestion or as to any course of action whatsoever, just stern warning to make sure we know what we are talking about.
Having therefore responded to your posts of the 16 and 23 Feb and moving on from there to where we are now, with no apparent smoking gun as yet, I am tempted to repeat to you the question a third time: what do you (now) suggest would be the best course of action - to do and say nothing?
Most of us are generally aware of how the law works thank you very much, and that is precisely why I have decided to stick my oar in on this thread in the meantime in order to do my bit to try to help bring about a result of some kind.
Thank you for your reply, which has indeed cleared up a few misunderstandings.
It is only fair that I likewise respond in turn to some of the points you have made in response to my questions :-
If there are instructors in this school who have known all along that PPLs have been illegally flying trial lessons, why would *they* resign? Wouldn't it be more likely that the instructors who DIDN'T know it was going on would resign?
No, you can't accuse me of not disapproving. Throughout, I've said that if the evidence is there then it's illegal and it should be stopped. Don't try to turn the argument round.
I refer you to my posts on 16 and 23 Feb. You're trying to twist the argument again.
In your post on the 16th you suggested that SAS should have a quiet word with the alleged offender before deciding whether to involve the law. As ST replied "I doubt the individual who may be involved in perpetrating this activity would be interested in any advice given to them by a professional pilot. They certainly haven't listened to any in the past..." This is a point of view which has been echoed by others here including myself. The chap concerned has in fact been known to respond to such attempts at professional advice with an assurance that he has "done the correspondence course" - just witness the post by AP'05 to get some idea of the extent of this situation.
On the 23 Feb you appear to taunt us about missing evidence and then appeal to our conscience with regard to the poor overworked CAA and our apparent disregard for some kind of pilots code of honour. This time there is no positive suggestion or as to any course of action whatsoever, just stern warning to make sure we know what we are talking about.
Having therefore responded to your posts of the 16 and 23 Feb and moving on from there to where we are now, with no apparent smoking gun as yet, I am tempted to repeat to you the question a third time: what do you (now) suggest would be the best course of action - to do and say nothing?
Most of us are generally aware of how the law works thank you very much, and that is precisely why I have decided to stick my oar in on this thread in the meantime in order to do my bit to try to help bring about a result of some kind.
Last edited by Blackshift; 24th Feb 2005 at 19:55.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,810
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
what do you (now) suggest would be the best course of action - to do and say nothing?
Not Good Airline Material
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Airstrip One
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Irrelevant conditional advice followed by an anodyne conditional assertion with which, on the face of it, one could hardly disagree.
However, whether or not there is in fact a case can hardly be said to depend on whether I myself have the requisite evidence. Whether or not I could be said to have a case is of course a very different question. But then it's not just about me, is it?
I retain a firm enough grasp of logic to recognise that you have still not answered the question that I have put to you three times now.
I'll tell you what, I'll start you off with the basic form of an appropriate relevant reply in a similar form to your previous attempt, but this time with an applicable conditional bit to start with which is valid in the context of the question, and you can finish it off for me : -
"If you do not have the requisite evidence, but nevertheless have good reason to believe such allegations to be true, then...."
If you think that I should say and do no more then why not just say so?
- answers on a postcard please.
However, whether or not there is in fact a case can hardly be said to depend on whether I myself have the requisite evidence. Whether or not I could be said to have a case is of course a very different question. But then it's not just about me, is it?
I retain a firm enough grasp of logic to recognise that you have still not answered the question that I have put to you three times now.
I'll tell you what, I'll start you off with the basic form of an appropriate relevant reply in a similar form to your previous attempt, but this time with an applicable conditional bit to start with which is valid in the context of the question, and you can finish it off for me : -
"If you do not have the requisite evidence, but nevertheless have good reason to believe such allegations to be true, then...."
If you think that I should say and do no more then why not just say so?
- answers on a postcard please.
Last edited by Blackshift; 24th Feb 2005 at 21:17.
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 51
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NorthSouth
You don't seem to realise how serious this is. Surely part of the responsibility of the CAA is to investigate this sort of allegation. They have authority to collect evidence that other people can't. They can look into paperwork that you or I could not ask to see, that might prove the issue. There is no need for evidence before informing the CAA.
You don't seem to realise how serious this is. Surely part of the responsibility of the CAA is to investigate this sort of allegation. They have authority to collect evidence that other people can't. They can look into paperwork that you or I could not ask to see, that might prove the issue. There is no need for evidence before informing the CAA.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,810
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
SendClowns: Fair point. Looking back, I see the CAA was informed on 19 August last year. Presumably if they thought it had substance they would have acted by now?
NS
NS
Not Good Airline Material
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Airstrip One
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not only do they appear to have been informed in August last year, but also approximately ten days ago - and this time about the alleged repetition of such events to a worsening extent, which is what brought this thread back to life after a long period of inactivity.
It has become apparent to some, as it may to others, that they have done and are doing something about it.
It has become apparent to some, as it may to others, that they have done and are doing something about it.
Last edited by Blackshift; 26th Feb 2005 at 08:32.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It does sometimes matter WHO is informed rather than what form the information comes in.
Last time it took the form of a chat to a mate, this time it has seemingly gone up a gear, I wonder what they'll find? (I believe that the enforcement chaps have been to the school in question, good to see they take this sort of thing seriously.)
Last time it took the form of a chat to a mate, this time it has seemingly gone up a gear, I wonder what they'll find? (I believe that the enforcement chaps have been to the school in question, good to see they take this sort of thing seriously.)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: algarve
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The caa are shortly going to licence whistleblowers for a fee of £284.58 [yearly] subject to a annual checkout or 3 whistleblowings in the preceeding 12 months
they will only accept telephone calls from properley licenced blowers the first training courses starting at sherburn,shorereham ,gatwick,ascot,and cardiff commece in april
the first courses are for faa,medical and commercial reportings rotor wing [as this is the biggest growth industry at the moment]
lol
they will only accept telephone calls from properley licenced blowers the first training courses starting at sherburn,shorereham ,gatwick,ascot,and cardiff commece in april
the first courses are for faa,medical and commercial reportings rotor wing [as this is the biggest growth industry at the moment]
lol
Not Good Airline Material
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Airstrip One
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let him who hath understanding reckon the number of the pest...
The Clowned Head of all that he surveys in his Kingdom's sadly diminished Flying Circus has developed a cunning plan of revenge : he has contacted the employer of one of his ex instructors to complain of his inappropriate use of computers in the workplace i.e. posting here when he should be working.
It is of course noteworthy that he should have reason to consider himself to be the subject of discussion in this thread.
However in this case he has added up "tree plus wun plus wun" and got something other than the correct answer.
Myself and others have agreed to disclose our identity to his employer to prove that we are not who Inspector Clouseau thinks we are. Some of us even have our own computers.
However, he could well be on a very sticky wicket here...
Harassing an ex employee in such a defamatory manner as to name him in connection allegations of misconduct in his current workplace which are so easily falsifiable (and therefore nothing more than the figment of a lamentably febrile imagination) is not really very clever I would have thought.
He would have been well advised to tread much more carefully.
This'll only serve to ensure that by now there will be even more who have got his number with regard to inappropriate use of aeroplanes in the workplace - and no mony o' them will want tae side wi him!
It is of course noteworthy that he should have reason to consider himself to be the subject of discussion in this thread.
However in this case he has added up "tree plus wun plus wun" and got something other than the correct answer.
Myself and others have agreed to disclose our identity to his employer to prove that we are not who Inspector Clouseau thinks we are. Some of us even have our own computers.
However, he could well be on a very sticky wicket here...
Harassing an ex employee in such a defamatory manner as to name him in connection allegations of misconduct in his current workplace which are so easily falsifiable (and therefore nothing more than the figment of a lamentably febrile imagination) is not really very clever I would have thought.
He would have been well advised to tread much more carefully.
This'll only serve to ensure that by now there will be even more who have got his number with regard to inappropriate use of aeroplanes in the workplace - and no mony o' them will want tae side wi him!
Last edited by Blackshift; 7th Apr 2005 at 07:31.
