CAA magazine
 

I got quite an interesting magazine from the CAA which I enjoyed reading and recognise is full of good advice.

I won't be showing it to any of my flying guests though. They'll have nightmares.

Agree, arrived in the post today and rather enjoyed it - especially the John Farley article

I've come to the conclusion that I feel I may have suspected all along about the CAA. They're a bunch of scaremongering, kill joy, poorly informed nimbies. This magazine though glossy and well written sums up thier attitude to GA rather well. We're a pain in the backside for them. Lets face it, they would rather over regulate us and outprice us out of existance than do anything to help our cause (mode s etc..).

I'm not talking about the individuals that work for the CAA. I would hand on heart say I haven't met a nasty one amongst them. However as a body they seem to have an agenda to scare and stop as much as possible when it comes to GA, while bending over backwards at every whim, request and requirement of the Big Airlines in this country. Makes me sick when I see how easily the airlines in this country get rules changed to suit thier operation.

Most interesting was the claim that birds are VFR flyers - get one into a cloud and it suffers the same stall/spin accidents as VFR pilots. (Sounds a bit odd though ... no reference to anything we could read for more details.)

BS in gloss is still BS mate.

Gorrilla/XX,

the whole point of these type of publications is to inform and hopefully prevent you getting yourself into a similar situation, whether you bother to take note is up to you. Perhaps you are both members of that selct organisation - The "It will never happen to me" club.

If Mr Gorrilla isn't talking about "the people who work for the CAA", who is he talking about?
"The people who work for the CAA" are the people who write and produce precisely these publications.

Can someone explain the accident stats to me please? It's just from the brief skim-reading of that article, there seem to be more fatal accidents in the UK GA than fatalities:confused:

Oli

CAA magazine useful
 

I disagree with most of the later posts.
I did not think it 'glossy BS'; I thought it was well considered and as a relatively low-hours PPL (150) I found it useful and informative, reminding me of a few things, and I was impressed and pleased that they
- bothered to spend the money on it
- clearly took it seriously enough
- was in a form that encouraged being read
And IMO it shows some interest and concern by the CAA in us GA pilots.

Given the shocking accident stats in GA, is it any wonder that they have to?

The same old accidents come up again and again because the GA community AS A WHOLE does not appear to learn the lessons of past accidents/incidents. Just look at the number of CFIT accidents each year and you'll see what I mean.

Is this mag GASIL or GASCO?

I used to get them sent to me when I was on G-reg.

They used to go to everybody on the CAA aircraft database.

It's completely new - sent out annually to all pilots on the CAA database (licence/medical I think) -sent out 'staggered' over a few days perhaps? - but requires pilots to have registered changes of address.

IO540. I believe the actual title is "Clued Up"

I always thought GASIL (and to some extent, the CAA Safety Evenings) were a bit like being talked down to by a Strict Headmaster:

"We notice, we understand bla bla bla........"

But as someone has already said, its the small percentage (say 5%) who **** it all up for the 95% of us who can be bothered and are professional enough to remain outside CAS, not infringe the Reds, not to fly into a mountain, fly into bad weather and crash etc etc. If the 5% of pilots who fly around and can't act professionally, are we at all surprised at the reaction of the regulatory authorities, especially when those 5% are in or near CAS and a potential 'threat' to commercial air transport?

I must admit, in my 25 years of flying GA aircraft, it's now bothering me the amount of stupidity involving GA types, microlights and helicopters i see around the country. Maybe I'm just getting old and more like Victor Meldrew?:=

I thought that there was some good practical advice in it, particularly the bit about Airspace busts. The overall message was 'plan, be careful and concentrate'. I am struggling to find an anti GA agenda frankly. Why would they produce this if they had a bias?

Some of the incidents that have been discussed on Prune are a result of poor decision making. Before you all shout 'there for the grace of God go all of us' I would say that this publication was trying to highlight the importance of good decision making and the possible results and repercussions in the event we do not.

Maybe not rocket science, but neither are Safety Evenings. Hammering home the obvious tends to make it stick.

I am too; the magazine was very good and I hardly think the likes of Irv Lee and John Farley would take part in something intended to discourage GA.

I wonder who has the greatest say in what goes into these articles. Is it the relatively small pilot community in the CAA or is this mag effectively written by statisticians? As Oli points out you can bend stats in many directions to reinforce your viewpoint. I personally think the CAA have an agenda. If they can play the "dangerous/unsafe card" in order to over regulate GA and get rid of this so called burden that's what they'll do.

I am sure the CAA is not anti GA, and this is true both individually and as an organisation.

Their image problem is probably mainly in their historical recruitment policy. A lot of ex RAF and ex airline types. These organisations have always had narrow (must get a 'company man' who 'fits the mould') recruitment policies and while the individuals are invariably very clever and experienced people, once placed in senior management / policymaking positions they they tend to come across as elitist and patronising.

The CAA itself has obviously been running a 'must fit the mould' policy on recruitment and promotion, ensuring that nobody too revolutionary manages to rise up through the ranks.

So much of the GA material that I have seen come out of the CAA since I started flying in 2000 has been at best patronising and at worst a pile of junk (such as the whole way they dealt with the issue of GPS, scaring so many pilots into really believing it is illegal etc etc etc). I think this is now finally changing, but years too late and the damage has been done.

What I don't know is whether the more modern attitude in the CAA is the result of personnel changes due to retirement, or due to EASA threatening to take over most of their work and forcing a revamp of their traditional revenue streams. At the corporate level they will want to protect their income after all.

Received mine today and was quietly impressed. The mag is targeted at GA pilots who (with the exeption of IO540) fly once or twice a month. manly on local bimbles. Get very little practice at real navigation and if they go anywhere other than their local area have a tendency to get lost. This probably includes me.:} Getting lost anywhere near CAS means busts, me again.:*

So I thought it a very welcome surprise.

Glad I am not in the same club as the low hour guys flying into a lowering cloud base though. Losing it in IMC with a stall, rapid descent (probably exceeding VNE) high engine revs (probably red lining the engine) and a bad landing. Didn't mention it at the club (incase of overstressed airframe, damaged engine or even bent undercarriage) to avoid embarresment.:confused:

Clued up
 

I haven't had time to read much of mine yet, but from a skim through the pages I think it looks to be rather good.

Broomstick.

I thought it was quite a good read.

As for the "I'd be fine in IMC" club, I suggest you try it sometime (with an instructor). Chances are you'll be all over the place in seconds. Probably the reason why most people who've done an IMC rating feel it should be compulsary.