A perspective from my General Practice partner
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Geoffrey Kittle" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Geoff Kittle" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 4:33 PM
Subject: FW: If the NHS ran an airline...


>
>
> Geoff Kittle
> [log in to unmask]
> Church View Surgery
> 15 High Street
> Rayleigh
> Essex
> SS6 7DY
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dr Jamie Nicholls [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 21 November 2005 16:18
> To: Geoffrey Kittle
> Subject: RE: If the NHS ran an airline...
>
>
> The latest government press release has suggested in an indirect manner 
> that
> any under performing airports will be redesignated and privatised.
> This will allow pilots to perform more complex work such as deciding the
> future role of airport conversions.
> The British pilots association (BPA) meanwhile have declared their
> opposition to boxing and smoking in airports, however they feel that the
> training of pilots is a superfluous non vital waste of their time.
> In the meantime, 3 star airports have forced their pilots to spend a 
> minimum
> of 16 hours a week training aviation control practitioners, and under no
> circumstances must they be involved in they dangerous task of training
> trainee pilots, as in the words of Rear Admiral Alan Milburn, they are
> "arrogant, money grabbing, plane crashing, conservative barriers to
> progress"
> The royal college of pilots england have gained a unanimous victory to
> integrate the 4 british flight colleges and are to be run by non pilots
> under the auspices of a governmet appointed cheif flight officer. As we
> speak they are rejoicing over the wonderful effect this will have on pilot
> training, with a fully integrated government controlled efficient
> organisation.
> The General Flight Council(GFC) have currently released a statement
> decreeing and end to mechanical error indicating that any delay in flights
> or turbulence is entirely due to pilot error and the sooner they are
> replaced by the cheaper Aviation control practitioners (ACPs), the better.
> They have increased their regulatory rhetoric ever since they morphine
> addled Commander Shipman crashed 15 planes in 1997.  The GFC, together 
> with
> the government, have also decreed that any pilot opposing or contradicting
> any plans will be detained for 90 days under the terrorist act.
> Pilots' leaders have hinted (bravely) that this may be a shade long and
> asked for the sentences to be commuted by 38 days so that they could train
> another ACP each.
> The association for ACPs, have released numerous statements declaring 
> their
> superiority to pilots and have the backing of flight lieutenant Jopling of
> the government agency Pilotwatch) and numerous other pilots who have
> released self deprecating affectedly magnanimous statements saying that 
> ACPs
> are really as good as pilots, in fact better as they are less arrogant.
> A recent study has also found that many ex UK pilots have been found 
> happily
> swimming and hill walking in Australia and New Zealand, where they are 
> able
> to perform the jobs they have been trained to do.
> It should be noted that All ACPs are certified first aiders.
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geoffrey Kittle [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 21 November 2005 11:04
> To: Brian Balmer; James Nicholls; John Guy; Peter Glover; Richard Grew;
> Taylor Hugh
> Subject: FW: If the NHS ran an airline...
>
>
> Does this sound familiar?
> Geoff Kittle
> [log in to unmask]
> Church View Surgery
> 15 High Street
> Rayleigh
> Essex
> SS6 7DY
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GEOFFREY KITTLE [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 19 November 2005 19:57
> To: Geoff Kittle
> Subject: Fw: If the NHS ran an airline...
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rowley Cottingham" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 10:11 AM
> Subject: If the NHS ran an airline...
>
>
>> The new minister for good ideas has outlined proposals to make the
>> cockpit more "accessible".
>>
>> Pilots are spending too long training to fly aeroplanes. Instead of
>> obtaining a pilot's licence, trainees on the new scheme will instead be
>> awarded a certificate of air experience so they can start flying
>> passengers much sooner. They will need to be supervised by a pilot with
>> a licence, who will remain on the ground, but a few who survive will be
>> able to proceed to train for a licence later. Mind you, for the
>> purposes of our figures they will all count as full pilots anyway.
>>
>> For too long pilots have maintained a stranglehold on duties such as
>> flying aeroplanes. Cabin crew have been unfairly excluded from these
>> duties. A new 38 day course will enable cabin crew to learn to fly
>> planes independently of pilots, without the need for all that excessive
>> messing around with training, exams and stuff. Some cabin crew will
>> have the opportunity to train as "practitioners" who will specialise in
>> specific areas, such as landing practitioners and
>> switching-on-the-seatbelt-light practitioners. Having a few of these
>> around will mean we don't need as many of those expensive pilots.
>>
>> Communication skills are essential. Pilots are very bad communicators.
>> Simply telling you "we're half way across the Atlantic now at 35000
>> feet and are going to turn left soon" is just not good enough.
>> Passengers must be kept fully informed of every move the pilot makes at
>> all stages during the flight. In order to accommodate the increased
>> communication training there will be less time for actual "flying"
>> during the course.
>>
>> We must make this whole business more "passenger centered". Pilots run
>> this whole show for their own convenience. Scheduled departure times
>> are far too inflexible. It's no use saying the last flight to Sydney
>> left at 4 o'clock when some of the passengers wanted to get on at 7
>> because they wanted to spend more time browsing for Sudoku puzzle books
>> in the duty free shop.
>>
>> You know it makes sense.
>>
>> /Rowley./
>
>
> ***************************************************************************
> This e-mail is confidential and privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient please accept our apologies; please do not disclose, copy or
> distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in reliance on 
> its
> contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please 
> inform
> us that this message has gone astray before deleting it. Thank you for 
> your
> co-operation.
> ***************************************************************************
>
>
>
> ***************************************************************************
> This e-mail is confidential and privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient please accept our apologies; please do not disclose, copy or
> distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in reliance on 
> its
> contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please
> inform us that this message has gone astray before deleting it. Thank you
> for your co-operation.
> ***************************************************************************
>