Airworthiness Surveyor UK CAA

[mr. presley]

Has anyone had an interview with the UK CAA for the above position, what to expect etc.

[esscee]

If you have to ask about such matters then maybe you are not the person for the position? Know your Part 145 & Part M,& Part 66 inside out. What EASA does? ( good question, what does it do ). What the CAA does itself and on the behalf of EASA? Long list. Good luck.

[RotaryWingB2]

No CAA surveyor worth his salt is going to reply on here, which means that the only people who do reply will be people who failed.

Do you really want their advice? :ugh:

The poster above got it spot on, if you have to ask, you're not it. ;)

[Rigga]

methinks it was more of a publicity excercise than a question?

[jxk]

At £200 per hour who wouldn't be interested?

[dopeandfabric]

Mr Presley, you seem like a nice intelligent man. You seem to have a brain, and indeed you seem to have common sense, all good attributes by 99.9 per cent of ppruners and 100% of pprune mods.

I would therefore for the above reasons suggest that as you know something about aviation that you would not be able to secure the position sought.

( my first attempts at writing this reply involved words like buggery, s and m, free masons, and lobotomy but I decided to leave this out)!!!!!!

[orion1210]

Dopeandfabric,

If there were a 'like' button for your above post; I would of indeed pressed it! :D

[Capot]

Me too!

If you want to join a bunch of bureaucratic deadbeats, with little knowledge of the real world, and probably little of front-line aviation management and operations, and unemployable except by the CAA, in an organisation riddled with low-level corruption and buckpasssing, I wish you luck at the interview.

If you succeed you may, just may become one of the 10% who DO know what they are doing in their field at least, and have a genuine feel for aviation, aviation safety and aviation development.

But by the time you get there the exodus of those people, which started a year or two ago and continues as I write, may have finished. So you will be on your own, fighting the losing battle to be allowed to do a good job that the others eventually gave up on.

The UK CAA is now officially dysfunctional; no sense of identity or purpose, chaired and managed by bizarre imports from outside the air transport industry and/or the UK. It is supposed to operate as an enforcer of European rules, brought into UK law. It does this inconsistently and badly. In any situation of real threat, economic or operational, it retreats into its cave and does little or nothing effective. It is incapable of decisive action, even on small issues, always pleading some obscure law or regulation that prevents it, usually entirely spurious. Its backroom people produce reams of excellent studies and analysis, but for no perceptible purpose.

The UK CAA is solely concerned with generating revenue to sustain its staff's lifestyle and pensions, and this takes priority over any other task, including effective oversight of operators, maintenance, training and airfields.

That all applies to the Safety Regulation Group, and much of it applies to the economic regulation side of the CAA as well.

Have another cup of tea, old chap.

[NutLoose]

If you have no experiance in aviation whatsoever you will fit in like a dream, the rest as said above. The majority of those I have met appeared to have memorised a book parrot fashion but did not understand its meaning or have embellished it with their own additions that do not exist, there are some good ones, but sadly they are few and far between.

[esscee]

Now that this appears to have headed in the CAA "bashing" direction, nothing against that may I add, and what they really do, wouldn't we all love to know. Try looking up how much the CAA hierarchy get paid, some are well into six figures per annum, and for doing what? Snouts in trough!!!! or ignorant of meaningful knowledge of civil aviation in the UK and getting far too much money for their ignorance.

[Capot]

If you would like a couple of discussion points to have handy for the interview, to show how keen you are, you could mention an organisation known as CAA International, (CAAi if you really want to sound all trendy) and two companies called Baines Simmons Ltd and Avisa Ltd.

CAA International manages, remarkably, to be entirely separate from the CAA; ("it's a limited company, old boy") but with its entire capital funding supplied from the fees and charges received by the CAA. As such, it is quite acceptable, says the CAA, for it to compete with the Training Organisations regulated by the CAA. However, when it comes to the regulatory requirement (enforced by the CAA) to have Part 147 approval to run exams, we suddenly find that CAA International Ltd is the CAA, and thus as a Regulatory Authority does not need to have Part 147 approval to run exams (in Dubai, for example)! Ain't life marvellous?

Your interest in Baines Simmons and Avisa will show a praiseworthy awareness of your career planning. These companies, each one an independent commercial entity, are owned and staffed pretty much entirely by ex-CAA employees.

So it follows with total logic that they, and no other commercial training organisation ("can't possibly get involved in the commercial market, old boy") should benefit from the CAA's munificence in passing over a huge swathe of training contracts either for the CAA itself, or for its "independent but wholly-owned" associate CAA International.

After all, it behoves those who will join Baines Simmons and Avisa in the future to make sure that these businesses develop nicely now, doesn't it? I think it's called "pension protection".

Amazingly, the CAA is unashamed about this arrangement, so corrupt - and totally illegal for more than one reason - that the stench goes out into space. See their website:

CAA International (CAAi), a wholly owned subsidiary of the UK Civil Aviation Authority, is pleased to announce the signing of Training Licence Agreements with Avisa Aviation Safety Systems and Baines Simmons Ltd, which will see both parties formally providing CAAi quality assured training to the aviation community.

Under the new licensing agreement Avisa and Baines Simmons will each deliver specific licensed course titles such as Human Factors and Part 145 in various locations both in the UK and worldwide.Not a mention of the keen interest that CAA employees have in both companies.

Other training organisations need not apply; "for God's sake, that might take business away from our future employers, are you mad? Have another cup of tea."

What a lovely bunch of coconuts, to be sure.

[Flightmech]

I did the 2007 Airworthiness Course and it was "managed" by Baines Simmons on behalf of CAAi back then!

[Capot]

The whole business began when the owners of Baines Simmons quit the CAA early to set the company up, presumably having first ensured that the CAA would give them lots of work, provided, presumably again, that they took on those who would make that happen when they left the CAA.

The other role the CAA plays for Baines Simmons is to recommend it to other Authorities. That's instead of promoting their own Training company, CAAi. I wonder why? Even if CAAi got the work it would promptly be sub-contracted to Baines Simmons or Avisa.

What a tangled web......A330 flight decks aren't the only places where there's a strong stink of s**t.

[d&b]

Not much to say but "here, here".

[woptb]

I have little experience with the CAAi or Avisa,so couldn't possibley comment on these organisations.
However I have done courses with Baines Simmons & you couldn't be much wider of the mark with your assumptions if you tried.

[Flightmech]

Really? Do share? I'd love to know how much Baines Simmons charge the CAA for managing for example, an Airworthiness Course at the Arora in Crawley with a residential rep when the CAA themselves are just down the road.

[Capot]

you couldn't be much wider of the mark with your assumptions if you tried.OK, let's look at it. I made two assertions about Baines Simmons (and Avisa); firstly that they were started and are owned by ex-CAA staff and employ large number of ex-CAA staff, and secondly that the CAA/CAAi awards both companies a huge amount of valuable contracts that are not available to any other commercial company.

Both these seem to me to be easily verified statements of fact; am I wrong? If so I apologise. But I'll need some evidence.

From these facts, as I believe them to be, I drew the inescapable conclusion that there is a strong, corrupt and illegal connection between them. But if the facts are wrong, the conclusion is obviously impossible.

If you can provide incontrovertible evidence that Baines Simmons and Avisa are not owned, controlled and largely staffed by ex CAA employees, and that the CAA/CAAi runs a tender process for all its sub-contracted training that is open to all suitable qualified training providers in the EU in a transparent and fair process that conforms to legal requirements for Government and quasi-Government contracts in the EU, and has done so for, say, the last 10 years, I will withdraw all my remarks and apologise.

[Rigga]

All the B-S courses I have done have been run by Surveyors I met when they were in the CAA.

I know of one ex-employee of Avisa who was not in the CAA - but was probably more experienced than many ex-CAA bods.

I have to agree that there is some form of "bond" there somewhere.

[woptb]

I can only comment on Baines Simmons, I have no experience of Avisa, but your statements are totally fallacious regarding Baines Simmons and I would suggest bordering on libellous.


1.“they employ LARGE number of ex-CAA staff” (It’s in fact 1 in 10).
2.“secondly that the CAA/CAAi awards both companies a HUGE amount of valuable contracts”

1. They'actually' employ 6 ex regulators out of a staff of around 80 people.
2. Out of ‘over’ 50 courses they offer, there are 6 under licence for CAAi.

Take a look at Baines Simmons web site, they have all their staff's names, previous employers and backgrounds. You can also check how many courses they are licensed to present for CAAi, so it will be very easy to verify my assertions.

As for ‘incontrovertible evidence’ regarding the tendering process, how about you provide ‘incontrovertible’ evidence its dodgey, you’re the one who is mudslinging, seemingly based on conjecture & nothing else.

[Flightmech]

Actually check your facts! It wasn't me who said they employ a large number of ex CAA staff and were awarded HUGE contracts.

My only point was about the cost of having a third party, in this case Baines Simmons, (and the same could have applied to AVISA) manage a course on behalf of the CAA when the CAA are right their on the doorstep. Now whose bordering on libellous?

By the way I did find Baines Simmons very professional, and their rep made the course very enjoyable

Now where's your apology?.

[woptb]

Fair cop, I ballsed that right up, so down off my high horse to make my apology Flightmech, I'll change that immediately.

Not to be too sour grapes, but B&S pay CAAi for the privilege of conducting the courses.

[coopervane]

Years back in the good old Dan-Air days, the CAA were treated as the guru's of aviation. When your line station was due for an inspection, the work stopped and the oil store was polished to resemble Buckingham Palace. They had the power, should they be displeased with your efforts, to shut you down.

You need geezers like that to keep you on your toes. To make sure Flight Safety is an issue before the crash rather than after it.

Today, the CAA, like many other government organisations, is full of beaurocracy
and cut backs.
It is not fair to blame individuals who are in their employ but the blame should be laid at the feet of governments over the years who have let slide.

To most people involved with flying and engineering, the CAA are just the paperwork administrators for licencing. They should be perceived as upholders of the law and safety.

We need a CAA with teeth to spend the tax payers hard earned on positive projects that really make the UK a safe place to fly.

Don't get me wrong,. Am sure they do some good stuff but with a major shake up, could do a whole lot better.

Since JAR and EASA came along, National Authorities have become administrators of systems where no one seem to know whats going on.

We don't want this to be their main objective in life. We want an organisation dedicated to making sure every business involved in Aviation in the UK is working to the same high standards and safety.

Maybe its time for them to get tough again and weed out some of the chaff that lies beneath the accepted standards.


In any event, don't be too hard on them. They have to administer a pile of paperwork and red tape the likes you or I would run a mile from.

Be constructive in your critisisms and maybe one day we will have the good old CAA back!!

Coop

:rolleyes:

[Capot]

Coopervane

That was well said and a necessary reminder that it is only too easy to go too far.

And to woptb I acknowledge that I allowed hyperbole to take charge. Mind you, I believe that the reality lies somewhere between your numbers and my exaggerations.

But so far as the training business goes, my essential premise, that the unassailable bond betwen the CAA and those 2 companies is wrong, holds. I know that more than one good training company has approached the CAA in fairly recent times to join in the party, ie to start a process to get onto an approved tenderer list, to be met with amused disbelief that they should even think there is such a thing. And the fact does remain that both companies are owned and controlled by ex-CAA people, and employ ex-CAA people. I too have been on their courses, invariably run by ex-CAA instructors from whom I got the impression that BS, for example, employs many more than 6, even if part-time. Excellent courses and super instructors, but that's not the issue.

The problem we have with the people is that although we can blame Government for allowing/making the CAA to become a process-oriented auditor, doing so has attracted the wrong people into the CAA.

Far too many Surveyors, Inspectors and the like combine a lack of operational experience in management of an operator, maintenance company, training school, whatever, with a superficial knowledge of what the Rules say but not what they mean, and a staggering amount of arrogance. These people (I have 5 in mind from personal experience over the last 3 years, in different areas of regulated activity, of UK or EU origin) are actively dangerous because they force their "clients" to suborn good, safe practice to implementing the minutiae of what pleases their Surveyor or Inspector, sometimes in contradiction of the intention of the Rule being enforced.

The senior management, in Aviation House, have in many cases been there far too long, with far too much latitude to develop their personal idiosyncracies, and of course must bear the responsibility for poor performance of their staff in the field.

The very top management, parachuted in from outside, are where the buck stops. But I suspect they don't even realise there is something wrong, and those who report to them certainly won't tell them.

Do we blame these people for being what they are? Or do we blame the system? Take your pick; I blame both.

[Flightmech]

Two CAA surveyors pitched up in a car earlier this week to do a SAFA inspection of one of our aircraft. One of them spent most of the time enquiring if we had any jobs and could he leave a CV! Oh how times have changed..............

[woptb]

There is a lack of practical experience amongst some surveyors.
What gets on my t1t5 is the institutionalised lack of objectivity,the idea that the regs arn't proscriptive is fine,but each surveyor has a subjective viewpoint (human nature).
You put systems in place that meet the 'intent',the next surveyor doesn't like them,cue much grinding of the teeth!

[view from above]

The Irony is that Capot is accusing others of not being in the real world with no idea of what is going on and chooses to construct a story that proves he has no idea of errrrrr, what is going on!
My experience of Baines and Simmons was a great one - knew their stuff, all having worked in aviation and wanted to make our industry better. Having read the post above I likewise looked at the Baines and Simmons website - not sure where you get this shadow of the CAA from? Maybe by the apparent size of the chip on your shoulder you have it in your head that everyone else is clueless, should not have made it to where they are now and have no idea what they are on about. Oh look - another huge irony!

[Capot]

At the risk of being boringly repetitive, especially with this huge chip on my shoulder, what I actually said, summed up, was (a) that Baines Simmons and Avisa are both owned by ex-CAA personnel and to a considerable extent staffed by ex-CAA personnel, and (b) that all the CAA contracts for training go to one of those two companies.

I also said " Excellent courses and super instructors, but that's not the issue."

I drew a conclusion that the relationship betwen these companies and CAA is wrong.

Now, you've had your little bit of personal abuse, well done, how about addressing the issue? Is either (a) or (b) above incorrect? (You won't find the answer on their websites, incidentally, for fairly obvious reasons.)

[woptb]

I wish you hadn't taken the risk because yes, you are boringly repetitive :oh:
(a) Yes, so what
(b) Already answered, all info' 'IS' on the website (as I've previously said :ugh:),LESS than 10% of the workforce is ex CAA.

I drew a conclusion that the relationship between these companies and CAA is wrong.
Zero, factual evidence to back this statement up.

I also said " Excellent courses and super instructors, but that's not the issue."
Just maybe the reason they get the work is evidenced by this quote:8
Your statements are nothing more than TOTALLY unsupported supposition, if you have anything please clue us in.

[3Faze]

Do people really think that Baines-Simmons give them some kind of inside track to CAA thinking?

[BCAR Section L]

with little knowledge of the real world, and probably little of front-line aviation management and operations

I do love silly statements like these. Come on CAPOT gve us you all knowledgeable view of the real front line aviation world.

Let me guess: "If I did it according to the regs we would never get off the ground".

[squib66]

Do people really think that Baines-Simmons give them some kind of inside track to CAA thinking?

The company says on their LinkedIn page: "Baines Simmons helps to bridge gaps of knowledge, competence, skills and understanding between regulated organisations and their employees, and regulatory authorities and their inspectors".

Translation: We want to come between regulators and the regulated and make some money.

Example: You could pay £475+VAT for a 1 day course to understand NPA 2013-01
Enhanced Safety Requirements in Continuing Airworthiness (http://www.bainessimmons.com/aviation-training/training-courses/tr62-preparing-for-npa-2013-01-enhanced-safety-requirements-in-continuing-airworthiness)

Or you could download for free the presentations from a free 1 day seminar held by EASA!
https://www.easa.europa.eu/newsroom-and-events/events/conference-sms-part-m-and-part-145-rmt-mdm055

If you look at their recent adverts:
Job Ref.: EN00274
Job Title: Training Business Development Manager
Salary / Package: £25,000-£35,000 (Potential OTE of £40,000 - £50,000)
In other words even management pay is low but could double if they achieve On Target Earnings. Do you think that drives a focus on the customer's needs or fleecing them for courses they don't really need?

[Capot]

Or you could download for free the presentations from a free 1 day seminar held by EASA!
https://www.easa.europa.eu/newsroom-...145-rmt-mdm055Or you could download the presentations from an EASA Workshop held last autumn where we were all told that the 2 NPA's issued in 2013 (-01 and -19) about introducing SMS into Continuing Airworthiness organisations had been binned completely. And deservedly so; they were quite extraordinarily bad, even for EASA.

We were informed that EASA had a new programme, Phases I and II, starting in 2016, but I haven't bothered to keep up with whether it has happened. I doubt it.

I wouldn't bother B-S with the question, they are still listing their rather expensive course on NPA 2013-01, so maybe they haven't caught up yet.

[squib66]

On this very topic on their website they say: "Through our participation in industry working groups, Baines Simmons has played a key role in this change process."

That's odd because only a few of their numerous comments on the NPA were accepted (mostly minor editorial matters), and they weren't part of the Focused Consultation Group either.

[Shell Management]

I wouldn't bother B-S with the question

I've seen their work and been distinctly underwhelmed.

A lot of repackaging of the ideas of others without really having understood them and no real understanding of modern safety management.

Reading power point notes aloud is no substitute for actual hazard management experience. Perhaps that is just the modern way; put a boy in a suit and bill for an expert.

[Capot]

Reading power point notes aloud In the spirit of fair play I've been on a Death-by-Powerpoint classroom course run by the other CAA-linked and CAA-favoured training company, Avisa, and could have delivered the course instead of the "instructor" by simply reading the slides as he did. He wasn't even familiar with them; they were used by all instructors, he said. Nor was he particularly familiar with the subject; almost every question was met with a promise to find out and email the answer to all students after the course. Didn't happen, natch. Just under £1,000 wasted, really.

[Never Fretter]

CAA has not used Avisa to deliver training for some time and Baines Simmons for even longer.

3Faze One reason people may have become confused is that Baines coordinated the 3 week CAA Airworthiness Course for a few years when they formed and walked off with the goldmine of all the CAA presentations.

[Shell Management]

CAA has not used Avisa to deliver training for some time and Baines Simmons for even longer

Good to hear!

[squib66]

The new owners of Baines Simmons, charter broker Air Partner PLC, have appointed a retiring CAA Group Director as a non-executive director. Hmmm

[Capot]

Hmmm indeed.....the revolving door spins on.......

[Shell Management]

The former CAA director is into consumer protection so has no technical / safety knowledge to help Baines.:uhoh:

The boys do have a new Airworthiness course.:ooh:

Its described as for Maintenance Managers, Quality Managers, Production Managers and Continuing Airworthiness Managers, among others. :ok:

They state it’s for “those with little or no prior knowledge of the subject who are looking to develop a fundamental level of understanding”.:(

Clearly either they have an insulting low view of their customer's managers or they are just time wasting.:mad:

Perhaps Air Partner need to look at Baines and do a bit of consumer protection themselves.:)

[Never Fretter]

They issued a press release this week advertising they were taking on ex CAA licencing staff.

[squib66]

All a sad attempt to show they still have 'connections' with the current regulations?

At the startof the year they advertised for a consulting director with a masters degree in aviation safety among other things and "strong track record / empathy too rganisational safety – improving human in the system centric safety performance".

Guess what?

That was abandoned when they appointed someone with a "PG Diploma in Strategic Sales Management awarded by the Chartered Institute of Marketing" and no aviation experience. But then they are run by an ex-charter broker now and have to keep the numbers up to please the City investors!