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
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!!
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.
Last edited by Capot; 10th Aug 2012 at 10:08.
Reason: typos
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..............
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!
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!
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.)
I wish you hadn't taken the risk because yes, you are boringly repetitive
(a) Yes, so what
(b) Already answered, all info' 'IS' on the website (as I've previously said ),LESS than 10% of the workforce is ex CAA.
Quote:
I drew a conclusion that the relationship between these companies and CAA is wrong.
Zero, factual evidence to back this statement up.
Quote:
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 Your statements are nothing more than TOTALLY unsupported supposition, if you have anything please clue us in.
Location: Far north of the south, but south of the border!
Posts: 350
Quote:
(a) that Baines Simmons and Avisa are both owned by ex-CAA personnel and to a considerable extent staffed by ex-CAA personnel
Mr Baines & Mr Simmons may have been emplyed by the CAA at some point but just how many of the other staff were?
Personally I don't care if the CAA contracts them for training, their courses are about the best I've ever been on, staffed by people who REALLY know their stuff!
),LESS than 10% of the workforce is ex CAA.
