PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Risk of air accidents up in UK after CAA cost cutting
Old 3rd Jul 2017, 14:19
  #12 (permalink)  
Capot
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There is no doubt whatsoever that in the engineering and maintenance areas of the UK CAA things have deteriorated over the last decade (or longer) to the point where compliance is largely a matter of box-ticking, with Surveyors rarely seen in person, and when they are seen they are more often than not unfitted for their job; incompetence and ignorance are commonplace. I have observed sufficient Surveyors (Part 145 and Part 147) in the last 10 years to know that it is fair to generalise that with one or two exceptions (no more) they are there because they are unemployable in a maintenance organisation in any capacity except, possibly, unlicensed mechanics.

The management in Gatwick has long consisted of time-servers with no particular ability; they are in thrall to the larger operators and would no more dare to come in with a Level 1 and enforce it than they would give up their pension rights.

The good guys left the building long ago; look no further than Baines Simmons or Avisa for most of them.

To revert to the OP's question; the reason that the CAA is unlikely to prevent an air accident, at least one due to maintenance error, is far more complex than simple cost-cutting, although cost-cutting plays its part. As an enforcer of EASA regulations it is hardly going to attract the highly-skilled, forward-looking people it needs. Low pay is not the reason its present staff are low-grade; they are paid well. Staff reductions, removing regional offices and so on are the effects of cost-cutting and must take some of the blame.

Strangely enough, I now believe that if the UK leaves EASA after Brexit, or as part of it, things could improve in the medium-long term. Given the motivation to run its own show, and the money to do it properly (no more expensive, all in all, than with EASA) there are enough good people around to give it the leadership it needs to get back to the
pre-eminent position it had at one time. But the present management would need to be cleaned out first, starting with the Board, where aviation knowledge and experience is in very short supply among the rag-tag of rail "experts" and others, especially the non-Execs, who appear to have no qualification whatsoever to be there.

Take this, for example;

Richard Stephenson joined the CAA in January 2015 as Communications Director. Prior to joining the CAA, Richard held senior communications roles in high profile and leading FTSE businesses, including as Group Strategic Communications Adviser at Centrica plc, Corporate Affairs Director at AXA and Director of Public Relations at Royal Mail Group. A postgraduate of Cardiff Journalism School, Richard is non-executive chairman of a fledgling public relations agency, non-executive director of Coventry University London Campus and a Director of County Hall Management Company Ltd. He has been a prolific charity fundraiser, climbing Kilimanjaro and traversing New Zealand and the Arctic for good causes, is currently chairman of a youth charity and has undertaken political work, in four continents, for over 20 years.
I'm sure he's a jolly good fellow, but is he someone who can lead the aviation industry into the future? How exactly did he get a job on the CAA Board? By climbing Kilimanjaro? Both Centrica and Royal Mail are notorious for their appalling communications, customer service and PR; no wonder the CAA is joining them.

Last edited by Capot; 5th Jul 2017 at 18:34.
Capot is offline