N Reg Issue Is Dead And Gone

[Dimbleby]

As well PPRUNERs will know all too well, Dimbleby likes to bask in the reflected glow of those whose political star is on the rise in the corridors of power.

Fine dining last night with individuals whose fingertips are inches from the reigns of power, Dimbleby can proudly announce that the D of T N reg proposal is dead and buried.

And huzzah for that.

Addittional good news is that the dimwit that put his moniker to the propsal is looking forward to a carreer in the 'tables and chairs' contracts branch of the department concerned.

Real good news is that the IR portion of the issue is now firmly on the agenda.

All that is left now is the diplomatic retreat. Dimbleby was informed that the official backoff will be a prudent 3 months away and there will be a minor fudge (for addittional face saving) on some aspects of maintenance and possibly banning stuff on the azerbaijanniii register.

All together Dimbleby thinks yesterday was a good day for British aviation.

[youngskywalker]

is this true? fantastic news if so, can anyone else confirm this?

[porridge]

As someone who sent in a particularly pointed opposition with constructive views for an alternative approach I am very pleased if it is true.
Most heartening is that they are looking seriously at the IR situation - regretfully it will be a year or 3 before we see a practical EU option for the FAA equivalent.
Viva Pilot Power, Viva!

[IO540]

Given there is no way to PM this individual we cannot find out any more.

Nevertheless, if it was a prank it would be pretty pointless - unlike what could be said if someone posted it during the consultation period.

[Dimbleby]

Dimbleby cannot reveal his sources (obviously) and to give any other info concerning their positions would be impudent.

Although Dimbleby like to keep his ear close to the leaky bulkheads of the department the initial proposal came as a bit of a shock.

Dimbelbys initial and immediate info from his contacts suggested that the 'consultation' was merely a PR exercise and the 'decision' was already made.

The reaction from the GA community was so overwhelming and swift, and the issue document was so badly drafted to be absurd, that the department have already nade a decision to beat a subtle retreat.

The submissions as I understand it were wide reaching, from the abusive through to some that were illogical , but the overwhelming majority hit the political nail on the head.

Congrats to all.

[Phil Rigg]

Assuming that Dimbleby's information is indeed correct, what I find most disturbing about this whole fiasco is just exactly how out-of-touch our Government regulators are with the reality and effects of the laws they are making or attempting to make. It was apparent to all of us in reading the "Consultation Document" that it was written by someone who had absolutely no idea whatsoever of the issues and consequences over which their various Departments have responsibility for regulation.

I accept that GA is a microcosm of the transport industry as a whole but any department(s) tasked by law with regulatory power have an absolute responsibility for understanding all aspects of any industry they are regulating and the combined effects of different department's regulations to its users/citizens/taxpayers or "end customers". Otherwise any minority group could be inadvertently persecuted by the overwhelming power of its own Government!

Rather than allowing this Department to sweep its crass error and embarrassment under the carpet by us accepting some minor face saving additional legislation released after some prudent delay, I think that any Government Department revealing its gross ignorance in this way should be the immediate subject of an independent Public Enquiry.

Phil

[BroomstickPilot]

Phil,

The opportunity for this is already with us. All you have to do is to provide another pointed response to the current Parliamentary Transport Committee Consultation on the Work of the Civil Aviation Authority. I'm working on mine now.

I feel sure that this consultation only arose out of the furious response to both the 'N Reg' issue and the recent proposal to hike our fees and charges (in order to subsidise the CAA's airline pals). Just too many members of both houses of Parliament proved to be private pilots and to have private pilots among their constituents.

C'mon Guys, get busy!

Broomstick.

[IO540]

I feel sure that this consultation only arose out of the furious response to both the 'N Reg' issue

I think the above is absolutely right.

The anti N-reg proposal was so stupidly written so as to defy belief that anybody so clueless could be employed by the DfT at any level above a tea-lady. And informed people are convinced that the CAA was behind it all along... let's face it the CAA acts as a consultant to the DfT on all aviation matters; the GA Dept in the DfT freely admits they do next to nothing technical without asking the CAA for guidance.

So it does not suprise me that this was the last CAA straw for somebody who happens to have political influence.

Time to get writing!

[IanSeager]

And informed people are convinced that the CAA was behind it all along...

I'm no CAA fan, but almost everything I've seen leads me to believe that the motivation for the anti N reg farce came from the DfT and not the CAA...


Ian Seager

[PPRuNe Towers]

.... and part of a far larger bi lateral strategy/disagreement/war.

Open Skies/Bermuda/WTO/Airbus/Boeing/cabotage/ foreign ownership of US airlines - bright idea dropped as it discomfitted no one other than a few Brits.

[Pat Malone]

The smoke signals that have been coming out of the DfT indicate that Dimbleby may well be right. The Department did not expect the reaction it got; the man who drafted the consultation paper genuinely believed what he was putting into it and was not au fait with the real situation. He is now.
The N-reg nonsense had nothing to do with the Transport Select Committee's review of the CAA. As Ian points out, the CAA had very little to do with the N-reg business. The select committee has simply cab-ranked the agencies for the treatment. They've done the Maritime Agency, they've done the Highways Agency, now it's the CAA's turn.
I suspect the Select Committee's decision has, however, a great deal to do with the CAA's current Strategic Review of itself. Any criticisms that come out of the Select Committee report can be finessed by the CAA with the claim that they are reviewing themselves, in consultation with industry, with a view to better serving their public.
I've looked at the Transport Select Committee's report on the Highways Agency and they do seem to do a comprehensive job and listen to all comers. It is therefore imperative that everyone pitch in, so that they really understand the level of dissatisfaction with the CAA out here in the field.
The CAA has been frightened into rowing back on some of the charges it is about to inflict on general aviation, but nowhere near far enough. It's on the back foot, and we should keep the pressure on.
The IR matter is indeed firmly on the agenda. After being proposed for review by AOPA at the JAA Licensing Sectorial Committee, the IR theoretical knowledge requirements are being picked over by a sub-group of the LST, and they are doing good work. All the 'how many fire axes on a Concorde' questions are coming out. The flying part will remain at 50 hours, but two modules of 10 hours each may be done ahead of the rating - spreading the pressure and the cost. That is, of course, if these proposals carry the day. There are some voices against it. But we live in hope.