UK CAA - a chocolate fireguard?

[Hot Wings]

Reading through the latest CHIRP I can't help but feel that the CAA exists in some gentleman's flying club era. They are more concerned about correct RT phraseology - "roger wilco tally-ho" than safety. For example, food poisoning risks: don't ask us - ask your local council!!! Abuses of FTLs - we recommend...!!! Do they not have any teeth?

It is time that the CAA woke up and started to protect flight crew and the flying public from the awful levels of management that exist throughout the industry.:ugh:

[biddedout]

Yes, I too was thinking similar, and wondering how long it would be before chirp was closed down.

[Chiliarch]

Don't forget that CHIRP can only be effective if it has some degree of co-operation from everyone involved. I have no doubt at all that CHIRP is a great force for safety and that view is shared sufficiently to ensure its continuation. Much is said behind the scenes that is not directly reflected in the CHIRP reports.

The CAA must operate within a legal framework which can be and is challenged. I may not have always seen eye-to-eye with the CAA but I have no doubt that pilots are better off with it than without it. If you don't like what it does, talk to your MP and urge support for better legislation, and remember that quite a lot now originates in Europe, so you may also need to talk to your MEP .

[Hot Wings]

The huge increase in level busts has, in my opinion, much more to do with reduced levels of awareness due to fatigue caused by rostering to legal limits (now seen by management as productivity targets) than by poor RT.

The "fact" that a company has not received any reports can only be taken with a pinch of salt. Awareness of a problem should generate action, rather than waiting for an incident to happen.

Unfortunately, "behind the scenes activity" does not generate any confidence in those of us working at the coal face.

[L337]

Funny thing, I was reading CHIRP this morning and concluded also, that it was a waste of space.

It appears to me that they have 3 trays. In, Out, and one marked "Too difficult". And most of the FTL, Industrial safety related issues were just not delt with. So relegated to, "Too difficult".

Two items that were just glossed over. Handling Proficiency, and The Right Reporting Culture. Both very important issues. Glib answers given to both. The real issues of safety, and safety culture, never tackled.

L337

[PAXboy]

If the CAA is not effective - and as a Pax, I cannot possibly know - then it will only be consistent with other regulators in the UK and, actually, the world.

Each regulator is set up in good faith, based on the principles and attitudes of the time. Over a course of time, they change but the regulator does not. A current prime example is the General Medical Council, which is currenty coming in for a lot of 'stick' (the other kind :E ) and mounting pressure for their wholesale reform. Why?

Because people have died and there is concern that the self-regulatory GMC can no longer do the job. The Shipman affair was what brought it to the top of the pile for politicians and interested parties. The complexity of modern medicine, the twin pressures to get everything done as quickly as possible and reduce costs ... does it start to sound familiar?

As so often in these forums, I am going to repeat the mantra: Nothing will change until enough people have died. That does not mean that I think the CAA and CHIRP are ineffective - but the sheer passage of time states that they will not be as effective as they were and should be, because that is how human beings organise things. Mistakes are being made and will be made but nothing will happen, until it's too late.

[theresalwaysone]

Yes when are the CAA going to realise that the fatigue of aircrew CAP is way out of date exploited to its maximum by Budget bloody airlines!

Phoning people on days off should have to follow strict agreed guidelines imposed by CAA.

Changing duties should have to follow strict agreed guidelines imposed by CAA.

Changing duties should have a time limit before next rostered duty and should agreed guidelines imposed by CAA. like no changes within 15 hours of next duty which would bring a pilot on earlier.
ETC ETC

[Airbubba]

They are more concerned about correct RT phraseology - "roger wilco tally-ho" than safety.

Well, R/T procedures do seem to generate endless threads here on PPRuNe.

Perhaps it is a cultural difference, in America we're more interested in days off and what's for lunch...

[woodpecker]

Some time ago, on converting to a Vnav aircraft (B767) SOPS allowed during a STAR approach to set the MCP altitude to the approach fix and allow the V-nav to cope with any intermediate height restrictions.

On the day in question we were cleared for a Daros1A approach into Larnaca to cross the VOR at 4000 feet. The Daros1A had various height constraints around the Troodos mountains and surrounding high ground. Due to CB activity we were cleared to deviate around one cell and then route direct to the VOR. The copilot concerned, with us having been cleared direct to the VOR then used the direct intercept in the FMC which erased all the intermediate waypoints with their height constraints leaving just the 4000 feet at the VOR remaining! The error of his ways was pointed out.

A couple of weeks later, out of the blue this female CAA inspector joined us in Madrid for the return sector to LHR. During the cruise she asked what I thought of the Sop's on the B767. I related the above story suggesting that on the Trident the altitude set in the altitude window was always "safe" and that "in my humble opinion" the MCP altitude on the B767 should be used in the same way, with the altitude set to the MSA (or STAR restriction) relating to the aircrafts position and not some point further down the approach.

"She would look into it" but as a lowly line captain my opinion was obviously ignored by her or some other "mahogany desk pilot" as nothing was done!!

[beardy]

We shouldn't forget theat CHIRP is a confidential chanel of communication. Should the incidents that are published be investigated openly and frankly in the companies where they happen(which are made anonymous in CHIRP) there is a strong chance of the reporter's identity becoming known, which obviates the confidential side of the reporting. CHIRP is most useful in identifying trends in the industry and, as in the FTL comments, trends in particular companies. The reason for the trends can then be investigated and appropriate action taken by the regulatory authorities (not the CHIRP team.) Notwithstanding serous reports of breaches of the law of course.

[Hot Wings]

I have yet to see any "appropriate action" taken on many of the issues that are in CHIRP time and time again. Anything to do with FTLs, fatigue, sickness policies, etc... (basically anything to do with flogging your workers to within an inch of their lives) falls into the "too difficult" category. In typical civil service language, issues will be reviewed, discussed, considered by committee, passed on to the appropriate authority, blah, blah, blah. Where are the results?

[beardy]

Hot Wings,

Did you miss the re-issue of CAP 371 and the consultative process that went along with it not only with employers but also with employee representative bodies?

Have you ever tried making a MOR or ASR to the CAA. I have, things do happen.

[Hot Wings]

Sorry Beardy, I missed the consultative process - I must have been busy working :rolleyes: . Perhaps you could tell us all about the improvements to CAP 371. I am also interested in the details of how your ASRs have made things happen. Congratulations! I don't even recall getting a reply to any ASR but that might be because my company allegedly stockpiles them.

[Dream Buster]

An extract follows from the most recent CHIRP many of us know exactly what this pilot is talking about, it is not safe for either the pilot or the passengers and will ultimately end in tears.

Report Text: I am at a loss as to who to turn to. I am getting so many roster changes I am sure it is only a matter of time before I fail to report for the correct flight. At last count, I had 195 changes covering the past 14 months. During this time I have only completed just over 150 flying days!! I accept that all airlines go through periods of disruption for various reasons but in this company it is continuous and has been for at least 3 summers.

I have just been telephoned yet again on a day off telling me I have been changed for the next 2 days. This is the second change for these 2 days, originally rostered as an early standby followed by an early start. Changed to 2 lates, which interfered with my weekend off planning, but just as I'd sorted my family transport out, I have been changed to an early standby and another early starting over 3 hours before my original early.

If you are having difficulty following then you are with me!! So I asked why? I'm running short of hours (that will be the company contractual 90hrs/28 day limit). It comes as no surprise to me that I am running up to my limit, as we always do in the summer season.

So why should it take until the day before for my company to note it? We are being rostered legal minimum days off because the company don't want to have to buy extra days back but if they do try, the roster falls apart because we are all up to our limits. Personally, I don't find the hours limits too fatiguing but the time and stress of trying to organise family life and other essential domestic appointments is not only wearing me down, it is becoming impossible. I can only plan on my days off; not even the night before a day off is possible.

The problem seems to stem from a lack of resources but it seems that also the roster is open to changes from too many departments, some of whom either do not know the limits or choose to ignore them. When I mention that I'm not entirely happy with all this disruption I have been told that as I get paid more than an ops assistant then I should expect more disruption than an ops assistant. I was too polite to ask them how much their training cost or when they last did a base check, line check or IRT.

CHIRP Comment: The argument that is often presented in defence of rostering practices such as those described above is that they are legal and thus are, by definition, not fatiguing.

CAP 371 - The Avoidance of Fatigue in Aircrews, on which UK operators’ Approved FTL schemes are based, are precisely as the title implies - guidelines. As such CAP 371 places general responsibilities on an operator in addition to the specific limitations contained in the CAP, such as on (Section A) Page 2 Para. 2.3 a) which states:

"The allocation of work patterns which avoid such undesirable practices as alternating day/night duties, the positioning of crew so that a serious disruption of established sleep/work patterns occur, or scheduling rest periods of between 18 and 30 hours especially after long flights crossing many time zones".

It is difficult to understand how the frequent rostering of rest periods between 18 and 30 hours and the roster instability described in confidential reports complies with the current wording of CAP371. Moreover and perhaps of more significance, is that on the basis of reports received through this Programme, most UK AOC Holders, including those who operate a similar mix of routes, appear to be able to operate more closely in compliance with their overall responsibilities, as set out in CAP 371.

This is a matter that CAA (SRG) might wish to consider.

The answer is pathetic, useless and not likely to change anything!

Failing to report for a late changed flight is the least of our pilots problems; total exhaustion from these changes will be the eventual killer.

As one contributor so rightly said " Nothing will change until enough people have died" it couldn't really be called an acccident either, could it?

I don't think CHIRP can even imagine the implications and realities of multiple roster changes and those pilots lucky enough or skilled enough to not have them perhaps, also have no idea of just how bad it can get.

Come on CHIRP, rock that cosy boat............or roster changes may result, for you.

:ouch:

[phd]

CAA has fundamental flaw. Conflict between its safety regulatory role and its raison d'etre which is to promote and develop the interests of commercial aviation. There have been a number of issues over recent years where there has been a contradiction between a safety issue and the commercial interests of the airlines. The commercial interest has usually been protected. Safety comes second at present. The answer is to completely separate the safety regulatory function from the other functions and give the safety organisation superior authority to effect necessary change.

[cornwallis]

THe CAA's prime reason D'etre seems to be to make it as difficult as possible to get and keep a licence.Yet an operator has only to cry wolf over commercial reasons and they bend over backwards to agree to it.I have seen companies flagrantly abuse ftl and yet the CAA let them continue in this vain until the end of the season and then only give the operator a mild reprimand for a few months.They are completely useless and a waste of money!They overcharge for everything and give back nothing to protect aviation professionals even when you give the evidence to them!!:} :} :}

[slowfly]

I totally agree with Cornwallis and phd the CAA is promoting Civil Air Transport and yet the regulation of aviation activities is a weakness in certain areas. Not to mention the fact that year on year they charge more for the fees and licences. I do not understand how little real scrutiny is attached to their annual pricing hike and their competency of regulatory activities generally. :uhoh:

[JW411]

When CHIRPS first came out I thought the idea was great.

Now I have to ask myself what exactly has been achieved? We still have loads of knackered pilots, air trafficers, engineers, cabin staff etc etc and not a lot seems to have changed in the interim.

Can any of you out there who have actually had a major bitch with life which you reported to CHIRPS please tell us exactly how the system actually changed for you?

Now I don't want you to think that Peter Tait and his merry men are doing nothing because I know that they are. The trouble is that they do not have any TEETH.

CHIRPS is just another quango of which we have hundreds. What we need to do is to write or talk to our MPs and get them to give CHIRPS real powers to do something otherwise they will be forever be stuffed under the "Blair Bed".

[MercenaryAli]

. . . this kind of rostering or lack of, has been going on in BRAL aka BACON since time began. Anyone who complaimed or refused to comply with a late change was either "teleported" to the IOM to stamp the carpet in front of Bully Boy Norman or very soon got his marching orders and P45. Nobody was allowed to have a "private" life, you belonged body and soul to BRAL and woe betide anyone who tried to buck the sytem. Believe me I tried and failed as many others did before and after me. Sad thing was that I personally reported their attitude of bullying, constant late roster changes often changes to changes, weeks at a time away from home base because they either refused to actually operate a base with crews but wanted to operate aircraft from that airport or because crews had left suddently (wonder why?) and could not be easily replaced. I reported this to CHIRP but sadly it fell on deaf ears either there or when it reached the CAA. Hutchings a little jumped up shxt of weasal who I believe is still involved in BACON, a nasty piece of work promoted well out of his intelligence level and ability range, was one of Norman's bully boys but never once did the CAA or those down at CHIRP appear to take any interest at all. I left, and am so so happy that I did or I would have propably had a nervous breakdown. However there are good people both at CHIRP and in the CAA but I just wish they had the balls to stand up to these badly managed airlines and enforce good rules and FTL's.
Sadly nothing much changes - different day. same shxt :ugh:

[BOAC]

As with my comments on the ATC Wake Vortex thread, are you filing an ASR when the roster 'finishes you off'? I know of 2 UK airlines where ASRs are now being filed due to roster disruption allegedly causing adverse physical effects.

Pilots always whinge - I do - but until paperwork is raised - MOR if you feel it necessary, you cannot expect the CAA to do anything.

As for CHIRP - as I understand it, it has no 'powers' to act, but merely to flag up and follow issues raised with it. From 'Dream Buster'
Moreover and perhaps of more significance, is that on the basis of reports received through this Programme, most UK AOC Holders, including those who operate a similar mix of routes, appear to be able to operate more closely in compliance with their overall responsibilities, as set out in CAP 371.

This is a matter that CAA (SRG) might wish to consider.

The answer is pathetic, useless and not likely to change anything! Does not the red suggest that the blue is wrong? (NB My emphasis)

If the CAA appear to be 'asleep', maybe they need to be woken up?

[Hot Wings]

Once again, where are the results? What has changed?
Answers on a postcard please.

[radarman]

A few pennyworth from ATC. After reading the latest Chirp Feedback, I was on the point of starting a thread just like this, but Hot Wings beat me to it. Having read all the posts so far it is obvious there are a number of factors and different points of view, all perfectly valid and sincerely felt. The big gripe seems to be the anodyne, robotic replies from Pete Tait (does he personally write them?). The impression given is that Chirp is, indeed, a 'chocolate fireguard', more concerned with keeping the peace with big business and the CAA than fighting for the guy at the coalface. No wonder people are reluctant to make reports if they think they are just going to be fobbed off with a spineless quote from regulations. Perhaps if the replies had a bit more sparkle and gumption (eg Chirp has warned the CAA that sooner or later this will cause a hull loss) people would be encouraged to write in, thus generating the critical mass of reports necessary to make the CAA sit up and take notice.

[Rider of the Purple Sage]

Why not ask Emerald?? I'm sure they could tell you about how swiftly the CAA act when their patience runs out.....Remember, CHIRP is not the CAA!!!!!!

Further to that, Woodpecker said


"A couple of weeks later, out of the blue this female CAA inspector joined us in Madrid for the return sector to LHR. During the cruise she asked what I thought of the Sop's on the B767. I related the above story suggesting that on the Trident the altitude set in the altitude window was always "safe" and that "in my humble opinion" the MCP altitude on the B767 should be used in the same way, with the altitude set to the MSA (or STAR restriction) relating to the aircrafts position and not some point further down the approach.
"She would look into it" but as a lowly line captain my opinion was obviously ignored by her or some other "mahogany desk pilot" as nothing was done!!"


My point is that there aren't any female FOIs! Nor have there been for years. There is one Training Inspector who is female, but that department only do training, ie sims etc. I wonder how many of the whingers have ever phoned their dedicated FOI, because each and every AOC holder in the UK has one assigned, and I know from personal experience they are far more confidential than CHIRP. CHIRP really only headlines broad brush issues, when I had a specific issue with the Company, I spoke in confidence, (which was honoured) with the FOI, and the matter was sorted within weeks. I think it's necessary to draw a line between not wanting to work as hard as you're contracted, and actually having the Company break some rules. If you don't like CAP 371, then talk to BALPA, because they sit on all the committees that agree these things. Further, as Mike J says, if you've never been to the UKFSC, then again, you don't have the big picture, because that's another forum. Someone was bleating about ASRs. If you feel you have a real point, then send in an MOR to LGW, anonymously if you like, it will not be ignored! Finally, remember it's no good bleating about the way you would like the world to be. Just as the police cannot arrest someone who has not broken the law, much as you personally may dislike his behaviour, if you want to change that you have to lobby your MP etc etc. In fact, there are FOI jobs vacant and presently advertised. Not a bad whack either, and then you can really go for it yourself.:E I intend to try again anyway, my experience with avery FOI I have met is that they are a very good and professional bunch of guys trying to keep the UK air safety record where it belongs, the best in Europe, and one of the best in the world. God help us all when EASA comes in and we are on a level legal playing field with the Greeks, the Lithuanians, etc etc. Then we may really have soemthing to whinge about apart from the cheeseboard disappearing!:=

[safetypee]

I have some sympathy with the view that “the CAA exists in some gentleman's flying club era”; not that this is taken in the literal sense, but that it indicates that something is not quite right - the Authority are not satisfying end users – the operator.
The CAA, CHIRP, and UKFSC appear to have a cosy relationship. The CAA is represented on the UKFSC Executive Board and they fund some of their activities. CHIRP is a co-opted advisor to UKFSC and presumable can be invited to the board; CHIRP (aviation) is funded by the CAA who also sit on their board.
It is not to say that this relationship has not been used to good purposes, there have been some notable successes and many lower level safety activities are being pursued. However, the overall impression is not one of sharply focussed safety organisations actively engaged in critical safety activities. Instead they appear inwardly focussed, all but secretive, and at times difficult to access for any meaningful output.
I recognise that this may be an incorrect perception, particularly for the CAA; if so then perhaps they and the other organisations need to review their public image and methods of communication on safety matters – convince the end users that they are providing a worthy service.

I note the CAA’s Safety Regulation Group Safety Plan 2006 (www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SRG%20SAFETY%20PLAN%202006.PDF). How has this has been circulated, who knows of its existence? Is the plan addressing the industry’s’ concerns? How many of the previous initiatives have been implemented? The document described many planned activities, is the industry aware of these? Is communication again the issue and not the effectiveness of the organisation?
Communication is a two way process; safety reporting, including anonymous and confidential reporting, is an essential element – it is up to the operators and particularly individuals to do this. Reports are usually submitted from a singe perspective, whereas wider views, often only available from an in-house investigation could clarify the nature of the problem. For confidential issues CHIRP attempts this, but their process will always be limited by personal sensitivities. Where these sensitivities (confidentiality) are an issue, then reporters need to have greater trust in their own organisation and in the CAA; but trust is a two way process, both earned and given.

Many posts above suggest that the process of reporting and investigating is not happening or cannot happen, surely an indicator of a poor safety culture. CAA oversight should identify this at operator level. The CAA MOR system, which also relies on the operator’s investigations, often fails to achieve a full understanding of the issues – being easily satisfied at operator and CAA level in that ‘the report is closed’ and filed away in a database.
So from the reporters perspective, problems appear to go unanswered, whereas in reality the ‘system’ (MOR, CHIRP,CAA, etc) may not know of, or not be addressing the correct issue due to failures either with the operator’s or the authority’s investigation processes.

[BOAC]

Agreed - I quote my 'campaign' for ensuring adequate/legal lifejacket provision in BA which got me deep into 'doo-doo-land'. The ultimate was a BA Airbus flying for 7 weeks with 16 jackets 'not installed' due to a 'computer error' and no checks EVER (still?) required by BA crew before departure. Having exhausted the company 'routes' and having been 'managed' for it (!) I turned to the CAA BA FOI (a Captain ?Johnson? IIRC), explaining the various ASRs, etc, who told me I 'should take it up with BA'. Very satisfying.:ugh:

[sox6]

At least you can eat a chocolate fire guard...

The root cause was always weak willed FOIs too keen on line flying. EASA may put the fear of god into them once they realise that they will be 'standardised' by foreigners who don't think thinking tea in the crew room is an inspection.

[Mr Angry from Purley]

Dream Buster
Suggest like the rest of the world said Pilot makes his plans around his days off not around his work life. I'm either too tired to go out when i'm at work or i dont have any money.
The Pilot that wrote that CHIRP needs a serious talking to and a bit of advice, dont answer the phone on your days off.

I also put money that he won't have written to his Chief Pilot
Its a hard life :\

[gib]

Re "how many people have to die"

do the caa take into account all the crew that are at a verry real risk if dying or killing somone on the M23 (LGW) M4 (LHR) M56 (MAN) M62(LPL) from falling asleep at the wheel after going into discression for the umpteent time in a week:uhoh: :uhoh: