When will the UK's CAA close?

[Carrier]

Now that European aviation falls under the jurisdiction of an EU regulator (EASA) national aviation regulators have become redundant. The UK's CAA has been reduced to nothing more than a group of taxpayer funded pencil-pushing parasites. This is the sort of expensive taxpayer funded duplication that we have in Canada where the federal government has created departments/ministries that cover areas that fall under provincial jurisdiction. Is the UK (and the rest of Europe) going the same way?

Why should UK taxpayers continue to fund its redundant CAA? Now that it is no longer needed the CAA should be closed down and its employees given the opportunity to find jobs where they can make a genuine contribution to the UK's economy instead of being a drain on it. Is there any movement for this to happen?

[Jim59]

The UK's CAA has been reduced to nothing more than a group of taxpayer funded pencil-pushing parasites.


It's charges are so high I think it is funded by aviators not taxpayers.

[rag it]

As a licensed engineer I have had my issues with the UK CAA, but I understand that they are not funded by the UK taxpayer, but by the fees that they charge.

[A and C]

If only the CAA was funded by the tax payer!!!

Unfortunatly the CAA is gets all its funding from industry.

[Carrier]

Fees and charges? Do you mean you pay twice? What do you think you pay general taxes for? If the UK is a user-pay society then have income tax, VAT, excise duties, etc. been abolished?

General taxes such as income tax, VAT, corporation tax, excise tax, fuel tax, etc, are paid to fund government services. You have already paid for the CAA through such taxes. Any "fees" are a second payment! It's worse than I expected.

In the February 2005 issue of General Aviation magazine Martin Robinson, Chief Executive of AOPA UK, states: "The UK government now treats taxation income as its own by right, while forcing us to pay extra for any services they bestir themselves to provide." Increasingly avaricious governments use all sorts of terms to try and convince their citizens that they are paying a private sector price in a competitive market, such as they would pay to buy a loaf of bread. It does not matter whether a government and its cronies such as the CAA in the UK (NavCan & Transport Canada in Canada) call it a fee, rate, levy, subscription, duty, impost, charge, excise, price or some other term, the effect is the same. It is money that is compulsorily extracted from the citizen's pocket and the general term for this is TAX. It is in addition to general taxation and as such it is a duplicate payment.

From the comments of the posters above closing the CAA should in theory give Brits a double benefit. They ought to save both the CAA's fees and the portion of general taxes paid for the CAA. This will probably not happen in practice as somebody has to pay for duck houses, moat cleaning and pornography.

Back to the basic issue: now that EASA exists there is no need for the CAA and no need for it to be funded by ANY means. When will it be closed and the savings passed back to the UK taxpayers (general tax) and aviation community (fees)? Don't forget that somebody is funding EASA!

[Flightrider]

Carrier, I think you're not getting this. The CAA does not take any funding from central government. All of its running costs are met by income from industry and no general taxes are used to pay for its operations, to the best of my knowledge.

[BB954]

The CAA's charges are, quite frankly, obscene and I am surprised that this subject has not been aired on this forum before. :ugh::ugh:

[spannersatcx]

I think you also need to look at what EASA can and can't do and why each NAA still regulates and not EASA.

[ZeBedie]

The CAA was born of The Ministry of Aviation in the 70's, basically because the government of the day decided that The Ministry should be self-funding. I wonder if The Authority know how much they're despised by those on whom they leech?

[Exnomad]

I remember when it was ARB, It worked OK then, but I would expect the layers of bureaucracy would have multiplied since then.

[David Roberts]

I usually post on the Private Aviation part of the forum....but as I know quite a bit about EASA having dealt with it for nearly 7 years now, here goes. BTW I do not work for the CAA but represent a section of the aviation industry on regulatory matters!

One needs to understand that the scope of EASA's functions are 'limited' (!) to the following, very briefly:
1. Drafting pan-EU implementing rules for original and continuing airworthiness (incl. maintenance), licensing, operations, training establishments etc etc for approval by the Brussels based administrative and political system
2. Certification of aircraft on a pan-EU basis (for which they charge industry)
3. Oversight (through 'standardisation programmes) and audit of member states' implementation of the rules

Whilst this is a large programme it does not cover what member states still have to do as part of a (so-called) integrated EU approach. Thus UK CAA still has many functions at member state level, covering what EASA does not cover. Much of the certification functions of the UK CAA have disappeared in the last few years. So progressively the UK CAA does not draft or set the rules within the government political framework, but it still has to implement someone else's (the EU / EASA) rules.

As to funding, I learnt many years ago when working at a senior level for a UK government agency, that the difference between this side of the pond and the part to the west of us was that west of us, once the taxpayer had paid for something it was then made available to the public for free. Whereas this side of the pond once the taxpayer has paid his taxes the job of government is to find every opportunity for charging the consumer / public to pay (again) for the service. A big philosophical difference. The UK CAA does not get a look in on the first part of that - tax payers' money.

Maybe it has something to do with ambitious and some would say unnecessary flagship programmes of free-spending governments over here.

But there we are.

[Dr Eckener]

Although I agree that CAA charges are pure extortion, I don't think they would reduce under a pan-European regulator. Add in the current, and probable long term, weakness of the pound against the euro (guess what they would charge in), and I think we would be moaning even more.

Just think how much a beer is in euroland these days for us impoverished Brits.

[Sir George Cayley]

Dave Roberts speak with straight tongue - he wise man:ok:

Carrier speak before brain engaged - he uneducated man:hmm:

EASA's web site explains it all, though even I admit it's not user friendly.

Tell us Carrier, what rattled your cage to prompt your intemperate outburst?

Sir George Cayley

[Vino Collapso]

EASA relies upon each countries 'national authority' to promote its mandates in their individual territories.

That is where the wheel falls off the wagon. The CAA take EASA and EU requirements literally where other 'minor' European states just pay lip service to the requirements.

We are bogged down in red tape...everyone else is saying 'yeah OK' and doing nothing.

[10DowningSt]

And let us not forget that a proportion of the obscene fees paid by industry for less and less effective service is diverted to providing the working capital operation of "CAA International", an organisation which competes with the very people who pay the charges, and whose working capital comes from their shareholders.

It is quite galling to be confronted with CAA International's glossy brochures and unlimited funds for marketing when they are competing directly for business with the companies that fund them.

The CAA's fee-payers will wish to know that CAA International's staff do not suffer when travelling; those I have observed are strangers to the back of the aeroplane where the fee payers lurk. This is a matter of entitlement, of course; very important to Civil Servants, even when playing at business with other people's money.

Apart from CAAI, how does the CAA use their funds? Readers of CHIRP will know that the money is not spent on running an efficient licensing service; this is now so bad that it's a Human Factors issue of some magnitude.

What productive activities, exactly, are carried on in Kingsway and Gatwick? "Safety" regulation is now a matter of applying EASA rules by ticking boxes and avoiding responsibility. Blatant safety infringements are allowed to continue if the culprit has enough clout. Economic regulation is toothless and has been for a long time. Its advice to Government is ignored, usually because its a meaningless fudge.

So what is the CAA for, precisely?

[411A]

So what is the CAA for, precisely?

Hmmm, I would have thought that this is quite well known...to extort funds from those they regulate.

Simple really...:rolleyes:

[frangatang]

And l understand some tart who has given herself a gong..just as all the previous turds in control, has /is becoming the new head of the CAA. Nothing change.s

[EGMA]

As a licensed engineer I have had my issues with the UK CAA, but I understand that they are not funded by the UK taxpayer, but by the fees that they charge.The same is true of a pimp ... and the License that they issue is not worth the paper it's printed on. If you want prove that you are a CAA licensed pilot to the FAA you have to pay the CAA to provide that proof!

[ExSp33db1rd]

Campaign Against Aviation

[Fitter2]

I understand that, uniquely among aviation regulators, the CAA is required by UK Goverment to make a 6% profit ('return against investment') including the cost of the hanging gardens of Gatwick.

The last time I visisted, it was so occupied they could easily operate out of a couple of Portacabins in a lower cost part of UK, solving their liquidity and our cost problems at a stroke.

Their plea to EASA to put into place rules to prevent 'regulatory shopping' fell on deaf ears. I suspect their days in the present form are numbered as they become unaffordable - remind me of the cost of an IR test in (a) UK and (b) Belgium?

[hawkeye]

Anyone who thinks an EU regulator such as EASA will be better than the UK regulator should lie down in a darkened room until the thought goes away. A bureaucrat is a bureaucrat is a bureaucrat whichever country he comes from, but, in my experience British bureaucrats are more flexible than their EU counterparts as long as they are applying UK law and not EU law.

As for costs, the EU accounts have not been signed off by the auditors for 15 years. Would you rather pay your money to the crooks in Brussels or the crooks in London. At least in London we have a chance to remove them. In the EU there is no will to reign in corrupt politicians. Corrupt practices seem to be accepted as part of the job.

As for their decision making expertise, only EU bureaucrats would think that throwing thousands of tons of dead fish back into the sea would solve the problem of overfishing. These people are mad. And these are the people to whom you wish to grant oversight for aviation in the UK?

There are issues on which we can co-operate on an international level and for that we need national agencies such as the CAA. What we should avoid is handing over national legislation to an international body over which we have no control and only marginal influence.

When Britain finally tears itself free from the EU we shall still need the CAA.

I do not work for the CAA and know no-one who does. But an Easa office in Gatwick would be a lot worse than a CAA office in Gatwick.

[maxred]

The issue here follows Great Britain PLC to the letter. The whole thing is a gravy train, with a diminishing ,working, profit making population that can fund it. A very large number of these quangos, spend the majority of their time making up rules/regs/taxes, that ultimately they utilise to argue their own existance. The whole escapade is bon:eek::eek:kers.

[Capt Pit Bull]

The problem is that many people are not very objective about the CAA, as you can see from the pure vitreol in this thread.

And who can blame them? For the early part of their career, for most Pilots the CAA is the enemy. It takes your money, makes you jump through lots of hoops and can fail you. Its really not surprising that by the end of the licensing process many freshly minted pilots have an almost Pathological hatred of anything to do with the CAA.

I was one of them. It took years - literally - before I could drive past the belgrano without sticking one finger out of the window.

But I did grow up eventually. Over more recent years I've had the need to liase with the CAA in various capacities. Are they perfect? No of course not, but there's some pretty good people working for them and you can get an excellent service in many areas.

Trouble is, many folks don't need to have anything to do with the CAA once they get past license issue, so their original mindset becomes cemented in place. My advice? Get over it.

pb

[clivewatson]

I think it should be compulsory for everyone employed in the Belgrano to visit the Isle Of Man Department of Trade and Industry, and then be forced to sit, watch, listen and learn just how the job should be done!

[maxred]

pb - I thought actually I had grown up, until however, I recently complained to the CAA re some very poor safety related issues with an operator and airfield. Actually, I generally am not the 'complaining' type. I got nowhere - in fact I was astonished at their response, the square root of zero. :bored: A few letters to fob me off basically.
I then thought of the financial levies we have paid, the poor buggers taken to court re airspace busts, the audits, the apparent non acknowledgement of GA related issues, the airfield closures etc etc.
I find it difficult to 'get over it'.:rolleyes:

[JW411]

Well, I have 52 years of experience of the CAA (and it's predecessors).

If any of you out there think that having EASA or any other organisation squatting in the Belgrano is going to be wonderful then you are sadly deluded.

Much as the CAA have driven me to distraction at times in the past, they actually can be quite helpful on occasion and they are certainly much more preferable to work with than some of the authorities that I have had to deal with in other parts of the EU.

[wobble2plank]

Cash Again and Again.

Gotta luv em. That subsidised Latte on the top floor doesn't come cheap you know and a printed sheet of A5 from a CAA printer costs a fortune!

[Sir George Cayley]

Clivewatson

I agree:ok: Should be compulsory including bringing back some luvverly fish

One point though, the Director General, the Head of Registrations and the Head of Airworthiness all are previous employees of..........................












wait for it.......................................................... .......

















Some of you will have already guessed :)









The CAA Gatwick Office :D:D:D:D:D


Sir George Cayley

[FLAPS 10-100]

CAA = Cash And Aggro

[Spitoon]

Some fascinating comments on this thread. I don't know what rattled Carrier's cage but, having seen what EASA does and how it does it, I can't say I'm impressed. But I do understand the legal background (from a layman's perspective) that resulted in EASA and why the UK still has a CAA - I urge Carrier and anyone else to look into it before spouting ill-informed opinion.

PS - The CAA is like many other organisations, it has some really good people and it has some rather poor people. If you have to work with them the secret it to remember the good ones and cultivate a good relationship with them (whilst trying to avoid the duff ones). What is rather disappointing is that some of the duff ones seem to get to positions of authority whilst the good 'uns get overlooked.

[tunalic2]

Its because the duff ones spend all their time looking for promotion rather than doing their job!

[jez d]

I believe Fitter has hit the nail on the head.

When I went to one of the early EASA workshops in Cologne, the only question the UK CAA representative asked of EASA was what is the pan-European agency going to do to prevent regulatory shopping?

EASA's answer was nothing - it is outside of their remit, the CAA rep was told.

Given the 'de facto' reason for training in the UK will vanish come April 2012, when all European FTOs will be teaching the same licences, I can see little jutification for wannabe commercial pilots choosing to train in the UK.

Add to that the regulatory shopping that will undoubtedly ensue as FTOs, TRTOs and even airlines decamp to EU countries with cheaper regulatory oversight, and I can see the Belgrano fast turning into the Mary Celeste.