CAA Spreading its net wider ?

[biscuit74]

How many of you light aircraft owners out there have recently received a letter from the CAA claiming to be doing a 'random survey' of some aircraft, enquiring about insurance details?

Amongst other things, it insists that you send them copies of your insurance information, and states that if your aircraft is laid up you may not fly your aircraft in future without first providing them with proof of insurance.

Is this new? I don't recall coming across anything like this before.
They do of course quote some EU rule as our 'civil service' always do nowadays.
It rather smacks of yet more job creation and self justification to me.
Given the CAA appears to have less and less to do now that EASA is in place ( yep -aargh, what a nightmare) is that what is behind this?

Or is there some genuine safety or procedures problem here which requires to be addressed ? If so, fine. If not, hmmm.

What do the wiser heads out there think?

[VictorGolf]

They did me about two years ago. Surely you wouldn't fly uninsured so what's the problem?

[Genghis the Engineer]

I had one recently, nuisance value, nothing more.

Given CAA's official mandate is to protect the public, not all that unreasonable?

G

[ShyTorque]

Saves 'em having to come out and do ramp checks in this cold weather. Do they include an s.a.e.?

[biscuit74]

Thanks folks.

No I wouldn't fly uninsured - and yes they did include an SAE.
Nice to know this isn't new. A surprisingly large number of my friends & acquaintances have received these survey 'requests' as part of the 'random sample'. I am suspicious when that happens. How large a sample?


No problem at all, I just don't see why they want to stick their noses in unless it is with the intention of justifying yet another set of excess charges which add little or nothing to safety. To me, being insured is a matter of general law - legal liability exposure cover, rather than a subject for the CAA. Or are they trying to turn themselves into another DVLC style jobsworth exercise?

I am unimpressed with the recent flurry of bumff from them.
Disappointing, they used to be a good bunch of folk inmy experience. Now appear more interested in paperwork for its own sake than engineering thinking.

Apparently heavily airline oriented with sadly far too little to contribute to grassroots private aviation now. Fortunately the LAA has some very good people who do understand and who have a fair link to what seem to be the few remaining worthwhile CAA folk.

[Captain Stable]

biscuit,

since they don't appear to have charged you extra for the privilege and
since they even enclosed an s.a.e.,
since you say you wouldn't consider flying uninsured anyway but I am sure you will appreciate that there are folks out there who either might consider it or are too daffy to remember to renew without being prompted
since an incident may well cost some third party his house if an uninsured aircraft tried to fly though the attic
I would have thought you would welcome their initiative in improving flight safety and financial security, at no extra cost to the aircraft owner.

[IO540]

The CAA is very adept at work creation and with much of its workload being removed by EASA I would fully expect them to "diversify" into other areas, like ramp checking...

Never know your luck...... one day they might even start shutting down dodgy maintenance companies. No, that will never happen because they get fees from them ;)

[A and C]

I very much doubt if you will see any of the dodgy maintenance companys shut down, after all that takes backbone. The chances that they will put the good companys out of business with regular inspections, audits and requests for minor changes to nif-naf and trivia paperwork.

As to ramp checks, the races at Le Mans and the Isle of Man TT only happen once a year so what else will bring them out of aviaton house?

[BEagle]

EASA Standards are quite 'interested' in the gold plating which the Belgranists have seemingly attached to what were supposed to be simple Part M requirements.

In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised in a few months to hear that the CAA have been ordered by EASA to stop gilding the lily in the way they have.

[BillieBob]

Nothing whatever to do with Part M requirements. This stems from Regulation (EC) 785/2004 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:138:0001:0006:EN:PDF) (so not that new either), which requires air carriers and operators to meet minimum insurance requirements. Article 5 of the Regulation states:

Air carriers and, when so required, aircraft operators, as referred to in Article 2, shall demonstrate compliance with the insurance requirements set out in this Regulation by providing the competent authorities of the Member State concerned with a deposit of an insurance certificate or other evidence of valid
insurance.Since the CAA are required by European law to ensure that all operators carry the minimum insurance, how can conducting a random survey be interpreted as 'gilding the lily'?

[robin]

Why don't they do what DVLA do and require insurance companiies to provide this information?

[Malcom]

To me, being insured is a matter of general law - legal liability exposure cover, rather than a subject for the CAA. Or are they trying to turn themselves into another DVLC style jobsworth exercise?

Its a matter of EU law, and the CAA are doing their bit to verify compliance as EASAs UK Police Squad. If they were trying to be the DVLA, they would already know if youre insured or not, but by knowing that would do them out of another justification for existance - the confirmation that you're insured but its still up to you to check its enough to be legal.

In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised in a few months to hear that the CAA have been ordered by EASA to stop gilding the lily in the way they have.

They already have, but just cant quite bring themselves to do it.
Likewise EASA have been told the same by the EU.

one day they might even start shutting down dodgy maintenance companies.

about time too, ..... perhaps even also crack down on dodgy pilot owners who fiddle around fixing things that arent broken, break them & then pass the buck to the aforementioned MOs. :=

[biscuit74]

SoCal -
It wasn't a complaint, thanks, initially a query to find out who else had been asked.
I appreciate that a ramp check could indeed be more intrusive, though I feel it potentially more useful. I have worked and flown in the USA and like the system there, which seemed overall to work more on the concept that the individual is responsible for his own fate - not always, I accept.T he ideal seldom works.

Captain Stable -all true.
I was however brought up classically to mistrust Greeks (or 'Civil servants') bearing gifts. Next time? You want to bet it will cost, with some absurd 'justification' ? Probably based on some nonsensical misunderstanding of basic HSE.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it -works well. Generally 'civil servants' (rarely in my experience) do litle to benefit us taxpayers nowadays. The old concept of service is long gone. Gold plating or gilding lilies indeed - possibly gold bricking would be a more appropriate description.

I hope I'm wrong, but I ain't holding my breath !

Thanks all for your views & comments.

Biscuit74

[Jodelman]

Why don't they do what DVLA do and require insurance companies to provide this information?

And who do you think would pay for this?

Have you any idea how much the system costs motor insurers and how much extra each insured has to pay for the privilege of this being done?

[Johnm]

There was some considerable irritation at the officious tone of the letter when this first started. I received one recently that was couched in much more appropriate and polite language, I therefore responded with equal courtesy rather than telling them to stick it where the sun don't shine.

Politeness is therefore more efficient and less stressful, seems they learned something!

[gpn01]

Insurance verification date is shown on the publically accessible G-INFO aircraft registration database. So, they need some way of checking it.

[Hen Ddraig]

Checking on insurance started a couple of years ago when the government managed to screw up the economy. The value of the pound fell against other currencies. Most UK insurance is written in sterling (a currency pilots and owners understand) the EU insurance requirements are quoted in SDRs an imaginary currency derived from a mixture of Sterling, US dollar, Euro and Yen.
SDRs are weighted depending on the relative value of the various currencies, so as the value of the pound fell the value of most UK insurance policies also fell to below the EU required SDR limits. The problem was solved by most underwriters adding a clause to their policies saying they would cover the minimum EU requirements regardless of currency fluctuations.
The CAA know the underwriters have done this but they seem to have decided to carry on wasting time and money checking.

Time to spare, go by air

Hen Ddraig

[Genghis the Engineer]

And who do you think would pay for this?

Have you any idea how much the system costs motor insurers and how much extra each insured has to pay for the privilege of this being done?

No, do tell, I'd be interested.

G

[biscuit74]

"There was some considerable irritation at the officious tone of the letter when this first started. I received one recently that was couched in much more appropriate and polite language, I therefore responded with equal courtesy rather than telling them to stick it where the sun don't shine.

Politeness is therefore more efficient and less stressful, seems they learned something."

I'm with you Johnm, my feeelings exactly. Happier with a bit of politenerss.

Hen Ddraig - thanks. That is very probably correct.


" That government governs best, which governs least ".