CAA consultation

[STN Ramp Rat]

All


the UK CAA published this interesting consultation document this morning


https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/civil-sanctions-for-the-civil-aviation-authority


it looks like a significant change to the enforcement regime is planned and monetary penalties will be introduced

[golfbananajam]

This is kinda worrying. At the moment the CAA don't have a great track record of proving cases before a court of law, this may remove that need with little or no redress.

[Basil]

I guess one can always refuse and go to court.
The UAV operators will have to watch out.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Q. How will CAA police this?

[Reverserbucket]

Well HD, I suppose this will extend the remit of the Legal Enforcement Department? I believe they have traditionally responded to reports from the public, MOR's etc.

[Ancient Observer]

They urgently need to raise money to pay the much-more -than- Cameron salaries that Every Exec. Board member is taking home. The boss got nearly £400k. Even the beancounter gets nearly £200k++ (Source - CAA Annual report).

The CAA is a tiny regulator. Clearly the salaries are completely out of control.

They've already hacked at the number of Inspectors, and the number processing licenses, so now they need a new source of extra Revenue.

[Chronus]

Ancient Observer has hit the nail on the head. Here is the excuse by the boys with the bowler hats:

"In the Civil Aviation Act 2012, we laid the foundations for a power for the
CAA to impose "civil sanctions" - penalties that can be imposed without
going to court - as an alternative to taking action in the criminal courts or
to warning letters. Court action can sometimes be slow, cumbersome
and expensive, and a criminal sanction may be a disproportionate way of
enforcing aviation related offences. Civil sanctions are intended as a
more flexible and proportionate alternative."

What it really means that it is damned difficult to prosecute under the criminal code and a doddle under the civil code to make any decent sort of money to pay for our bonuses, London- apartment- price- inflation linked salaries and performance linked bonuses. So can we have some ticket machines, wardens dressed in some blue uniforms with a bit of gold braid and shiny wing badges and some large wheel clamps please, thank you. We promise, scouts honour, we won`t bother you for any more money again.

[glad rag]

All


the UK CAA published this interesting consultation document this morning


https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/civil-sanctions-for-the-civil-aviation-authority


it looks like a significant change to the enforcement regime is planned and monetary penalties will be introduced

How the hell did we sleepwalking into this ?

[OldLurker]

Guys, it's a consultation. That means they're not supposed to have made up their minds (see below) – and you can respond. Do it! The more the merrier. While you're at it, get the press interested: write letters, or if you've got some pull, get your friend to write an op-ed about it.

CAA is a public body, so law says they've got to consult fairly, following what are called the Gunning principles, from a court case R. v. Brent London Borough Council, ex parte Gunning in 1985. Basically (1) consultation must be at a time when proposals are at a formative stage; (2) the proposer must give sufficient reasons for any proposal to permit of intelligent consideration and response; (3) adequate time must be given for consideration and response; and (4) the product of consultation must be conscientiously taken into account in finalising any statutory proposals. The Gunning principles were endorsed by the UK Supreme Court last year when they declared that a consultation by Haringey council was unlawful. www.out-law.com/en/articles/2014/november/supreme-court-endorses-basic-requirements-of-a-fair-consultation-exercise-for-the-first-time/ (http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2014/november/supreme-court-endorses-basic-requirements-of-a-fair-consultation-exercise-for-the-first-time/)

[Ancient Observer]

Have they got enough Inspectors to do their current job?

We can see that they have got lots of Directors and Senior Managers, but Inspectors?

[akaSylvia]

Guys, it's a consultation. That means they're not supposed to have made up their minds (see below) – and you can respond. Do it! The more the merrier. While you're at it, get the press interested: write letters, or if you've got some pull, get your friend to write an op-ed about it.

Can someone please repeat this once per page of this thread?

[glad rag]

I would suggest that members download Annex A and have a look at the scope and depth of "offenses" and make up their own minds if all these should be dealt with on this manner....it is a consultation after all.

[Pontius]

Perhaps the CAA should consult CASA and see how not to do the whole punitive thing. It's not broken, so don't try and fix it and end up with a basket case like Oz.

[N-Jacko]

There's either something wrong with my arithmetic, or something really doesn't add up:

The consultation document indicates that the CAA's prosecution "success" rate is 90% (presumably to reassure us that only one in ten will be unjustly punished under the proposed Option 2). However, the courts have seen fit to award the CAA barely 8% of its costs.

The disparity is so great that I smell an attempt to mislead: namely to present as "success" prosecutions in which all but the most trivial of several charges has been dismissed or dropped, in consequence of which the court was unwilling to award costs against the accused.

In order to meet the second of the Gunning principles, and to get a handle on how many people may be unjustly punished under the proposed Option 2, we need to know what percentage of charges (rather than cases) currently considered for prosecution by the CAA are deserted or dismissed.

[N-Jacko]

A shameless "bump" to remind that this consultation closes at noon tomorrow (12 November).

If you wnat to have your say, even if it is to agree that the answer to CAA-IET's eye-watering cost of £7,819 for a simple warning letter is to recover the whole of that cost from an alleged offender, now's the time.

Another view is that faced with such a prospect, people will "lawyer-up" at the first opportunity and that the insurance industry will provide cover for that eventuality as it already does for airmen in the USA.