Consultation? Does the CAA take any notice of what pilots say?

[Hoverman]

In theory, the CAA consulting the industry sounds very reasonable.
But do you think the deskjockeys at the CAA actually take any notice of what those of us out there in the real world think when they bring in new rules?

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'm afraid the question is too simplistic.

When CAA go to public consultation it is the end of a long process and in my own experience only really major showstoppers worry them badly.

The real decision goes on prior to public consultation, and is in very long discussions between the "authority" and the representative organisations, who are primarily - in no particular order...

HCGB
PFA
BGA
BMAA
AOPA
RAeC
BBAC

Plus some committees that are part CAA part industry, particularly ARB, PRAG, GACC.

In my experience, which is considerable and entirely from the industry / association side of the fence CAA do listen extensively in these discussion. At the final stage, when the world and their dog are circulated with a proposed rule change - no I don't think they're that interested but mostly confirming they haven't screwed up.

So, IMHO, if you want to be listened to, you'd jolly well better be involved or at-least actively talking to your association, whichever is appropriate to you. If you don't even belong to your association (wiaty) then frankly you deserve to be ignored.

G

[Heliport]

Thanks for your very helpful post Genghis.

I'm sure everyone realises Hoverman's Poll was prompted by the recent CAA Consultation Paper inviting comments upon proposals to amend Rule 5 and, in that context, I don't the question is too simplistic. If it was simply a general question, I agree it would be far too simplistic.

In any event, you're "inside information" is very helpful because it confirms what the overwhelming majority of people appear to assume anyway. I have to admit that if I'd known the position is as bad as you say, I wouldn't have been so actively encouraging contributors to this forum to send their views to the CAA. I had my suspicions about the 'consultation' but, ever the optimist etc! ;)

Hoverman
You now have an answer to your question from someone with inside information: The real decision is already made, only a major showstopper will change what the CAA intends to do.
Judging by the response to your Poll so far, it won't come as too much of a surprise to anybody. If you want to let the Poll run a little longer that's fine by me, but I wonder if there's much point. It's up to you.

To everyone who sent in comments to the CAA in response to my encouragement.
My apologies.

Heliport

[Genghis the Engineer]

I probably should have qualified my previous post with "in my opinion".

Rule 5 is I think a bit of an oddball and I wouldn't panic just yet. Although not part of that particular process, I have been party to a lot of informal conversations about rule 5. The impression I got there is that pretty much everybody inside CAA (and the associations) supported the status quo, and not ICAO compliance. What I think they were doing, possibly in a slightly devious manner, was seeing if the population at large supported their internal view - but they didn't want to publically admit that they favoured not complying with ICAO. I think however that only time will tell.

If my guess is right of-course, what it does tell you is that CAA management is much more interested in impressing ICAO and the DfT than it is the aircraft operators. But, I'm pretty sure we all felt that anyway.

Either way Heliport, the response you've encouraged has either given them a clear steer that they've screwed up, or has supported some sensible people within the CAA (they are in there somewhere, trust me on this) to get their way. Whichever, I don't think you've anything to apologise about just yet.

G

[zalt]

The real question is will there be any consultation when EASA take over rule making?

[Keef]

I think the real answer to the question is that the CAA does listen, but not a lot.

By the time it's all "public" in the form of consultation papers, minds have been made up, and to change the proposal would mean a loss of face. Sadly, many self-respecting bosstypes try to avoid that, even when they know they are more wrong than right.

We could probably all cite examples, from CAA and Aviation circles, but also poll tax and many more of that ilk. Human nature (I'll save you the sermon on fallen human nature...)

So, if we want to preserve our right to roam in the skies, we need to join the relevant body - in most cases that's AOPA. If we think AOPA isn't strong enough, then we have to do some work with it, or encourage it, and persuade others to join (so it has the money to employ more folks to do more, as AOPA-US does).

[Genghis the Engineer]

Concerning Zalt's point, the answer seems very likely to be a resounding "no". I've now sat through two presentations by David Roberts, (chairman of the BGA) who has been investigating for RAeC the impact on UK GA of EASA and he doesn't paint a picture anything like as rosy as our current relationship with the CAA.

'Twould appear that EASA will not be legally required to consult at-all, when it does will only talk either to a national aero cub (e.g. RAeC) or to a Europe-wide organisation reprenting all organisations operating in that class of aviation (e.g. Europe Airsports). So UK-AOPA, or for that matter any of the other organisations I've mentioned above, would be considered too small to be significant.

Don't believe me?, read this month's "Today's Pilot" for an article on it, with comments by three of the main association's Chief Executives.

G

[Helinut]

You get a pretty good indication of what EASA will be like by seeing how the JAA requirements have been cobbled together and what sort of problems they have caused. Any individual response is drowned in a sea of bureacracy.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Sadly very true. I sit on one or two of the various committees that it's compulsory to consult on rule changes. It is very noticeable that if you give what amounts to negative feedback about a requirement, you either get ignored or told you are wrong.

G