Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Ground & Other Ops Forums > Engineers & Technicians
Reload this Page >

Airworthiness Surveyor UK CAA

Engineers & Technicians In this day and age of increased CRM and safety awareness, a forum for the guys and girls who keep our a/c serviceable.

Airworthiness Surveyor UK CAA

Old 8th Aug 2012, 08:10
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 510
Fair cop, I ballsed that right up, so down off my high horse to make my apology Flightmech, I'll change that immediately.

Not to be too sour grapes, but B&S pay CAAi for the privilege of conducting the courses.

Last edited by woptb; 8th Aug 2012 at 08:20.
woptb is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2012, 08:59
  #22 (permalink)  
Oops pardon me
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Manchester England
Posts: 369
I remember when......

Years back in the good old Dan-Air days, the CAA were treated as the guru's of aviation. When your line station was due for an inspection, the work stopped and the oil store was polished to resemble Buckingham Palace. They had the power, should they be displeased with your efforts, to shut you down.

You need geezers like that to keep you on your toes. To make sure Flight Safety is an issue before the crash rather than after it.

Today, the CAA, like many other government organisations, is full of beaurocracy
and cut backs.
It is not fair to blame individuals who are in their employ but the blame should be laid at the feet of governments over the years who have let slide.

To most people involved with flying and engineering, the CAA are just the paperwork administrators for licencing. They should be perceived as upholders of the law and safety.

We need a CAA with teeth to spend the tax payers hard earned on positive projects that really make the UK a safe place to fly.

Don't get me wrong,. Am sure they do some good stuff but with a major shake up, could do a whole lot better.

Since JAR and EASA came along, National Authorities have become administrators of systems where no one seem to know whats going on.

We don't want this to be their main objective in life. We want an organisation dedicated to making sure every business involved in Aviation in the UK is working to the same high standards and safety.

Maybe its time for them to get tough again and weed out some of the chaff that lies beneath the accepted standards.


In any event, don't be too hard on them. They have to administer a pile of paperwork and red tape the likes you or I would run a mile from.

Be constructive in your critisisms and maybe one day we will have the good old CAA back!!

Coop

coopervane is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2012, 10:02
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,420
Coopervane

That was well said and a necessary reminder that it is only too easy to go too far.

And to woptb I acknowledge that I allowed hyperbole to take charge. Mind you, I believe that the reality lies somewhere between your numbers and my exaggerations.

But so far as the training business goes, my essential premise, that the unassailable bond betwen the CAA and those 2 companies is wrong, holds. I know that more than one good training company has approached the CAA in fairly recent times to join in the party, ie to start a process to get onto an approved tenderer list, to be met with amused disbelief that they should even think there is such a thing. And the fact does remain that both companies are owned and controlled by ex-CAA people, and employ ex-CAA people. I too have been on their courses, invariably run by ex-CAA instructors from whom I got the impression that BS, for example, employs many more than 6, even if part-time. Excellent courses and super instructors, but that's not the issue.

The problem we have with the people is that although we can blame Government for allowing/making the CAA to become a process-oriented auditor, doing so has attracted the wrong people into the CAA.

Far too many Surveyors, Inspectors and the like combine a lack of operational experience in management of an operator, maintenance company, training school, whatever, with a superficial knowledge of what the Rules say but not what they mean, and a staggering amount of arrogance. These people (I have 5 in mind from personal experience over the last 3 years, in different areas of regulated activity, of UK or EU origin) are actively dangerous because they force their "clients" to suborn good, safe practice to implementing the minutiae of what pleases their Surveyor or Inspector, sometimes in contradiction of the intention of the Rule being enforced.

The senior management, in Aviation House, have in many cases been there far too long, with far too much latitude to develop their personal idiosyncracies, and of course must bear the responsibility for poor performance of their staff in the field.

The very top management, parachuted in from outside, are where the buck stops. But I suspect they don't even realise there is something wrong, and those who report to them certainly won't tell them.

Do we blame these people for being what they are? Or do we blame the system? Take your pick; I blame both.

Last edited by Capot; 10th Aug 2012 at 10:08. Reason: typos
Capot is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2012, 13:29
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: EGSS
Posts: 909
Two CAA surveyors pitched up in a car earlier this week to do a SAFA inspection of one of our aircraft. One of them spent most of the time enquiring if we had any jobs and could he leave a CV! Oh how times have changed..............
Flightmech is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2012, 22:45
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 510
There is a lack of practical experience amongst some surveyors.
What gets on my t1t5 is the institutionalised lack of objectivity,the idea that the regs arn't proscriptive is fine,but each surveyor has a subjective viewpoint (human nature).
You put systems in place that meet the 'intent',the next surveyor doesn't like them,cue much grinding of the teeth!
woptb is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2012, 08:08
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Faversham
Posts: 4
Irony

The Irony is that Capot is accusing others of not being in the real world with no idea of what is going on and chooses to construct a story that proves he has no idea of errrrrr, what is going on!
My experience of Baines and Simmons was a great one - knew their stuff, all having worked in aviation and wanted to make our industry better. Having read the post above I likewise looked at the Baines and Simmons website - not sure where you get this shadow of the CAA from? Maybe by the apparent size of the chip on your shoulder you have it in your head that everyone else is clueless, should not have made it to where they are now and have no idea what they are on about. Oh look - another huge irony!
view from above is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2012, 19:32
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,420
At the risk of being boringly repetitive, especially with this huge chip on my shoulder, what I actually said, summed up, was (a) that Baines Simmons and Avisa are both owned by ex-CAA personnel and to a considerable extent staffed by ex-CAA personnel, and (b) that all the CAA contracts for training go to one of those two companies.

I also said " Excellent courses and super instructors, but that's not the issue."

I drew a conclusion that the relationship betwen these companies and CAA is wrong.

Now, you've had your little bit of personal abuse, well done, how about addressing the issue? Is either (a) or (b) above incorrect? (You won't find the answer on their websites, incidentally, for fairly obvious reasons.)
Capot is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2012, 22:44
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 510
I wish you hadn't taken the risk because yes, you are boringly repetitive
(a) Yes, so what
(b) Already answered, all info' 'IS' on the website (as I've previously said ),LESS than 10% of the workforce is ex CAA.

I drew a conclusion that the relationship between these companies and CAA is wrong.
Zero, factual evidence to back this statement up.

I also said " Excellent courses and super instructors, but that's not the issue."
Just maybe the reason they get the work is evidenced by this quote
Your statements are nothing more than TOTALLY unsupported supposition, if you have anything please clue us in.

Last edited by woptb; 18th Aug 2012 at 23:06.
woptb is offline  
Old 30th Jul 2016, 16:02
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Woking
Posts: 5
Do people really think that Baines-Simmons give them some kind of inside track to CAA thinking?
3Faze is offline  
Old 31st Jul 2016, 05:56
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: LGW
Posts: 44
with little knowledge of the real world, and probably little of front-line aviation management and operations
I do love silly statements like these. Come on CAPOT gve us you all knowledgeable view of the real front line aviation world.

Let me guess: "If I did it according to the regs we would never get off the ground".
BCAR Section L is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2016, 14:21
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Croydon
Posts: 286
Do people really think that Baines-Simmons give them some kind of inside track to CAA thinking?
The company says on their LinkedIn page: "Baines Simmons helps to bridge gaps of knowledge, competence, skills and understanding between regulated organisations and their employees, and regulatory authorities and their inspectors".

Translation: We want to come between regulators and the regulated and make some money.

Example: You could pay 475+VAT for a 1 day course to understand NPA 2013-01
Enhanced Safety Requirements in Continuing Airworthiness

Or you could download for free the presentations from a free 1 day seminar held by EASA!
https://www.easa.europa.eu/newsroom-...145-rmt-mdm055

If you look at their recent adverts:
Job Ref.: EN00274
Job Title: Training Business Development Manager
Salary / Package: 25,000-35,000 (Potential OTE of 40,000 - 50,000)

In other words even management pay is low but could double if they achieve On Target Earnings. Do you think that drives a focus on the customer's needs or fleecing them for courses they don't really need?
squib66 is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2016, 16:44
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,420
Or you could download for free the presentations from a free 1 day seminar held by EASA!
https://www.easa.europa.eu/newsroom-...145-rmt-mdm055
Or you could download the presentations from an EASA Workshop held last autumn where we were all told that the 2 NPA's issued in 2013 (-01 and -19) about introducing SMS into Continuing Airworthiness organisations had been binned completely. And deservedly so; they were quite extraordinarily bad, even for EASA.

We were informed that EASA had a new programme, Phases I and II, starting in 2016, but I haven't bothered to keep up with whether it has happened. I doubt it.

I wouldn't bother B-S with the question, they are still listing their rather expensive course on NPA 2013-01, so maybe they haven't caught up yet.
Capot is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2016, 17:05
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Croydon
Posts: 286
On this very topic on their website they say: "Through our participation in industry working groups, Baines Simmons has played a key role in this change process."

That's odd because only a few of their numerous comments on the NPA were accepted (mostly minor editorial matters), and they weren't part of the Focused Consultation Group either.
squib66 is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2016, 15:28
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 75
Posts: 767
I wouldn't bother B-S with the question
I've seen their work and been distinctly underwhelmed.

A lot of repackaging of the ideas of others without really having understood them and no real understanding of modern safety management.

Reading power point notes aloud is no substitute for actual hazard management experience. Perhaps that is just the modern way; put a boy in a suit and bill for an expert.
Shell Management is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2016, 16:15
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,420
Reading power point notes aloud
In the spirit of fair play I've been on a Death-by-Powerpoint classroom course run by the other CAA-linked and CAA-favoured training company, Avisa, and could have delivered the course instead of the "instructor" by simply reading the slides as he did. He wasn't even familiar with them; they were used by all instructors, he said. Nor was he particularly familiar with the subject; almost every question was met with a promise to find out and email the answer to all students after the course. Didn't happen, natch. Just under 1,000 wasted, really.
Capot is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2016, 12:48
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Europe
Posts: 112
CAA has not used Avisa to deliver training for some time and Baines Simmons for even longer.

3Faze One reason people may have become confused is that Baines coordinated the 3 week CAA Airworthiness Course for a few years when they formed and walked off with the goldmine of all the CAA presentations.
Never Fretter is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2016, 18:12
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 75
Posts: 767
CAA has not used Avisa to deliver training for some time and Baines Simmons for even longer
Good to hear!
Shell Management is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2016, 12:03
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Croydon
Posts: 286
The new owners of Baines Simmons, charter broker Air Partner PLC, have appointed a retiring CAA Group Director as a non-executive director. Hmmm
squib66 is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2016, 22:16
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,420
Hmmm indeed.....the revolving door spins on.......
Capot is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2016, 15:24
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 75
Posts: 767
The former CAA director is into consumer protection so has no technical / safety knowledge to help Baines.

The boys do have a new Airworthiness course.

Its described as for Maintenance Managers, Quality Managers, Production Managers and Continuing Airworthiness Managers, among others.

They state it’s for “those with little or no prior knowledge of the subject who are looking to develop a fundamental level of understanding”.

Clearly either they have an insulting low view of their customer's managers or they are just time wasting.

Perhaps Air Partner need to look at Baines and do a bit of consumer protection themselves.
Shell Management is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.