Grabair bust - again !
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
Sorry Jock, I disagree.
The money can, and should, be handled by banks. A regulatory scheme should simply ensure that it's being done properly. Plenty of systems exist already to regulate banks.
CAA have never tried to stop information being readily available about flying training, they've just never seen it as their job to provide it.
And surely AOPA/BALPA/whoever have no incentive to do anything but be open with their members about the data they hold. There will be limitations of-course, but only at the level of not revealing commercially sensitive information about individuals or individual companies. Summary information about the whole industry is another thing.
CAA were quite happy for years allowing gliders to self regulate until forced by EASA to do otherwise, they are happy to let microlights and homebuilts self regulate via BMAA and LAA, save for periodic audits of practices and procedures.
I can see absolutely no reason why CAA would want to take this over, although I'm sure they'd like to know it's happening and ask for some sight that it's being done well.
G
The money can, and should, be handled by banks. A regulatory scheme should simply ensure that it's being done properly. Plenty of systems exist already to regulate banks.
CAA have never tried to stop information being readily available about flying training, they've just never seen it as their job to provide it.
And surely AOPA/BALPA/whoever have no incentive to do anything but be open with their members about the data they hold. There will be limitations of-course, but only at the level of not revealing commercially sensitive information about individuals or individual companies. Summary information about the whole industry is another thing.
CAA were quite happy for years allowing gliders to self regulate until forced by EASA to do otherwise, they are happy to let microlights and homebuilts self regulate via BMAA and LAA, save for periodic audits of practices and procedures.
I can see absolutely no reason why CAA would want to take this over, although I'm sure they'd like to know it's happening and ask for some sight that it's being done well.
G
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
From: UK
mad_jock - that's music to my ears... I thought I was alone in that thought process.
I tried once to get these stats. from the CAA. The only response was 'commercial sensitivity and data protection precludes our divulging blather drone, drawl, blah, blah, blah'.
Understandable, but a little imagination could release this information in a benign fashion. If a FTO doesn't want the stats. released because they're a bad reflection, well, smarten up your act, boys!
Yawn.
I tried once to get these stats. from the CAA. The only response was 'commercial sensitivity and data protection precludes our divulging blather drone, drawl, blah, blah, blah'.
Understandable, but a little imagination could release this information in a benign fashion. If a FTO doesn't want the stats. released because they're a bad reflection, well, smarten up your act, boys!
Yawn.
Last edited by rmcb; 3rd March 2012 at 10:21. Reason: adding more vitriole and bile!
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 10,804
Likes: 1
The CAA will not give any usefull information on flight training end of story. They will duck and dive and come up with excuses so they won't give it out. The whole industry doesn't want the data out there. They need the money put into the sector to keep it going even though only less than 30% of the gradutes will get jobs.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/Flight...rch%202010.pdf
You will notice that the give numbers but have cleverly done it so there is nothing useful to be had out of them. Even if you took the cpl issued and type ratings issued you can't do anything with it because it includes all type ratings issued not the first one. And even the first one doesn't tell you that much because it will include p2f. Nobody wants you to know how many people qualify each year and how many actually get employed.
To be honest I would expect all the big schools to go immediately pay as you go on the day if the data did have to go outside the CAA. If they wern't going to get access to the money there is no point getting involved in any scheme which I presume they wouldn't if it was pay as you go.
There are actually quite a few schools out there that do do pay as you go but they are all modular.
Don't kid yourself about Balpa they are as political as the rest. It suits BA and a few others to have the option of large commercial schools to use. But they don't want to pay for it . The schools will be protected by BALPA "for the good of the industry" apart from which they all know each other from squadron days or flying the line with BA.
AOPA isn't really anything to do with that level of training and it has enough on its plate looking after the interests of the GA community.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/Flight...rch%202010.pdf
You will notice that the give numbers but have cleverly done it so there is nothing useful to be had out of them. Even if you took the cpl issued and type ratings issued you can't do anything with it because it includes all type ratings issued not the first one. And even the first one doesn't tell you that much because it will include p2f. Nobody wants you to know how many people qualify each year and how many actually get employed.
To be honest I would expect all the big schools to go immediately pay as you go on the day if the data did have to go outside the CAA. If they wern't going to get access to the money there is no point getting involved in any scheme which I presume they wouldn't if it was pay as you go.
There are actually quite a few schools out there that do do pay as you go but they are all modular.
Don't kid yourself about Balpa they are as political as the rest. It suits BA and a few others to have the option of large commercial schools to use. But they don't want to pay for it . The schools will be protected by BALPA "for the good of the industry" apart from which they all know each other from squadron days or flying the line with BA.
AOPA isn't really anything to do with that level of training and it has enough on its plate looking after the interests of the GA community.
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
You will notice that the give numbers but have cleverly done it so there is nothing useful to be had out of them
The CAA avoids publishing data which would enable an estimate to be made of how many PPL holders (etc) give up flying within X years.
I think this is because doing so would show the flight training industry in very poor light.
Very occassionally someone from the CAA drops a hint in some conference, along the lines of 90% packing it in before the first renewal i.e. within 2 years.
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
From: UK
So who can do it?
Certainly not the CAA; while these companies behave within the law, the CAA is showing a distinct lack of spine when dealing with these sharks.
This begs another question - is GA training too cheap? Are we deluding ourselves?
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
From: London
aaahhh...the sweet sweet sweet sound of ye' olde rumour mill turning........makes me long for lazy daZE in Georgia....wait...hold on...
......that's the not the old mill, that's the hollow sound of kicking a corpse...which I am depressingly familiar with.......
......that's the not the old mill, that's the hollow sound of kicking a corpse...which I am depressingly familiar with.......
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
From: UK
As the CAA will tell you ad nauseam they are not a governmental organisation.
What they fail to acknowledge is that they are a monopoly able to set policy hanging off our legislature's framework (the ANO), and set their own fees. Sounds like a quasi governmental organisation.
They have enormous power; I believe with that with monopolistic privilege comes the responsibilty to do the best by all of its contributors. It was failings identified in the ValuJet 592 investigations that caused the FAA to be split up. Maybe the CAA should go the same way. Do the safety regulation bit well - as they do - but let someone else do the approvals and the mundane stuff.
What they fail to acknowledge is that they are a monopoly able to set policy hanging off our legislature's framework (the ANO), and set their own fees. Sounds like a quasi governmental organisation.
They have enormous power; I believe with that with monopolistic privilege comes the responsibilty to do the best by all of its contributors. It was failings identified in the ValuJet 592 investigations that caused the FAA to be split up. Maybe the CAA should go the same way. Do the safety regulation bit well - as they do - but let someone else do the approvals and the mundane stuff.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 10,804
Likes: 1
your talking as if the CAA/ uk goverment has any choice in the matter these days.
They will in the not so distant future only be the in country agency for a european agency.
What the agency will do in regards to UK training will remain to be seen. Alot of ither countrys do not like and are opposed to the way the UK has it organised with satalite outside country schools etc.
It could very well be that the agency will change matters quite significantly.
The caa won't care to be honest because they can slope shoulders and say nothing to do with us its a EU ruling.
They will in the not so distant future only be the in country agency for a european agency.
What the agency will do in regards to UK training will remain to be seen. Alot of ither countrys do not like and are opposed to the way the UK has it organised with satalite outside country schools etc.
It could very well be that the agency will change matters quite significantly.
The caa won't care to be honest because they can slope shoulders and say nothing to do with us its a EU ruling.
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
From: Too close to EASA
Peter337
The CAA and EASA are certainly not there to protect business. They both load more costs and bureaucracy on us - just see the costs about to be levied on EASA 145 maintenance companies who also hold FAA repair station approvals. Something in excess of £2800 to apply to CAA for oversight of the FAA approval - no choice in the matter as it forms part of last Year's bi-lateral.
The CAA and EASA are certainly not there to protect business. They both load more costs and bureaucracy on us - just see the costs about to be levied on EASA 145 maintenance companies who also hold FAA repair station approvals. Something in excess of £2800 to apply to CAA for oversight of the FAA approval - no choice in the matter as it forms part of last Year's bi-lateral.
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
I can see the regulator here is screwing the industry for fees, but at the same time no matter which way you look, they are operating practices which keep the industry in business so that, presumably, it is able to pay those fees.
One little example is the inability to use freelance instructors for the PPL, IR, etc like you can in the USA.
I also don't think the treaty specified the £2800 charge...
The whole business is screwing itself up its own orifice, while trying to make a living out of the end customers who are still out there, willing or able to pay the costs of everything.
One little example is the inability to use freelance instructors for the PPL, IR, etc like you can in the USA.
I also don't think the treaty specified the £2800 charge...
The whole business is screwing itself up its own orifice, while trying to make a living out of the end customers who are still out there, willing or able to pay the costs of everything.
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
From: London
I would make a strong distinction between fees for infrastructure, and regulatory fees.
A regulator who creates rules exactly what has to be subect to approval, and then charges for these approvals, is problematic. It is also problematic that this regulator is allowed to set these fees at cost-plus-profit, so is guaranteed to be profitable.... up to the point where there is a single ATO that pays for the entire cost of training supervision, and the annual approval fee will be 3.5 milion pounds. And the only pilot who graduates that year will have to pay for the entire CAA PLD to get the licence issued.
An airport which does not cover its cost goes bust. A regulator just increases fees until others go bust.
A regulator who creates rules exactly what has to be subect to approval, and then charges for these approvals, is problematic. It is also problematic that this regulator is allowed to set these fees at cost-plus-profit, so is guaranteed to be profitable.... up to the point where there is a single ATO that pays for the entire cost of training supervision, and the annual approval fee will be 3.5 milion pounds. And the only pilot who graduates that year will have to pay for the entire CAA PLD to get the licence issued.
An airport which does not cover its cost goes bust. A regulator just increases fees until others go bust.
