The CAA is not fit for purpose
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CAA is not fit for purpose
Everyone...
Some wise man (not me, but I have signed it) has lodged a petition on the UK Governments E Petition's web page saying that the CAA are not fit for purpose.....
So if you feel aggrieved by what were having to put up with, and the subsequent charges we pay for said "service", then now's your chance to have the CAA reviewed by government... You need 1000 petitions to force a discussion in parliament.
Thanks
Some wise man (not me, but I have signed it) has lodged a petition on the UK Governments E Petition's web page saying that the CAA are not fit for purpose.....
So if you feel aggrieved by what were having to put up with, and the subsequent charges we pay for said "service", then now's your chance to have the CAA reviewed by government... You need 1000 petitions to force a discussion in parliament.
Thanks
To make it easier for everyone, the page is at The Civil Aviation Authority is not fit for purpose
And it needs 100,000 signatures in 12 months, not 1,000, to force the discussion in Parliament - scroll down on this page for more on that
39 signatures so far, and the petition was created over three months ago on 17th December.
And it needs 100,000 signatures in 12 months, not 1,000, to force the discussion in Parliament - scroll down on this page for more on that
39 signatures so far, and the petition was created over three months ago on 17th December.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Midlands
Age: 71
Posts: 605
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAA
'Not fit for purpose' is a big call.
I suggest that, with just 39 signatures in 3 months, the clear message is the CAA is very much 'fit for purpose'.
Not bad for a Regulator?!
If I were the boss of the CAA I'd be right chuffed!
Hairy
I suggest that, with just 39 signatures in 3 months, the clear message is the CAA is very much 'fit for purpose'.
Not bad for a Regulator?!
If I were the boss of the CAA I'd be right chuffed!
Hairy
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's unlikely that anyone who needs licences, approvals, assistance, whatever, from the CAA is going to put his/her name to a petition.
So no conclusion about the feelings of the regulated should be drawn from the fact that so few have signed up to have a dig at the regulator.
Meanwhile, in breaking news, a move is gathering discernible momentum to initiate politically-supported investigations at European level to sort out the appalling, wasteful bureaucracy of EASA starting from the hypothesis that since 2003 the level of aviation safety in Europe has been reduced in more than 80% of Member States, and reduced by a large amount in those States with previously very high standards.
So no conclusion about the feelings of the regulated should be drawn from the fact that so few have signed up to have a dig at the regulator.
Meanwhile, in breaking news, a move is gathering discernible momentum to initiate politically-supported investigations at European level to sort out the appalling, wasteful bureaucracy of EASA starting from the hypothesis that since 2003 the level of aviation safety in Europe has been reduced in more than 80% of Member States, and reduced by a large amount in those States with previously very high standards.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Harwich
Age: 65
Posts: 777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One. Though we might wish it, even if it affects 100,000 people, the chances of them all signing are vanishingly remote.
Two. The CAA is mandated to recover all of its costs from those it regulates. Any organisation so mandated would work the way the CAA does. Who supplied the mandate? That's right. The Government is not fit for purpose. Other petitions on that issue are already in progress.
Two. The CAA is mandated to recover all of its costs from those it regulates. Any organisation so mandated would work the way the CAA does. Who supplied the mandate? That's right. The Government is not fit for purpose. Other petitions on that issue are already in progress.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Behind a dusty desk, and in some really hot, dusty, wet and cold places subject to who is paying the bill. But mostly Gods own land.
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I happen to think the CAA do a pretty good job considering the world they live in varies from excessively prescriptive to virtually void of guidance.
Like everyone else I have had answers and decisions from the CAA that I did not like, want to hear or just didn’t agree with, however thishas never made me consider them as unfit for purpose.
The Staff at the CAA are in the majority a dam good bunch who will do whatever they can to help and like any company in this economic climate are struggling to finance and resource their service to a standard that they would like to provide, we would like to receive and that we have come toexpect, however in spite of these difficulties I believe that they do a damgood job for us and the general public!
Miles
Like everyone else I have had answers and decisions from the CAA that I did not like, want to hear or just didn’t agree with, however thishas never made me consider them as unfit for purpose.
The Staff at the CAA are in the majority a dam good bunch who will do whatever they can to help and like any company in this economic climate are struggling to finance and resource their service to a standard that they would like to provide, we would like to receive and that we have come toexpect, however in spite of these difficulties I believe that they do a damgood job for us and the general public!
Miles
Last edited by Miles Gustaph; 9th Apr 2013 at 12:48.
100,000 Signatures required....fat chance of anything happening!
At the White House Petition Office....it takes 13,000 Signatures to require an official Response. At least you get a response....which rarely is more than mere Talking Points....but at least the threshold is low enough that there is some hope of a response however useless.
At the White House Petition Office....it takes 13,000 Signatures to require an official Response. At least you get a response....which rarely is more than mere Talking Points....but at least the threshold is low enough that there is some hope of a response however useless.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Behind a dusty desk, and in some really hot, dusty, wet and cold places subject to who is paying the bill. But mostly Gods own land.
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless,
the White House threshold is actually 25000 signatures, but I have to say I must question the merit in a White House response since they declined to build a Death Star following an online petition to do so...
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/res...-youre-looking
Miles
the White House threshold is actually 25000 signatures, but I have to say I must question the merit in a White House response since they declined to build a Death Star following an online petition to do so...
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/res...-youre-looking
Miles
Originally Posted by Miles Gustaph
Oh, and the CAA are as good as can realistically be expected given Government constraints, and EASA have reduced overall levels of aviation safety in Europe.
Last edited by hoodie; 9th Apr 2013 at 17:39.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suggest that the CAA are now pretty irrelevant. They are pretty close to being just a district office for EASA - an extremely imposing, expensive and overstaffed district office, but a district office nevertheless.
The very serious problems lay further up the tree, with EASA and the government. However, I think we missed the boat long ago. Also, we (heles & light GA) are given precious little consideration- the only thing that matters to the decision-makers (in EASA) is the airlines.
The very serious problems lay further up the tree, with EASA and the government. However, I think we missed the boat long ago. Also, we (heles & light GA) are given precious little consideration- the only thing that matters to the decision-makers (in EASA) is the airlines.
They do come out with statements of pure genius.....national licence, new type added comes back with "date of initial issue" set in 2015! Why, I ask, this is the answer i received..
The initial issue date on the licence is based on the expiry date of your previous UK licence from our systems. Therefore our system will unfortunately not be able to change the initial issue date back to 30/12/1999.
Unbelievable, I am now presenting a licence that has not been issued yet!
Genius.
The initial issue date on the licence is based on the expiry date of your previous UK licence from our systems. Therefore our system will unfortunately not be able to change the initial issue date back to 30/12/1999.
Unbelievable, I am now presenting a licence that has not been issued yet!
Genius.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: foot of a mountain
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no issue with the British CAA or EASA, but I do sometimes wonder what happened to the original mandate of any CAA? What happened to enhancing and enforcing aviation flight safety? These days even if it is a proven massive improovement in safety it gets no where often due cost of certification, red tape, by the time it is certified there is much safer options due the time delay etc. I agree there must be systems and procedures etc, but then I think we have reached the point where there is just to many complications and we forgot that for every problem there is a solution instead creating more and more reasons why we can not to avoid accountability for incase because aviation is about avoiding being sued now. What happened to keeping it simple and keeping aircrew and aircraft flying safely? Our primary concern these days are Quality meetings, SMS meetings, HR meetings, CAA meetings etc and by the time all those personnel are paid there are no funds for plts and engs. Example, how much time does a engineer spend these days on a aircraft vs paperwork, admin, etc to avoid accountability?
I have no particular issue with anyone, but I for one am getting scared of a CAA being discussed as a business unit, operators are money, engineers have to think about cost before fixing etc despite all the paperwork and procedures. Who is actually looking after safety and the aircraft if all is focussed on paperwork, timesheets and invoices?
Just asking
I have no particular issue with anyone, but I for one am getting scared of a CAA being discussed as a business unit, operators are money, engineers have to think about cost before fixing etc despite all the paperwork and procedures. Who is actually looking after safety and the aircraft if all is focussed on paperwork, timesheets and invoices?
Just asking
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Behind a dusty desk, and in some really hot, dusty, wet and cold places subject to who is paying the bill. But mostly Gods own land.
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Victor Papa,
your knowledge of the purpose of the regulatory system is remarkably poor for an aviation professional. to say "Example, how much time does a engineer spend these days on a aircraft vs paperwork, admin, etc to avoid accountability?" and "Our primary concern these days are Quality meetings, SMS meetings, HR meetings, CAA meetings etc and by the time all those personnel are paid there are no funds for plts and engs." shows that you have no understanding of the regulatory environment and still have the dinosaur attitude of it is the regulatory authorities job to make the industry safe.
Safety comes from the industry not a NAA, if an operator is "only" complying to the regulations then they are hardly doing their best to make operations safe with a risk that is ALARP, because it is "just" compliant!
As for your comments, engineers do paperwork to ensure traceability of the work and actions, this give accountability, not avoid it!
Secondly we hold safety meetings to ensure that all staff understand the risks that they are exposed to and play a part in the management of those risks. If the attitude in an organisation is one of "the NAA" does that then staff will play no part in its improvement, if you engage with an organisations workforce and get them to take ownership of their risks then safety improves.
Miles
your knowledge of the purpose of the regulatory system is remarkably poor for an aviation professional. to say "Example, how much time does a engineer spend these days on a aircraft vs paperwork, admin, etc to avoid accountability?" and "Our primary concern these days are Quality meetings, SMS meetings, HR meetings, CAA meetings etc and by the time all those personnel are paid there are no funds for plts and engs." shows that you have no understanding of the regulatory environment and still have the dinosaur attitude of it is the regulatory authorities job to make the industry safe.
Safety comes from the industry not a NAA, if an operator is "only" complying to the regulations then they are hardly doing their best to make operations safe with a risk that is ALARP, because it is "just" compliant!
As for your comments, engineers do paperwork to ensure traceability of the work and actions, this give accountability, not avoid it!
Secondly we hold safety meetings to ensure that all staff understand the risks that they are exposed to and play a part in the management of those risks. If the attitude in an organisation is one of "the NAA" does that then staff will play no part in its improvement, if you engage with an organisations workforce and get them to take ownership of their risks then safety improves.
Miles
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: foot of a mountain
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I by no means implied that only a CAA is responsible for safety and very much agree that it is up to the industry and individuals within it monitored and enforced by a CAA. I by no means disagree with QA systems and SMS systems etc. I by no means disagree with paperwork for traceability and accountability.
I merely questioned whether safety is still the primary concern or whether we MAYBE got to a point where especially individuals hide from accountability behind paperwork, meetings, systems etc. and that self importance and titles play a big role. Maybe it is just in the helicopter circles I move then between various countries where it seems that often a lot of the paperwork required and burocracy has very little to do with enhancing safety and more and more to do with money and making the possible impossible with less and less consistency.
I mentioned engineer paperwork as an example because the relation between hours spend on aircraft and hours spend on paperwork seems to become close to a 1 on 1 scenario and I merely questioned whether this is the safest route?
I am questioning, not stating
I merely questioned whether safety is still the primary concern or whether we MAYBE got to a point where especially individuals hide from accountability behind paperwork, meetings, systems etc. and that self importance and titles play a big role. Maybe it is just in the helicopter circles I move then between various countries where it seems that often a lot of the paperwork required and burocracy has very little to do with enhancing safety and more and more to do with money and making the possible impossible with less and less consistency.
I mentioned engineer paperwork as an example because the relation between hours spend on aircraft and hours spend on paperwork seems to become close to a 1 on 1 scenario and I merely questioned whether this is the safest route?
I am questioning, not stating
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: England
Age: 53
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
100,000 signatures
There is no legal or constitutional construct that means that Parliament has to discuss a petition if it reaches 100,000 signatures - on the link posted earlier it does say 'could be.' After all, we can't have the masses deciding what the politicians discuss now can we....
