UK CAA - a chocolate fireguard?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London, England
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK CAA - a chocolate fireguard?
Reading through the latest CHIRP I can't help but feel that the CAA exists in some gentleman's flying club era. They are more concerned about correct RT phraseology - "roger wilco tally-ho" than safety. For example, food poisoning risks: don't ask us - ask your local council!!! Abuses of FTLs - we recommend...!!! Do they not have any teeth?
It is time that the CAA woke up and started to protect flight crew and the flying public from the awful levels of management that exist throughout the industry.
It is time that the CAA woke up and started to protect flight crew and the flying public from the awful levels of management that exist throughout the industry.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: England
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't forget that CHIRP can only be effective if it has some degree of co-operation from everyone involved. I have no doubt at all that CHIRP is a great force for safety and that view is shared sufficiently to ensure its continuation. Much is said behind the scenes that is not directly reflected in the CHIRP reports.
The CAA must operate within a legal framework which can be and is challenged. I may not have always seen eye-to-eye with the CAA but I have no doubt that pilots are better off with it than without it. If you don't like what it does, talk to your MP and urge support for better legislation, and remember that quite a lot now originates in Europe, so you may also need to talk to your MEP .
The CAA must operate within a legal framework which can be and is challenged. I may not have always seen eye-to-eye with the CAA but I have no doubt that pilots are better off with it than without it. If you don't like what it does, talk to your MP and urge support for better legislation, and remember that quite a lot now originates in Europe, so you may also need to talk to your MEP .
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London, England
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The huge increase in level busts has, in my opinion, much more to do with reduced levels of awareness due to fatigue caused by rostering to legal limits (now seen by management as productivity targets) than by poor RT.
The "fact" that a company has not received any reports can only be taken with a pinch of salt. Awareness of a problem should generate action, rather than waiting for an incident to happen.
Unfortunately, "behind the scenes activity" does not generate any confidence in those of us working at the coal face.
The "fact" that a company has not received any reports can only be taken with a pinch of salt. Awareness of a problem should generate action, rather than waiting for an incident to happen.
Unfortunately, "behind the scenes activity" does not generate any confidence in those of us working at the coal face.
the lunatic fringe
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Everywhere
Age: 67
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny thing, I was reading CHIRP this morning and concluded also, that it was a waste of space.
It appears to me that they have 3 trays. In, Out, and one marked "Too difficult". And most of the FTL, Industrial safety related issues were just not delt with. So relegated to, "Too difficult".
Two items that were just glossed over. Handling Proficiency, and The Right Reporting Culture. Both very important issues. Glib answers given to both. The real issues of safety, and safety culture, never tackled.
L337
It appears to me that they have 3 trays. In, Out, and one marked "Too difficult". And most of the FTL, Industrial safety related issues were just not delt with. So relegated to, "Too difficult".
Two items that were just glossed over. Handling Proficiency, and The Right Reporting Culture. Both very important issues. Glib answers given to both. The real issues of safety, and safety culture, never tackled.
L337
Paxing All Over The World
If the CAA is not effective - and as a Pax, I cannot possibly know - then it will only be consistent with other regulators in the UK and, actually, the world.
Each regulator is set up in good faith, based on the principles and attitudes of the time. Over a course of time, they change but the regulator does not. A current prime example is the General Medical Council, which is currenty coming in for a lot of 'stick' (the other kind
) and mounting pressure for their wholesale reform. Why?
Because people have died and there is concern that the self-regulatory GMC can no longer do the job. The Shipman affair was what brought it to the top of the pile for politicians and interested parties. The complexity of modern medicine, the twin pressures to get everything done as quickly as possible and reduce costs ... does it start to sound familiar?
As so often in these forums, I am going to repeat the mantra: Nothing will change until enough people have died. That does not mean that I think the CAA and CHIRP are ineffective - but the sheer passage of time states that they will not be as effective as they were and should be, because that is how human beings organise things. Mistakes are being made and will be made but nothing will happen, until it's too late.
Each regulator is set up in good faith, based on the principles and attitudes of the time. Over a course of time, they change but the regulator does not. A current prime example is the General Medical Council, which is currenty coming in for a lot of 'stick' (the other kind
) and mounting pressure for their wholesale reform. Why?Because people have died and there is concern that the self-regulatory GMC can no longer do the job. The Shipman affair was what brought it to the top of the pile for politicians and interested parties. The complexity of modern medicine, the twin pressures to get everything done as quickly as possible and reduce costs ... does it start to sound familiar?
As so often in these forums, I am going to repeat the mantra: Nothing will change until enough people have died. That does not mean that I think the CAA and CHIRP are ineffective - but the sheer passage of time states that they will not be as effective as they were and should be, because that is how human beings organise things. Mistakes are being made and will be made but nothing will happen, until it's too late.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Buggleskelly
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes when are the CAA going to realise that the fatigue of aircrew CAP is way out of date exploited to its maximum by Budget bloody airlines!
Phoning people on days off should have to follow strict agreed guidelines imposed by CAA.
Changing duties should have to follow strict agreed guidelines imposed by CAA.
Changing duties should have a time limit before next rostered duty and should agreed guidelines imposed by CAA. like no changes within 15 hours of next duty which would bring a pilot on earlier.
ETC ETC
Phoning people on days off should have to follow strict agreed guidelines imposed by CAA.
Changing duties should have to follow strict agreed guidelines imposed by CAA.
Changing duties should have a time limit before next rostered duty and should agreed guidelines imposed by CAA. like no changes within 15 hours of next duty which would bring a pilot on earlier.
ETC ETC
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
They are more concerned about correct RT phraseology - "roger wilco tally-ho" than safety.
Perhaps it is a cultural difference, in America we're more interested in days off and what's for lunch...
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some time ago, on converting to a Vnav aircraft (B767) SOPS allowed during a STAR approach to set the MCP altitude to the approach fix and allow the V-nav to cope with any intermediate height restrictions.
On the day in question we were cleared for a Daros1A approach into Larnaca to cross the VOR at 4000 feet. The Daros1A had various height constraints around the Troodos mountains and surrounding high ground. Due to CB activity we were cleared to deviate around one cell and then route direct to the VOR. The copilot concerned, with us having been cleared direct to the VOR then used the direct intercept in the FMC which erased all the intermediate waypoints with their height constraints leaving just the 4000 feet at the VOR remaining! The error of his ways was pointed out.
A couple of weeks later, out of the blue this female CAA inspector joined us in Madrid for the return sector to LHR. During the cruise she asked what I thought of the Sop's on the B767. I related the above story suggesting that on the Trident the altitude set in the altitude window was always "safe" and that "in my humble opinion" the MCP altitude on the B767 should be used in the same way, with the altitude set to the MSA (or STAR restriction) relating to the aircrafts position and not some point further down the approach.
"She would look into it" but as a lowly line captain my opinion was obviously ignored by her or some other "mahogany desk pilot" as nothing was done!!
On the day in question we were cleared for a Daros1A approach into Larnaca to cross the VOR at 4000 feet. The Daros1A had various height constraints around the Troodos mountains and surrounding high ground. Due to CB activity we were cleared to deviate around one cell and then route direct to the VOR. The copilot concerned, with us having been cleared direct to the VOR then used the direct intercept in the FMC which erased all the intermediate waypoints with their height constraints leaving just the 4000 feet at the VOR remaining! The error of his ways was pointed out.
A couple of weeks later, out of the blue this female CAA inspector joined us in Madrid for the return sector to LHR. During the cruise she asked what I thought of the Sop's on the B767. I related the above story suggesting that on the Trident the altitude set in the altitude window was always "safe" and that "in my humble opinion" the MCP altitude on the B767 should be used in the same way, with the altitude set to the MSA (or STAR restriction) relating to the aircrafts position and not some point further down the approach.
"She would look into it" but as a lowly line captain my opinion was obviously ignored by her or some other "mahogany desk pilot" as nothing was done!!
We shouldn't forget theat CHIRP is a confidential chanel of communication. Should the incidents that are published be investigated openly and frankly in the companies where they happen(which are made anonymous in CHIRP) there is a strong chance of the reporter's identity becoming known, which obviates the confidential side of the reporting. CHIRP is most useful in identifying trends in the industry and, as in the FTL comments, trends in particular companies. The reason for the trends can then be investigated and appropriate action taken by the regulatory authorities (not the CHIRP team.) Notwithstanding serous reports of breaches of the law of course.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London, England
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have yet to see any "appropriate action" taken on many of the issues that are in CHIRP time and time again. Anything to do with FTLs, fatigue, sickness policies, etc... (basically anything to do with flogging your workers to within an inch of their lives) falls into the "too difficult" category. In typical civil service language, issues will be reviewed, discussed, considered by committee, passed on to the appropriate authority, blah, blah, blah. Where are the results?
Hot Wings,
Did you miss the re-issue of CAP 371 and the consultative process that went along with it not only with employers but also with employee representative bodies?
Have you ever tried making a MOR or ASR to the CAA. I have, things do happen.
Did you miss the re-issue of CAP 371 and the consultative process that went along with it not only with employers but also with employee representative bodies?
Have you ever tried making a MOR or ASR to the CAA. I have, things do happen.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London, England
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Beardy, I missed the consultative process - I must have been busy working 
. Perhaps you could tell us all about the improvements to CAP 371. I am also interested in the details of how your ASRs have made things happen. Congratulations! I don't even recall getting a reply to any ASR but that might be because my company allegedly stockpiles them.
. Perhaps you could tell us all about the improvements to CAP 371. I am also interested in the details of how your ASRs have made things happen. Congratulations! I don't even recall getting a reply to any ASR but that might be because my company allegedly stockpiles them.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An extract follows from the most recent CHIRP many of us know exactly what this pilot is talking about, it is not safe for either the pilot or the passengers and will ultimately end in tears.
Report Text: I am at a loss as to who to turn to. I am getting so many roster changes I am sure it is only a matter of time before I fail to report for the correct flight. At last count, I had 195 changes covering the past 14 months. During this time I have only completed just over 150 flying days!! I accept that all airlines go through periods of disruption for various reasons but in this company it is continuous and has been for at least 3 summers.
I have just been telephoned yet again on a day off telling me I have been changed for the next 2 days. This is the second change for these 2 days, originally rostered as an early standby followed by an early start. Changed to 2 lates, which interfered with my weekend off planning, but just as I'd sorted my family transport out, I have been changed to an early standby and another early starting over 3 hours before my original early.
If you are having difficulty following then you are with me!! So I asked why? I'm running short of hours (that will be the company contractual 90hrs/28 day limit). It comes as no surprise to me that I am running up to my limit, as we always do in the summer season.
So why should it take until the day before for my company to note it? We are being rostered legal minimum days off because the company don't want to have to buy extra days back but if they do try, the roster falls apart because we are all up to our limits. Personally, I don't find the hours limits too fatiguing but the time and stress of trying to organise family life and other essential domestic appointments is not only wearing me down, it is becoming impossible. I can only plan on my days off; not even the night before a day off is possible.
The problem seems to stem from a lack of resources but it seems that also the roster is open to changes from too many departments, some of whom either do not know the limits or choose to ignore them. When I mention that I'm not entirely happy with all this disruption I have been told that as I get paid more than an ops assistant then I should expect more disruption than an ops assistant. I was too polite to ask them how much their training cost or when they last did a base check, line check or IRT.
CHIRP Comment: The argument that is often presented in defence of rostering practices such as those described above is that they are legal and thus are, by definition, not fatiguing.
CAP 371 - The Avoidance of Fatigue in Aircrews, on which UK operators’ Approved FTL schemes are based, are precisely as the title implies - guidelines. As such CAP 371 places general responsibilities on an operator in addition to the specific limitations contained in the CAP, such as on (Section A) Page 2 Para. 2.3 a) which states:
"The allocation of work patterns which avoid such undesirable practices as alternating day/night duties, the positioning of crew so that a serious disruption of established sleep/work patterns occur, or scheduling rest periods of between 18 and 30 hours especially after long flights crossing many time zones".
It is difficult to understand how the frequent rostering of rest periods between 18 and 30 hours and the roster instability described in confidential reports complies with the current wording of CAP371. Moreover and perhaps of more significance, is that on the basis of reports received through this Programme, most UK AOC Holders, including those who operate a similar mix of routes, appear to be able to operate more closely in compliance with their overall responsibilities, as set out in CAP 371.
This is a matter that CAA (SRG) might wish to consider.
The answer is pathetic, useless and not likely to change anything!
Failing to report for a late changed flight is the least of our pilots problems; total exhaustion from these changes will be the eventual killer.
As one contributor so rightly said " Nothing will change until enough people have died" it couldn't really be called an acccident either, could it?
I don't think CHIRP can even imagine the implications and realities of multiple roster changes and those pilots lucky enough or skilled enough to not have them perhaps, also have no idea of just how bad it can get.
Come on CHIRP, rock that cosy boat............or roster changes may result, for you.
Report Text: I am at a loss as to who to turn to. I am getting so many roster changes I am sure it is only a matter of time before I fail to report for the correct flight. At last count, I had 195 changes covering the past 14 months. During this time I have only completed just over 150 flying days!! I accept that all airlines go through periods of disruption for various reasons but in this company it is continuous and has been for at least 3 summers.
I have just been telephoned yet again on a day off telling me I have been changed for the next 2 days. This is the second change for these 2 days, originally rostered as an early standby followed by an early start. Changed to 2 lates, which interfered with my weekend off planning, but just as I'd sorted my family transport out, I have been changed to an early standby and another early starting over 3 hours before my original early.
If you are having difficulty following then you are with me!! So I asked why? I'm running short of hours (that will be the company contractual 90hrs/28 day limit). It comes as no surprise to me that I am running up to my limit, as we always do in the summer season.
So why should it take until the day before for my company to note it? We are being rostered legal minimum days off because the company don't want to have to buy extra days back but if they do try, the roster falls apart because we are all up to our limits. Personally, I don't find the hours limits too fatiguing but the time and stress of trying to organise family life and other essential domestic appointments is not only wearing me down, it is becoming impossible. I can only plan on my days off; not even the night before a day off is possible.
The problem seems to stem from a lack of resources but it seems that also the roster is open to changes from too many departments, some of whom either do not know the limits or choose to ignore them. When I mention that I'm not entirely happy with all this disruption I have been told that as I get paid more than an ops assistant then I should expect more disruption than an ops assistant. I was too polite to ask them how much their training cost or when they last did a base check, line check or IRT.
CHIRP Comment: The argument that is often presented in defence of rostering practices such as those described above is that they are legal and thus are, by definition, not fatiguing.
CAP 371 - The Avoidance of Fatigue in Aircrews, on which UK operators’ Approved FTL schemes are based, are precisely as the title implies - guidelines. As such CAP 371 places general responsibilities on an operator in addition to the specific limitations contained in the CAP, such as on (Section A) Page 2 Para. 2.3 a) which states:
"The allocation of work patterns which avoid such undesirable practices as alternating day/night duties, the positioning of crew so that a serious disruption of established sleep/work patterns occur, or scheduling rest periods of between 18 and 30 hours especially after long flights crossing many time zones".
It is difficult to understand how the frequent rostering of rest periods between 18 and 30 hours and the roster instability described in confidential reports complies with the current wording of CAP371. Moreover and perhaps of more significance, is that on the basis of reports received through this Programme, most UK AOC Holders, including those who operate a similar mix of routes, appear to be able to operate more closely in compliance with their overall responsibilities, as set out in CAP 371.
This is a matter that CAA (SRG) might wish to consider.
The answer is pathetic, useless and not likely to change anything!
Failing to report for a late changed flight is the least of our pilots problems; total exhaustion from these changes will be the eventual killer.
As one contributor so rightly said " Nothing will change until enough people have died" it couldn't really be called an acccident either, could it?
I don't think CHIRP can even imagine the implications and realities of multiple roster changes and those pilots lucky enough or skilled enough to not have them perhaps, also have no idea of just how bad it can get.
Come on CHIRP, rock that cosy boat............or roster changes may result, for you.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: At home
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Time for change?
CAA has fundamental flaw. Conflict between its safety regulatory role and its raison d'etre which is to promote and develop the interests of commercial aviation. There have been a number of issues over recent years where there has been a contradiction between a safety issue and the commercial interests of the airlines. The commercial interest has usually been protected. Safety comes second at present. The answer is to completely separate the safety regulatory function from the other functions and give the safety organisation superior authority to effect necessary change.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: zz plural 5
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THe CAA's prime reason D'etre seems to be to make it as difficult as possible to get and keep a licence.Yet an operator has only to cry wolf over commercial reasons and they bend over backwards to agree to it.I have seen companies flagrantly abuse ftl and yet the CAA let them continue in this vain until the end of the season and then only give the operator a mild reprimand for a few months.They are completely useless and a waste of money!They overcharge for everything and give back nothing to protect aviation professionals even when you give the evidence to them!!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: east midlands
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I totally agree with Cornwallis and phd the CAA is promoting Civil Air Transport and yet the regulation of aviation activities is a weakness in certain areas. Not to mention the fact that year on year they charge more for the fees and licences. I do not understand how little real scrutiny is attached to their annual pricing hike and their competency of regulatory activities generally. 
When CHIRPS first came out I thought the idea was great.
Now I have to ask myself what exactly has been achieved? We still have loads of knackered pilots, air trafficers, engineers, cabin staff etc etc and not a lot seems to have changed in the interim.
Can any of you out there who have actually had a major bitch with life which you reported to CHIRPS please tell us exactly how the system actually changed for you?
Now I don't want you to think that Peter Tait and his merry men are doing nothing because I know that they are. The trouble is that they do not have any TEETH.
CHIRPS is just another quango of which we have hundreds. What we need to do is to write or talk to our MPs and get them to give CHIRPS real powers to do something otherwise they will be forever be stuffed under the "Blair Bed".
Now I have to ask myself what exactly has been achieved? We still have loads of knackered pilots, air trafficers, engineers, cabin staff etc etc and not a lot seems to have changed in the interim.
Can any of you out there who have actually had a major bitch with life which you reported to CHIRPS please tell us exactly how the system actually changed for you?
Now I don't want you to think that Peter Tait and his merry men are doing nothing because I know that they are. The trouble is that they do not have any TEETH.
CHIRPS is just another quango of which we have hundreds. What we need to do is to write or talk to our MPs and get them to give CHIRPS real powers to do something otherwise they will be forever be stuffed under the "Blair Bed".
Last edited by JW411; 3rd Aug 2006 at 17:06.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: NY
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last minutes changes . . .
. . . this kind of rostering or lack of, has been going on in BRAL aka BACON since time began. Anyone who complaimed or refused to comply with a late change was either "teleported" to the IOM to stamp the carpet in front of Bully Boy Norman or very soon got his marching orders and P45. Nobody was allowed to have a "private" life, you belonged body and soul to BRAL and woe betide anyone who tried to buck the sytem. Believe me I tried and failed as many others did before and after me. Sad thing was that I personally reported their attitude of bullying, constant late roster changes often changes to changes, weeks at a time away from home base because they either refused to actually operate a base with crews but wanted to operate aircraft from that airport or because crews had left suddently (wonder why?) and could not be easily replaced. I reported this to CHIRP but sadly it fell on deaf ears either there or when it reached the CAA. Hutchings a little jumped up shxt of weasal who I believe is still involved in BACON, a nasty piece of work promoted well out of his intelligence level and ability range, was one of Norman's bully boys but never once did the CAA or those down at CHIRP appear to take any interest at all. I left, and am so so happy that I did or I would have propably had a nervous breakdown. However there are good people both at CHIRP and in the CAA but I just wish they had the balls to stand up to these badly managed airlines and enforce good rules and FTL's.
Sadly nothing much changes - different day. same shxt
Sadly nothing much changes - different day. same shxt
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As with my comments on the ATC Wake Vortex thread, are you filing an ASR when the roster 'finishes you off'? I know of 2 UK airlines where ASRs are now being filed due to roster disruption allegedly causing adverse physical effects.
Pilots always whinge - I do - but until paperwork is raised - MOR if you feel it necessary, you cannot expect the CAA to do anything.
As for CHIRP - as I understand it, it has no 'powers' to act, but merely to flag up and follow issues raised with it. From 'Dream Buster'
Does not the red suggest that the blue is wrong? (NB My emphasis)
If the CAA appear to be 'asleep', maybe they need to be woken up?
Pilots always whinge - I do - but until paperwork is raised - MOR if you feel it necessary, you cannot expect the CAA to do anything.
As for CHIRP - as I understand it, it has no 'powers' to act, but merely to flag up and follow issues raised with it. From 'Dream Buster'
Moreover and perhaps of more significance, is that on the basis of reports received through this Programme, most UK AOC Holders, including those who operate a similar mix of routes, appear to be able to operate more closely in compliance with their overall responsibilities, as set out in CAP 371.
This is a matter that CAA (SRG) might wish to consider.
The answer is pathetic, useless and not likely to change anything!
This is a matter that CAA (SRG) might wish to consider.
The answer is pathetic, useless and not likely to change anything!
If the CAA appear to be 'asleep', maybe they need to be woken up?