More CAA bull***t!

[Nigel Ramsay]

Has anyone else had a "Compulsory request for Information" from Aunty?

I received a recorded delivery letter from them today asking, nee demanding, to see evidence of current insurance and threatening to remove the a/c from the register if they don't get it.

It's not that I don't have it, my insurers don't issue new policies every year, they just notify continuance in the form of a cover note. They don't inform the CAA either. Whilst I see the need for insurance I really object to my rapid descent into criminality!

There's no actual background to this, in fact the a/c is sitting regally at the back of the hangar with it's wings resting on trestles pending the replacement of the struts, and sadly hasn't flown this year.

I phoned to ask what the devil.... etc. and was told it was "just routine"!

Needless to say I've posted the required evidence straight away but I can't help feeling Big Brother's breath a little closer to my neck!

Anyone else feeling paranoid?

[Nick Allen]

Sounds like they are following up some relatively new legislation -- check this: http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid ... 70&gid=864
However, if you put your aircraft's details into G-INFO, and follow the "mandatory insurance link", you'll find a page that includes the sentence

It is the operators or air carriers responsibility to ensure that the aircraft is insured in accordance with the requirements of EC Regulation 785/2004 at all times.

Which, ignoring the tragic lack of apostrophes, doesn't explain why the CAA feels it is its responsibility to undertake enforcement...

[Nigel Ramsay]

"why the CAA feels it is its responsibility to undertake enforcement..."

Not the first time that anyone has alluded to the CAA as becoming the EASA Police!

Appropriate timing considering the current political argy-bargy over erosion of civil liberties (which I have noticed for the last ten years....pc pc pc pc etc.)! Arghhhh! I'm surprised the CAA don't devolve control of a/c registration matters to the DVLA then we could apply for a SORN when we weren't flying!

[Rich Collins]

I think this might qualify as a SORN (Perhaps PUF - Plane Unable to Fly)

From FAQs

My aircraft is not currently flying, does it have to be insured?

No, but it must be insured to the minimum levels before any flight is undertaken. Additionally, if you are applying to register an aircraft that is not currently flying, such as a new homebuilt, you must give a declaration that the aircraft will not fly until you have first supplied evidence of valid insurance to the Aircraft Registration Section. This declaration can be made on the CA1 registration application form.

[John Price]

CAA = 1061 employees with nothing better to do !

John.

[John Dean]

It's all in The Civil Aviation (Insurance) Regulations 2005 if you want a little light reading:-

Provision of information
6. - (1) This regulation applies if -

(a) the CAA, in exercise of its functions under regulation 3(1), requires an air carrier or aircraft operator to provide it with an insurance certificate or any other evidence of insurance relating to an aircraft operated by the air carrier or aircraft operator for aviation-specific liability in respect of passengers, baggage, cargo or third parties; and

(b) the air carrier or aircraft operator fails to provide within a reasonable period -

(i) the evidence referred to in sub-paragraph (a); or

(ii) a declaration in writing that he will not permit that aircraft to be flown other than as a State aircraft unless he has first provided the CAA with such a certificate or such other evidence of insurance.

(2) In a case referred to in paragraph (1) -

(a) where the aircraft is registered under article 4 of the Order and is not an aircraft to which article 4(17) of the Order applies, the CAA shall cancel the registration of the aircraft; and

(b) where the aircraft is not so registered or is an aircraft to which article 4(17) of the Order applies the air carrier or aircraft operator shall be guilty of an offence.

Don't make it right though, does it?

[Nigel Ramsay]

I have no problem with the requirement or even their insistance on seeing evidence really, it's the heavy handed, recorded delivery, threat weighted initiative, all to see evidence of insuramce.

I phoned and told 'em it was not flyable at the moment, and that I was complying with an AD. Also as the permit renewal is due on June 21st, that too was going to be done at the same time before flying would commence. As work is such a thief of time, in practical terms, it's more than likely that I'll actually be airborne under the renewed cover.....etc.!

In fact, I think they have a computer churning out this stuff because when I phone them they infer that it's not actually that serious, "just routine". Anyway their bloody evidence is in the post, at least they sent a franked envelope!

[Nick Allen]

What does 6(1)(b)(ii) mean?

(ii) a declaration in writing that he will not permit that aircraft to be flown other than as a State aircraft unless he has first provided the CAA with such a certificate or such other evidence of insurance.

Specifically, what does "other than as a State aircraft" mean?

[Brian Hope]

I had a similar letter a couple of years ago. I did nothing and got a second one. Did nothing and got a third that said if I didn't respond then my aircraft would be removed from the register and it would therefore be illegal to fly it. Needless to say my aircraft was insured.
I told Graham Newby about this heavy handed approach, which was never intended to be taken when the CAA discussed mandatory insurance with PFA and others. Graham in turn raised the issue with CAA who said they were within their rights and would be asking every aircraft owner for proof of insurance over a three year cycle.
I think threatening to remove a perfectly legal aircraft from the register just because the owner hasn't sent them proof of insurance is a totally unreasonable attitude. What if the owner was out of the country for an extended period, he could come back and find his aircraft de-registered!
Hi I'm from the CAA, I'm here to help you.

[John Dean]

Specifically, what does "other than as a State aircraft" mean?

My interpretation would be that if, for example, the RAF commandeered it and flew it, you would be absolved from complying with that clause.

[Ian Melville]

Specifically, what does "other than as a State aircraft" mean?

My interpretation would be that if, for example, the RAF commandeered it and flew it, you would be absolved from complying with that clause.

And I would whant to see the RAF's insurance before they attach sidewinders on my homebuilt

[Bob F]

Nigel,

That post has ruffled a few feathers. I reckon if you get "Your Gordon" on the case then his reply to the CAA might just do the trick. If not it might make you feel a bit better!

Bob F

[Nigel Ramsay]

[gasax]

I've just re-registered an aircraft under re-build. Got two letters threatening dire things if I flyew hte aircraft without presenting proof to the CAA and getting permission beforehand.

The letter actually says it is not 'ggod enough' to insure the aircraft - thhe offence is not proving it to the CAA.

Worthless bunch of jobsworths... But its OK they have a regulatory imact study which shows what a great idea it is.

[Martin Ryan]

I did get a nice letter back not just confirming my Insurance but also that I had sufficient cover in terms of some non recognisable measure. Must admit could not see any value to the request when they could just check ramp like the FAA