CAA Consultation

Come on in for general chat and POLITE banter between LAA members

Moderators: John Dean, Moderator

Billbell
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 10:48 am

Re: CAA Consultation

Post by Billbell » Tue May 25, 2021 9:04 pm

Sadly there seems to be a pattern of high-handed regulation and an avoidance of scrutiny, I don't think the CAA are listening but maybe the threat of political chill winds would have some effect, and maybe that's wishful thinking.
I encourage everyone to reply in whatever manner because at least they then can't say no-one responded.
My response:
Once again we find a CAA consultation in name only where the process, scope and timescale are specifically ordered to avoid any meaningful consultation with those affected.

This is again a dishonest attempt to avoid scrutiny and in this case based on a false premise and a wholly unjustified and unsubstantiated case for change apparently motivated by a desire to achieve some kind of bureaucratic uniformity and ignores, or is wilfully ignorant of, the excellent existing work of the LAA and BMAA.

This proposal, if allowed to go ahead, will further alienate the GA community and reduce safety as unnecessary and irrelevant bureaucracy increase costs and administration required which, against a typical limited budget GA operation, will negatively impinge on overall maintenance and lead to avoidance of formal maintenance, much in the same way the CAAs approach to airspace infringements has lead to a rash of 'faulty ' transponders as pilots switch them off as normal practice.

This consultation should be withdrawn as unfit for purpose and the CAA should avoid meddling in areas where it again demonstrates a striking lack of basic competence or experience in these areas let alone an understanding of the realities of GA operation.

If the CAA has time and (public) money to burn on such ill-judged schemes it is time parliament drastically cut down the size and budget of the operation so that it can concentrate on essential business. I shall lobby for this outcome at the next opportunity.


Yours sincerely,
William Bell
023401

User avatar
Steve Slater
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:57 pm

Re: CAA Consultation

Post by Steve Slater » Wed May 26, 2021 10:39 am

Below is a statement issued by the CAA last night, following a meeting with the LAA. We endorse the CAA position and look forward to working with them in a spirit of continuing collaboration. Please make sure you respond to the consultation, which closes tomorrow. For more, please see the News section of our website.

Steve

We appreciate the Light Aircraft Association (LAA) and other stakeholders have expressed concern on a current consultation on CAP553, specifically A8-26 and A3-7. The CAA and the LAA had a positive meeting on Monday where both parties acknowledged the importance of collaborative working. There is a mutual understanding that the CAA has the right as the UK independent safety regulator to conduct consultations as and when they are deemed necessary. Both organisations are committed to the continuation of the current consultation process and developing the best possible outcome based on the information obtained from this.

Once the consultation closes on 27 May 2021, the CAA will be taking a period of time to analyse the submissions. Once this activity has taken place the LAA will be invited, along with other key stakeholders, to discuss the findings and work together on the final documents.
Stephen Slater
034052

alioth
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:41 am

Re: CAA Consultation

Post by alioth » Wed May 26, 2021 2:25 pm

The CAA statement does sound like "We hear what you're saying, but we're going to plough on anyway". We'll have to see if the "discuss the findings and work together on the final documents" will result in a substantially favourable outcome.
Dylan Smith
039635

User avatar
John Dean
Moderator
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:00 am
Location: Kent

Re: CAA Consultation

Post by John Dean » Wed May 26, 2021 2:30 pm

I fail to see why there should be any consultation until the CAA can show why it should be necessary. It seems that it will require much unnecessary work on all sides if it is to fix a problem which doesn't exist.

User avatar
Alan Kilbride
Posts: 311
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 4:41 pm
Location: York

Re: CAA Consultation

Post by Alan Kilbride » Wed May 26, 2021 5:22 pm

Much unnecessary work..... Hmmmm. Another Squadron leader about to retire and is looking at the RAF retirement home for a job, therefore requiring the home's management to increase it's fees to accommodate?

I do hope this is taken as a bit of satire.
037174

Cloud Hound
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2014 9:11 pm

Re: CAA Consultation

Post by Cloud Hound » Thu May 27, 2021 9:10 am

Last day to comment. Here's wot I wrote-
Dear Sirs/Ma'ams,

I am a former employee of the CAA, independent consultant, aircraft owner/operator and LAA member for 48 years. My a/c is operated on a Permit to Fly administered on your behalf by the LAA.

I'm very concerned about this proposed set of changes. The LAA and its predecessors have had continuous responsibility for airworthiness oversight of a large fleet of diverse types for 75 years. I'm not aware of any evidence that within the bounds of target levels of safety the organisation hasn't done an excellent job on your behalf. Witnessing at first hand your treatment of a long-standing safety partner in the retendering of the GASCO contract makes me question your true motives behind this consultation.

Having studied the paper, I ask you to withdraw temporarily these proposals and only resubmit them after a collaborative working group has been convened and a proper consensus with both LAA and BMAA achieved.

In addition, much of A3-7 is inapplicable to recreational aviation when controlled by the sporting organisations and I want you to decouple A8-26 from A3-7, with only agreed and relevant clauses from A3-7 incorporated in A8-26.

With so much facing all parts of the CAA post Brexit and the massive task of adopting the 600kg microlight class I'm very surprised you have chosen to add to colleague's workload in this way.

As I was always advised whilst working in the Authority - "If it isn't broken, don't try to fix it".

Yours faithfully,
Paul Fraser-Bennison
Paul Bennison
005297

Post Reply