Did you know that registration to Fighter Control is completely free and brings you lots of added features? Find out more....

CAA

A forum for discussing all things related to MILITARY AVIATION including Military Aviation news. No off-topic discussions here please.

CAA

Postby Alfie » Sat Aug 12, 2017 3:44 pm

After posting about the Old Sarum Airshow/Bristol Balloon Festival and the CAA regs as being no expert on the matter I decided to google the CAA this afternoon One I didn't realise they are a Public Corporation and are self funding and looking at their web site eleven out of sixteen board and staff listed including the chair have had no connection with the aviation industry before taking up their positions.
Alfie
 

Re: CAA

Postby Thunder » Sat Aug 12, 2017 4:19 pm

Bit like the higher management you'll find in charge of the police, fire and health services. No longer run as services but businesses.
http://www.splashonemodelling.com/
User avatar
Thunder
 

Re: CAA

Postby Supra » Sat Aug 12, 2017 4:26 pm

I don't think that's an unusual situation! It's highly likely the Board Members of M&S know nothing about obscenely iffy sweaters either??
These guys administer the Statutory Corporation, the work & increasingly irritating 'job-creation' is more likely ...The CAA Safety Regulation Group based in Aviation House, Gatwick Airport.
Details don't bother me too much, as nothing is gonna change the current rash of rules & guidance to prevent any forseen possibility, although it's always going to be the unimaginable unforseen that will happen! :O
Supra
 

Re: CAA

Postby martmpf » Sat Aug 12, 2017 5:48 pm

Thunder wrote:Bit like the higher management you'll find in charge of the police, fire and health services. No longer run as services but businesses.

I suppose it's a bit like saying the person that runs British Airways is because he/she is the best pilot. Or I.C.I (or whatever it is called now) because there good at chemistry. But in some occupations, the opposite happens; the best teachers tend to be promoted to heads, so removing them from what they are good at. Police tends to be similar. Appointing individuals beyond their level of competence/skill may not always be a good plan. But it happens a lot, look at the government. Defence one day, health the next!
martmpf
 
Location: Grimsby

Re: CAA

Postby andrewn » Sat Aug 12, 2017 6:21 pm

I'm not sure that comparing the CAA with John Lewis, or whatever, is necessarily a fair comparison. Aviation, and aviation safety especially, is a pretty specialist subject matter and I would expect that a majority of those in positions of authority DO have more than a cursory knowledge of "flying" and everything that entails. Not trying to take us OT, but it is worth remembering that both the Carfest Gnat crash and Shoreham were utlimately, at their root, down to failures on behalf of the regulator (the CAA)....
User avatar
andrewn
 
Location: Cheshire

Re: CAA

Postby Thunder » Sat Aug 12, 2017 7:44 pm

martmpf wrote:
Thunder wrote:Bit like the higher management you'll find in charge of the police, fire and health services. No longer run as services but businesses.

I suppose it's a bit like saying the person that runs British Airways is because he/she is the best pilot. Or I.C.I (or whatever it is called now) because there good at chemistry.


Not at all, British Airways and ICI are both businesses, their main objective is to make money nothing else. The Police, Fire and NHS are there or should be there to provide a non profit public service, not to make money.


martmpf wrote:But in some occupations, the opposite happens; the best teachers tend to be promoted to heads, so removing them from what they are good at.


Yes, good teachers sometimes become head teachers and a good head teacher can and often does produce more good teachers. However Directors of Education, those people that work for the local authority and are in overall charge of schools, education system have no teaching qualifications or experience.

Then the Government/population wonder why our public services are a mess, because they're being run by people that don't understand what it is that they're meant to be running.
http://www.splashonemodelling.com/
User avatar
Thunder
 

Re: CAA

Postby jem60 » Sat Aug 12, 2017 8:39 pm

Andrew N. I'm not quite sure why a Hunter pilot not achieving gate height and and speed at the top of a loop, and a Gnat pilot pulling the control column back when inverted in a roll could be a root failure of the CAA. Elaborate perhaps? :S
jem60
 
Location: Chedburgh, Suffolk

Re: CAA

Postby Alfie » Sat Aug 12, 2017 8:54 pm

So the bottom line really is the CAA is another Quango an unelected body with power over our lives...
Alfie
 

Re: CAA

Postby bizfreeq » Sat Aug 12, 2017 9:20 pm

They can't be as you have already described them as self funding, a Quango by definition is at least partly funded and/or supported by the government. So they are either self sufficient or a government supported quango, they can't be both.
Cheers
Mark



If our airforces are never used, they have achieved their finest goal.
— General Nathan F. Twining
User avatar
bizfreeq
 
Location: Bournemouth UK

Re: CAA

Postby Nighthawke » Sat Aug 12, 2017 9:28 pm

The CAA, like other regulators, are not directly funded by taxpayers/Government. They are a statutory corporation established by an Act of Parliament. Their funding comes from the charges they apply to those they regulate.
User avatar
Nighthawke
 

Re: CAA

Postby Snoop 95 » Sat Aug 12, 2017 9:29 pm

Talking of Organisations that on the face of it don't have people in charge who have a background in the subject, I am surprised that nobody has so far mentioned the MOD. Many times have members of this Forum criticised decisions made by them with apparently little logic, but when I had connections with the MOD many of those working there were in fact current members of the Forces. Whether they find the decision process completely frustrating and against their personal judgement I don't know, but I suspect that politicians play the major role.
Snoop 95
 

Re: CAA

Postby bizfreeq » Sat Aug 12, 2017 9:52 pm

Nighthawke wrote:The CAA, like other regulators, are not directly funded by taxpayers/Government. They are a statutory corporation established by an Act of Parliament. Their funding comes from the charges they apply to those they regulate.


My point exactly, but the O.P seems to think it's both
Cheers
Mark



If our airforces are never used, they have achieved their finest goal.
— General Nathan F. Twining
User avatar
bizfreeq
 
Location: Bournemouth UK

Re: CAA

Postby andrewn » Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:07 pm

jem60 wrote:Andrew N. I'm not quite sure why a Hunter pilot not achieving gate height and and speed at the top of a loop, and a Gnat pilot pulling the control column back when inverted in a roll could be a root failure of the CAA. Elaborate perhaps? :S


Yes, both pilots seemingly made errors, but errors are easy to make when you've only flown the jet maybe a couple of hours in the past MONTH, a handful of hours in TOTAL, are more used to flying a commercial jet (or a desk), your flying a high energy swept wing jet, involving aeros, possibly in formation, possibly flying an unbriefed "sequence" for which you may have PDA'd in a DIFFERENT jet. You've possibly been involved in "near misses" in the past. Oh, and your display line is either ambiguous (Oulton Park) or takes you over a busy main road (Shoreham). Need I go on??

All of which was deemed perfectly acceptable upto the Shoreham incident.

EDIT: I watched the Gnat go in by the way, it was horrible to see and such a waste of a talented guy - regardless of who or what was at fault on the day or preceeding :(
User avatar
andrewn
 
Location: Cheshire

Re: CAA

Postby jem60 » Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:33 pm

Andrew, I agree with some of your points, but Mr. Hill was very well able to read an ASI and an altimeter. had done 15 displays in the Hunter, and. like many other much more experienced display pilots, allegedly made some very serious errors, none of which would have been cured by CAA intervention, unless they are in the cockpit at the time!. I myself have witnessed 11 crashes over the years, some of them by involving very experienced pilots, and no amount of DA exams, oversight, etc., is going to cure the occasional human error. G B-W at Biggin Hill, ex Red Arrows no less, 'H' P. at DuxfordChief pilot of TFC to name but two. Mr. Hill, with the Hunter, was in fact no novice at formation flying at all. Why he did what he did what he did is unfathomable. 150 feet to start his manoeuvre, knowing that it should have been 500, is not going to be cured by any regulation. Mr. Wyman made a fundamental error, why, know-one knows, but to err is human, and neither was the CAA's fault in my opinion. All aeroplanes fly the same. Pull the stick back, the houses get smaller. Push it forward, they get bigger.etc., I know, be there, done it in my own small way, and made one or two errors along the way. May be having not too much experience is a good thing, because it should, in reality, make you safer. Familiarity sometimes breeds contempt, and it is usually experienced guys who break the rules. When I was in Sky diving, it was always the experienced guys who hurt themselves. Novices were more careful. Regards, John.
jem60
 
Location: Chedburgh, Suffolk

Re: CAA

Postby martmpf » Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:24 pm

People on the forum need to be careful as to what they say. Some issues on this topic are I understand subject to current legal action.
martmpf
 
Location: Grimsby

Re: CAA

Postby jem60 » Sun Aug 13, 2017 5:43 am

Notice the use of the word 'allegedly', for that very reason.
jem60
 
Location: Chedburgh, Suffolk

Re: CAA

Postby reheat module » Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:38 am

Snoop 95 wrote:Talking of Organisations that on the face of it don't have people in charge who have a background in the subject, I am surprised that nobody has so far mentioned the MOD. Many times have members of this Forum criticised decisions made by them with apparently little logic, but when I had connections with the MOD many of those working there were in fact current members of the Forces. Whether they find the decision process completely frustrating and against their personal judgement I don't know, but I suspect that politicians play the major role.

'A' major role in areas:
...Nail...Head...Hit...
I do miss my time in the RAF, but every month it reminds me how great it was with a lovely big cheque
...Bigamy is having one wife too many, - Monogomy is much the same...(Oscar Wilde)
User avatar
reheat module
 
Location: Depends where I fancy

Re: CAA

Postby page_verify » Sun Aug 13, 2017 10:21 am

With my business degree hat on, I'd suggest that the NHS and CAA are businesses but those which are designed to neither create a profit nor operate at a loss. Likewise, charities are non-profit making businesses hence they can have some both very experienced and very expensive helping to lead them.

I'm not sure what experience a typical flight safety expert has in running or governing a £m business, so it's probably a good thing that the CAA's top table is people from the commercial world.
page_verify
 

Re: CAA

Postby cj9ru » Sun Aug 13, 2017 11:13 am

martmpf wrote:
Thunder wrote:Bit like the higher management you'll find in charge of the police, fire and health services. No longer run as services but businesses.

I suppose it's a bit like saying the person that runs British Airways is because he/she is the best pilot. Or I.C.I (or whatever it is called now) because there good at chemistry. But in some occupations, the opposite happens; the best teachers tend to be promoted to heads, so removing them from what they are good at. Police tends to be similar. Appointing individuals beyond their level of competence/skill may not always be a good plan. But it happens a lot, look at the government. Defence one day, health the next!



In my 24 years of experience as a teacher....beg to differ...people are usually promoted because they are good at interviews, spout the 'in jargon' and can put together a good Powerpoint presentation. Oh yes, being friendly with the right people. Teaching ability and a true understanding of difficulty of the job seldom come into it. I am afraid like most walks of life the good managers/heads are outnumbered by the clueless...

Peter Principle (look it up) ...'Is the tendancy in most organisations to promote people to their level of incompetance! :'(

I am afraid it is alive and kicking ...
cj9ru
 


Return to The Fighter Control Mess

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Adam Palmer, clive59, jakdaw, Merlin37, robyoung and 9 guests