Parliament Calls for CAA Review
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Parliament calls for CAA review he Commons Transport Select Committee is Report submitted by AOPA which specifies argues is not profit but “return on capital” for Tasking for “a root and branch review” to areas in which CAA charges are wholly borrowings, for example, to build Aviation examine the continuing need for the CAA and disproportionate. House at Gatwick, and to cover its pension to find out whether its functions could better The committee also makes some odd liabilities) is greatly in excess of the 3.5 be carried out in other ways. gyrations in order to let the CAA of the hook. It percent the government seeks from other The Committee’s own review of the CAA has rejects AOPA’s claim that a Regulatory Impact similar regulators, and the committee concluded that while the aviation industry has Assessment was necessary before the CAA recommends it should be “looked at”. The changed beyond measure since the CAA was imposed new charges on general aviation and committee also recommends that the quango established in 1972, the CAA has changed handed the cash to the airlines, but says that “clearly demonstrates that it is avoiding the little. It says that if a new aviation regulator RIAs should be carried out in such problems associated with this form of funding, were set up today, it is unlikely that it would circumstances in future. namely failing to keep costs to a minimum, be the shape of the CAA. The Committee finds a bogey-man in the gold-plating, and failing to withdraw from It says the government has been negligent shape of EASA, and is uncompromising in its unnecessary regulatory areas.” in failing to undertake strategic reviews of the condemnation of the Agency as a “chaotic” The question now is whether anything role, remit and objectives of the CAA, pointing body which “is not able to fulfil its declared substantial will change. It’s possible that with out that no critical review of the CAA had ever purpose.” It has swallowed the CAA’s line that a little tweaking of its attitude, the CAA can taken place, contrary to the Authority’s it is the world’s best regulator, and instead of carry on regardless. Things that need to be Sponsorship Statement. calling for improved safety regulation simply “looked at” will be “looked It also laments the lack of follow-up on the seeks that everybody else in Europe settle for at” and probably found to quango’s Regulatory Impact Assessments, the UK’s safety levels. As AOPA has often be adequate; the most none of which have ever been tquality-tested, stated, more regulation does not equal more promising avenue for AOPA and calls on the National Audit Office to review safety, and standards could be improved by improvement will come a sample of RIAs to see how close they come reducing regulatory cost to improve pilot from the involvement of the to reality. currency. While quoting in its final report National Audit Office in While the report contains some heartening Martin Robinson’s submission that “the best studying the CAA’s proposals for general aviation, the CAA can be safety device on any aircraft is a well-trained conformity with its Working for broadly satisfied with the outcome. The Select pilot,” it makes no recommendations that Sponsorship Statement and Committee concludes that it does a good job would foster the idea. the opacity of its finances, and generally gives good value for money. It In its report the Committee refers to aviation and from the possible YOU adds that no examples were provided of the regulation as “an industry”. Perhaps it is. It is establishment of an CAA charging too much for its services. It certainly very profitable – the six percent profit Ombudsman for aviation to seems to have completely ignored the Helios the CAA is required to make (which the CAA whom CAA decisions could be appealed. I aviation and urged the Government and the The CAA under the microscope CAA to work with GA in addressing this issue. The report also spoke about the lack of Government involvement with the CAA in Martin Robinson explains the background to a review that allowed respect of keeping up with the changes going on in civil aviation. Hence the GA to have its say on the CAA recommendation for a root and branch review. On the European Aviation Safety Agency he redoubtable Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody with the changes being made at European level, (EASA) the recommendation was to support TMP chaired a team of ten MPs who were specifically EASA. The Committee echo’s CAA European harmonisation but only if it tasked by the House of Commons to examine chairman Sir Roy McNulty’s position in respect “genuinely” assists all EU countries in the administration, expenditure and policy of of the Agency in saying that it must be properly matching the highest safety standards. The the Department for Transport and its funded and resourced before its remit is Committee voiced their concern about the associated public bodies – including the CAA. extended. Funnily enough this is a common “chaotic” state of EASA and recommended that In 1972 the CAA was set up as an theme across Europe – almost all member the UK “cannot and must not transfer any independent regulator responsible for safety, states say they want EASA to succeed. The further powers from the CAA to EASA until the airspace, economic regulation and consumer irony here is that it is up to the member states Government is assured that the serious protection. The Committee took evidence from to make sure EASA succeeds by adopting robust problems of governance, management and 64 organisations and individuals, both written political positions on the expansion of EASA. resources at EASA have been resolved”. The and oral. Since 1972 the civil aviation sector The problem for European citizens is that minister has given such an assurance! The has grown from 0.7 million CAT movements in most things coming out of Brussels (or strange thing here is the UK was and still is 1972 to 2.3 million in 2005, with passenger Cologne) incur more bureaucracy and expense. supportive of EASA, yet it seems we have levels increasing from 57 million to 228 We all seem to end up paying more for doing failed to influence Europe sufficiently on the million. Interestingly, the report points out that the same thing with no real important issues of although civil aviation has “undergone measured improvements. the concerns are governance and resource. significant change” since the creation of the The finding is that the UK that harmonisation Unfortunately, it will be CAA, few adjustments have been made to the has one of the highest aviation that bears the brunt framework of the CAA. Page 4 of the full report safety levels, and the will lead to a of this lack of political says that: “the Government has been negligent concerns are that lowering of safety leadership. in its failure to undertake strategic reviews of harmonisation will lead to standards for some The Committee noted the the role, remit, and objectives of the CAA as a lowering of safety serious issue about CAA required by the sponsorship statement. We standards for some. Of the 42 staff morale and uncertainties over the transfer recommend that the Department for Transport recommendations, two were specifically aimed of responsibilities ultimately resulting in a loss carry out a root and branch review to examine at GA. In welcoming the two CAA reviews the of experienced staff. The recommendation is the continuing need for the CAA and the extent Committee acknowledges the concerns of the for CAA and DfT to draw up a detailed to which its functions could be more effectively GA community in respect of the bias towards assessment about the transition and to undertaken in other ways.” the CAT sector, and over-regulation. The communicate it to their staff. I can recall a In mentioning the need for the CAA to Committee supported the recommendations former senior CAA person saying: “We must examine itself, particularly with regard to how it set out in the Strategic and Regulatory reviews. keep the JAA going because it will need to pick communicates with the GA community, the The Committee noted with concern the up the pieces when EASA fails,” and he was Committee recognise the difficulties associated potential for future skilled labour shortages in convinced it would fail. Well, we all know it General Aviation December 2006 5 will not be allowed to fail, but it is equally impact of the changes and take action when unrealistic to expect EASA to be where the UK necessary to ensure that charges are fair and CAA is in less than five years when CAA has equitable and that operators in the GA sector been in business for nearly 35 years. The are not unduly affected.” major problem with EASA is that no-one from Overall, the Committee believes that the the Commission or the member states drew up “CAA on the whole offers a good service”. a realistic transition plan as I believe Europe Rather surprising perhaps for some but it is set thought that EASA was just another agency. against a backdrop of change and lack of The Committee made suggestions Government direction in respect of its own about the performance of the CAA evolution. From a personal point of view I think AOPA which the Authority may feel the the Committee did a good job in reviewing the Government need to rebuff – for example, work of the CAA – some may think it went too recommendation for an independent far, others not far enough.