Polite discussion about EASA, the CAA, the ANO and the delights of aviation regulation.
Forum rules: Please keep it polite!
#1632066
I must have done 20 plus of these however the latest application the CAA have said the candidate needs to submit date and exam number of the TK exams that were passed as part of the LAPL/NPPL course.

Fortunately I do have a copy of these results but in the past I have simply written "passed holds LAPL"

I think the CAA are in the wrong here. Has anyone else got experience of this?
#1632069
Sounds like the Caa are reverting true to form .
bunch of recidivists, back to the gold-plating to ensure they have a job for life, except the web that the empire has woven ,is impenetrable even to their new employees who have been initiated into the dark art of baffling with bullcrap! :twisted:
#1632073
@Bathman Have you submitted one that worked since that unannounced change to have colour photo copies? (The one that became announced after various complaints)? Reason: that change sounded to me like the sort of thing an EASA audit report would impose... so does this. As i asked back then, is there a timetable for countries' audits? I bet the uk had one just before that colour id was imposed, and this could be linked too.
#1632152
cockney steve wrote:Sounds like the Caa are reverting true to form .
.., back to the gold-plating to ensure they have a job for life, ..:


Er, as ever, any evidence that anyone in CAA (or elsewhere in UK public sector, for that matter) has ever been or is now "gold-plating to ensure they have a job for life" ? Repetition of a calumny does not make it true.

[ Or a deliberate troll ?]
PaulB liked this
#1632251
I suppose it's what they term "confirmation- bias" I still look at proon,Microlight Forum and Ops normal....as well as spending too much time on "flyer" :oops:

One thing stands out....the universal condemnation of the CAA's policy of closing both eyes when it suits their purpose, and jumping on stupid , minor mistakes/omissions/ mis-interpretations of vague, arcane "rules"

I cannot help picking-up on this dissatisfaction with a very expensive, very inefficient administrator. How long ago did they know that there would be an 8.33 rebate/grant/subsidy to distribute. I know of one case, 8 months, no money!.....because the burden apparently falls on one person only, to tick-box the paperwork .....
Also see @ Balliol's post, above.....hardly engenders a feeling of warm,cosy well-being, does it? :eye:
#1632260
Don’t worry Steve, Kanga “as ever” is always asking for “evidence” of gold plating/job creation/ job maintenance etc. particularly for work in the public sector. (What possible kind of evidence could be produced for this? especially when cloaked in a veil of regulatory justification at the foot of the health and safety altar)
Seems we are no longer entitled to form opinions, be they right or wrong, based simply on cynical observation and a lifetime of experience. :wink:
#1632284
flybymike wrote:Don’t worry Steve, Kanga “as ever” is always asking for “evidence” of gold plating/job creation/ job maintenance etc. particularly for work in the public sector. (What possible kind of evidence could be produced for this? especially when cloaked in a veil of regulatory justification at the foot of the health and safety altar)
Seems we are no longer entitled to form opinions, be they right or wrong, based simply on cynical observation and a lifetime of experience. :wink:


er, no. I was asking for evidence that the main/sole purpose/motivation of 'goldplating' was the creation/maintenance of UK public service jobs, which (it was further alleged) were 'jobs for life' (which, of course, they are not). Happy, as ever, to read any such evidence.

I have lived and worked in countries (including elsewhere in Europe) where such evidence has been clear (and by unashamed officials), but never in UK. Rather, the pattern in UK, at all echelons of Government, especially since early '80s, has been for legislators/Ministers to impose ever more duties on public servants while reducing their numbers through compulsory redundancies and outsourcing/privatisation. But there is nothing new about UK public servants having as policy the reduction of public jobs in their own fields: I knew well a former Colonial Service official (now dead) who joined as a Cadet in 1938. On their first day they were told "your job is to put yourself out of a job"; ie, the Colonial Service was preparing for the end of Empire at a time when British (and Colonial) schoolchildren were told that the sun would never set on it. By and large, they did a good job of that, with, as often little acknowledgement from the great British public or their Ministerial masters. But they never expected any.

Since UK FOIA, UK is just about the most transparent Government machine (again, at all echelons) of any in Europe with possible exception of Sweden. US is probably more transparent, Canada is comparable; their FOIA systems are not quite the same. UK is also the most diligent European applier of transparency in response to EIR requests, to which outsourced private suppliers of Government services may also be liable, as they are not to FOIA requests. EIRs can be a powerful weapon against obfusaction by such companies, at least until next March :roll: