Use this forum to flag up examples of red tape and gold plate
User avatar
By Irv Lee
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
[usermention=14413]@TLRippon[/usermention] Doesn't matter. One caa board member will get tired fairly quickly if enough do it.
As long as everyone keeps complaining about nonsense (eg years of pages of logbooks with 1000s of hours) just to prove 100 hours of flying, etc etc) on social media or to the CAA coalface, then you are doing exactly what they want you to do.
townleyc liked this
Now I am getting grumpy. I quote...

>Thank you for your recent application for the renewal of an MEP rating.
>Your application has now been assessed and has found to fall short of the following:
> We require a certified copy of your EASA licence to be uploaded as the only licence you have provided is your UK
>National licence.

So I have a UK national CPL, I want an MEP rating adding. They insist on issuing an FCL licence when they do so (fine, no problem with that, and I've already paid for a new separate non-FCL licence to be issued ), but have decided after two reviews, to then demand my Irish licence, which contains no information not on my national CPL, and was never listed as a required document when I originally applied over a month ago.

I may formally complain to them later, but it'll of course be easier to get my Chartered Accountant neighbour to certify it for me tomorrow, which I'll do.

Best country in the world for General Aviation...

100poundburger liked this
User avatar
By rikur_
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
Do they work to an SLA?
I spent a lot of last year battling the FCA who were just as pedantic. The common belief in fintech is that the FCA officers are encouraged to find the smallest technicality to reject the application on to meet SLA targets: i.e. 'all correctly submitted applications were processed within x working days', yes, only because any that went over x days you found a technicality to reject them on.
T6Harvard liked this
User avatar
By T6Harvard
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
Genghis the Engineer wrote:Can't prove it, but that possibility had occurred to me very strongly.


Hmmm, make Freedom of Information requests for
1) their SLA,
2) their attainments,
3) the number of applications rejected either side of the crucial number of days for processing ??
rikur_ liked this
User avatar
By skydriller
What gets me about anything related to the CAA is when they issued the documents they want signed copies of...I mean, FFS... :roll:
User avatar
By Mz Hedy
skydriller wrote:What gets me about anything related to the CAA is when they issued the documents they want signed copies of...I mean ... :roll:

Do you not realise just how much is costs them to look in their quill-written index for the location of their copy of the original document, and then to go down to the basement archive (in a different building) to find it? Then they'd also have to put it back again (in the right place!) afterwards.
Much quicker and cheaper to insist the applicant provide a certified copy, or even better to risk the one-and-only original to Royal Mail's "Special Delivery". With luck that also means less applications in the first place.
User avatar
By defcribed
I wonder if the whole issue can be summarised as a single point that could be raised (constructively) as an outcome to aim for? There is a GA lead, isn't there, that it could be put to?

"In a future state the CAA licensing process should not ask applicants for evidence of, or copies of, documentation that it has itself issued, or that as a result of an applicant's licensing history it already has a record of."
Aerials liked this