Use this forum to flag up examples of red tape and gold plate
User avatar
By David Wood
#1395933
I’m filling in the SRG 1161 to apply for an IR. Page 1 is headed with the first item, which is my CAA reference number. It’s unique to me. I’ve had since my PPL was first issued. It hasn’t changed. Indeed the name suggests that it’s allocated as a reference number, presumably so that the CAA can readily set their hands upon my details. So I’m puzzled that in the block below I see that I next need to tell them, once again, what my name is, where I was born, when I was born, and what nationality I am. As if I’m likely to have changed my mind about these things. Why does each and every CAA form mindlessly demand this information, not to mention addresses and telephone numbers, when they’ve had it all before umpteen times? Do they keep no records? Have they not heard of filing systems?

Then we get to the page of supporting documentation that I have to submit with my application. First item, original logbooks, all of them. ALL of them! What, again? Why? Is there some sad gnome in Gatwick who is really going to wade through thirty-something years of my logbooks? With what conceivable purpose? After all, they were scrutinised when I obtained a CPL, then again for an FI rating and, I think, a third time for an FE authorisation. Am I likely to have suddenly sprouted a new log-book dating back to the 1980s, or the 90s? And what will they do if I have? Why on earth do they need to check all this yet again? Is there no means by which they could check this sort of historical documentation once and then record it as checked? It’s really quite extraordinary.

Further on, I find that I need to provide a certified copy of my Theory Exam results. A certified copy... Uh? These were CAA exams conducted by the CAA at a CAA exam centre. The CAA then marked them and gave me my results which I downloaded from the CAA website on CAA headed paper. But now apparently I have to provide the CAA with these same results, certifying them as correct as I do so! Who exactly is going to certify them, and what are they certifying? It’s bizarre.

What’s the matter with these people? Grrrr.
User avatar
By Keef
#1406274
About 30 years ago, I reduced a department in an industrial company from 112 to 30 staff, just by doing away with twaddle like that. The union wanted to stop me but couldn't come up with a good enough reason.

The CAA may be a harder nut to crack.
By Cufflinks
#1406282
David Wood wrote:
Then we get to the page of supporting documentation that I have to submit with my application. First item, original logbooks, all of them. ALL of them! What, again? Why? Is there some sad gnome in Gatwick who is really going to wade through thirty-something years of my logbooks? With what conceivable purpose? After all, they were scrutinised when I obtained a CPL, then again for an FI rating and, I think, a third time for an FE authorisation. Am I likely to have suddenly sprouted a new log-book dating back to the 1980s, or the 90s? And what will they do if I have? Why on earth do they need to check all this yet again? Is there no means by which they could check this sort of historical documentation once and then record it as checked? It’s really quite extraordinary.

Further on, I find that I need to provide a certified copy of my Theory Exam results. A certified copy... Uh? These were CAA exams conducted by the CAA at a CAA exam centre. The CAA then marked them and gave me my results which I downloaded from the CAA website on CAA headed paper. But now apparently I have to provide the CAA with these same results, certifying them as correct as I do so! Who exactly is going to certify them, and what are they certifying? It’s bizarre.

What’s the matter with these people? Grrrr.


The part of this that really gets me is that prior to taking the relevant LST, the ATO need to produce a course completion certificate which the CAA have audited them and approved them to do, so thereby confirming the pre requisites are in place.

Then there is the misfortune of paying £775 for a professional LST when an examiner (a representative of the CAA, no less) also checks your docs, only to pay the license issue fee to have them check everything for a third time.

Truly nutty organisation.
By cockney steve
#1406381
Truly nutty organisation.


No, just a typical , well-organised, self-perpetuating, self-serving sinecure for the incumbents.-
If they turned it into a cost-effective, fit for purpose, efficient organisation, half of them would lose their jobs tomorrow.

It's what happens in a monopoly, unaccountable situation, innit?
By Emerald Islander
#1406727
Its incredible that 50 years after the introduction on mainframe computer systems that we now have more paper and manual checks than ever. All the processing of licenses could be fully automated online and processed in minutes not weeks. Problem is that the CAA makes its money from inefficiency not efficiency.