[quote]Detailed work on the time and effort dedicated to the regulation of Flying Displays,
Display Authorisations for pilots and Low Flying Permissions for the year ending
March 2015, shows that we are continuing to significantly under recover our costs in
this area. The CAA is funded by charges levied on the industry and we need to
ensure that those charges reflect the amount of work that is actually carried out,
which has not been the case for the last few years.[/quote]
it would seem the CAA have been running at a loss (or this section anyway) and rather than admit their error and increased charges 5% year on year to recover their error going in with one great bog whackâŚ
given there is 100% more to pay will there be 100% more âsafetyâ??
iâm interested to find out if the changes they are bringing in would have avoided Shoreham happeningâŚbecause if it doesâŚwould that not imply Shoreham was an accident waiting to happen?
if the system was not robust enough to stop a working, flyable, serviceable aircraft flown by a type expert with many 100s of hours in near ideal conditions complete a routine he knew wellâŚthen how do we explain the last 40+ years of airshow safety??
Spare us another irrelevant and uninformed reply and provide a reference and link to the authority for change of funding policy for the UK Civil Aviation Authority.
Donât get all bent out of shape just because someone challenges your POV. if you had any understanding on how Government departments, non government department (QUANGOS) and Gov owned corps worked their finances you wouldnât be so precious. My three points you havenât addressed and they still stand. If you canât fathem out what they relate to it becomes a bit boring having to explain them.
Anyway I nether drive yellow cars or eat donuts for a living. Just wear plain suit with some unsocial working hours although Dress down Fridayâs is exciting.
[quote=âPlt_Off_Prune, post:27, topic:2149â]Anyway I nether drive yellow cars or eat donuts for a living. Just wear plain suit with some unsocial working hours although Dress down Fridayâs is exciting.
[/quote]
So youâre an out-of-work Highways Agency Traffic Womble who can only find work behind the bar of his local Working Menâs club?
The CAA was set up by Government instruction in the 1970s as a Government Owned Corporation (the government own it, but dont directly operate it or/have daily influence over it). Yes the funding model means that the yearly income is bourne from the services it operates, HOWEVER, rate of return regulations means that the government own that stock. It isnât owned by shareholders, itâs owned by HMG. The money used to set if off, was HMG money. The capital infreastucture traces back to HMG. Over the years the years there have been subsiduary companues attached to the CAA with the aim of providing further services, this all channels back into the CAA coffers, which ultimately belong to the Government. Itâs a clever business model which gives the impression of being totally distant, but if you look close enough it still has the aroma of an agency department (in this sase DfT).
Think of: Netwrok Rail, RBoS, Post Office Ltd (one for Gunner here according to my list) Highways England, who manage the UKâs largest capital asset (motorways and trunk roads).
Now, since the Government effectively own this let me ask you a question. Tell me how much defecit liability (that thing the papers talk about quite often and one the Chancellor doesnt like being brought up on Wednesdayâs at PMQs) is balanced against the assets and bankroll of the CAA?
I wil go on record and state that when I posted âcentral government fundingâ that was over simplified for the audience and therefore technically incorrect. What I should have said was central repayment of initial capital assets.
Itâs happening with all sorts of departments/bodies - itâs just that the CAA has a sexy ace up its sleeve that the public like (airshows).
which to me confuses how the two can be justifiedâŚie because of Shoreham we are increasing our costs to create safer showsâŚif the new wouldnât have stopped the oldâŚwhy bother?
simple, look at the quote i offered above, the CAA are running at a loss and need to recoup their income from somewhere. it is a money making not safety creating scheme
As a public sector organisation they need to justify their existence and airshows are an easy hit.
Having said public airshows have imo had their day, there are fewer military aircraft by type and generally, so unless you want to watch the same few aircraft in different paint jobs, do slow and fast pass and do some turns smashing, the only thing to draw the crowds are older aircraft but these have increasingly become more expensive to maintain and operate and while increasing the costs might not make shows safer, if the costs are passed onto flying exhibitors it may well deter them.
The alternative is to pass the costs onto customers which will make an already expensive day more so. You can buy tickets in advance but with the uncertaintaty that is the British weather it is a complete lottery and not something I would do. I got bitten by attending the Reading Festival many years ago when the weather was crap and only went as weâd bought tickets, but at least the bands played. Many aircraft (especially older) wonât be flown if the weather is bad.
although Dress down Fridayâs is exciting.
