CAA rides roughshod...

Pilot - - AIRMAIL -

Much has been writ­ten re­cently con­cern­ing the CAA and its high-handed treat­ment of GA in gen­eral and li­censed per­son­nel in par­tic­u­lar. Sadly this sce­nario will never im­prove, since the CAA is an au­to­cratic en­tity. They are the leg­is­la­tor, en­forcer and ad­ju­di­ca­tor in all avi­a­tion-re­lated mat­ters. Even its cus­tomer com­mit­ment de­tailed on its web­site is a sham; they don’t abide by it when it suits, it’s just words with­out sub­stance. This CAA is not the CAA of the 20th cen­tury, but a 21st cen­tury en­tity that can, and will, ride roughshod over laws and niceties to achieve an aim! If in doubt, think Farnboroug­h airs­pace grab or the ram­road­ing through of 8.33.

Data Eval­u­a­tions gath­ers in­for­ma­tion, from the press, court pro­ceed­ings and more im­por­tantly from in­di­vid­u­als. We have ver­i­fied in­for­ma­tion that a County Court Judge­ment was ob­tained against the CAA for con­sis­tently ig­nor­ing a re­quest for a re­fund. Did the CAA ig­nore the many re­quests be­cause it knew most pi­lots would be cir­cum­spect about tak­ing on such a to­tal­i­tar­ian or­gan­i­sa­tion?

Another in­ci­dent was that a CAA se­nior in­ves­ti­ga­tor ap­peared to have back­dated his sig­na­ture in or­der to make a doc­u­ment le­gal, and when a com­plaint was raised, on two oc­ca­sions, the CAA re­fused to en­gage or an­swer the letters. Much in­fer­ence can, and has been drawn from their si­lence on the is­sue. So much for their Stan­dards for Han­dling Cus­tomer Complaints, which is win­dow-dress­ing to ap­pear to be open and trans­par­ent.

These are just two ex­am­ples of gath­ered in­for­ma­tion. So re­mem­ber when next time you have a com­plaint or a beef against the CAA; you’ll get nowhere be­cause they pro­tect their own. Chic Govia by email

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.