This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jun/23/risk-of-air-accidents-in-uk-up-after-caa-cost-cutting-warns-leaked-report

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Risk of air accidents in UK up after CAA cost-cutting, warns leaked report Risk of air accidents up after CAA cost-cutting, leaked report warns
(about 3 hours later)
Cost-cutting and overstretched staff at the Civil Aviation Authority have increased the risk of air accidents in Britain, according to a leaked internal report drafted by the air safety regulator but never released. Cost-cutting and an overstretched workforce at the Civil Aviation Authority have increased the risk of air accidents in Britain, according to a leaked internal report drafted by the air safety regulator but never released.
Inspectors at the CAA, which oversees flight safety, warned bosses that they did not have the resources to do their job properly, the draft report shows. There were “significant weaknesses” in the CAA’s safety division, including monitoring flight training and licensing pilots, the report said. Inspectors at the CAA, which oversees flight safety, warned bosses that they did not have the resources to do their job properly, the draft report shows.
The provisional report, produced by the CAA’s head of strategy and safety assurance on the request of senior directors but never published, warned that the problems it identified were “those most likely to feature as contributory causal factors in aircraft accidents”. There were “significant weaknesses” in the CAA’s safety division, including the monitoring of flight training and the licensing of pilots, the report said.
A staff survey detailed within the report showed that fewer than 10% believed their colleagues had time to undertake important safety activities to an acceptable standard. Fewer than 20% agreed that all of the organisation’s important safety functions were adequately covered. And fewer than 20% of staff agreed that its activities were “sufficient to assure ourselves that we are protecting the safety of the public”. The provisional report – produced by the CAA’s head of strategy and safety assurance at the request of senior directors but never published – warned that the problems it identified were “those most likely to feature as contributory causal factors in aircraft accidents”.
Damning criticisms in the safety assurance review included: A staff survey detailed within the report showed that fewer than 10% of employees believed their colleagues had time to undertake important safety activities to an acceptable standard.
Fewer than 20% of staff agreed that all of the organisation’s important safety functions were adequately covered and that activities were “sufficient to assure ourselves that we are protecting the safety of the public”.
Damning findings in the safety assurance review included:
• A large number of licences issued to pilots contained errors.• A large number of licences issued to pilots contained errors.
• The CAA was failing to properly oversee flight training organisations.• The CAA was failing to properly oversee flight training organisations.
• “Significant staff reductions … have led in some cases to insufficient access to expertise”. • “Significant staff reductions … have led in some cases to insufficient access to expertise.”
• Important safety activities required by the European Air Safety Agency (the EU regulator) were “significantly behind schedule”. • Important safety activities required by the European Aviation Safety Agency (the EU regulator) were “significantly behind schedule”.
• The CAA’s “capability does not match the true demands”.• The CAA’s “capability does not match the true demands”.
The review and survey was proposed by the CAA’s safety action group and commissioned by safety director Mark Swan, amid a shakeup of the CAA. The group proposed the review “to ensure that the organisation continued to be fit for purpose to deliver effective safety oversight”. The review and survey was proposed by the CAA’s safety action group and commissioned by safety director Mark Swan, amid a shakeup of the CAA.
While the review rated the overall fitness for purpose of the safety division as “adequate”, it found that “in all areas reviewed, there is evidence that the resources available … are at minimum levels. There is a general lack of resilience.” It added: “The areas that appear to be currently suffering the most are those most critical to protect public safety.” The group proposed the review “to ensure that the organisation continued to be fit for purpose to deliver effective safety oversight”.
Questions had been raised about the CAA regime by accident investigators in the wake of the Shoreham airshow crash in August 2015 , in which 11 people were killed after a plane crashed while attempting a stunt. The official report by the Air Accident Investigation Branch revealed that the CAA had inspected just 2.8% of the airshows it approved in 2014, and did not require to see or approve risk assessments before permitting the Shoreham show to go ahead. While the review rated the overall fitness for purpose of the safety division as “adequate”, it found that “in all areas reviewed, there is evidence that the resources available … are at minimum levels. There is a general lack of resilience.”
Although the CAA was not directly affected by government cuts, it was pressured by ministers to embrace more “light-touch regulation”, especially with regards to general aviation, which includes airshows. Grant Shapps, at the time a minister without portfolio, had demanded the “minimum necessary burden” for private flying in a so-called red-tape challenge to the CAA in 2013. It added: “The areas that appear to be currently suffering the most are those most critical to protect public safety.”
The chief executive of the CAA, Andrew Haines, was appointed in 2009 with a brief to modernise the agency, and was incentivised to complete a transformation programme that saw the wage bill slashed. The regulator is funded by the airlines and operators it regulates, which have lobbied to lower the charges. The CAA pledged to freeze all its fees and charges, the source of its revenues, for three years in 2011 and by 2013 said it would be saving the equivalent of 120 full-time jobs. Questions had been raised about the CAA regime by accident investigators in the wake of the Shoreham airshow crash in August 2015, in which 11 people were killed after a plane crashed while attempting a stunt.
The official report by the Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) revealed that the CAA had inspected just 2.8% of the airshows it approved in 2014, and did not require to see or approve risk assessments before permitting the Shoreham show to go ahead.
Although the CAA was not directly affected by government cuts, it was pressured by ministers to embrace more “light-touch regulation”, especially with regards to general aviation, which includes airshows.
Grant Shapps, at the time a minister without portfolio, had demanded the “minimum necessary burden” for private flying in a so-called red-tape challenge to the CAA in 2013.
The chief executive of the CAA, Andrew Haines, was appointed in 2009 with a brief to modernise the agency, and was incentivised to complete a transformation programme that saw the wage bill slashed.
The regulator is funded by the airlines and operators it regulates, which have lobbied to lower the charges. The CAA pledged to freeze all its fees and charges, the source of its revenues, for three years in 2011 and by 2013 said it would be saving the equivalent of 120 full-time jobs.
Insiders claim that pressure to run the authority as a commercial enterprise has diminished the CAA’s capacity to monitor safety. A significant number of highly trained and experienced staff in the safety division have left the CAA in recent years.Insiders claim that pressure to run the authority as a commercial enterprise has diminished the CAA’s capacity to monitor safety. A significant number of highly trained and experienced staff in the safety division have left the CAA in recent years.
The union representing safety inspectors said a significant number of its members had left the CAA.
The union representing safety inspectors said a significant number of its members had left the CAA. Steve Jary, national secretary, aviation, at Prospect, said: “Put simply, they are no longer confident that they can do their job – keeping the public safe. But they can’t speak out: around 30 have left with confidentiality agreements in their exit packages.” Steve Jary, national secretary, aviation, at Prospect, said: “Put simply, they are no longer confident that they can do their job – keeping the public safe. But they can’t speak out: about 30 have left with confidentiality agreements in their exit packages.”
A spokesperson for the CAA said: “The UK has one of the best air safety records in the world, and the CAA is recognised as one of the world’s leading aviation regulators. We are subject to rigorous independent safety audits by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). Their audits show the CAA is consistently performing to a very high standard, in compliance with our regulatory duties and often provides best practice guidance for Europe and other parts of the world – helping to protect UK citizens wherever they are travelling. A spokesperson for the CAA said: “The UK has one of the best air safety records in the world, and the CAA is recognised as one of the world’s leading aviation regulators.
“In addition, we assess our own performance. The 2014 safety assurance review was commissioned to ensure our regulatory oversight was responding to both current and emerging safety risks. The results helped to inform changes in how we organise our work and how we communicate within the organisation. We have consistently protected frontline safety roles at a time when other parts of the public sector have had to undertake drastic cuts.” “We are subject to rigorous independent safety audits by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).
“Their audits show the CAA is consistently performing to a very high standard, in compliance with our regulatory duties, and often provides best practice guidance for Europe and other parts of the world – helping to protect UK citizens wherever they are travelling.
“In addition, we assess our own performance. The 2014 safety assurance review was commissioned to ensure our regulatory oversight was responding to both current and emerging safety risks. The results helped to inform changes in how we organise our work and how we communicate within the organisation.
“We have consistently protected frontline safety roles at a time when other parts of the public sector have had to undertake drastic cuts.”