Dear #Customer.FirstName#,

Username: #Customer.Username#

This week our guest editor is your President Dale Webb discussing the concept of going beyond regulation.
 
Swedavia; what is the next step?
 
The following is personal opinion; it does not represent the view of the Council or Board of Aviation New Zealand.
 
One of the few benefits of advancing years is that you don't have to read so much history, you lived through it.  For some that includes the aviation regulatory regimes in New Zealand over the last 50 years.  Civil aviation along with most other activities boomed in the period immediately following World War 2.  Technology, safety and pretty much everything else had improved hugely as a result of the war so appropriate new legislation was necessary.  Almost all in positions of authority then had war service so unsurprisingly the civil and military aviation cultures of the time were very similar.  The process was "do it by the book and we will come and inspect you as often as we need to; that will make sure you do it right".  It was accepted at the time but the world as always moved on; many things changed, particularly technology.  The major difference was the gas turbine engine, it made aircraft of all types so much more capable.  The turbine engine revolutionised air travel, the helicopter industry and much, much more.  Also with a post war generation the "do it as I tell you" based on legislation from a very different era was not nearly as well accepted.  So the government of the day set up a steering committee to investigate improvements and in April 1988 the Swedavia McGregor report, SMR was published.  It recommended major fundamental change leading to the Civil Aviation Act 1990, plus the current rules, advisory circulars and other legislation that flow from it.  This was major change and has served us well.  If you are an insomniac the entire 304 page report is on the CAA website but even the summary is seven pages.  The abstract though is manageable; less the first two sentences it reads :-
"........ In the public interest there is a division of responsibility between the State and the operator over matters of civil aviation safety. The principles for this division must be clearly defined to establish the State’s legislative framework and responsibilities for setting standards, licensing individuals, delegating authority and carrying out surveillance. This review considers the need for regulatory controls in civil aviation, identifies the appropriate level of regulation and determines the resources needed for a civil aviation safety authority in New Zealand. The review distinguishes between the minimum level of regulation to comply with international obligations (viz ICAO) and discretionary levels of regulations which may be desirable but are not obligatory. The costs and benefits of civil aviation regulations are identified. How best to administer civil aviation regulations in New Zealand is determined. The review concludes that a stand-alone State institution is the most appropriate for a civil aviation safety authority in New Zealand and that cost-benefit analysis should, whenever practicable, be a mandatory tool for rule making in discretionary areas."
 
The legislation resulting from the SMR introduced joint responsibility for safety, previously it been the states responsibility; it also introduced the concept of cost-benefit analysis.  Over 25 years ago it also acknowledged there was a legal minimum and an additional discretionary level of regulation. 
 
All pretty radical stuff at the time but again the world has not stood still; this time the changes are more social than technical.  Society has become markedly more risk averse and if anything more cost conscious.  The increased CAA charges introduced just over a year ago have triggered a major adverse reaction from the aviation sector.  The almost universal reaction has been "there is no benefit for massive additional cost, particularly the pilot medical charge".  Any cost-benefit analysis would show no increase in safety for the massive increase in cost.  From anecdotal evidence I am certain safety has been reduced as if possible pilots have either moved to the much simpler surveillance of a recreational licence; or have simply decided to fly without a valid medical.  There are modest signs that this major error by the CAA is being recognised but most of us will be long dead before it is forgiven and forgotten.
 
The bigger issue though is the cost of compliance and surveillance generally.  The SMR abstract above said "In the public interest there is a division of responsibility between the State and the operator over matters of civil aviation safety.  The principles for this division must be clearly defined to establish the State’s legislative framework and responsibilities for setting standards, licensing individuals, delegating authority and carrying out surveillance." It seems logical to me that the greater the states responsibility, the bigger the surveillance system they will need and automatically the greater the cost.  If the state paid for that there would be at least some acceptance but in the current financial climate when we, the industry pay for all of the surveillance and much of the policy making and other infrastructure of the CAA, the SMR principle of cost-benefit analysis has obviously been quietly abandoned.
 
I believe it is time to introduce self, rather than state regulation.
 
The Flight Safety Foundation gave another reason which supports this five years ago when in an effort to continue the improvement in safety they encouraged the world's airlines "to go beyond regulation".  They argued that simply doing the minimum to satisfy the regulator will not achieve the ultimate aim of zero fatal accidents.  I believe that means for reasons of both cost and safety effectiveness we need to make the move towards regulating ourselves.  This move would simply continue the progress of the last 50 years; from the state being responsible for safety, responsibility is now joint, the final option is operator responsibility in other words, self regulation.  It is already the case in many areas of recreational aviation and is done well.  It has also been very successfully done for licence assessment with ASL now Aspeq, doing that under CAA delegation for the last 20 years.  Aspeq owned by the aviation sector, not an SOE do it so well that they now are the licence assessment agent for many other countries including later this year the UK and other industries.  Outside aviation many professional groups are already self regulating; medicine, dentistry, law, accountancy, engineering and while I have not done the research probably a number of others.  The impact on our lives of those groups is probably just as great as is aviation.  It could be said that the medical world are responsible at some stage for the life of every one of us.  The Ministry of Health pays but does not legislate how they do it safely; the health professionals do that. 
 
Self regulation will not be a soft option, and for those that don't meet the standards it won't be cheap; but I believe it is the best option.  As they have in a number of other areas, the agricultural aviation sector has already taken the first step in this process.  The AIRCARE™ programme has been developed by ag operators for ag operators and establishes safety, environmental, occupational and other standards beyond, in some cases well beyond the regulatory minimums.  The same concept would be relatively simple to extend to the flight training sector and other non air transport ops.  Public acceptance for air transport would be a harder sell and would take longer.
 
We, the participants in the aviation industry would be responsible for developing, operating and improving the necessary safety systems.  A single generic system such as AIRCARE™ would be efficient but those that so wished and could afford it could and no doubt would develop their own processes.  That would prevent the rigidity, inefficiency and compulsion that goes with any monopoly as we have with our current regulation.  All systems would also need to meet the cost-benefit analysis test but the right to change or improve the system you use is yours to make, it would not be externally imposed.  We all have the right to enter or leave aviation or any other industry but if we choose to enter then we must accept the responsibilities that go with that.  One of those responsibilities would be the need to have a Safety Management System.  The responsibility now and even more in future to operate as safely as best practice allows.  Best practice will always be determined by those that actually do it, not by those that look on.
 
So; Swedavia; what is the next step?  I hope you are convinced that the answer is to continue the move from state to self regulation.  We have been in the half way house of joint responsibility for some years, it's time to continue the progress towards self regulation.  The benefits are compelling; greater safety at reduced financial cost.  To reap those benefits though the industry will have to mature and accept greater self responsibility.  Are we up for the challenge?  I hope so.
    
 Dale Webb
 
Dale Webb
President – Aviation New Zealand




 

Airways Future IFIS and New Mobile Apps - IFIS has had a facelift. The IFIS website has a different look and is easier to use, after changes made from early February 2014. Also, mobile apps with AIP and Chart data are now available. click here

Stakeholder function 26 February, Intercontinental Hotel Wellington click here – all welcome to acknowledge the rebranding of AIA to Aviation New Zealand and to hear the Chairman of the Board detail his vision for the years ahead....we have a great story to tell and this is about sharing it with our key stakeholders.
 
Air BP upgrade sponsorship of Aviation New Zealand to Gold status – for Air BP this means a lot more exposure within the Aviation space particularly as we move to launch our new and integrated Aviaiton New Zealand web page. In recent weeks hits on our web page have number over the 20,000 mark.  With improving economic conditions there’s a lot more global interest in New Zealand and what we’re doing.  Air BP – a globally recognised brand becomes our first partner on our new web page. In supporting us we ask our members to support them.  For more information on our membership sponsorships click here        
 
ATSB/TAIC co-join to investigate ZK accident – in almost a first for this country both Australasian safety investigators are joining together to investigate a ZK accident off shore.  We’ve actually thought for some time, due to the paucity of aviation accidents in both jurisdictions (a major positive) that to have the talent and expertise of both investigation agencies applied to a particular accident makes a lot of sense.  We wonder how long before we see one agency doing all investigations within Australasia?
 
Is there an appetite for a single or common aviation market within Australasia or even the Southwest Pacific? – We think this is a possibility.  The Australian aviation industry is undergoing major review and the seem to have a “pro active” aviation Minister who is actively interested in enhanced competitiveness and drawing that sector into an outward looking regulatory framework.  In New Zealand we have a pro growth less regulation better regulation government.  It would appear there could be some celestial alignment but we would be very interested in your thoughts on any changes.          
 
Expressions of Interest

• Executive Leadership programme – in our fourth year this programme is targeted at those executives who are leading the sector through major regulator change and challenges.  The programme is about understanding yourself as much as it is about the regulatory frameworks you will be operating in. If you are interested in finding out more click here

    

• Safety Investigator training - if you are interested in participating on this programme or providing an investigator training course click here. Presently we are discussing this with the CAA however they have indicated they may not have the resources to put such a programme together.  The programme is designed to ensure you meet the requirements of CAR12 Reporting and your internal SMS framework. Our thinking is to hold a one day programme in conjunction with conference  

 

• Incident Review Meeting – we will be holding these again in conjunction with conference and seek expressions of interest from those who are prepared to present click here  

 
Proposed new NZQA unit standards for Night Vision, winch, wire and hoist. These are being developed by ServiceIQ and will be the subject of discussion at next weeks NZHA meeting.  For further information on Wireman, Hoist, NVIS Crew, NVIS Ground, NVIS Pilot, Winch Pilot   

Switlik ETSO Constant-wear Life Vest click here

U-Zip-it Thermal Performance Layering System click here
 

---

AIRCARE™ ACCREDITATION process read here

AIRCARE™ accreditations Click here
 

  Get a GO FUEL fuel card and get *8 cents per litre discount off pump price on Petrol and Diesel
 
Just click here and complete a form or call direct and we’ll complete it for you
 
Get going - go to gofuel.co.nz

N3  Trade Card click here - if you are a member and you haven't got your card let us know. The savings more than offset membership costs.