FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1960
1960 - 0442.PDF
442 FLIGHT, 1 April 960 Air Safety must be ENFORCED AN AVIATION LAWYER'S OPINION THE author of this article, who cannot for professional reasons disclosehis name, welcomes the proposed new air safety legislation, but asks whether an air operator's certificate will be sufficient in itself withoutadequate enforcement by a Ministry air-safety police force. IF one result of the Minister's proposals for air safety is toensure greater Treasury support for the country's efforts inthis direction, then the ideas deserve the warm approval that they have obtained from both sides of the House. Otherwise theproposals must be denounced as unnecessary and inapt. Unless the ideas result in the stronger enforcement of safety regulations,they will fail completely. The proposals are excellent both theoretically and politically."In future," says the Minister, "all commercial operators, with- out exception, will have to obtain what is to be called an airoperator's certificate." This will certify that "from the standpoint of safety, an operator's aircraft are of s suitable type and that hismaintenance system, operational staff and organization are up to the standard required. . . . Firms which are refused an airoperator's certificate will have the right of appeal to an indepen- dent arbiter, who will be assisted, when necessary, by expertassessors." Why then is it suggested that the proposals are unnecessary?What, it might be asked, could be better than the proposed system which (1) ensures automatic initial surveillance, (2) pro-vides for permanent control by withdrawal, and (3) is scrupulously fair in operation by providing an independent umpire to judgeappeals? Answer: nothing. But there is very little which could notalready be done within the present system of legislation if the Minister could mount a massive assault on air safety. He doesnot lack the powers. He has a nucleus of diligent staff. He may just not have enough men of the right calibre. Unless the newBill brings more cash for air safety, there may be "no change" —and a mass of certificates and independent arbiters. Southall and the Law What are the reasons for the new proposals? The Southalldisaster, said the Minister, "drew attention to the unsatisfactory state of the law." This is perfectly true. But the unsatisfactorystate of the law did not relate to air safety. It may have had something to do with the powers of coroners. It may haverevealed the unnecessary difficulties in the way of prosecutions for aeronautical offences. The only thing it did reveal unmis-takably was how poorly the regulations were being enforced. The operator concerned had been reprimanded the year before forbreaches of regulations on matters similar to some of those revealed in the public inquiry on the Southall accident. It was, and is, the Minister's task to enforce the regulations.Does he lack any powers? Certainly not. Article 61 of the Air Navigation Order 1954 gives the Minister (or "an authorizedperson") power to detain aircraft or take other steps to prevent dangerous breaches of regulations and prevent unfit aircraft fromflying. Is this any more "cumbersome" or less effective or more "difficult" [words used by Mr Rippon in this context] than thewithdrawal of an air operator's certificate with a right of appeal? I think not. Of course, no one would suggest that a law-enforcement agencycan entirely prevent crime. But can the Minister honestly com- plain that "we have no power to insist that the same standardsof safety are observed by operators of charter services" [as are observed by scheduled operators who have been examined by theDirector of Aviation Safety]? Not only has the Minister the "power to insist," but the regulation standards (with some minorexceptions) are the same for all operations for hire or reward regardless of whether they are charters or scheduled services. The idea that there are vast loopholes in the regulations hasbeen accepted by both sides of the House. One Member, Sir Wavell Wakefield, even thinks that it is easier to put a four-engined charter aircraft into the air with 70 or 80 people on board than to put a "London taxicab ... on the streets." Are the proposals inapt? Yes, for two reasons: — (1) The air operator's certificate is mentioned in the Licensing Billprincipally to provide a convenient statement of policy. It does not need a new Act of Parliament to authorize the certificate; it wii u--expressly issued under Section 8 of the Civil Aviation Act 1949. "sjnw that the Minister has announced his policy, there can be little harmin deleting Section 2(a) from the Bill and preparing the necessary OMT in Council without delay. (2) It is extremely doubtful whether the Minister is correct in toink-ing that appeals from refusals* of an air operator's certificate will involve questions of fact alone. The decision will be based on tactsbut applied to certain criteria of acceptability. Unless the umpire « armed with the same criteria he cannot be a judge of fact. If he is r'o begiven this information, and if, as the Minister says, it is desirabl? f orthe decision to be independent of the Ministry which exercises the original jurisdiction, then it will be ultimately necessary for the standardsof acceptable safety to be published in full. This is not a bad thing But it is equivalent to publishing more detailed regulations for adherenceAlso not a bad thing. So why h?ve an air operator's certificate if the same result in standards can be achieved by improved regulations? There may be good arguments for appeals on questions oflaw, but not on questions of fact. Tight control of air safety demands that the authority charged with enforcing air safety begiven absolute administrative authority to do so. This is the real lesson of US policy. Although the US requires an "air carrieroperating certificate" for safety purposes, true control is exercised by means of detailed regulations which are now enforced well,if not too wisely (according to airline pilot complaints!) by a large, efficient field force. There are dangers in analogies with American practice and it isperhaps too early to comment on the switch from having rule- making and investigation in one body (the old CAB) to havingrule-making and rule-enforcement in one body (the new FAA). But it seems certain that all three functions do not happily residein one body. The present strength of the Ministry (and of the ARB) seems to lie in rule-making. The salient weaknesses maybe in enforcement. Ex-Pilot Police Force? Are the best features of the English police system a guide forthe future? Would it be a good idea to create a separate aviation safety bureau with powers not only to initiate investigations (notconfined to, but including accidents and incidents) but also to enforce air regulations? Due to the rapid onset of the jet era,many mature pilots of tremendous experience are approaching premature retirement: can their wisdom be used to augment anextensive programme of preventive inspection and regulation of future aircraft operations? With adequate guidance, their influ-ence could possibly lead to an actual reduction in detail of the great volume of prohibitory regulations and could be an educativeforce of lasting value to the future of air transport. Without such guidance, however, such a system could easily degenerate intothe capricious exercise of arbitrary power. There should, of course, always be ample opportunities for interchange of per-sonnel, information and ideas with other administrations—e.g., in America and the Commonwealth. The exchanges with the FAAreported in Flight (March 11, page 335) are a welcome beginning. Is it possible that air safety affairs are dealt with at too low alevel in the Ministry? Might it be necessary, for example, to create a Director-General of Air Safety, who would possess the rightkind of technical and operational qualifications? A Possible Danger . : Possibly the greatest danger in the issue of an air operator'scertificate would be that the unscrupulous operator could use it as a liberty and licence to sail as close to the wind as he couldin between visits from officials for renewal purposes. The certifi- cate (like a Certificate of Airworthiness) might be based on exami-nation at a given date and would have to be issued subject to the operator's compliance at all times with all relevant regulations.Operators already have this obligation both generally and as a result of their Certificates of Airworthiness. There is little reasonto suppose that by itself the addition of another certificate is going to improve the attitude of the unscrupulous—who unfortunatelyhave to be the lowest common denominator for legislation and control. Therefore unless the emphasis shifts to preventive inspec-tion and enforcement, the mere existence of an air operators certificate can do little to improve matters. Probably the biggesttheoretical advantage of the certificate is the threat of its with- drawal acting as a deterrent. But in order for there to be sufficientinformation to warrant a withdrawal there first has to be adequate surveillance, inspection and investigation. The standards of inves-tigation would have to be high enough to match up to the pro- posed right of appeal on facts. All of this, quite rightly, soundsjust as difficult and exacting as obtaining evidence for a prosecu- tion. What, then, remains of the deterrent advantage? Is itdifferent from the threat of a prosecution—as at present? Adequate surveillance, inspection and investigation are still the basic requirements. Coupled with these should be the means of'ensuring the automatic supply of the fullest possible operational and statistical data, including the incidence of accident- and (Concluded on page 456) *Not "suspensions" apparently, or even "variations." •
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
