FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
2001
2001 - 0180.PDF
GA REGULATIONS Thefight for harmony PAUL PHELAN/CAIRNS AUSTRALIAN AND New Zealand (NZ) regulators must commit themselves to restoring and enhancing their relation ships with industry as the neighbouring countries are faced with aligning their regulato ry systems more closely by December 2003. The two governments will implement a sweeping 'open skies' liberalisation, announced by their respective transport ministers last November. This pact will include the cross- border validation of licences and certificates which, for example, would allow either coun try's aircraft, pilots and maintenance/over haul services to operate domestically in the other country. Against that background, the continuing divergence between the two separate and (until now) insular aviation regulatory systems poses an unwanted hindrance to their governments' regional harmonisation goals. Operationally and commercially, their gen eral aviation (GA) industries are similar. With low population densities similar to those of Canada and Alaska, Australia, with around 10,000 GA aircraft, and NZ with 3,500, share a critical dependence on GA for key activities like aerial agriculture, air taxi, emergency services, government functions, fast freight, personal/ corporate flying, resource support, rural essen tial-service feeder airlines and a comprehensive range of tourism services. TRAINING MENU Both countries also compete vigorously with an extensive menu of services in the high-value domestic and foreign pilot training market; in which their benign weather, sophisticated English-speaking air traffic control environ ments and time-zone situations are a shared advantage. Small but significant GA aircraft manufacturers in both countries make harmon isation essential both across the Tasman Sea and with the major foreign certification authorities. NZ is about three years ahead of Australia in the complex task which both sets of regulators set themselves in the early 1990s - that of align ment with the US FAA's rule structure and As Australia and New Zealand attempt to move nearer 'open skies', both countries are being stifled by bureaucracy which is largely irrelevant to general aviation philosophies, committed to promoting GA development and interests. This is in preference to those of Europe, where, at least to Austra lasians, GA exists in a withering GA-hostile reg ulatory and economic environment. Although the New Zealand Civil Aviation Authority (NZCAA) has only partly overcome the rancour and suspicion that greeted its early moves toward rule reform, vigorous public debate and consultation have now at least thrashed out a regulatory framework that is capable of becoming workable and progressive. Australia's Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has more ground to cover, and the two agencies are still drifting apart in their regulato ry development programmes. The potential harmonisation problems ahead are highlighted by CASAs response to an NZCAA offer when its rule restructure was well-advanced while Australia was setting out on the same course. The New Zealanders offered Australia the benefit of their project development on the basis of "$1 million for the floppy disk". The Australians responded as they might to a New Zealander's offer of advice on how to play rugby or cricket. "It would have been the smartest million they'd ever spent," asserts a NZ participant in that offer. "They're now making the same blues [mistakes] we were making three years ago. Eventually they'll have to go back and start again, but they haven't even hit bottom yet." GA operators in both countries have similar complaints. They believe they are being stifled by bureaucratic processes largely irrelevant to GA; and both assert that arbitrary rulemaking by entrenched and authoritarian bureaucracies continue to hinder the development of effective safety partnerships. HIGH COURT ACTION In the latest skirmish, almost the entire NZ avi ation industry has launched a high court action against changes to pilot medical examinations, which Dennis Thompson, a NZ aircraft trader for 30 years, says have cost some private pilots up to $7,000 for an annual health check: "The courts have already declared it illegal, but [the NZCAA] takes positions and it won't budge. It deliberately intimidates pilots, telling them that objecting to a particular regulatory action may cause 'regulatory problems.' The former part nership approach to safety is being sabotaged, and the effect of that sort of thing is that people will walk away from GA." Australian industry leaders equally insist that 30 FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL 16 - 22 January 2001
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
