Welcome to the General Aviation Advocacy Group of New Zealand

2018 January-February Bulletin

Urgent warning: Meet this amnesty deadline, or face a hefty fine

If you are a commercial or private GA aircraft operator, you need to know right now about the New Zealand CAA’s bizarre behaviour regarding overdue operating reports.

The Authority recently began issuing infringement notices and fines to commercial operators who did not send in their quarterly aircraft operating statistics on time. The fine is $1500 per aircraft.

A number of commercial operators failed to meet the CAA’s deadline. This was, we understand, mainly because (for the first time, and knowingly, and without any widespread warning) the authority did not send out the usual reminder and CAA605 form.

The next target would have been the private operator (for whom the fine is $250 per aircraft). But then it seemed to go badly pear-shaped for the CAA.

That punitive first move generated outrage from commercial operators, the GAA and aviation organisations. They protested about the way the notices and fines had been introduced. What’s this? A $1500 penalty for a paperwork misdemeanor not yet proven by the CAA to be as important to public safety as a parking offence?

Graeme Harris, the CAA Director, told one complainant that the $1500 fine was fixed by the government. What he didn’t say was that his authority wrote the legislation that assessed and suggested the fine – and that he, as CAA Director, was the responsible person who sought and won government approval of it.

The GAA’s position is plain and simple: The Authority’s behaviour was grotesquely unreasonable. Any and all CAA action must be proportional to the regulatory risk.

Now, as a result of many letters and representations, Harris has declared an amnesty until 1 March. Operators have only until then to provide their third and fourth quarter returns. Those who have paid fines will be refunded. But the Director has warned that he will act against anyone who fails to comply with his new and very tight deadline.

The obligation to file aircraft operating statistics is set out in Table 1 of Rule 12.151.

Doesn’t matter if it didn’t fly. You still need to return the form(s)

As well as commercial operators, the operators of New Zealand-registered aircraft issued with a standard category airworthiness certificate or a restricted category airworthiness certificate and used in private operations are required to file a return of their aircraft operating statistics.

We asked Harris if he intended to issue infringement notices and fines to the owners of private aircraft issued with standard or restricted category aircraft who failed to file their annual operating statistics by 1 February.

He did not reply. Instead, he forwarded the letter to his Official Information Act officer; this person has in turn stated that we can expect a reply before or by 15 March, which is somewhat later than Harris’s absurdly short (and apparently unpublicised) new deadline.

[Questions from the GAA to Graeme Harris are now routinely diverted to his OIA officer – even when they clearly warrant and invite the Director’s personal involvement with GA and his substantive response. This indicates an abuse of the intent and function of the OIA. It is a tactic now observed as the common procedure by senior CAA management, to avoid direct and timely answers.]

Private owners required to file an annual return of aircraft operating statistics should do so before March 1. You should also formally request a receipt, and continue to pursue the CAA until you get one. The burden of proof rests on you.

Previous reminder notices also contained the CAA605 reporting form. You can download a copy here.

You must file a separate form for each aircraft, regardless of whether or not it has flown during the previous 12 months.

The Director has written to an operator, stating that “sending out reminders and introducing the ability for operators to provide returns through an online portal are sensible and both are under action.”

We asked Harris why the development of an online portal allowing customers to directly enter their returns into a website, rather than email them at present, is still only “in the early stages of development”. That question (and others about the CAA’s failure to meet his Authority’s other historical promises about the automation of manual tasks) was, yet again, referred to the CAA’s OIA officer.

Here’s a dead microlight. Recreational aircraft aren’t included in NZ CAA operating statistics. Why not?

In its infringement notice, the CAA says: “It is important that the CAA receives this operating and statistical data and information by the due date, as it helps provide CAA with an accurate picture of aviation activity. This in turn provides vital input to determine sector safety performance, which drives efforts to make aviation in New Zealand as safe as possible for everyone”

The GAA says that if the Authority believes such statistical data to be vital to sector safety performance, it is negligent in not also collecting the information from non-certified aircraft owners, such as those of recreational aircraft which now form a significant part of the New Zealand fleet.

Without accurate data from all aircraft operating within the NZ aviation system, the Authority’s analysis of safety related statistical data is severely flawed. To use an old computer adage: “Garbage in equals garbage out.” By not accurately capturing and recording meaningful data, the Authority’s statistics have, for years, been presenting an inaccurate picture of aviation activity and a distorted view of sector safety performance.

Survey update No 4: The CAA is failing to act on voluntary safety reports, say respondents

Disturbing evidence has emerged in Part 4 of the GAA’s independent survey of CAA customers, which focuses on safety. There are a number of claims that the CAA is failing to follow up on voluntary safety reports – as well as indications of a marked reluctance to make such reports.

On voluntary safety reporting, the survey asks:

How likely would you be to make a voluntary safety report (e.g. alert the CAA in the case of non-compliance with regulatory obligations) in situations of material non-compliance with safety regulations?

The score stands at a neutral 5 with respondents recording reservations about the wisdom of submitting a voluntary safety report, in comments such as:

“Until such time as CAA move away from their ‘prosecute first, ask questions later’ approach, who would?”

“Won’t go there because it risks blowing up into a full-on witch hunt.”

“Some years ago, I would have felt obligated to make a report. Today, highly unlikely, and only under extreme circumstances.”

“Absolutely no way would I file a safety report. Who would trust what the CAA might do with it?”

A problem hidden in plain sight: we have too many claims of unanswered safety reports for the CAA to ignore

For those who have filed safety reports, the survey asks how satisfied were you with the response?

The score stands at 3 out of 10. Many comments indicate that some safety reports are not being acknowledged or replied to. Here are a few examples:

“No response to 3 reports. CAA’s own SMS material suggests that it’s vital for an effective reporting system to provide feedback to those who input into it yet they fail to follow what they expect operators to do.”

“Very dissatisfied – my 005 which involved a near collision was ‘lost’ in the system.”

“My CAA005 had no reply and no outcome. My ARC also has had no outcome.”

“Never had any feedback on multiple CAA005 reports.”

The question Would respondents support a TAIC-administered, voluntary incident reporting system that is non-punitive and affords protection to the sources? has generated huge support, with a score of 9.

The survey asks if respondents actively seek opportunities to operate as safely as possible.

A strong safety ethic emerges in comments such as:

“We have four-point harness for all alpine scenic flights to reduce turbulence hazards but Rules only require lap strap.”

“I have a firm and strong commitment to operating safely.”

“Many years of aviation knowledge and experience put me ahead of minimum requirements.”

The survey asks if the CAA seeks to identify and promote best safety practice within the aviation community?

This has drawn a neutral response score of 5 with comments such as:

“CAA doesn’t listen to industry, instead it promotes its own internally developed ideas which usually coincide with the interests of CAA itself.”

“CAA appears to want to alienate rather than work with people in the aviation community. It appears that ‘dobbing-in’ is very much promoted by CAA which has led to back stabbing and an unhealthy environment, therefore not helping with real safety.”

“It definitely used to but with the advent of HSW and CAA’s dual roles I don’t believe this is the case any longer.”

“Think their heart is in the right place but not the brain!”

Are respondents confident that the CAA quickly recognises and promotes new initiatives that do not compromise safety, developed by other countries (for example, medical certification)?

This gets an average score of just 2 out of 10. Comments include:

“They need to recognise that some authorities (FAA and EASA) are better resourced to make good decisions and be prepared to accept them. New Zealand CAA should concentrate on what is unique to us… not much.”

“I have yet to see any initiative that the CAA has begun on their own accord without first there being extensive lobbying over an extended period of time by organisations.”

CVD: One example of snail-paced CAA progress

“No Way! They are SO SLOW and it usually takes about 10 years to get ANY movement. Colour Vision Deficiency is a good example of how evidence-based regulation is hard to get across the line.”

The survey includes a series of questions about the consistency of decision-making by the Authority and individual staff members. None of these questions has attained a score above 3 out of 10. Some sample comments:

“Some admin staff are great, some inspectors, investigators and operation staff can’t agree between themselves.”

“It’s hard to get anyone to make a decision and all too often when asking different staff members for an answer their opinions differ.”

“Many of the CAA decisions are not in accordance with best practice.”

“Seems to me after almost 40 years direct involvement, that the ‘why’ is all about never being held accountable for any decision regardless of what position within CAA a staff member holds.”

Finally, 43% of respondents say that they have been audited in the last two years. The survey asks: How satisfied are you with the way the CAA performs its audit and compliance activities?

Respondents have so far returned a score of 3, along with many comments such as:

“There are so many things wrong with the way auditors do their job. Their manner, lack of knowledge, overcharging for time actually spent on the job, personal interpretations, pettiness, lack of any practicality.”

“Too much inconsistency in what does or does not comply.”

“They put fear into the minds of operators that if they were to question the auditors they would be found to have an attitude problem and not pass their FPP.”

“Audits are undertaken in a manner that is highly questionable, have never (endured over 20 such audits) contributed one iota to safety and the ‘exposition’ just went back on the shelf to collect dust until the next audit.”

“Biggest problem with CAA is lack of staff with practical knowledge. Too many desk jockeys.”

“Authorised, but almost singularly unqualified, and therefore in a position to bully any operator/licence holder to comply with an ‘opinion’ despite the rules being in disagreement with that opinion. That would be a closer assessment of CAA staff.”

Survey update No 3: It’s time to curb the CAA’s medical unit

The current medical system is adversarial and cannot help to get an unbiased result

Reining in the CAA’s medical unit is long overdue, say responders to Part 3 of the GAA’s independent survey of CAA customers.

Seventy percent of responders say they are unaware that the Swedavia and Scott Gorman reports recommended the establishment of an Aviation Medical Panel made up of specialists. The survey goes on to ask: Do you think that an Aviation Medical Panel would be of benefit to participants in the NZ aviation system?

The results are showing an overwhelming response of 92% in favour. Among the comments: “This has been a vital step for years” and “The current system is adversarial and cannot help to get an unbiased result, plus expense is too great to meet ridiculous CAA requirements.”  There are also provisos such as “If genuinely independent and driven by evidence-based principles and practices”.

Part 3 also deals with aviation safety regulations and asks:

How confident are you in your ability to comply with aviation safety regulations relevant to your role?

Responses are giving an average score of 7 out of 10. There are, however, provisos attached with comments such as “this depends on individual CAA interpretations and the increasingly overarching and complex knowledge and responsibilities being applied”.

Across all the questions on aviation regulations, there is a clear and consistent theme in the comments: the problem of individual CAA staff interpretations of regulations.

The survey asks whether responders consider that CAA personnel have a common understanding of regulations and apply rules consistently.

The CAA is scoring 3, with comments such as: “No way – on occasion you can ask two staff members the same question and get two different interpretations” and “It’s a shame that I am not able to score this question with far less than a ‘0’.”

Regulations play a key role in ensuring that I operate safely earns a neutral score of 5, but comments provide an insight into the pragmatic and professional culture among pilots, such as

It is far more important for an individual to take responsibility for operating safely than merely blindly following regulations” and “Not really – common sense – personal and company culture is more important in my view” and “Regulations are a frame in which I operate, but my own self preservation and due care of passengers plays more of a key role in safe operations”.

Asked if the CAA always consults with the most appropriate people in industry when developing or reforming aviation safety regulations, responders deliver less than 3 points. This is further reinforced when people consider if the CAA values their opinion about proposed regulations or regulatory reform. This question is returning a score of just over 2.

What factors would encourage responders to take part in a CAA consultation? A solid 80% say that they would if their contributions were used to bring about genuine change.

Survey update No. 2: The CAA’s service delivery score is a real shocker

Dismal performance levels feature strongly in Part 2 of the GAA’s independent CAA customer survey. This section focuses on service delivery.

The demographics are showing that:

  • 60% of respondents have had direct contact up to 10 times with CAA staff over the last 12 months
  • 10% have had direct contact 10 to 20 times over the last 12 months
  • 10% have had direct contact more than 20 times over the last 12 months and
  • 20% have had no direct contact with the CAA over the last 12 months

And if you don’t express yours, you can’t expect change

The survey asks: On a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 is “very dissatisfied”, 5 is “no opinion” and 10 is “very satisfied”, how satisfied are you with the CAA’s service delivery?

At this stage, the CAA’s service delivery is achieving an average score of 3.

Typical comments:

“The CAA’s service delivery from senior managers is very poor with most taking 10 working days to reply to correspondence and some only replying after complaints have been laid. On the other hand, clerical staff are often very good with their service delivery.”

“Too short-staffed and it takes way too long for aircraft to be added to ops specs.”

There are a number of adverse comments regarding delays in the order of three to four months for relatively simple amendments to expositions.

The airworthiness section is also attracting strong criticism, with comments such as:

“From an airworthiness perspective, the current situation frustrates the industry. Relationship between the industry and the regulator is the poorest I have seen in my 50+ years in the industry.”

The withdrawal of CAA staff contact details from the website is drawing a significant number of adverse comments from industry responders.

To the question: “Was your transaction completed at a reasonable cost?” our responders are ranking the CAA at 3.

The survey asks if responders “thinks that the CAA takes care to understand and relate to its customers”. The current response of 3 indicates a widening disconnect between the CAA and GA. This is also evident when participants are asked “if the CAA values my input.” Our responders struggle to give the CAA a score of 3.

Another question:

On a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 is “strongly disagree” and 10 is “strongly agree”, please indicate how much you agree that: “The CAA is vital to ensuring aviation safety in New Zealand

Responders so far give this question a 6, but with several provisos attached to qualify their answers.

On Friday 5 January 2018, the Director issued the exemption, which you can view or download here.

This is the latest success in an ongoing and often arduous GAA campaign to rectify CAA shortcomings and wrong-doing.

Survey update No. 1: It’s looking grim for the CAA

The responses received so far to the GAA-initiated survey of CAA clients have already provided some compelling data and comments. Here, we summarise just a few major trends detected in Part 1 of the survey.

If you don’t express it, nothing changes

We strongly urge everyone to take part in this independent and anonymous survey, which will remain open at least until the end of January.

If you haven’t already done so, please get involved and have your say. It doesn’t take long – initial results indicate that each part is taking an average of around eight minutes.

In Part 1, the survey asks:

On a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is “very poor”, 5 is “no opinion” and 10 is “very good”, please rate the CAA’s services in terms of value for money. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the responses have so far returned an average score of 2.

The survey asks whether CAA clients considered that the Authority strove to minimise administration costs and charges. Respondents have returned an even lower score: just 1.

The survey asks whether participants considered that the CAA was openly accountable for its actions. This question has so far returned an average score of 2.

The survey asks if the CAA builds a relationship of trust. The Authority is scoring 3 out of 10.

The survey asks if New Zealand’s aviation system would benefit from having an independent aviation complaints authority. The answer sits at a resounding 96% vote in favour.

The demographics of survey responders have also been interesting. For example, those who completed Part 1 have come from:

  • Aerial work – 15%
  • Charter – 8%
  • Business – 8%
  • Air Transport – 24%
  • Private – 39%
  • Other – 6%

Question: “How long have you been operating or involved in the aviation sector?” The results so far:

  • More than 40 years – 39%
  • 31 to 40 years – 16%
  • 21 to 30 years – 24%
  • 11 to 20 years – 15%
  • 4 to 10 years – 6%

The success of this GAA survey can be measured by 97% of responders indicating that they are willing to take part in future surveys.

The GAA’s ultimate goal is to achieve change within the CAA, and this critically depends on CAA customers overcoming the notion that “You can’t fight city hall”. There is plenty of evidence that change driven from the grass-roots is not only possible, but probable.

The survey is not difficult to complete and your time spent is a very valuable contribution to overcome an obstinate public service – yes, the people at the CAA are public servants!

In recent years, previous transport ministers have been in denial about the problems that exist within general aviation and have shown little apparent interest in the civil aviation part of their portfolio. This may soon change, because the survey has already produced significant statistics and the final results will be made available to the CAA Board, the Minister of Transport and the Transport Select Committee.

PPLs and the RPL: Yet another wrong has been righted

Back in May 2017, we drew the CAA Director’s attention to the unlawful content within AC61.20, namely that Rule 61.41 did not apply to the Recreational Pilot Licence.

Rule 61.41(b) states that a pilot who meets the currency requirements for a lower pilot licence may exercise the privileges of the lower licence.

The CAA subsequently reconsidered its initial view that the Recreational Pilot Licence is an entirely separate type of aviation document from the ICAO-recognised licences (ATPL, CPL and PPL). As a result, in applying CAR 61.41, holders of ATPL and CPL licences who had paid for the issue of a RPL became entitled to a refund.

In July, the CAA wrote to ATPL and CPL holders advising them that they would be refunded the cost of their RPLs.

Due to Rule 61.41 having been written before the RPL was created, the Rule only referred to the then existing licence types, with the PPL being the lowest licence category. Because of this, Rule 61.41 only applied to holders of a CPL or an ATPL and PPL holders were not entitled to a refund.

In September 2017, the GAA filed a petition for exercise of the Director’s exemption power under s27 of the Civil Aviation Act 1990 to address the anomaly whereby ATPL and CPL holders were able to exercise the privileges of a lower licence but PPL holders could not.

The RPL and the instructor: Did the bureaucrats stuff it up again?

AC 61.20 contains the following note:

“Under rule 61.303, an RPL does not qualify the holder for the issue of a flight instructor rating.

Therefore, a flight instructor rating cannot be endorsed on an RPL.

A person holding a flight instructor rating endorsed on a CPL or ATPL may not exercise the privileges of that instructor rating with a Land Transport (DL9) medical certificate.”

The first part of this note is correct, in that for the issue of a flight instructor rating, a CPL or higher licence must first be held. This is appropriate and demonstrates that a minimum level of experience has been achieved.

But the GAA challenged the bolded statement above and the CAA has conceded that an instructor may exercise the privileges of his/her instructor rating on a PPL or RPL.

Older and wiser heads are being lost because of the CAA’s attitude to common sense, which it values highly and uses sparingly

A flight instructor exercising the privileges of a RPL must be aware of the limitations in Rule 61.357 regarding the size of the aircraft, the type of operation that may be conducted and that the aircraft may not be operated at night or under IFR.

It is equally important to point out that whilst a flight instructor exercising the privileges of a RPL or a PPL cannot receive remuneration when acting as PIC, they may be legitimately remunerated for the ground time they spend with their student or a pilot on whom they are carrying out a proficiency test.

This would normally include the time spent on a pre-flight briefing before an exercise, pre-flight inspection of the aircraft and post-flight analysis of the training exercise or a flight check such as a BFR. The time spent on the ground will often exceed that spent in the air and it is appropriate that a flight instructor be remunerated for his/her time if he/she so wishes. Not all instructors may wish to make a charge for their time. Some may prefer to carry out training or checking on a pro bono basis as a way of giving something back to the GA sector, in the same way that some lawyers volunteer their time and expertise on a similar pro bono basis.

In contrast to Rule 61.357, the UK CAA and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) permit the remuneration of a flight instructor who is using the privileges of a PPL.

The UK CAA and EASA recognise the value of allowing flight instructors who are unable to meet the Class 1 medical certification to continue to pass down their knowledge and skills.

The present situation in New Zealand has resulted in flight instructors who have been unable to meet Class 1 medical certification dropping out of our system because it has not generally been recognised that they could continue on Class 2 medical certification, using the privileges of a lower licence, albeit without remuneration when acting as PIC.

The considerable flight experience of instructors, often accumulated over a great many years, is a resource that the New Zealand GA sector can ill-afford to lose. This comes at a time when many of our young instructors are just “passing through” the flight training establishments and are primarily using flight instruction as a way to build hours before moving on to an airline.

On Friday 5 January 2018, the Director issued the exemption, which you can view or download here.

This is the latest success in an ongoing and often arduous GAA campaign to rectify CAA shortcomings and wrong-doing.

Medical certificate reform: Is our regulator deaf, dumb and blind?

On 30 November 2017, CASA announced major reforms to the aviation medical certification system. Importantly, pilots flying commercial operations with no passengers – such as flying training and aerial agriculture – will now be able to do so on the basis of an unrestricted Class 2 medical certificate.

These reforms to the Australian aviation medical system maintain appropriate safety standards while offering flexibility and reducing red tape.

This is something which NZ CAA Chairman Nigel Gould has stated the Authority is committed to. We have seen no evidence of it happening, but we are watching.




2017 December Bulletin

The ‘Empty-skies-are-safe-skies’ policy is killing Aussie aviation

(and New Zealand has the same symptoms)

By DICK SMITH in The Australian, 28 December 2017

I don’t think you should ever regard aviation safety as what is affordable. — Australian Federal transport minister John Anderson, October 5, 2000

Dick Smith – I have been warning for years that introducing regulations that ignore cost have been crippling the industry…

I welcome the appointment of Barnaby Joyce as Australia’s new Transport Minister. He certainly has a challenge in front of him when it comes to Australia’s general aviation industry, which is in a state of near collapse after years of failed government policy.

It will take someone as senior as the Deputy Prime Minister to sort out this mess. As The Australian has reported, general aviation — so vital in a big country like ours — is in serious trouble. Crippled by skyrocketing regulatory costs and pointless red tape, businesses are closing and much of the flying training industry is being sold off to Chinese buyers at bargain rates. A federal government report last week showed the drastic decline brought on by the excessive costs: general aviation flying hours, which include the vital flying training industry, have declined by 40 per cent in just five years.

But none of this is new. I have been warning for years that introducing regulations that ignore cost have been crippling the industry. It was 17 years ago that I ­became involved in a very public disagreement with Joyce’s predecessor, John Anderson, who introduced the ­policies that have resulted in today’s mess.

At the time, I was chairman of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and I warned Anderson that the substantial additional costs that had been placed on the industry by the sell-off of the airports and the “user pays” air traffic ­control system would have to be balanced by a reduction in other costs.

Driven by bureaucrats with little understanding of business, he pursued a policy of regulations ­regardless of cost, with the inevitable result that ridiculous levels of regulation have made it im­possible to maintain a viable industry. It seems that for the bureaucrats, the safest skies are empty skies, similar to the Yes Minister episode about the hospital with no patients.

Anderson refused to meet me to discuss the issue, releasing a public statement that showed how little he understood. “I don’t think that you should ever regard aviation safety as what is affordable,” he claimed. “Safety is something which has the highest priority — it is not a question of cost.”

In effect he was saying that with air safety there was no cost that was too high to pay, ignoring the fact this would make the cost of air tickets unaffordable to anyone other than the ultra-wealthy.

Anderson’s public statement was quickly embraced by the ­bureaucrats within CASA and the denial that cost should be considered became an almost cult-like ­belief that still exists in that organisation to this day.

Former NZ Transport Minister Simon Bridges: he also had an entrenched public service and he also was in denial. Will his successor be any better?

Aviation is like anything else in life. The amount of money that you can spend on safety is always limited by what the marketplace can afford. If regulations are written that increase the cost of flying too much, people can’t afford to fly and businesses go broke.

The inevitable result of this stubborn insistence that there are no limits to the costs that could be imposed on the aviation industry is a situation where operators simply can’t afford to meet the red tape and expenses.

It has done nothing to improve safety and will very likely lead to a situation where most pilots in Australia will come from Asia. The losers are many of Joyce’s constituents in rural and regional Australia who rely greatly on general aviation as a vital link in Australia’s transport systems.

It means we will lose hundreds of millions of dollars in export earnings from flight training and other operations that are no longer Australian-owned.

Before Anderson became minister, the CASA service charter ­directed that Australia should ­follow “proven safe procedures and standards from leading aviation countries which best allocate finite safety resources, to protect fare-paying passengers and ­encourage high participation levels in aviation”.

But this directive was removed from the charter in the Anderson years. I fought these changes while chairman of CASA but failed to overcome an entrenched public service and a transport minister in denial. I resigned rather than be held responsible for the slow death of an industry that I have been a part of for more than 40 years.

I hope now that under a new minister we can get back to a sensible policy that balances costs and regulation in a rational way.

Joyce will need to move quickly to reverse the disastrous “ignore cost” policies of the past. I will give him every support and I do hope he listens to the industry before it is too late.

  • There are further signs of crisis in Australia, where visa restrictions on foreign pilots are set to be relaxed because of a looming crew shortage, and Chinese airlines are said to be poaching pilots with offers of salaries up to $750,000. Read about it here.
  • Dick Smith is the former chairman of Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

The independent CAA Customer Satisfaction Survey is under way

The General Aviation Advocacy Group has launched an independent survey of CAA customer satisfaction. This is the first comprehensive opinion poll of NZ CAA clients since 2003.

If you don’t express yours, you can’t influence theirs

When the CAA learned the results of its 2003 survey, the bureaucrats were not happy. Customers were so critical of the authority that the exercise was never repeated. The CAA has always refused to consider it, rejecting requests from the GAA and others.

In 2010, the CAA was dealt another blow by the Martin Jenkins Value for Money Report, which identified persistent failings. Since then, no one – high or low – has managed to extract any detailed information from the CAA about what has been done to improve its performance.

The authority is apparently planning a series of surveys, none of which measure overall customer satisfaction. The first, about CAA communications, was virtually unpublicised. The GAA discovered it by accident. It asked, amongst other things, if users would like the CAA to use Facebook or Twitter.

No fit and proper person in aviation would rely on Facebook or Twitter for serious or in-depth messages from (or to) the CAA. And the authority would find it impossible to communicate all but the briefest of messages through Twitter, because of its severely limited character count.

In an annual report, the CAA states that it spent $40,000 on one small Colmar Brunton survey.

GAA volunteers are running a far more sophisticated and comprehensive survey, for about $400.

The Independent Client Satisfaction Survey of the NZ Civil Aviation Authority is modelled on the CAA’s 2003 survey, updated to reflect changes in aviation (as well as other surveys including those by CASA, our neighbouring Australian authority).

It is in four parts and covers:

  • How customers feel about their relationship with the CAA, its charges, and how complaints might be better handled
  • Service delivery and the CAA’s dialogue with aviation system participants
  • The development and reform of aviation regulations, compliance with regulations, and medical issues
  • Best practice, consistency of decision-making, safety reporting and audits

Each part contains about 30 questions.

Here are the links:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

The survey is anonymous. No one taking part will be tracked or recorded. Many participants in the New Zealand aviation system are very afraid of the Civil Aviation Authority. We have taken great care to protect them and encourage freedom of expression.

The results will be presented to the CAA board and management, the Minister of Transport, Parliament’s Transport and Infrastructure Select Committee, other decision-makers and the media.

One question missing from the survey is: Should the CAA run regular customer satisfaction surveys?

If enough people involved in New Zealand General Aviation take part in this sector-generated survey, the CAA will get the answer – and the broader message.

Please help to send that message.

Thank you for supporting the GAA team in 2017. We send our best wishes to you and yours for Christmas and 2018. It promises to be an unusually interesting year for everyone in NZ’s GA.

Major improvements to the aviation medical system – but not ours…

Kiwis are at the end of the Earth, in more ways than one…

Thousands of pilots in Australia are set to benefit from major reforms to the aviation medical certificate system.

They go much further than our CAA’s proposals in a recent medical survey.

The reforms by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) include creating a new category of private pilot medical certificate, allowing non-passenger-carrying commercial operations under a full Class 2 medical certificate and increasing the delegation of decision-making to medical professionals.

The new medical certificate category, to be known as a basic Class 2, will be available to private pilots flying piston engine-powered aircraft carrying up to five non-fare-paying passengers. Operations will be limited to daytime visual flight rules and will be permitted in all classes of airspace.

This basic Class 2 medical certificate will require an assessment by a doctor using the Austroads commercial vehicle driver standards. General practitioners will be able to carry out assessments.

The commercial vehicle medical standards currently apply to drivers of heavy vehicles, public passenger vehicles and vehicles carrying bulk dangerous goods. They cover medical issues such as cardiovascular conditions, diabetes, psychiatric conditions, blackouts, substance abuse and vision and hearing disorders.

The new basic Class 2 medical will be valid for a maximum of five years up to the age of 40 and a maximum of two years above the age of 40.

The current unrestricted Class 2 medical certificate will remain in place for private pilots operating aircraft up to 8618 kg with a maximum of nine non-fare-paying passengers. This unrestricted Class 2 medical will be used under all flight rules and allow for operations in all classes of airspace.

Importantly, pilots flying commercial operations with no passengers – such as flying training and aerial agriculture – will now be able to do so on the basis of an unrestricted Class 2 medical certificate. Previously, these operations required the pilot to hold a Class 1 medical certificate.

CASA’s CEO and Director of Aviation Safety, Shane Carmody, said the reforms to the aviation medical system maintain appropriate safety standards while offering flexibility and less red tape.

“CASA has been engaged with the aviation community and made a series of fundamental reforms to aviation medical certification,” Mr Carmody said. “We have initially focused on changes that benefit general aviation because this sector has been telling us the current medical certification system was causing real difficulties.

“In the interests of public safety, it is important that pilots meet relevant medical standards but the system must not make unnecessary demands and should meet the needs of the aviation community.

“I am pleased we are making changes that will see more appropriate medical standards applied to flying training and aerial agriculture – two vital sectors of Australian aviation.

“CASA will now continue to review the aviation medical system to identify possible improvements in areas such as using medical data more effectively, further streamlining processes, further reducing CASA involvement in medicals and harmonising with global best practices.

“It is CASA’s role to maintain appropriate aviation safety standards, but the requirements must not unnecessarily burden Australian aviation and hinder development and growth.”

The reforms to aviation medical certification will be progressively introduced during 2018.

e-Licensing becomes a reality for commercial pilots, but not ours…

Once registered with an account, pilots will be able to track the progress of their application, view the privileges they hold and have the ability to update personal details such as a change of address. The new e-Licensing will also benefit flight training schools, allowing them submit course completion details online and apply on behalf of their students.

Commercial pilots will need to create an online account to access CAA licensing services. However, individuals are advised to wait until they need to make a transaction before setting up an account. More information can be found on the dedicated e-licensing webpage at caa.co.uk/elicensing.

Sorry, folks. This no-brainer improvement, based on old technology, is apparently unavailable in New Zealand.

Drones: Tests for UK operators – and programming the beast to behave itself

Picture by Jakob Owens – Unsplash

Drone users in the UK may have to take safety awareness tests under legislation planned by the government.

The move has been welcomed by the British Airline Pilots Association, which has warned of near misses involving drones and aircraft. Balpa said there had been 81 incidents in the UK this year – up from 71 in 2016 and 29 in 2015.

A proposed Bill would force owners of drones weighing more than 250g to register and sit a test.

Drone pilot and trainer Elliott Corke said most recreational and commercial-purpose drones weigh more than 250g.

Christian Struwe of drone-maker DJI warned that some of the proposals may be difficult to police – for example the 400ft height restriction. But he told the BBC Breakfast programme: “The good thing is that as an industry we are already working on it. We can limit how high they can fly.”

We also understand that manufacturers can program ‘geo-fencing’ into their drones to make it impossible for them to fly within airspaces identified by the on-board GPS, such as airfields, other areas used by low-flying aircraft, and prisons.

The $11.10 triumph: It was like drawing blood from a stone

Scrooge would have admired the NZ CAA

As a result of the GAA’s challenge to the wording of AC61-20 Rev 7, we secured refunds for CPL and ATPL holders who wished to exercise the privileges stated in CAR 61.41 and had previously been required to apply (and pay) for a Recreational Pilot Licence.

But we also sought a refund of the $11.10 NZTA fee, which was part of the Fit and Proper Person declaration. At first, the CAA wanted proof of payment, but we objected to that because the charging error was the authority’s and the onus was on the CAA to rectify the matter using its own records. A CAA official sniffily told us we would have to visit the authority’s website to discover what it had decided about this.

Then the CAA seemed to recognise its rudeness and wrote again, saying:

CAA is prepared to reimburse that sum to affected RPL holders without proof of payment being required. To identify eligibility, CAA will be reviewing each individual’s file. Please note that the LTSA fee of $11.10 has only been in place since 01 June 2011 so anyone obtaining a report prior to this date would not have incurred any cost.

Reimbursements will be processed as soon as possible in the upcoming weeks to all those who have responded to their letters.

Admittedly a small monetary win, but it’s the principle that matters.

Oh, and restoring some degree of courtesy…

The current situation regarding PPL holders

The GAA has also been pursuing the issue of an “anomaly” in CAR 61.41 which prevents PPL holders from exercising the privileges of a lower licence – the RPL. The CAA had told us:

We have discussed the content of your letter at some length and while agreeing that the current wording of Part 61.41 creates an anomaly we cannot change that in the AC as the Rule overrides the AC. We will be making it clear in the AC that in its current state the Rule only applies to ATPL and CPL. However, we are in the process of submitting an issue assessment recommendation to address this anomaly. Part 61.41 is prescriptive and will require a Rule change to allow PPL to be treated in the same manner as ATPL and CPL hence the need for this issues assessment. We encourage you to submit a request for a Rules issue assessment of Part 61.41 to add weight to the process.

Please note that we cannot confirm the implied intent of Part 61.41(b) as the Rules are made by the Minister under section 14A(d) of the Civil Aviation Act therefore the intent is the Minister’s not the Authority’s.

After that, we submitted a request for a Rules issue assessment. This process will take some considerable time (probably years), due to other assessments that are ahead of ours.

As a stopgap measure, we petitioned the Director to exercise his exemption power under s37 of the Civil Aviation Act. At first, he refused, until we showed him evidence of his having signed an exemption in similar circumstances. We’re looking forward to Graeme Harris’s decision.

AC61-18 and D Cats and third-level instruments

There is a continuing CAA tendency to use third-level instruments to wrongly manipulate regulations, rules and other legislation. This bad behaviour was recognised long ago, in the Swedavia-McGregor Report.

In AC 61-18, the authority purports to decree that rule 61.307 (h) does not apply to Category D flight instructor ratings.

It also claims that the holder of a Category A or B flight instructor rating who is not current may not exercise the privileges associated with a Category D flight instructor rating as a matter of right.

CAR 61.307 (h) is plain and simple. There is no rule that prohibits the holder of a Category A or B flight instructor rating from exercising Rule 61.307 (h) as of right. There is no legal requirement for a Category A or B flight instructor to apply for a Category D flight instructor rating whether or not they are current in the higher rating, provided they meet the currency requirements of the lower rating and otherwise comply with the rules.

Neither an AC nor the Director hold any power to negate the rules. They can only be issued and revoked by the Minister or the Governor-General.

The authority’s claim that CAR 61.307 (h) does not include the Category D flight instructor rating and that this is a separate rating, not a lower category, is not merely creative.

It is unlawful.

Clearly, a Category D flight instructor rating is a lower rating than Category A and B flight instructor ratings.

We brought this error to the CAA’s attention at the beginning of September, and waited so long for a reply from its legal section that we had to file yet another complaint for a breach of the CAA’s Service Charter.

The discussion continues…

AC 61-20 Revision 8

Having revealed to the CAA its unlawful content of AC61-20 Version 7, we then discovered that it had failed to correct all the rule errors in Version 8. In particular, its note on page 6:

Notes: Under rule 61.303, an RPL does not qualify the holder for the issue of a flight instructor rating. Therefore, a flight instructor rating cannot be endorsed on an RPL. A person holding a flight instructor rating endorsed on a CPL or ATPL may not exercise the privileges of that instructor rating with a Land Transport (DL9) medical certificate.

So we told the authority that Rule 61.303 sets out the eligibility requirements for the issue of instructor ratings and explained:

Clearly, this eligibility requirement is set to ensure that the applicant for the issue of an instructor rating has met a given level of aviation knowledge and piloting skill. However, there is no rule that restricts the exercise of an instructor rating on a lower licence provided the operation meets all the requirements of that lower licence and the instructor rating. We have already demonstrated that a CPL or ATPL holders may exercise the privileges of a lower licence.

For example, a B Cat Instructor may exercise the instructor rating on the privileges of a PPL provided he/she meets all the requirements of currency for both the rating and the licence. This would include, in part, meeting the requirements of 61.307 (d).

In another example, a holder of a D Cat Instructor rating or an A or B Cat Instructor exercising the privileges of a D Cat under CAR 61.307 (h) may issue type ratings in accordance with the excessive restrictions of CAR 61.37. There is nothing in CAR 61.37, which prohibits the exerciser of those privileges from giving instruction. (ref CAR 61.37).

Whilst an instructor rating cannot be issued on a RPL, the holder of a CPL or ATPL lifetime licence holding an instructor rating and exercising the privileges of the PPL or RPL already has the rating endorsed on the appropriate licence. In this case, there is no physical PPL or RPL to endorse with an instructor rating.

The appropriate instructor rating will be endorsed on the licence-holder’s ATPL or CPL.

We’re told that this is also being considered by the authority’s legal section.

Meanwhile, it makes you wonder, doesn’t it?  To us, these CARs are – by definition – prescriptive.

Audio and video use as evidence

We’ve been made aware of a pending prosecution against a pilot that we believe has serious implications for general aviators as well as professional pilots.

It involves a pilot who is being prosecuted for events that occurred on a cross-country flight during which the aircraft encountered unforecast bad weather.

The evidence that the CAA is principally relying on stems from audio and video material recorded by a young student pilot, during a training flight. The student used a GoPro camera fitted inside the cockpit, and a separate audio recording device.

The lawyer acting for the pilot believes that cockpit audio and video recordings are inadmissible in any criminal proceedings in New Zealand, against any pilot. There is Court of Appeal support for this, following the 1990s Dash 8 crash on approach to Palmerston North, with no other court decision to the contrary.

The CAA view

The CAA takes the view that this exclusion of audio and video recordings applies only if TAIC is investigating and that it is free to use such audio and visual evidence in prosecuting a pilot, where the CAA or the police have investigated and not TAIC. The pilot’s lawyer is of the view this opinion was not supported by the Court of Appeal decision. Also, when the TAIC Amendment Bill was passed through Parliament to prohibit CVRs being used in criminal proceedings against pilots, the Hansard records of the third reading of the Bill when enacted did not support the CAA’s opinion either. We understand the CAA has used this type of evidence in other prosecutions and, if not challenged, will continue to do so.

The entire issue needs to be considered and ruled upon.

The implications for GA pilots and operators

You never know who’s watching…

If the CAA is successful in securing the admissibility of cockpit audio and video recordings in cases other than a TAIC investigation, the implications for GA pilots are obvious.

Since the 1990s, when the TAIC Amendment Bill was introduced in respect to dedicated aircraft CVRs, rapid and probably unforeseen advances in technology have resulted in a proliferation of pseudo-CVRs in the form of GoPro-style cameras, iPads, smartphones and the like.

A recording taken by a co-pilot or student pilot, or even a passenger within close proximity to the cockpit on a smart device or camera can now be taken out of context, and used to bring prosecution action against a pilot. These devices, with their monocular depth perception and limited field of vision, will often portray an inaccurate view of what a pilot is actually encountering and weather conditions in particular may look worse than what was actually experienced.

The CAA could use such recordings in a prosecution against a GA pilot, unless a ruling is made that they are totally inadmissible against all pilots, regardless of who investigates.

The CAA has applied to the District Court to have the video and audio evidence admitted against the pilot. The pilot is therefore in the position of either having to accept that the CAA can use that evidence, or defend it. If the CAA loses in the District Court, it is likely to appeal, as any ruling prohibiting the authority from using such information obviously has ongoing implications in future CAA investigations. That has serious cost implications for the accused pilot, who cannot afford to fight this alone. A ballpark forecast of costs to argue the matter in the District Court alone is about $15,000.

The matter is due to be heard in the District Court on 14 November. At this time, the pilot does not have sufficient funds to meet the estimated costs of fighting this legal challenge, and if unable to do so, it may be left to the Judge to decide and rule on the admissibility point with the CAA lawyers appearing and making submissions, and potentially no one appearing to argue against them.

We need to recognise, as a community of aviators, that what the accused is confronting has wider implications for the rest of us. This is why we are looking for support from fellow pilots and operators prepared to assist in the funding to obtain a definitive judicial ruling on the admissibility of these recordings as evidence in criminal proceedings against all pilots.

To enable contributions, a bank account has been set up:

ASB, Victoria Road, Devonport

The account name is GA Advocacy Fund

The account number is 12-3065-0148085-02

All funds collected will be applied to fighting this legal admissibility issue alone. Should the pilot subsequently have to go to court to answer to the substantive charge, the pilot will have to ultimately decide on what course to take, and will bear any costs of that.

If for any reason there is a surplus of funds after this admissibility issue is resolved, we would ask you to contribute on the basis that a record of all contributors will be kept and all contributors will be surveyed as to how the General Aviation Advocacy Group should apply any surplus funds.

We urge you to consider making even a small donation to assist in this important legal challenge.

CAA Notices: The reinvention of a failed methodology

Since our last update, feedback shows that concerns are shared across the aviation sector about this matter. The introduction of CAA Notices would be a significant departure from the way aviation in New Zealand has been regulated for the past 25 years. Whilst the official comment period for NPRM 17-02 has closed, the following is a quick recap of what the CAA is proposing:

  • Section 28(5) was inserted into the Civil Aviation Act in 2010 and confers certain powers to impose requirements or conditions.
  • About seven years later, the CAA has suddenly come up with an interpretation of how far Parliament intended these powers to extend.
  • In the Cabinet Paper recommending amendment of the Civil Aviation Act, the Minister sought to grant the Director power to determine technical matters such as testing equipment, syllabi and examinations.
  • Cabinet agreed (via Cabinet Minute) to amend the Civil Aviation Act to provide for rules to delegate to the Director the power to determine technical matters, such as testing equipment, syllabi, and examinations.
  • When introducing the amendments to Parliament for debate, the Associate Minister highlighted them as being about the power of the Director to determine technical matters under the Civil Aviation Rules.
  • Parliament intended the granting of powers to determine technical matters in a narrow range of areas. It never intended the establishment of a process where the CAA becomes the risk-definer, the solution-chooser, the rule-maker and the law-enforcer.
  • NPRM 17-02 (released in February 2017) presents CAA Notices as though they are an existing tool. A reader would be forgiven for concluding that CAA Notices are an existing and routine method of communication.
  • The CAA knows that it currently has a Minister who is distracted by other issues within his portfolios and that he basically rubber-stamps anything the CAA puts in front of him.
  • The CAA also knows that it will most likely only have this Minister until August this year; so the Authority is pushing to make hay while the sun shines so to speak, and get everything it possibly can into position before then.
  • The CAA has done a very good job of maximising confusion in the way it has rolled out this CAA Notices concept.
  • Crucially, CAA Notices are a CAA invention.
  • The CAA believes that Section 28(5) of the Act enables the Minister to put in place rules which empower the Authority to impose mandatory requirements or conditions without the need to put the proposed requirements or conditions through the normal rule-making process.
  • The CAA has decided that, should the Minister put in place such an empowering rule, then the mandatory requirements or conditions imposed under it will be documented in a CAA Notice.
  • The first attempt at convincing the Minister to create an empowering rule is contained in NPRM 17-02 in the form of the proposed new Subpart I to Part 61.
  • The CAA has everyone fixated on how a CAA Notice will be consulted upon, who might be allowed to issue it, and how much faster it will allow things to be achieved. Only now are people waking up to whether Parliament ever intended Section 28(5) to be used in the way that is proposed, or what the implications are of enabling this sort of regulatory power to be wielded outside the normal rule-making process.
  • The CAA has carefully chosen the subject matter of the first CAA Notice. R22/R44 operational safety is a subject upon which some fairly firm views are held across the community and most discussions can be relied upon to revert to this subject matter, rather than sticking to the core issue of what regulatory checks and balances are appropriate.
  • The introduction of the CAA Notices concept will never reach an NPRM stage. As outlined above, the CAA has invented it for its own ends.
  • What will reach an NPRM stage are the proposed empowering rules which we expect will be introduced by the CAA as and when it decides it wishes to create mandatory requirements or conditions in different areas. The proposed Subpart I to Part 61 is the first example of an empowering rule.
  • Should the Minister decide to create an empowering rule under Section 28(5), he must specify the consultation that is to be undertaken prior to mandatory requirements or conditions being promulgated. The cynical side of us wonders how long it will be before the CAA convinces the Minister that specifying zero consultation will lead to a far more expeditious pathway to introduction of various requirements or conditions.

When questioned about CAA Notices, the CAA has made it very clear that consultation on their introduction is not necessary because this is already provided for in Section 28(5) of the Act. Our assessment is that the CAA has made its mind up on what the Act means and will attempt to drive this CAA Notices concept forward – regardless of resistance.

The Swedavia-McGregor Report was in part instigated because the aviation regulatory framework had become an unwieldy ad hoc mess of rules, circulars, orders and other tertiary regulations.

CAA Notices are a reinvention of this failed methodology and we encourage everyone to continue voicing their opposition at every opportunity.

Client Satisfaction Surveys in a post-factual world…

The CAA is either living in a fools’ paradise and thinks all its customers are happy, or it is deeply afraid to ask them. We can’t think of any other reason why the CAA refuses to hire a neutral organisation and tell it go to the customers and ask some honest questions. We also have convincing proof that no company or organisation can rely on anything other than an independent monitoring of its customers.

Here’s why…

In January this year, we wrote to the Chairman of the CAA Board pointing out that the Authority engaged Colmar Brunton to undertake a client satisfaction survey in 1995 and 1998; five years later in 2003, the same research company carried out a similar survey. Since then, there have been no further CAA Client Satisfaction Surveys specifically targeting all CAA document holders. The 2003 survey’s results did not heap praise upon the CAA.

In his reply, the Chairman said:

“Your interest in surveys is topical as the CAA will shortly be repeating its flagship ‘Feel Safe’ survey conducted by Colmar Brunton. Management are currently planning on supplementing the survey, or even splitting its content, so that while retaining its prior focus on the CAA’s ultimate customer (the public) it also provides more information from the aviation sector”.

OK, it’s costing you $4.50 a minute. But do have a problem with me?

The Colmar Brunton “Feel Safe” surveys have typically only contained results from 300 to 400 respondents. We have written to the Chairman and asked that all CAA document holders be made aware of his planned consumer survey. But we reminded Mr Gould that this is just a consumer survey, and what is actually required is a CAA document-holder survey related to specific client issues, and promoted via the CAA’s email user database and Vector magazine.

Post-audit or inspection feedback to the CAA

In our letter to the Chairman, we pointed out that MoBIE has for many years operated a system in which, after every investigation, an inspector is required to send a client satisfaction survey to all parties involved. Something similar would be a valuable tool for the CAA Director for feedback about, to quote just one example, the knowledge and performance of auditors and the way they interact with aircraft operators and aircraft maintenance facilities. A client feedback system also provides useful information to senior managers of departments to gauge the performance of individual staff members as part of their yearly performance reviews.

The Chairman said:

“… at the end of each audit or inspection, the CAA already surveys the parties involved in order to gather information on their views on the effectiveness and efficiency of the regulatory intervention they have just been involved in. While that provides limited information about the performance of one regulatory function, we are interested in gathering a broader range of views to inform risk management and decision-making. Both the management and Board of the Authority recognize the importance of such information from the sector to inform our planning and improvement efforts. In part, this is one of the reasons we place so much importance on the relationship with representative bodies like the Aviation Community Advisory Group.”

We then sought to verify what the Chairman had claimed was correct – “the CAA already surveys the parties involved in order to gather information on their views on the effectiveness and efficiency of the regulatory intervention they have just been involved in”.

We asked a number of operators if what the Chairman claimed (or had been told by his officials) actually happened in practice.

  1. Did the Chairman’s statement have validity?
  1. Did operators feel comfortable providing feedback to the CAA when their AOC is at stake?

We believe the replies below speak for themselves, and we’d welcome further comments.

  • No, I’m not aware of any statement like that. Imagine if an operator criticised them at that point, they could be deemed not fit or proper and their AOC withdrawn or delayed when the auditors got back to Wellington. Yes there is a discussion, but who would dare to complain? It proves how out of touch the Chairman is.
  • I never had the auditors ask me how the audit went or what I thought of CAA. If you wanted a good audit report you would never consider expressing your thoughts on that issue. Ask the Chairman for some of the recorded comments.
  • No, I haven’t been asked for feedback (that’s not to say I haven’t given verbal feedback to auditors at a subsequent audit however!).
  • I am not aware of any formal feedback system. At one point during an audit, I found I was being asked the same questions at each audit such as “Is your fax number still xxxxxxxxx. Is your mailing address still xxxxxxxxx. Is your phone number still xxxxxxxx. When I’m paying over $4.50 PER MINUTE for CAA to ask me the same questions at each audit to which there was no change, I wasn’t happy. I suggested they send me an A4 sheet with those questions on it prior to the audit and I could go through and tick the boxes, thus saving valuable minutes. They thought that was a great idea but nothing was done.
  • I have never been asked at all, fair to say I have offered my opinion on a number of occasions regarding their efficiency levels, no one has ever asked me for it tho and I have undergone approx 25 audits over the years.
  • The last CAA audit that I went through was about 2 years ago for our former Part 145 maintenance organisation. There was certainly a discussion on how we viewed the conduct of the audit but our responses were very much along the lines of what you would expect of “the regulated” talking to “the regulator”. No matter how the CAA Chairman might like to dress it up, it is extremely difficult to get anyone whose livelihood relies on holding an aviation document to be critical (no matter how well intentioned or constructive) of the organisation that issues said document.
  • I am in full agreement for the auditing process to be outsourced, what a great idea, at least if this happened there would be no favoritisms by the auditors. It’s imperative that all operators record* audits.  In that way it keeps the auditors honest and semi under control.
  • Yes this is an interesting subject and I totally agree with the other comments.  After last year’s audit we received a survey, which I filled out with my own feelings regarding CAA.  But I then thought it wasn’t a good idea to return it as it may have been held against me.  So I never posted it. I am certain that industry is running scared of CAA and feel that there are “bully” tactics going on. CAA is determined to change the aviation industry to make it highly regulated to cover their own arses.  Hence industry is finding this hard to come to terms with.
  • A further point about commenting on audit skills etc is as long as they are sitting at your table you are paying for that time.  You want them in and out of your place as soon as possible so the audit doesn’t cost you an absolute fortune.  So no, we wouldn’t think there would be anyone out there brave enough to criticise the CAA openly and in front of the auditors, as it would make their lives a misery.

The Chairman also said:

“On the information theme, please note that management is also introducing a ‘balanced scorecard’ to improve the information available on organisational performance. While not yet complete, over the next 12 months you can expect to see information being sought from the sector and others to inform the assessment of matters of regulatory effectiveness, efficiency and regulatory burden”.

  • Record, in this context, means to “tape record”. The GAA recommends that all important dialogue you have with CAA personnel –  on your premises, over the telephone or at the CAA’s office – should be recorded on audio and/or video. Before making any recording, you should advise your intentions to the CAA personnel, ensure they agree to an uncensored recording and offer to provide them with a copy of it.

CAA Notices – The tentacles of regulation just keep growing longer

In mid-February, the CAA announced its intention to publish CAA Notices as a means of ensuring that “the regulatory framework remains responsive and adaptable to change.”

On the surface, these objectives almost appear noble. But when we peel back the layers, what emerges is a worrying erosion of the checks and balances that have underpinned aviation rule-making since the early 1990s.

A CAA Notice will be a mandatory stipulation of requirements and must be complied with. It will be reinforced by a rule, but the notice itself will be issued by the CAA rather than going through the rule-making process.

Parliament did not vote for this

When concerns were raised about the advent of CAA Notices without any consultation, the response from CAA management was that there is no proposal to consult on the concept of Notices because these are currently permitted under Section 28(5) of the Act.

Section 28(5) was inserted into the Civil Aviation Act in 2010 and does confer certain powers to impose requirements or conditions; however, some seven years later, the CAA is being somewhat cute in its interpretation of how far the law-makers (Parliament) intended these powers to extend.

One of the positives of our system of government is that it keeps records, and these very clearly show that:

  • In recommending amendment of the Civil Aviation Act to Cabinet, the Minister sought to grant the Director power to determine technical matters such as testing equipment, syllabi and examinations
  • Cabinet agreed to amend the Civil Aviation Act to provide for rules that delegate to the Director the power to determine technical matters, such as testing equipment, syllabi, and examinations
  • When introducing the amendments to Parliament for debate, the Associate Minister highlighted them as being about the power of the Director to determine technical matters under the Civil Aviation Rules.

Parliament intended the granting of powers to determine technical matters in a narrow range of areas. It never intended the establishment of a process where the CAA becomes the risk-definer, the solution-chooser, the rule-maker and the law-enforcer.

This entire CAA Notices concept is a flossed-up attempt by the regulator to twist the intent of the law-makers in order to extend its tentacles and shield itself from the scrutiny of its masters. Aviators will not have recourse to the MoT or Minister regarding the content of CAA Notices.

Rather than looking for mechanisms to increase its powers and subvert the checks and balances that exist, the CAA should be focusing on getting rules and rule amendments right the first time so that they progress through the existing process in a timely manner.

CAA funding review: Political leadership is now essential

Since our update last month, we’ve achieved much greater clarity around a few things:

  • The Minister of Transport, Simon Bridges, is still waiting for the final Cabinet paper and Regulatory Impact Statement on proposed charges.
  • He believes that these two papers are months away, not weeks.
  • He has given an undertaking that the Chairman of the Board will respond to our letter calling for independent and open and transparent analysis of the Regulatory Impact Statement, but told us that he doesn’t think such transparency is necessary.

So what does this all mean?

It is by no means certain that the new levies and other changes will occur in November as planned. This triennial review of charges is already running at least 12 months late. Some say that if there is no decision on changes before the end of the year, it will be very difficult to impose them until after the election.

We are quite happy with (and support) a number of the CAA’s proposed changes. We oppose only one of them: the proliferation of new levies on commercial general aviation. All the others are either unequivocally supported or backed with some reservations about their consistency with the user pays philosophy.

The GAA is opposed to the introduction of new levies because:

  • They are unfair and unjust – some sectors, notably GA commercial, will have to pay for audit and surveillance through the proposed new levy, while all other groups get this service for free.
  • Commercial GA will have to pay for educational, safety investigation/prosecution and safety promotion and implementation of rules under the levy arrangements, while all other sectors have these activities paid for by the levy on passengers.
  • Safety in commercial GA is highly vulnerable to increased costs – a recent statement by the CAA’s Deputy Director responsible for GA confirms this point, saying a recent survey of more than 600 helicopter pilots has shown cost-consciousness was a major safety issue for the group.
  • The CAA doesn’t need the money. It is extraordinarily well resourced, reporting reserves of more than $5m in the 2015 financial year.
  • Obedience to Treasury and Audit office guidelines for charging in the public sector is leading to an internationally uncompetitive industry, with the CAA’s hourly rate significantly in excess of the UK or Australia.
  • Levies are like taxes – they only increase. When the aviation industry is expanding, the CAA over-recovers – and if there is a a shortfall, charges are increased with government approval.

Last time, the CAA had some justification for a rate hike but on this occasion there should be only one recommendation and that is to reduce present charges because the Authority is rolling in money.

And that’s why the Regulatory Impact Statement is so critical.

Simon Bridges: Time for some serious attention

Simon Bridges: Time for some serious attention

If you get this high-level analysis wrong, things go really pear-shaped. We are surprised that the Government doesn’t see the RIS as a key part of managing its political risk – and there is significant risk if the analysis is wrong.

We know through our network that the hourly rate charges are doing a lot of damage. There is a commitment out there to bring in new equipment and technologies, but exorbitant CAA costs are having an impact. New Zealand is simply not always getting the best kit because CAA charges can be as high as $60k per aircraft and these charges must be paid up-front, before the aircraft is productive. So we get new aircraft, but perhaps not always with the best technology and safety benefits.

At no time did officials tell ministers that this would be one of the downside consequences.

We cannot understand why Simon Bridges is so quick to rule out any engagement with the industry on developing the RIS.  The CAA clearly understands (or has allegedly been told as much by an astounding 600 helicopter pilots in what appears to be a private survey) that commercial pressures are substantial in the sector.

So why aren’t the Ministry of Transport and CAA open to engaging independent and informed advice on the issue? This is the best way of managing the political risk.

Aviation safety is not some esoteric flight of fantasy by number-crunchers in gold-plated towers with water views. It is a very practical matter to which we all contribute, so why won’t Wellington officialdom accept we should have input into this critical paper? We have nothing to hide.

I am disappointed that, despite Minister Bridges’ commitment, the Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority has chosen not to respond to my letter of mid-July on the RIS issue. Now I do know that The CAA’s apparent position is that it has made recommendations to the Minister, and that’s it. However, it also appears that the CAA is still having major input into the development of the RIS Why wouldn’t CAA want to put the best possible advice to the Ministry?

At the behest of the Auckland National Party MPs, we filed a formal complaint via Andrew Bayly, MP for Hunua. Its content has not yet been widely circulated, but we’ve done some more work on the impacts of all the changes proposed and concluded that the new levels of cross-subsidy are larger than the current ones.

The GAA believes that the Authority’s underlying strategy is aimed at taking our focus off its exorbitant hourly rates, and the escalation to a 100% cost recovery hourly rate of $466 per hour plus GST.

The real issue is benchmarking CAA charges so that they are internationally competitive. This would mean hourly rates of between $150 and $190 per hour and a medical application fee of no more than $80. Forget the Treasury and Audit Office guidelines; this is about making New Zealand’s aviation industry as attractive as possible, and that means safe and cost-competitive.

Our message to you: It’s really important to keep talking to your local MP, because sooner or later Minister Bridges will make a recommendation to his Cabinet colleagues.

Our message to Simon Bridges: It really is time to seriously consider and discuss our sector’s competitiveness, and that requires accountability and leadership.


♦ If your experience with the CAA – on any issue – has been disappointing, don’t keep it to yourself and them. Please share it with fellow aviators. Email admin [at] caa [dot] gen [dot] nz. Your privacy is assured.

Ag pilot competency checks: CAA leaves a mess in its wake

CAA - the fox in charge of the henhouse

CAA – the fox is in charge of the henhouse

The CAA is clearly in difficulties over its plans to reform the testing regime for agricultural pilots, particularly since the GAA pointed out that much of the proposed reform was not practical – particularly for the single-seat, single-control fixed-wing aircraft. Yes, it may be “legal” using the subtle differences in interpretation between a “passenger”, a“crew member” and a “required crew member”.

However, legality does not necessarily translate into a safe operation.

There are serious Health and Safety implications in the CAA’s proposals. Protests from the ag operators have highlighted the hazards. The CAA has adroitly passed the health and safety issues back to the operators and made them responsible for mitigating the dangers.

Because some of the single-control aircraft do not have a specific reference in their operating limitation pages of their flight manuals (a single-control Fletcher aircraft has only a placard on the panel, for example), the CAA says that the manufacturers do not specifically prohibit the carriage of a person in the jump seat during actual agricultural operations. However, a GA 200C Fatman, for example, does have a specific reference in the limitations pages to the fact that the passenger seat must not be occupied during agricultural operations and therefore an E Cat or a flight examiner may not be legally carried in that seat.

To mitigate the risks of restricted control movement caused by the person occupying the passenger seat during actual agricultural operations, the CAA has passed that responsibilty over to the PIC to ensure he has full and free control movement before takeoff. Whether this control check adequately takes into account the person in the passenger seat shifting his pre-takeoff seated position during a critical phase of flight, such as the low level reversal turns at the end of a spray or topdressing run, is open to conjecture.

As a result of submissions regarding the difficulties in complying with AC 61-15, the CAA has modified its stance and now permits ground observations of Ag competency checks in single-control, single-seat aircraft, provided they are backed up with high resolution video footage taken from within the cockpit.

The CAA is delegated to manage the new Health and Safety Act in the sphere of aviation. We question how the CAA can be expected to carry out an independent investigation of its own ACs and AMCs when it is, in effect, the fox in charge of the henhouse.

Ag pilots – a tiny and easily identifiable group for the CAA – were never individually consulted when the Authority issued its first AC about flight testing.

The Authority’s latest Advisory Circular is now up to Revision 5.

Of course, all this nonsense could have been avoided by proper consultation.

The General Manager GA has told us that there is no requirement for the CAA to consult on the addition of an AMC (Acceptable Means of Compliance) to an AC, although it may disclose and discuss the AMC informally but not necessarily with all interested parties.

However, the parties most affected by the Rule and the first version of the AC were the single-seat, single-control, fixed-wing Ag pilots – and they were not specifically consulted. We ask the obvious question: “How hard would that have been?”

We say that the way the Authority handles ACs and AMCs amounts to regulation by stealth, there being no compulsory requirement to consult with all interested parties – leaving the CAA at liberty to advise hand-picked groups claiming to represent the industry.


♦ If you have written to the CAA – on any subject – don’t just keep it to yourself and them. You can share it with fellow aviators by sending it to the GAA as well. Email to admin [at] caa [dot] gen [dot] nz


CAA Funding Review: Mud sticks – and so do promises

It wasn’t just former Transport Minister Gerry Brownlee who, in 2012 (when imposing those dramatic rises), promised to reduce or remove the need for increased CAA charges in the 2015-2018 triennial review. He spoke for every minister of the day. In 2016, that still involves at least 13 ministers in the present Cabinet.

Min of Tran Simon Bridges: Muddled response

Min of Tran Simon Bridges: Muddled response

There seems to be an official reluctance to even acknowledge Mr Brownlee’s undertaking, possibly because bureaucrats and politicians wish to avoid accusations of broken promises. Current Transport Minister Simon Bridges’ muddling response, when recently faced with sharp questions in the House from NZ First’s Denis O’Rourke, was, we suspect, because he had been hoodwinked by officials who had conveniently failed to brief him about the Brownlee pledge.

If you read the CAA’s briefing papers to the incoming minister in 2014, you’ll see that its “first principles review” of future funding was already under way.

This suggests that Minister Brownlee either approved a first principles review in the expectation that charges would be held or reduced and the present hourly rate of $288 would become the 100% cost recovery rate, or officials charged off on their own. Gerry Brownlee is not known to mislead his Cabinet colleagues. He’s a minister of long standing. His expectation would be that the promise:

For the period for the next funding review (that is 2015-2018) the Civil Aviation Authority will look to decrease costs so that fees and charges reflect full cost recovery from 2015/16 and the need for further increases is reduced or removed…”

would be honoured.

Few ministers have objections to “first principle” reviews; such reviews are set in the context of the Government’s overall policy objective. In this case, the CAA apparently never told Mr Bridges that his predecessor had committed to two things:

  • Decreased costs
  • Need for further increases reduced or removed.

One can only assume that the promises were designed to get the controversial 2012 increases across the line. In other words, they were false and merely designed to comfort other ministers who were concerned that the draconian 2012 rises were unfair.

We also know that, this time round, many politicians are uncomfortable that those who can afford to pay – such as central and local government-controlled monopolies – get a free ride under the new proposals, while some of our most vulnerable operators, servicing similarly vulnerable communities, must pay up to 300-400% more.

If the present review is a “first principles review”, why weren’t these principles clearly articulated to everyone?

I was around when we went to “user pays”. The first principle of user pays is that the users have a say. As users, what say had we in the $43m of revenue the CAA claims it needs? As far as I am aware (along with everyone I have spoken to), we were merely told that $43m was what CAA wanted. Well, let me offer just a few of many money-saving thoughts:

  • The Civil Aviation Act S.72 E requires the Board to consider the most efficient and effective means of performing its functions and discharging its powers either by delegation, contracting or performing in-house. There is no evidence that the Board has ever done this. Why not?
  • The CAA undertook an expensive investigation ($250,000-plus) of an accident involving a US-registered aircraft. The Feds were not even interested and the findings were of zero benefit to the New Zealand flying public – where’s the accountability for that?
  • LTSA has a perfectly good system for registering vehicles. Why can’t we register our aircraft on the same system and at the same cost?

The second principle: All who benefit should contribute something. This means there should be no free-loaders. Under the CAA’s new proposals, this principle is destroyed. The likes of the private pilot will pro rata contribute more to financing the system than any airport, ATC and Met provider, engineering company or registered cargo agent. This is unfair and unjust.

The third principle: Where an activity can be identified and linked to a beneficiary, an hourly rate should be charged. This is not merely some flight of fancy but is enshrined in how charges must be set. There must be zero cross-subsidisation of these activities.

The fourth principle: Ability to pay. Not all companies and/or individuals have an equal ability to pay. Some businesses derive much more global credibility than others, through having a competent regulatory authority.

The fifth principle: When all activities have been allocated fairly according to the 100% cost recovery hourly rate, then – and only then – can a levy be struck. Levies cannot be based on hours because if a beneficiary can be identified, that beneficiary must pay.

One of the reasons the Ag levy is so high is because of the cost of implementing the Ag Sector profile. I put money on it that Ag operators were never told they would have to retrospectively pay for the Ag Sector profile. Levies – as with taxes – can’t be applied retrospectively without Parliament’s authorisation. This is a big NO NO.

Recent advice from the CAA says: “The Board… has now finalised its advice to the Minister of Transport. As he is now considering that advice, it is not appropriate for me to comment further…..”

This clearly shows that the Regulatory Impact Statement (a document forming part of the advice to ministers) was undertaken by officials without any transparency or consultation with industry as to the impact of the proposals. We had sought, on the industry’s behalf, an independent development of the RIS. The Chairman of the CAA didn’t even bother to respond to that letter.

We are determined to oppose any unjust or unfair proposal and will use every means at our disposal.

The GAA has commenced a formal complaint process with the Minister of Transport, highlighting the areas where consultation has been deficient, and in particular:

  • the “selective” nature of aspects of the consultation process
  • the failure of the CAA to release to all parties the individual submissions it received
  • the timing of the consultation process, which curiously coincided with peak work periods for the industry
  • the lack of full financial transparency around the levy proposals
  • the defective thinking behind decisions that would permit “free-loading”

Individually, these aspects may seem minor. Collectively, they form a convincing basis to claim a breach of process and to challenge these proposals.

Live within your means – Minister Brownlee’s promise after the 2012 review

Brownlee may have gone away, but we haven't

Brownlee may have gone away, but we haven’t

I’ve already expressed my view that the CAA’s proposed new levies on commercial general aviation are some of the most draconian steps I have ever seen attempted, although I am assured they rank up there with the epic pricing debacle of the early 1990s.

Well, it would appear our former Minister of Transport nailed the CAA’s feet firmly to the ground when he said:

for the period of the next funding review (that is 2015-2018) the Civil Aviation Authority will look to decrease costs so that fees and charges reflect full cost recovery from 2015/16 and the need for further increases is reduced or removed…”

It’s time to deliver.

Has the CAA looked to decrease its costs? To be fair, it’s a mixed bag – some “ups” pushed by such things as the agreement with Airways on the AIP ($2m plus CPI adjustments) and SMS; and some “downs” such as shared services with AvSec.

BUT the net effect has been, as disclosed in the CAA consultation document, to push up the full cost recovery hourly rate calculated on the same basis as in the 2012 review to $466 per hour. Under the Treasury and Audit Office guidelines on charging for public services, this is the rate CAA should be charging industry – and could charge, unless costs are controlled at the 2019 review.

There was a quid pro quo in 2012 – Ministers formed the view that the industry had to “suck up” the increases – but there would be no more. The clear message: the CAA must live within its means.

We do agree that its “means” are pretty gold-plated compared to what we ordinary people in industry are used to, but nevertheless the message from Ministers was clear: Enough is enough.

Ministers come and go and Minister Brownlee handed the reins to Minister Bridges. But the problem remains.

Our lobbying programme is reminding everyone of the Cabinet’s undertaking.

For those who have responded to our survey and wanted further action, we have drafted letters for them to send to their MPs. We have also been in contact with and spoken to many more commercial GA companies. Each has been grateful for the assistance we are providing.

We are not suggesting that commercial GA shouldn’t continue its contributions towards the costs of running the CAA, but we are opposing the imposition of any new levies.

Levies are taxes that reduce financial accountability. They are the beginning of the slippery slope towards future revenue hikes. An hourly rate of $466 is simply ridiculous.

Let’s be clear:-

  • The CAA does not need $1.792m from GA commercial – present reserve levels are almost 300% higher than stated as required in the 2012 Cabinet paper.
  • Minister Brownlee’s 2012 assurances were an undertaking to reduce costs and remove the threat of further increases.
  • The CAA is not delivering value for money – commercial General Aviation is reporting little if any improvement in services.
  • The new levy “pays” for services which commercial GA already funds via the participation levy.
  • The CAA’s communication of proposals was too complex, lacked the critical financial information justifying the $1.792m increase, and occurred during peak season.

A quick reminder of the increased charges being proposed;

  • Introduction of new levies for commercial General Aviation (3-year phase-in):
Parachuting/Paragliding operators $2.50 per descent
Commercial Passenger operators (Medium/Large aeroplanes) $5.50 per flight hour
Commercial Passenger operators (Small aeroplanes and helicopters) $6.50 per flight hour
Adventure Aviation operators $12.50 per flight hour
Freight only operators $3.00 per tonne
Agricultural operators $0.87 per tonne


  • Existing levies (Passenger and Participation) to be retained.
  • Removal of hourly rate charging for all CAA audits.
  • A claimed 30% reduction in the pilot medical certificate application fee, which on closer examination was proved to be CAA sleight of hand: The Authority first increased the existing fee by 23% (to $404.71) and then reduced the new total by 52%, to $210.45. A genuine 30% reduction would put the charge at $162.76.
  • CAA annual income requirement projected to increase from $38m (2016) to $43m (2019)
    • o Removal of hourly rate audit charge – $2.24 m
    • o Reduction in medical cert fee – $0.8m
    • o Passenger levy + $6m
    • o New GA levies +$1.792m
  • CAA actual reserves $10.2m; targeted reserve $3.6m

We understand the CAA Board has considered and reconsidered the final recommendations. Adjustments to the levy rates have been flagged but the CAA continues to pursue the new levy on commercial GA.

There are now well over 50 letters with key Ministers and MPs. Each of them requests a one-on-one meeting with the MP to raise “parliamentary awareness” of the issue.

If you are opposed to these new levies and want to join our campaign, let us know and we will help you. We know we still have a bit more time as the Minister hasn’t received the CAA’s final recommendations. We will only overturn these levies if we speak with one voice and deliver the same message:;

LIVE WITHIN YOUR MEANS – deliver on Brownlee’s undertaking

We are not going to go away, and we will use every possible avenue to get these new taxes on commercial GA removed.


Class 2 medicals harm your wealth and add unwanted fat to the CAA

This article was written by Murray Shaw, a GA pilot, who originally sent it to the CAA

Class 2 medicals: They provide no benefits, either individually or to the public

Class 2 medicals: They provide no benefits, either individually or to the public

I propose that the CAA eliminates the requirement for a Class 2 medical for Private Pilots, replacing it with the same medical requirement as that currently required for the Recreational Pilot Licence (RPL) while retaining the current privileges of a PPL, and removes any requirement for PPLs to apply to the CAA for a medical certificate for a basic PPL.

There is substantial international information that points strongly to the fact that medical certificates do not prevent medical events from occurring in flight.

To expand on this subject:

♦ Paul Bertorelli researched some stats in the US (Avweb, 28 July 2015). He cites statisticss produced by a review of the autopsy results of 471 pilots involved in fatal aircraft accidents between 2011 and 2014, in which 403 had a medical certificate, 68 did not (flying under Sport Pilot rule) and 18 of the 403 were caused by medical incapacitation, or 4.4%. All of those pilots possessed current medicals which had not detected the issue that caused the accident. This indicates that for pilots, medicals do little or nothing to protect the public from the hazard of any pilot undergoing a medical event that leads to incapacitation or an impaired ability to maintain control of an aircraft in flight. None of the Sport Pilot accidents were caused by a medical event.

♦ The ICAO documents indicate there is a need to maintain some level of medical oversight over aviation activities. However, the ICAO acknowledges that, in applying the “1% Rule” (one pilot incapacitation due to a medical event in roughly every one million hours) for the above grouping the incidence of risk is very low.

♦ The rule to report medical events that impact on a pilot’s medical certificate has been removed from the PPL requirements, but is retained under the RPL requirements, which results in a confusing state of affairs. Are PPLs not required to report any such situation?

The reality for any pilot is a need to self-certify prior to any flight. In recent times, this has taken the form of the “I’m Safe” checklist which includes an assessment of any medical/health issues that may impact on a pilot’s ability to safely conduct the flight. Having said that, and in light of the point above, how many pilots report to the CAA that – due to having a head cold – they are not fit to fly? My guess is very few, if any, because too many know that to do so would incur further scrutiny, and significant costs, before being cleared to fly again – no one trusts the bureaucrats!

♦ The limitation of any medical exam is that its certification is only valid at the time of the assessment. Health issues can and often do come on with little or no notice, and can very quickly become debilitating. No medical assessment can predict this. As is indicated in the top point, medical assessments are unable to accurately identify and predict the likelihood of any such condition that can impact on a pilot’s medical certificate.

♦ The ICAO states that its own information identifies the primary cause of pilot incapacitation is gastrointestinal issues (75%). These can occur in the range of minor discomfort to rapid onset and complete debilitation. They are also identified as “usually impossible to predict”.

♦ For any risk management activity to be effective, the applied treatments must be proven to be effective. It is clear that the New Zealand population available to supply the level of data necessary to properly assess risk is insufficient. Therefore the CAA must rely on international statistics to inform it of the efficacy of its oversight and regulation processes in many areas. In the area of aviation medicals, it is very clear that all the CAA achieves is to create an additional layer of unproductive bureaucracy that does not serve to protect the public of New Zealand and, moreover, appears to be a revenue-gathering exercise by a Government department and an attempt to justify the existence of highly paid (but unnecessary) jobs.

♦ It is clear that the CAA considers cost to be a significant issue in the operation of its medical unit. From a public perspective, the obvious question is: How and why is the unit structured in such a way to generate such costs, and why are efficiencies through a review of its necessary functions (as required of other Government agencies) not looked for – and a restructure achieved?

Under the principle of “User Pays”, the CAA has introduced conflict:

♦ First, through over-regulation, the CAA is forcing pilots to pay for a service that provides no benefits, either individually or to the public in general.

♦ Second, the CAA is endeavouring to have pilots subsidise the additional scrutiny required for a very small number who have had an identified medical issue occur, but wish to retain their flying privileges. This breaches the principle and unfairly imposes costs where they are not necessary.

I would like to stress that this submission is not one that requests removal of medical examinations altogether, as I do not believe that is either sensible or appropriate risk management. I also believe that the lack of statistics to the contrary is a clear indication that the current approach to medical fitness applied by the CAA is excessive and leaves significant scope to reduce the level of surveillance of pilots, particularly recreational General Aviation ones.

I submit that, in view of the above evidence and in serving not only the Government, but the general public of New Zealand and the aviation community (pilots and support functions such as maintenance organisations) the CAA would be best served by supporting and encouraging general aviation activity through the reduction of the PPL medical requirements to the same level as that of the current RPL.


♦ If you have written to the CAA – on any subject – don’t just keep it to yourself and them. You can share it with fellow aviators by sending it to the GAA as well. Email to admin [at] caa [dot] gen [dot] nz