Mr Proach
18th Sep 2011, 10:09
I am intrigued at the lack of specific licensing laws to cover persons engaged in aviation "operations departments". Personnel in this division of an aviation organisation have the potential to adversely influence operational standards, the culture of an organisation and ultimately compromise safety and yet the "weight of the aviation regulations" falls on those who are licenced and qualified, which predominately is pilots and engineers.
I find it quite remarkable that in this day and age of compliance governance, QMS's and SMS's OH&S etc, that there is no legislation requiring an individual person to hold a relevant licence'd qualification to work in the operations department of an aviation company.
For example, I expect pilots who have been in the industry for some time, have on occasions, been placed in a vulnerable position (not of your own doing) with regard to the regulations and your subsequent enquiries have revealed that the "operations" person responsible had little or no understanding of the rules for aviation and their knowledge base was limited to no more than how to achieve the commercial objective. There is also the subject of operations personnel who do understand the regulations but for the sake of commercial priorities will knowingly place pilots/engineers in situations that compromise safety regulations.
In my view, the current regulations make the pilot in command bear ultimate legal responsibility for almost every aspect of an aircraft operation, but do not prevent unlicensed and unqualified persons from legitimately exercising a significant level of influence over that same operation.There is the aspect of individual "accountability" as scripted in companies' operations manual but the general advice is, under current aviation legislation these so called accountability clauses have minor ramification under aviation law.
I believe operations personnel should be required to hold a licence that is conditional on periodic testing conducted by the regulatory authority. Introducing legislation to appropriately licence individuals involved with this section of the industry should provide for a more equitable circumstance with regard to legal liability and hopefully act as a strong deterrent for companies that might otherwise engage in non-compliant practices.
If you concur with what is stated above, please indicate with a response of "I Agree"
All comments invited
I find it quite remarkable that in this day and age of compliance governance, QMS's and SMS's OH&S etc, that there is no legislation requiring an individual person to hold a relevant licence'd qualification to work in the operations department of an aviation company.
For example, I expect pilots who have been in the industry for some time, have on occasions, been placed in a vulnerable position (not of your own doing) with regard to the regulations and your subsequent enquiries have revealed that the "operations" person responsible had little or no understanding of the rules for aviation and their knowledge base was limited to no more than how to achieve the commercial objective. There is also the subject of operations personnel who do understand the regulations but for the sake of commercial priorities will knowingly place pilots/engineers in situations that compromise safety regulations.
In my view, the current regulations make the pilot in command bear ultimate legal responsibility for almost every aspect of an aircraft operation, but do not prevent unlicensed and unqualified persons from legitimately exercising a significant level of influence over that same operation.There is the aspect of individual "accountability" as scripted in companies' operations manual but the general advice is, under current aviation legislation these so called accountability clauses have minor ramification under aviation law.
I believe operations personnel should be required to hold a licence that is conditional on periodic testing conducted by the regulatory authority. Introducing legislation to appropriately licence individuals involved with this section of the industry should provide for a more equitable circumstance with regard to legal liability and hopefully act as a strong deterrent for companies that might otherwise engage in non-compliant practices.
If you concur with what is stated above, please indicate with a response of "I Agree"
All comments invited