Originally Posted by MaxRated
Firstly after looking at your profile one can assume that you work/fly for Zimex, of Geneva and so, would have a vested interest…
No, I don’t work for Zimex. I did work for them in the 1980s and 1990s, but I have not worked for them since the beginning of this decade – that’s over 8 years now. I don’t think I have spoken to anyone at the company for several years, except for social chit-chat when I run into staff in the village. I am not promoting that company (or any other operator for that matter), and that is why I didn’t even mention their company name or their country of origin in my original post.
Please, go back and read the post I made, but this time, don’t go looking for anything between the lines. The point I have tried so hard to make is that we need to look at the level of regulatory oversight that the
state of registry exercises over aircraft and aircraft operators when they are conducting foreign operations.
South African operators have the experience, the equipment, the financial resources, and the human resources necessary to meet ‘best industry practice’ safety standards, measured against any benchmark you choose – SA regulations, North American regulations, or European regulations. This is obvious if you look at the high level of safety provided to passengers and crew who travel in South African public commercial domestic operations or South African flag carrier operations. But, the South African CAA does not exercise this same level of regulatory oversight to their aircraft and their operators when they set up shop in another country. Neither, apparently, does the US FAA or (in the early part of this decade, at least) did the Danish.
Some regulatory authorities keep a very close watch on their aircraft and a very tight leash on their commercial operators wherever they may be. The Swiss, the British, and the Canadians are good examples of this. The Ugandan CAA also keeps a very close watch over their operators, both at home and abroad.
Goonybird, it is to everyone’s benefit – and that includes the crew as well as the passengers – that public commercial air transportation is tightly regulated and closely supervised. You know as well as I do that in the absence of a strong and effective regulatory presence, operators – no matter where they are from - will not voluntarily comply with best industry practice. If there is effective regulatory oversight, operators will all follow the same set of rules. That actually levels the playing field for competition. Look at the number of operators active in Asia to Europe or Asia to North America air freight, or Western Europe to North America passenger operations. They are all tightly regulated and closely supervised, but there is still an extraordinary amount of competition in that market.
The issue this accident raises, as it relates to foreign air operators operating in the DRC, is
“Who is going to bell the cat?” The regulatory authority of the DRC does not have the capability to effectively supervise public air transportation in their country. We can hardly blame them for this, their country has just emerged from a long period of war and the conflict still is not over in parts of the country. We don't consider it to be a 'failing' of the government of the DRC that they need assistance with peacekeeping, thus, we provide MONUC peacekeepers. Why are we not also providing aviation regulatory oversight during the DRC's time of need?
My point is that the regulatory authorities from the state of registration of aircraft that are operating public transport in the DRC have a
MORAL obligation to step up to the plate and ensure that their citizens abide by the same laws that would apply to them at home. No more and no less than this.
Originally Posted by planecrazi
…I recall a ZIMEX Twin Otter having SAM7 take out an engine, I think it was Angola, possibly around 1991-92. Was that you V1?
Yes, that was me.