Thorn Bird,
The Singapore regulations are plain language, simple, understandable, pragmatic, and ICAO compliant without filing thousands of differences. I have only limited experience of working with CAAS, but have found them straightforward, and “interpretations” of the regs. have never been an issue.
A good starting point for the NZ regs, and why they work is the Act, S.14:
14 Objectives of Minister
- The objectives of the Minister under this Act are—
- (a) to undertake the Minister's functions in a way that contributes to the aim of achieving an integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable transport system; and
- (b) to ensure that New Zealand's obligations under international civil aviation agreements are implemented.
Section 14: substituted, on 1 December 2004, by
section 4 of the Civil Aviation Amendment Act (No 2) 2004 (2004 No 95).
In my view, the above is a better approach to making things work, than the now extinct FAA “promote and foster”, because it putting responsibility where responsibility sits, with the Parliament directing the Minister in his or her duties.
The NZ regs. can be characterised as the FARs cleaned up and modernised, with a bit of JAA/EASA influence, particularly in areas where the (then) FAR/JAR harmonisation program was/is producing results in continuing airworthiness areas.
They are plain language as a you and I would understand plain language, not “legal” plain language, as interpreted by the Parliamentary drafters in Canberra.
As far as I can see, there are no strict liability offenses that should not be strict liability, and the way the regulations are set out, they don’t throw “the offense” in your face with every regulation.
They are written for the information of participants in the aviation sector, not for the safe prosecution of those participants.
The NZ regulations are ICAO compliant without filing thousands of differences. ICAO and FAA audits of NZ have not thrown up adverse reports, like multiple ICAO and FAA audits of CASA.
The best judgement that can be delivered on the NZ rules, is the number of countries that have taken them up, or are in the process of so doing, we all know about PNG, but the “NZ Rules” have been taken up by a some of the CIS states, and, as I recall, in some of the Caribbean states. Bermuda was also considering the NZ rules, but I don’t know the outcome, as they were under a lot of pressure to harmonise with EASA.
Prior to the complete shakeup of the NZ CAA in the 1990s, which included the new rules set, CAA/NZ was just as difficult to deal with as CASA, but the transformation has made the organisation easy to deal with --- and they have performance standards for turnaround of application which they meet. For example, if you have all your documents up to speed, which is easy under the NZ system, a HCap. Transport AOC will take about 90 days.
Can anybody remember CASA turning around any new AOC application for anything more than airport dog catcher in 90 days. You are doing well if you can get an Ops. Manual amendment "accepted" in that time.
As many of you will recall, and Australian financed program in PNG found the Australian regulations no longer useable, so we, the Australian taxpayers paid Australians (headed by a former head of CAA/AU to put the NZ rules in place in PNG --- and they work well.
That just about says it all about the NZ regs., I do wonder if Mr. McCormick actually knows anything about NZ, or is he just parroting the partly line he has been served up??
Tootle pip!!