Kharon - Sarcs has headed down the research path I believe he'll take, the thinking man may glean some insight into why the NZ CAA is light years ahead of not only Australia, but of many other enlightened countries in the way they have progressed aviation, not just 'safety'; but in the regulatory and fiscal fields, resulting in increased efficiency naturally leading to improved safety outcomes..
It is not much of a research path really, merely some observations made along the way to enlightenment perhaps...
For a small nation geographically & population wise NZed certainly punches above it's weight..
Comparisons can not only be made in Rugby, the Kiwis also excel in aviation, just take a look at the financials for Air NZ v our majors; or in GA versus our slowly but surely suffocation of a once thriving industry (pre 1990s)...
So what is the difference??
It cannot simply be about a better written, more easily read and understood rule set; there has to be a lot more to it than that??
Part of the problem for Oz aviation is we have drifted, over now a good many years, into a third world mentality of complacency living off the fat of the land and extreme mineral wealth, none of which the Kiwis had in the first place. We are also encumbered by several extra layers of bureaucracy that the Kiwis simply don't have to deal with...
It was pointed out in the Forsyth report that Performance Based Regulation (PBR) is the new mantra for NAA world’s best practice in aviation regulation, a philosophy that best fosters & nurtures an essential industry for any nation’s economic benefit.
From executive summary ASRR report:
Leading regulators across the world are moving to performance-based regulation, using a ‘trust and verify’ approach, collaborating with industry to produce better safety outcomes and ensuring the regulator stays in touch with rapidly advancing technology and safety practices. On occasions, individual operators may push the boundaries and require close regulatory oversight and a firm regulatory response. An effective risk-based regulator will judge when a hard line is necessary.
A number of countries with advanced aviation regulatory systems have developed collaborative relationships between their regulators and industry, leading to open sharing of safety data. Due to the present adversarial relationship between industry and CASA, Australia lacks the degree of trust required to achieve this important aim. Sharing safety data is a fundamental principle of good safety management.
This PBR philosophy has been very quickly adopted by the UK and is currently a work in progress. Which brings about a strange dichotomy because we like the UK have a conservative government with a policy of cutting red tape, yet our government seems loathe to implement a PBR approach to our aviation rule set?? Perhaps the AMROBA news article - Delays and International Practices - best tries to fathom this disconnection:
Industry wonders whether the Forsyth Report is getting the government support that it needs. Unlike the CAA(UK), ever since the creation of the government agency CAA/CASA there has been more and more prescriptive regulations that restricts aviation without any thought that the regulatory environment must also enable the industry to be sustainable.
CASR Part 61, unique to Australia, is further proof that those creating the requirements are not specialists in the sector nor do they understand ICAO Annexes and other regulatory systems where industry is not only surviving but they are growing.
The CAA (UK) has promulgated two documents, CAP 1123 and CAP 1184.
CAP 1123 simply states that the CAA (UK) will be deregulating GA as much as possible and they will also move to delegation to assist so the CAA(UK) could stop regulatory oversight of GA. GA in Britain is prescribed as aviation not classified as Commercial Air Transport (CAT).
CAP 1184 states that over the next couple of years the CAA(UK) will be changing their legislative requirement to Performance Based Regulation. The CAP states that “Further regulation and just doing more of what we currently do will not have the greatest effect.”
The outcome of PBR means many current organisations must change to some degree to get the most out of PBR. The PBR approach will improve the sharing of risks information and best practice.
PBR and deregulation and delegation of individuals in GA is the FAA GA system.
Maybe Australia was closer to what the CAA(UK)’s ‘new direction’ pre the creation of CAA/CASA. Our GA system was more FAR system than any other system…
The only problem is that CASA has not demonstrated any intent to adopt the government’s aviation policy and regulation reduction of red tape.
To get Australia back to international standards then many of the requirements implemented of the last decade will need to be re-visited and corrected…
None of which seems to be a problem for the Kiwis who, from all reports, has an industry that is going gang-busters and has been doing so long before EASA & ICAO started singing the praises of PBR.
And that is where the two requests for assistance from CAANZ to our very own ATSB comes in, so here goes my follow the links...
To begin from those reports the NZed system for AAI is very unique in that the CAA also holds the responsibility for the receiving of incident/accident reports, while also being responsible for overseeing the investigation according to ICAO Annex 13. Sometimes they delegate the carriage of the investigation to the Transport Accident Investigation Commission (TAIC) but not always, as is evident in the Baron tragedy.
From AE-2013-023: Click on the top link, then click on Accidents and Incidents.
Next go to the RHS index of links & click on Policy and Rules and go down to the heading Government Support and click on Civil Aviation Act Review.
This brings up a Ministry Transport webpage which is well worth reading and begins to paint the picture on how & why NZed, like the ALL BLACKs, are light years ahead of us and most of the world when it comes to State aviation safety oversight & regulation.
Finally click on the link in the middle of this extremely refreshing text:
In addition, over the past 20 years, significant change has occurred within government and throughout the international aviation industry. Some of the changes are:
· the flourishing of New Zealand’s aviation business. About $9.7 billion of revenue is now earned by the aviation industry each year – almost as much as the $10.4 billion earned from the country’s dairy industry . The government expects the industry to continue to be a major contributor to economic growth. The review provides an opportunity to ensure that the Act is not unnecessarily constraining aviation business in New Zealand and across the globe
· the government’s ‘Better Regulation, Less Regulation’ (external link) initiative. The review is a response to finding new ways of tackling transport regulation to ensure it is of high quality and implemented in a cost-effective manner
· the Civil Aviation Authority has moved to a more proactive, risk-based approach to aviation regulation. It is implementing a change programme to improve regulatory quality, service delivery, and efficiency and effectiveness. The review provides an opportunity to ensure the Act can support the Civil Aviation Authority to achieve its change programme
· the international aviation industry is changing rapidly due to increased demand for services, improved technology, the increasing cost of jet fuel and environmental concerns. The review provides an opportunity to ensure that the regulatory framework supports the needs of a dynamic sector
You can see from this government treasury webpage that the Kiwis had adopted a PBR & red tape reduction policy long before it even hit the radar of most progressive first world countries…
Hmm…meanwhile in our world the out of control big “R” regulator continues to dictate & rule the roost with an archaic, draconian mind-set that threatens to decimate our once proud GA industry…
TICK..TOCK miniscule time to wake up or shove off!
ps miniscule Ben has some questions for you that the IOS think you should answer ASAP...
:
Pel-Air: Is 2nd rate crash report good enough for Australia?
pps This comment says it all really...
Minister Truss writes in the Courier-Mail (Letters to Editor, 22/9/14) this morning about CASA and Angel Flight. Amongst other things he writes that “CASA is a statutory body and as minister, I cannot direct it on safety regulations.”
ATSB has similar status so I assume that his advice is that he cannot direct it on safety matters either.
MTF…