NZ CAA encourages passengers to accuse pilots of dangerous flying

[remoak]

From the TVNZ website:

New Zealand's aviation watchdog is cracking down on rogue pilots and operators.
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) says it has created a world-first surveillance system and passengers are being urged to dob-in pilots they believe to be a safety risk.
An Air Adventures crash in Christchurch in June 2003 killed seven Crop and Food scientists and their pilot.
And now the CAA is changing rules governing small airlines by making it tougher for newcomers to start up businesses, while those already operating are now under increased surveillance. The new system is being described as a world-first.
"Rather than visiting every operator once a year for a sort of routine equivalent of a warrant of fitness for a car, if an operator is deemed to be high risk as Mr Bannerman was, we would've been paying that operator a lot more attention than some of the better operators," says Russell Kilvington of CAA.
An airline's safety risk is being determined by regular checks CAA makes itself and from complaints it receives.
Airline safety cards will soon become mandatory on all fee-paying flights. On small operators those cards will come complete with a phone number so passengers can later dob-in pilots or operators they suspect of flying dangerously.
"That will mean passengers have got some comfort if they do report to us, we're committed to taking action," says Kilvington.
Companies found guilty of minor offences now face fines up to $12,000, while severe safety concerns will result in an operator being grounded.
The increased surveillance follows critical reports from both the auditor-general and the Christchurch coroner, who investigated the Air Adventures crash.
While many of their recommendations are being taken up, others are proving harder to implement. And setting up a system where consumers can look up an airline's safety record is proving a legal minefield, with operators fighting to protect their reputations.


original article - http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411749/981314

Surely the stupidest idea I have ever heard.

Discuss...

[empacher48]

Almost everyday I hear of passengers I fly, asking me why we fly so close to the mountains.. Following our SOPS Manual, we fly at heights greater than 1000' over passes (in stronger winds sometimes even 4000' to 5000' may be required) and no closer than 1 NM from terrain (upto 2 Nm in some areas due noise and environmental considerations).

I hope my employer or ALPA are going to put some money together for the legal defense, if my license gets pulled because some SLF thinks that I'm flying in an unsafe manner...:mad:

[27/09]

Seems our interim Director is trying to stamp his authority.

"CAA encouraging the public to 'Dob in' pilots". Almost smacks of the sort of tactics that Hitlers mob used during WW2 to catch dissenters. It makes it look like all pilots are unsafe.

Who hasn't had the benefit of the "expertise and experience" of SLF? I have had similar experiences to empacher48.

I wonder how long it is before some well meaning member of the public uses his/her expertise to 'pot' some law abiding pilot.

On the other side of the coin I can think of at least one pilot (PPL not CPL thank goodness) who used to get rave reviews from any friends (not pilots) this person took flying yet I wouldn't let any loved ones fly with this person.

I see nothing wrong with passengers airing any genuine concerns they have with the operator or the authorities. I would expect that to happen without any encouragement, BUT to actually publically encourage it is going a bit far.

Then to trumpet it as a world first? :suspect:

[rmcdonal]

What would most pax know about safe or unsafe flying? They could use it as a bargaining chip "drop the price or I will report you".
Glad I live in Aus where the CASA are so much more practical and helpful to the industry :} :E

[prospector]

They are implementing this ludicrous scheme for the very good reason that the incumbents are not capable of sorting out the dangerous operators themselves. This has been shown over a number of years now. If it does not work, as it wont, very easy to blame nameless passengers for not doing the job the CAA is paid to do, after all some of these pax would be very experienced CAA inspectors, they being regular pax and knowing exactly what to look for in a dangerous operators actions. They would no doubt have the benefit of the experience gained in preventing Cook Straight Ferry collisions coming from on high to assist in this decision making.

[pakeha-boy]

remoak....ditto mate, an absolutley stupid approach.

Would agree with previous posts also that entitle paxs to inform the CAA of infractions,things they see,safety issues...no problem with that at all...the public is our watchdog and they do have certain controlling rights...but....

.....This type of approach was taken by the FAA many years ago (early eighties) in Alaska....doesnt really matter where it was but the intent of the controlling agencies here is the same.....they took this approach and ultimalty it backfired.....

It backfired due to the fact that the flying public took to the idea like a rat up a drainpipe,they(FAA) became inadated with complaints(most not worth the paper they were typed on) they used all of their resources to investigate these so-called incidents,and it produced nothing but a lot of time and wasted money....

The biggest loss was the respect and co-operation of those within the system,...the pilots,owners etc,...the very people that supported the FAA with feedback.....basically said...F@RKYOU!!!!!..it cost the FAA plenty.....took many years to get a proactive participation level from those who they screwed.

One thing is for sure,we all want safe system,and it is a very fine balance,many ops Ive worked for Police themselves,use self-disclosure and work very closley with the CAA/FAA....THIS IS THE WAY IT SHOULD WORK...a proactive participation of all involved

This current approach stinks of heavy handedness,and will in the end create divisions that will be hard to mend.....PB

[belowMDA]

The greatest problem I have about this new bulls**t is that CAA (C*nts Against Aviation) had all the information they needed to take action against Bannerman but elected not to. Maybe because is manuals were ok so obviously the whole operation must be!:yuk:
The CAA is a user pays operation. Companies have to pay CAA to come in and audit them. Now I wonder, will these companies have to foot the bill for CAA to investigate ignorant complaints or will the resources come from general operating funds (that aviation organisations supply anyway)?

PB: I think the NZCAA lost that respect looong ago and this certainly won't improve matters.

[Sunfish]

My occasional trusting (and non fee paying) passengers wouldn't have the faintest idea what is "safe" and "Unsafe" in aviation terms, in fact I would go so far as to say they could easily confuse the behaviors.

As in: "I'm staying close to the ground so that we can land quickly if we have an engine failure". and "I'm flying very slowly because, as we all know, speed kills."

[Tarq57]

Well, having trumpeted it as a world first, it will be kind of difficult for CAA to alter this system, without losing a lot of face. Even if they realise that division suspicion and hostility doesn't make for a great safety culture, and want to change it. (Hopefully someone there does.)
I haven't had a huge faith in the audit and report approach for a few years. Regular people talking to people seems to work a lot better. Where I work it is a requirement to file a report if an incident has occurred. (This takes the form of an A# if it's an internal,ATC problem, or a P# if it appears to be aircrew non-compliance or similar.) The internal feedback and reporting culture is actually pretty good and open these days,concerning the A incidents, but on the odd occasion a P report has been filed we never seem to get any feedback from CAA as to what happened or why. It doesn't seem that long ago that you'd maybe get a phone call (or even a visit) from a GAI to just explain what happened over a cup of tea, and maybe even a thanks for drawing it to their attention.
That seemed to work fairly well, at the level of my involvement, anyway. (ie, maybe a bit rattled, perhaps having had to sort a tricky traffic situation out,putting in a bit of extra time to fill out the paperwork, wouldn't mind knowing why it happened, thanks!)
Anyone who could suggest to the authority a credible way forward out of this mess gets my vote. And a beer or two if it works!

[skol]

This is a very dumb idea indeed, the average punter wouldn't have a clue about aviation but you bet we're going to be hearing from the enthusiatic amateurs, big noters and know alls.
CAA really is scraping the bottom of the bucket when it needs to get passengers to do their policing.

[pakeha-boy]

belowMDA.....mate,with out a doubt they have lost the plot....but it shows in many ways how and where the practical and actual experience level is within the CAA as opposed to a bunch of bureaucrats.......

Kneejerk reactions and decisions based on satisfying the publics demand for answers has never been the road to go....

belowMDA.... if it means anything,the NZCAA was the same way in the 70,s and early eighties,why do you think so many got fed up and buggered off... and the point abour Bannerman.....justified.....PB

[Borneo Wild Man]

Yeah I can see it now,the CAAs workload increasing 1000% as the complaints start rolling in......
Pilot flew in turbulance!
Pilot made awful landing!
Pilot landed on 1 wheel(x/wind)!
Pilot used full thrust/power for T/O and thrust reduction scared the crap out of me.
God forbid....pilot flew in clouds...how did he know where he was?
Pilot turned(banked)...... thought we were going upside down!
Pilot flew in clouds close to ground(app to MDA/DA)
Pilot flew sideways to runway(x/wind)
and .... imagine the drama if you ever have to go around(pilot flew low to the ground and then zoooooomed up into the air.
and of course theres those unexplained noises the pax really love...alt alerts,decision hts,undercarrage extension/retraction,flaps etc etc etc
Good luck out there!

I guess its what happens when you get a boatie running a flying industry.:ugh:

[remoak]

If you think the mass of spurious complaints will be bad, wait until the first pilot or company is "made an example of" to prove that this terminally stupid system works.

Virtually no passengers are in a position to know what is safe, and what isn't. Certainly very few will have any knowledge of the rules.

I really thought that, with the passing of Mr Jones, the CAA might start to become a more sensible, focused organisation. It appears that the reverse is true. When will these people stand up and take responsibilty for aviation in NZ?

[kiwiblue]

Unbelievable. I am simply gob-smacked.

This bastard has got to go. ASAP. Fill him a bath-tub, put a couple of toy boats in it and let him play to his little hearts' content. Get him away from a professional activity of which he knows nothing. This is exactly what I feared would start coming from the Puzzle Palace... inappropriate, ill-considered knee-jerk reactions in response to political stimuli; responses which are totally inappropriate to the issues facing the industry.

Well done Helen Clark. Your legacy of rampant Political Correctness, molly-coddling, feminazi's and cronyism will haunt and flagellate this country for many years to come. I for one am disgusted.

Airline safety cards will soon become mandatory on all fee-paying flights. On small operators those cards will come complete with a phone number so passengers can later dob-in pilots or operators they suspect of flying dangerously.

Seems to me I remember attending a CAA field-briefing on this very matter in 2001. At that time we updated our Pax briefing cards to a template as supplied by CAA -very tidy, professional, presentable templates too. Still use them in fact. A 'feature' of those briefing cards we created then was the free-phone number for pax to contact CAA with any safety concerns! Those cards were MANDATORY then -a part of the operators exposition, and a document that had to be approved by CAA... this is nothing new. Just more political spin, smoke and mirrors bull****.

Grow some balls 'Director'. If you are going to do something 'new' and 'world-leading', make it something we haven't been doing for years. You've made your wee 'new broom' statement now, thrown a sop to your political masters and in the process hoisted a massive cross onto the backs of a professional body you do not comprehend. As an individual you have lost a helluva lot of credibility with the very body you want to administer by taking this action. I doubt you wil ever regain professional courtesy, trust or respect from that professional body. Best you just pack your bags and F off now.

[slamer.]

Astonishing ( honestly.... words fail me) if this is the best these half brained muppets can come up with pilots and Pax should be very concerned.

Sounds like the idea came from the winner of a year 6 school essay competition or better still a $150k+ a year consultant... regardless, someone that knows absolutely nothing about flying aircraft.

[EBCAU]

Has anybody heard the AIA opinion on this, or are they just going to sit back and allow us all to become victims?
CAA will love it.
Think of all the cars they can hire, hotels they can stay at, restuarants they can dine in, while they carry out their"investigations." And we'll be the last to know about the complaint because we might nip it in the bud before they have their fun. We'll also be considered guilty until we prove otherwise.
I've seen it all before without this idiocy promoting it.

[6080ft]

Nothing really surprises me anymore with the CAA. An office full of bumbling buffoons!!

While they are on the job they could get ASL to write a multi choice questionairre asking questions about how the pilot flew. Of course none of the questions would really make sense!

[skol]

If you think about it, sometimes it pays to have people in these jobs that don't know what they're doing.
I remember some years ago complaining to a colleague about the incompetence of some instructors and training staff. My colleague told me I should never complain about their incompetence. The reason; because they're so incompetent they make the rest of us look good.

[gulfairs]

You chaps think this is bad,
you ought to take a look at the part 61 dated 11 May 2006 and again the latest AC 61 ??dated december 2006 about a BFR, for what ever class.
It has now been construed as a licence re issue.

Ie a CPL holder is required to do Instrument flying, current or not.
The Licence issue comments that the "Flight Test(dual) is not negotiable!
All aspects will be checked.
Total and unadulterated Bull cookies(MASH)
So the same mind set is a fully qualified passenger will be able to tell if the pilot is under radar direction to intercept an ILS because he knows where he is because he has flown before(WITH SEAT BELT UN DONE AS WELL)
This is closing the proverbial stable door,after a pilot 'ducked under' and it all turned to POOOOO,
He was not financially buoyant because of continuous Audits with out rectification by spell checking clerks.
NZCAA is under funded by the state and have to make revenue some how.
So audits a front facing audience that has to pay without justification.
I am now very pleased that I am about to get out of the NZ aviation scene as it is now the pits.
The previous Director tried, but gave up, becuse the pain stops when you stop banging your head against a wall.

[HardCorePawn]

that they moved HKG... I can imagine the calls flooding CAA if AirNZ were still flying into Kai Tak!

'omg!?!!? we're flying between the buildings!!!' :}

[FlexibleResponse]

A shame we don't have the same type of system to report dangerous taxi drivers and bus drivers!







Edit: Does anyone see the irony here?