Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

NZCAA becoming more punitive in their approach?

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

NZCAA becoming more punitive in their approach?

Old 11th Dec 2007, 08:26
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: not where I want to be
Posts: 265
NZCAA becoming more punitive in their approach?

I read today an interesting article by Walter Wagtendonk in the Dec/Jan Pacific Wings in which he was lambasting the actions of the CAA in respect of some recent (attempted) proscutions and resultant court actions.

Much of the article was given over to detail with respect to a couple of court cases and how this tied in with his premise that the CAA were somewhat over-enthusiastic, or even overbearing, in their approach to correcting the apparently well-intentioned actions of the erstwhile perpertrators.

Now while I'm prepared to take some of these things under advisement so to speak - after all every story has more than one perspective - it does concern me that there could be a drift to a less collaborative and more punitive approach to misdemeanours by our regulating body.

When I returned to aviation a few years ago I was impressed by the implied desire on behalf of CAA to work with people in order to ensure that if an incident occurred we could all learn from it through full and frank disclosure with little fear of prosecution (assuming no intent!). I took this on board and as a result have filled out a number of incident forms when I've felt there was a use and need to do so. In all of the cases I can think of it would have been possible, under a different regime, to have found a person to blame and to punish. However in all but possibly one case I am completely of the opinion that this would have been detrimental and not have lead to a particularly positive outcome. In fact I suspect I would not have filed the incident form because my interest was definately in providing some information as to what occurred purely so that others could learn from it. In two of the cases I took direct action and as a result of that the parties involved have learnt from the incident and now have different procedures in place. This post action was included in the incident form for CAA's information. All-in-all a positive result I would have thought.

So while there is certainly a place for prosecution in deliberate, repetitive or otherwise blatant breaches of regulations or common-sense I would be interested to hear from others what their views are in respect of the education vs punishment issues raised? Mr Wagtendonk is suggesting the formation of an aviation Ombudsmans Office, citing his concerns with the recent actions and apparent direction of CAA. I'm a little ambivalent about that presently but at the same time I'm certainly wary of anything that would promote a more prevalent 'them 'n us' attitude between the wider industry and CAA. This would quickly destroy any collegial and educative spirit that has been built to date, leading to people hiding incidents
which in turn could well result in a greater number of real issues down the track. I most certainly don't want to become involved with one of those issues because of someones desire to punish rather than lead and educate. Am I paranoid or is this drift a reality?
First_Principal is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2007, 20:25
  #2 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wherever I Lay my Hat...
Posts: 295
A thoughtful post First Principal. Unfortunately, I haven't (yet) seen Wal's post -that's not an easy mag to find here in the West Island. Good to know the 'ol bugger's still hard at 'em!

Regrettably, and despite the frequent rhetoric from the Puzzle Palace, it has been my experience and that of many of my colleagues that CAA's approach towards misdemeanour is definitely punitive in stance and nature. They still want someone to hang. The latest public 'points rating' system for operators and individual pilots is a classic example, but just a symptom of a trend that has been developing for many years. To a (large) degree, this can be put down to rampant political correctness and the current governments trend towards creating a comprehensively 'nanny state'. Don't forget, the current director could easily be mistaken as merely a politically acceptable and expedient appointment -not necessarily the person best qualified for the job or even best suited to manage the administration and development of aviation in NZ.

However, the 'drift' towards ever-more punitive action has been apparent for years. The regulator wishing to appear 'proactive' in public (media)? Reckon so.

Originally Posted by First Principal
...wary of anything that would promote a more prevalent 'them 'n us' attitude between the wider industry and CAA.
Has always been there, reckon it always will be -to a greater or lesser degree. Perhaps less visible of recent years as a consequence of CAA's proclivity for simply using legislation to bludgeon those they don't like out of industry.

I would recommend caution and circumspection making use of the incident reporting system... some operators have been known to use it to 'blame-shift' -file 1st, get your version of events across, the other party is left to defend a pre-existing mindset when CAA question them over the phone or in person. I can provide organisation names, dates and details of some I know of! Again, don't lose sight of the points rating system -these incident reports regardless of severity are recordable. NEVER file against yourself, unless it ABSOLUTELY unavoidable. You merely create a rod for your own back.

NZ used to have a world-class anonymous incident reporting and dissemination system in Icarus c1990's... can't remember all the reasons for its withdrawl, although I'm pretty sure funding had a lot to do with it, at a time that CAA had a lot of influence over where the funding went... that too was supposed to prevent scurrilous prosecutions whilst ensuring wide dissemination of pertinent safety information.

Personally I reckon that while CAA are carrying on like this, industry needs to return the favour. Instead of just lying down and taking 'by order of the Director' actions, they all should be challenged through the courts, forcing CAA to justify and defend their actions and prove the actions are appropriate to the situation. Used to be a time AIA would have led the charge in support of industry -now I'm not so sure.
kiwiblue is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2007, 04:03
  #3 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 63
Posts: 984
first principal...spent the last hour writing a "piece" you would have been proud of....I pushed the submit...and low and behold it vanished....will collect my thoughts and get back ....to much piss for sure,but a subject that requires "review"
pakeha-boy is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2007, 17:50
  #4 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2004
Location: The center of the earths surface
Posts: 291
fish NZ-CAA!

I have been sitting on this, and wondering about posting on here.
In 98 we returned to NZ and I continued to work away on rotation,( Ntn Hemisphere)
I spoke to NZ CAA about renewing my NZ CPL:
I was told by NZ-CAA that I could register my Australian ALTP under the Trans Tasman Mutual Recognition Authority, and by paying the appropriate fee, and filing in the appropriate paper work and supplying proof of licence, they would send a authorisation sticker for my log book, thus it would allow me to fly NZ registered A/C or Aus reg A/C in NZ.
Which I duely applied for and recieved and placed the sticker in my log book.
I first had a NZ CPL & Inst rating issued back in the 80's.But have not renewed it.
Now recently I have hired NZ reg recreational A/c and flown about with my family:
Recently I decided to send my resume to a few operators here in NZ.
One came back to me and said that I could no longer operate on the Trans Tasman Mutual Recognition Authority with out a NZ Issued Licence:
I called CAA licencing, and was told that I could no longer operate on my Aussie licence, and I needed to apply for a NZ ALTP.
I asked when this came into force, and why I was not notified.
She could not give me an exact date, and said that they ( CAA) had issued so many registrations that they did not have all the applicants addresses, ( believe it) and that they expected pilots to keep abreast of law/reg changes.
So my question's are:
Do you think NZ CAA would prosecute a pilot for flying without a licence??
( yes)
Do you think I could prosecute NZ CAA for the above failure to advise of a reg/law change? which had allowed me to fly with out a licence.
The more I think about this the more it infuriates me.
hoggsnortrupert is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2007, 08:51
  #5 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Enzed
Posts: 2,264
Am I paranoid or is this drift a reality?
The latter I think.

The Campaign Against Aviation, or at least some of the people there think we are all baddies out here in aviation land. We don't follow the rules properly and should be brought to heel.

Many of the inhabitants at Aviation House never made it in the real world of aviation and have no idea on how things really work. They write rules that they can never give a clear interpretation on or worse still cannot agree among themselves on the correct interpretation.

As HSR mentions they change the rules or their interpretation of the rules leaving poor unsuspecting people high and dry. It is almost impossible to keep up with any rule changes. So often the changes are very subtle and are easily missed or you need to read several parts of a particular rule and other rules to find the full meaning of what you are allowed or not allowed to do. Is it any wonder we get confused.

Even though the current Director is a "new face" he was at CAA when the various "Scandals" took place. He will ensure that there are some scapegoats in court to make it look like he has made changes or improved things at CAA. Otherwise nothing has changed.

I know of one recent fiasco which even featured in the Flight Safety Magazine which was largely perpetuated by CAA's incompetence, yet the article gave no suggestion to that regard. According to them the fault was out in aviation land.

There have been recent determinations from CAA which are not backed up by the rules, talk about rule making, by making policy. They have no right to do this, they got their hands slapped for this in the past and they are at it again.
27/09 is online now  
Old 14th Dec 2007, 08:56
  #6 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Enzed
Posts: 2,264
spent the last hour writing a "piece" you would have been proud of....I pushed the submit...and low and behold it vanished
Had the same problem on more than one occasion. The air has been more than a bit blue after.


Write the reply in a word document, then, when ready cut and paste to here.
27/09 is online now  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.