Parliamentary Aviation Safety Enquiry Probes The Economic Reality of GA

Compliance With, And Supervision Of, Air Safety Standards In The Commuter And General Aviation Sectors.

As is well known, there has been growing public unease over the standard of air safety in Australia, fuelled by a continuing series of light aircraft crashes, and unsuccessful searches culminating in allegations that the CAA was no longer capable of oversighting safety following its decimation at the hands of economic rationalists. The less than favourable public perception of the CAA was further exacerbated by the TAAATS fiasco, and the cancellation of the proposed new 11/11 airspace arrangements, due to come into force just over a year ago. The Monarch crash brought matters to a head culminating in the establishment of the Inquiry as outlined above.

Travelling and those under the flightpaths of aircraft rely on the CAA to both set and to monitor the necessary standards to ensure their safety. Following the infamous Review of Resources which had as its aim a massive reduction in CAA staff from some 7300 to 3640 by 1996, the corporate wisdom and professional knowledge within the CAA was likewise massively reduced. Deskilling has demoralised the remaining staff who know they have generally lost the support of the GA community. The lack of professional aviation experience of the CAA Board members themselves has also been raised in a number of the submissions. A common view is that the Board should have the ability to make value judgments in its own right, not just to review matters put before it.

Similarly, CAA senior management is sorely lacking in professional, hands-on aviation expertise to be able to comprehend the more subtle aspects of GA matters, and to be able to credibly put matters before the Board. Allegations that middle management has watered down field inspectors’ reports on operators experiencing difficulties, prolonging malpractice by those operators, have also been made. The truth of these allegations will be tested by the Inquiry. The Committee has followed the usual procedure, advertising for interested persons and organisations to make submissions on the matters for consideration.

With air safety, particularly in GA, becoming a major news item in recent months it was inevitable that a major surveillance crackdown would be unleashed to hopefully prevent more aircraft being added to those depicted above. The practice of CAA flying personnel flying on line operations with airlines is also questioned. The philosophical role reversal is considered too much for most to cope with, i.e., subordinate one week to supervisor the next. Similarly a more hands-off approach in day to day supervision is seen by some as being necessary to avoid undue familiarity, with its attendant problems, when hard decisions need to be made. On the other hand some submissions suggest that field inspectors are policemen, judge, jury and hangman!

Seventy three written submissions had been received by the closing date of September 30. It would be impossible in this article to cover all the matters raised in the submissions, however in reading through them it is apparent that the Inquiry will have a fertile field in which to dig. Just about every real and imaginary problem affecting the industry has been touched upon and many solutions offered. The Inquiry will have to sift through the submissions to establish the truth of each suggestion. Some of the more common matters raised are outlined below.

The Government’s decision to establish the CAA as a Government Business Enterprise, with its subsequent cost recovery philosophy vis-a-vis oversight of the safety regulatory function, is seen by many as the fundamental root cause of the problems in the industry. This has led to a number of operators trying to avoid CAA involvement in investigating their activities. A particular complaint is the high fees charged. In addition the CAA’s earlier public announcement that it saw the industry as its customer was fundamentally wrong. The true customer is the public, both those travelling and those on the ground.

The practice of hiring pilots at very low or even no pay, the spin off being “hours in the logbook”, is seen as inimical to safe charter and third level RPT operations. The development of a company’s proper cockpit resource management philosophy is completely negated by this casual approach to crewing. The classification of aircraft into Class A or B for maintenance compliance standards, depending whether they are employed on regular RPT or casual charter purposes has led to bending of the rules by some operators. Cross hiring of aircraft maintained to the lesser standard, for RPT operations, without the public being aware of the implications is also seen as particularly heinous.

The training and employment of junior flying instructors has also come in for its fair share of criticism. The low experience level and maturity of some of the very young instructors is seen as a fundamental problem affecting the development of their students’ attitude to flying. If aviation discipline is not engendered at the outset, then respect for the need for compliance with the rules and regulations will not follow. The question of adequate pay rates at all levels has also been raised. With flying instruction seen by many as the first step on the ladder to the left hand seat of an RPT aircraft, low rates of pay are accepted as the price that has to be paid. In addition, whenever there is a demand by the airlines for pilots, the cream is skimmed off the top of the instructor pool, further reducing the experience level.

The modern cynical attitude to rules, regulations, and authority is seen by a number of submission writers as part of the problem. The loss of the value of discipline at all levels is seen as endemic; just throwing rules at the industry without adequate checking is doomed to failure. A parallel on the ground is “red light running”, the rules are there for everyone’s safety but a minority persist in ignoring them resulting in the need for cameras. It is not good enough to lay down the rules, their observance must be monitored, and those breaking them must be shown that they will be caught.

The CAA in its submission maintains that the current regulations and standards relating to aviation safety in the GA and commuter sectors are appropriate. It accepts that they were developed to meet the needs of the past and that the challenge is now to monitor the trends in aviation to ensure the standards are appropriate for the future. The Authority recognises that there is a need for improvements to make the regulations less complex, and to harmonise them with the rest of the world. The Authority maintains that it has established a soundly based surveillance and compliance system which will provide a consolidated approach to airworthiness and flying operations surveillance across the country. An Enforcement Manual, to be introduced in the near future, will provide for consistency in the interpretation and application of enforcement action. Finally, the Authority pointed out the difficulties in dealing with a diverse and fragmented GA sector which is operating in an unstable environment.

With the public hearings due to commence at presstime Australian Aviation thought it appropriate to seek an interview with the Chairman of the Committee, Mr Peter Morris MHR, essentially to ascertain what the Committee hoped to achieve, and perhaps more importantly, what it expected to achieve. At the outset Mr Morris made it clear that the Committee had very important responsibilities to discharge in conducting what will be a landmark inquiry into aviation in Australia. It is the first comprehensive examination of aircraft safety in this country and will cover all aspects including the performance of the industry, the regulating authority, adequacy of standards, and finally, resources available to carry out the supervisory role.

In answer to my first question, Mr Morris described the Committee’s terms of reference as very precise, but very broad, and that it will be looking very deeply into the commercial background of the industry. Put simply, the Committee will be “seeking answers to what are the factors that decide an operator to make a commercial decision to operate an aircraft which has been undermaintained, for which the maintenance release has been dudded; or crew it with people who are inadequately qualified; or knowingly, or unknowingly to use bogus parts?” He went on to say that naturally at this early stage there could be no discussions of substance on the matters raised in the various submissions, however a wealth of material had been received which required testing to determine the truth of the matter. It is perhaps an indication of the sorry state of the industry that there was considerable personal bitterness in some of the submissions, however this was offset by some very sober and thought provoking comment.

As with other Inquiries he has chaired, particularly the inquiry into ship safety, very succinctly entitled Ships of Shame, Mr Morris does not expect that anything new will arise during the Inquiry which is not already common knowledge throughout the industry. The Committee will follow a well established procedure: investigate, identify the problems, consult with the parties involved, inspection where appropriate, and then will develop the solutions and proposed implementation. The report, which will be submitted to Parliament, will put forward a series of recommendations that the Committee believes will bring about a safer industry in the GA sector.

In answer to my second question as to what the Committee expected to achieve, Mr Morris was at pains to point out that some 95% of recommendations arising from previous inquiries by his Committee had been picked up and acted upon and he was confident that such would be the case in this instance. It is hoped to submit an early progress report in the first quarter of next year with the final report to follow. In the matter of the conduct of the inquiry, it will be an extension of the procedures of Parliament with the duties and protections which that provides, however, it will be an impartial forum where people can come forward to put their point of view publicly, without fear of any consequences. In this regard, he said that the CAA has encouraged submissions and would be providing written assurance that any of its staff will be free to give evidence. Finally, Mr Morris particularly stressed that he hoped that all persons with information of use to the Inquiry will come forward to be heard; it will be no good after the Inquiry to claim that certain facts unrepresented would have altered the findings.

Comment

From my reading of the various written submissions it is apparent that most of the problem areas have already been identified, and will no doubt be confirmed and amplified during the forthcoming public hearings. However, it will be a monumental task for the committee to develop solutions to fit the diverse nature of the GA sector, covering as it does the discrete areas of third level RPT, charter, private and even sports flying. Whatever is proposed, it must be capable of early identification of those who are not playing by the rules, and to have the powers to put them out of business before the damage is done. Observing the modern philosophy of rules are made for others, it is hard to see how a considerable build up in the strength of the regulatory body, whoever, or wherever it might be placed in the bureaucracy, can be avoided.