GAA Monthly Updates

[Peter Lewis]

Fellow aviators

This month we have attached articles on three issues which are of
significance to GA in New Zealand.

1. MetFlight GA is going to become available free of charge.

"MetFlight GA is free again. That’s one small step back to safer flying

From July 1, MetFlight GA is publicly funded – just like mountain and marine forecasts.
This decision, buried in the 2015 Budget, brings to an end a GA-wide campaign of protest. It
finally acknowledges that weather information for general aviators is for the benefit of people
aloft and those on the ground, and must never be subject to the “user pays” mantra.

The GAA was among the first to raise a protest against charges, and the only interest group to
conduct a supporter poll on the issue. That survey indicated the use of MetFlight GA had
plummeted since charges were introduced. Before subscription was imposed, about 80% of
aviators regularly consulted MetFlight GA. That fell to about 14% afterwards.
MetFlight GA subscriptions never numbered much more than 500, according to official figures
supplied to the GAA.

MetService told the GAA that it was not possible to remove the fee because MetFlight GA costs
had to be recovered under its mandate as a State-owned Enterprise, following the cessation of
the CAA subsidy that previously supported the forecasts.

It is also worth remembering the words of former Minister of Transport Gerry Brownlee, who – in attempting to answer our question: “Why should private pilots pay for safety information, when boaties, climbers and trampers do not?” – stated that private pilots were identifiable while the others were not, and that his administration had no plans to change the policy.

CAA Director Graeme Harris was never happy with the charging policy and told us so. We now
know that he worked very quietly behind the scenes to find an alternative. He told GAA: “We
have been lobbying hard for this for some time and knew that a favourable outcome was close,
but couldn't say much due to the secrecy around the Budget process.”

Also uncomfortable was Airways Corporation – and this profit-directed SOE probably also
played a role in achieving a just solution.

For their contributions, they’ve earned the gratitude of all Kiwi aviators. Credit is also due to all those anonymous folk who provided supporting evidence in the GAA poll, and to the
organisations which defend and promote general aviation in New Zealand and strove to achieve
this result.

While the wheels of bureaucracy ground slowly on in the offices of MetService, the MoT, the
CAA and Airways, tech-savvy general aviators in this country discovered that MetFlight was
actually becoming slightly less essential. EFB users found they could download quite accurate
local weather and apply it to their low-level flight plans using data from Australia, derived from
information supplied by MetService! Purists might insist on interpreting old-fashioned wind
charts, but windyty.com had overtaken all that by supplying real-time actual winds and reliable
forecasts in an instantly recognisable format. And you could get it on a mobile phone.

The Budget decision means that low-level aviators in New Zealand will no longer be forced to
pay in excess of $100 a year for MetService aviation forecasts. Although the cut-off date for a
paid service is July 1, technical issues may delay full introduction of the free service.

Alongside this runs the promised introduction of a simpler, graphics-based SIGMET.

GAA supporters took a leading role in mocking the arrival of ICAO-dictated SIGMETs, which
removed familiar geographical locations and replaced them with references to Lats and Longs.

The CAA seems happy (whenever it suits) to use ICAO “global” decisions as an excuse for
imposing changes that sometimes inadvertently and adversely impact on New Zealand’s general aviators (while ignoring the option to adopt the accepted ICAO policy of local, State-based member decisions that are accepted as “exceptions”, such as the one imposed by Canada that introduced a two-level system of SIGMET – one for international, IFR-based transport, and the other for local operators).

Many aviators also find the CAA’s apparent resistance to plain English GA forecasts somewhat
puzzling. Even more bizarre is the fact that a private individual makes such forecasts available in this country. It’s to be hoped that, in re-introducing a free MetFlight GA service, MetService does not break Ian Boag’s PEMET.

Ultimately, the new MetFlight service should return to its rightful place on the Airways IFIS
website. This would provide a one-click solution for NOTAMs and weather information –
something that contributors to the GAA poll last year overwhelmingly supported.

In the meantime, claims that one New Zealand aviation organisation or another has achieved a
victory in returning MetFlight GA to a free service should be treated with some scepticism. This
was not a victory to be claimed by the GAA, AOPA, RAANZ, SAA, Flying NZ or Gliding NZ.

Rather, it was the overdue triumph of common sense over commercial obduracy and political
dogma, assisted in large part by many individuals – some of them public servants – who knew
all along that the idea of charging private pilots for aviation weather information was
unacceptable, unsustainable and unsafe."

2. The closing date for submissions on impaired colour vision, or as it is
also known, colour vision deficiency (CVD) has been extended to July 1. We
ask the question: "Why should we accept New Zealand pilots being
disadvantaged by having restrictions relating to impaired colour vision
placed on their medical certificates when, for the last 25 years, there have
been no similar restrictions in Australia?"

"CVD update

The CAA is proposing to further restrict the flying options for people with colour vision
deficiency by introducing a General Directive.

Most general aviators, and microlighters in particular, wrongly assume that this need not
concern them because they don’t have a colour problem.

Only about 4 percent of the population are affected, and they are all male.

The General Direction appears to be aimed at promoting a uniform, global application of more
restrictive test rules for CVD-affected aviators, which in New Zealand already limit them to:

Class 1 medical certificate (CPL/ATPL)

(i) Not valid for air operations carrying passengers; and

(ii) Not valid for night flying; and

(iii) Not valid for flight under Instrument Flight Rules; and

(iv) Not valid for flight in the vicinity of a controlled aerodrome unless the aircraft is in radio
contact with aerodrome control.

Class 2 medical certificate (PPL)

(i) Not valid for night flying; and

(ii) Not valid for flight under Instrument Flight Rules; and

(iii) Not valid for flight in the vicinity of a controlled aerodrome unless the aircraft is in radio
contact with aerodrome control.

The author of this initiative (the NZ CAA’s Principal Medical Officer, Dr Dougal Watson) seeks to
introduce a stricter level of regulation, but he’s not addressing the key question:

Is colour vision deficiency actually a safety issue in today’s aviation world – and if that can be
proved, where does the problem lie?

Even the International Civil Aviation Organisation cannot answer that question. Dr Watson
doesn’t attempt to answer it, despite being a campaigner for evidence-based medicine.

OK, so you can see clearly and in full, living colour? But consider the real reason why this
proposed change probably involves you: your children, or your children’s children, may inherit
the defective gene(s) through their mother. The CAA’s GD would effectively bar them from a
career in aviation in New Zealand, and even profoundly affect their options with a PPL.

This issue has serious implications for current commercial pilots and future generations of
ordinary aviators.

In Australia, they relaxed the rules 25 years ago. There is no record there of any incident
attributable to CVD. CASA, their equivalent of our CAA, has lost a long series of cases brought
against it by pilots with CVD.

Australian pilots affected with CVD have none of the above conditions attached to their medical certificate.

GAA strongly opposes this proposed directive. We see this as a bureaucratic measure which is
not supported by any evidence proving it will enhance aviation safety.

The deadline for submissions has now been extended to July 1. Soon, the GAA will publish
its submission. We invite all aviators to read the submission and help to put at least a
moratorium on this matter, pending an independent inquiry into CVD and how it relates to
aviation, and the CAA’s proposal.

We cannot over-stress the importance of thinking beyond your own personal circumstances and
considering the bigger picture of how you can help influence CAA policy on CVD, to mirror that
which exists in Australia."

3. UK CAA initiatives to re-energise GA in that country by following the
American FAA example. Is it time to start pressing for change here in NZ
also?

"UK CAA considers removal of PPL medicals

UK CAA has worked with a number of aviation medical experts in the UK to develop a consultation on medical requirements for some private pilots which aims to make them more realistic and reduce bureaucracy. No changes are proposed for pilots with commercial licences.

It proposes that the medical requirement for UK private pilot licence and national private pilot licence holders will be to hold a current DVLA Group 1 Ordinary Driving Licence (ODL). Existing medical options (for example a UK declaration with GP counter signature) will remain available.

The proposal will bring cost and time savings for pilots and, in most cases, remove the need for General Practitioner (GP) or Authorised Medical Examiner involvement.

Currently pilots with an NPPL licence are required to comply with DVLA group 1 or 2 standards and have their self declaration of fitness countersigned by their GP. Holders of a UK PPL currently need an EU class 2 medical or the NPPL medical requirements if they only use the privileges of an NPPL licence.

The proposal is based on a study of the risks associated with GA flying and comparing it to other recreational activities such as horse-riding or canoeing. The consultation also reviews the causes of light aircraft accidents and the likelihood of these being triggered by a pilot being medically incapacitated. The risk to third parties is considered and the regulatory approach taken by the Federal Aviation Administration in the USA, which mirrors the UK proposal, is also reviewed.

A variety of options are proposed and views are sought through the consultation which closes on 10 July 2015. The information received will be used to determine how to take this proposal forward. You can see the consultation at
www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1350&pagetype=90&pageid=16876

Transfer of C of A aircraft to a permit to fly

The CAA has also issued guidance to formalise the existing process on how to transfer aircraft from a National Certificate of Airworthiness to a Permit to Fly. This guidance will benefit those owners who can make use of the reduced level of airworthiness assurance associated with the maintenance regimes and the potentially greater accessibility to spare parts for Permit to Fly aircraft.

GA Programme Manager Rachel Gardner said: “The new PPL syllabus, consultation on medical
requirements and guidance for aircraft owners are the latest steps in our work to improve things for the GA community and make regulation of GA more proportionate and evidence-based.”"

[Peter Lewis]

From Des Lines at the General Aviation Advocacy Group of New Zealand

Fellow aviators,

This update email is specifically for the urgent attention of our agricultural pilots and operators. It will however, also be of interest to other pilots and operators as an indication of how CAA compliance costs are getting out of hand.

Effective 15 April 2016, the requirements for Part 61 Agricultural Rating currency have changed. This is an annual check by an E Cat instructor which must be carried out in each type of operation that an Ag pilot is involved in. As an indication of the costs involved, it has recently cost one pilot $4600 to meet the currency requirements.

In conjunction with our partner organisation the Aviation Industry Group, we are urgently requesting feedback from pilots and operators regarding the practicalities of compliance, as it is likely to have a considerable impact - particularly for the smaller operators flying fixed wing aircraft. To achieve maximum feedback, it would be of great assistance if you could forward this email and attachment to any Ag pilots that you know personally as they may not be on our database.

Attached is a PDF in which we asked Gary Langman, CAA Senior Technical Specialist - Agriculture, to clarify the way in which currency checks are required to be carried out. Mr Langman has now provided us with some definitive answers to our questions.

Kind regards

Des




If you want a copy of the pdf, email Des at [e-mail]

[Peter Lewis]

September Update.

If you fly, I'd note particularly the comments re video footage!

Fellow aviators

This late-September bulletin brings you an update of what progress (or not) has been made on various issues, as well as new developments.

NZ aviation accident rate

What’s behind this obscure survey?

A little-known survey claims to reveal some shocking statistics about helicopter operations in New Zealand. In a radio interview, CAA General Manager (GA) Steve Moore said the CAA-commissioned report showed that over eight years, there were 170 accidents involving helicopters and small aircraft.

Of these, 102 involved helicopters (11 people were killed). Six died in light aeroplane crashes.

A poll, run alongside the report, claims to show that many - particularly in the helicopter sector - had been cutting corners. Almost half of its purported 600 respondents, mainly pilots, said they took shortcuts, while only 11 percent said they wouldn’t. And the poll report stated that more than half the helicopter operators who responded would push their aircraft beyond performance limitations.

Mr Moore said the review identified a number of areas that increased risks for operators.

"Things like commercial pressures, training - the role of the regulator. We'll pick the important ones with
the industry and work on them to make sure the sector stays safe. I'm not saying it's unsafe, we'd just like it to be safer," he said.

The GAA has requested copies of the survey and the poll - which had an unusually high response rate, since we understand that many people in the industry were unaware of it.

With suspicion surrounding “Just Culture” and concerns about confidentiality within the CAA (and the much tougher new Health and Safety at Work Act), it’s curious that so many people apparently admitted taking shortcuts or said they might push their aircraft beyond the envelope.

Warning: Camera on board?

Alarm bells are ringing about the CAA’s surveillance of social media, with CAA spooks allegedly looking for mostly amateur videos that might provide evidence of poor aviating. This means GoPro® cameras are a No-no, unless you’re a supremely confident aviator seeking publicity. The CAA is apparently interested in passengers who unwittingly shoot footage that might show a departure from the rules.

This is a minefield for the CAA, because interpreting such footage requires an in-depth knowledge of camera and video technology that the Authority has probably not yet mastered (but your expensive defence counsel hopefully will). While technology advances at a pace the CAA cannot match, we offer a few words of advice:
Don’t fit a camera to your aircraft or use it, unless you have total confidence in your flying ability. You might provide evidence of a transgression to the CAA via that thrilling Youtube video.

Don’t allow any passenger to take pictures or video footage unless you have their written agreement to neither publish nor sell such images. If you are a Private Pilot and you don’t do this, you may find your privileges threatened by a CAA prosecution for engaging in a commercial flight. This has happened - and the outcome was not good.


CAA funding review: It is time for political leadership

Since our last update, we’ve achieved greater clarity about a few things:

• The Minister of Transport, Simon Bridges, is still waiting for the final Cabinet paper and
Regulatory Impact Statement on proposed charges.

• He believes that these two papers are months away, not weeks.

• He has given an undertaking that the Chairman of the Board will respond to our letter calling for independent and open and transparent analysis of the Regulatory Impact Statement, but told us why he doesn’t think such transparency is necessary.

Why should Simon Bridges now take control? Our answer is on this link to the GAA website:

www.caa.gen.nz/caa-funding-review-political-leadership-essential/


CAA Client Satisfaction Survey? We’re not satisfied

In the last bulletin, we said we had written to CEO/Secretary of Transport Peter Mersi, asking that the CAA be required to carry out client satisfaction surveys at regular intervals and introduce a reporting system for operators to provide written feedback on the performance of CAA auditors.

That letter was sent to the MoT on 18 July 2016 and we have received neither an interim nor a substantive response.

The website homepage of the Office of the Ombudsman has a handy calculator to work out the time limit within which a response must be sent to a requester by an agency. It told us that a response to our letter was due on 15 August.

The MoT marches to the beat of its own drum and ignores the rules. From this, you may appreciate how frustrating it is to be stonewalled by bureaucrats. We are, naturally, pursuing them.

The MoT isn’t alone in not answering correspondence in a timely, efficient way. On 18 July 2016, a letter about CAA funding was sent to the Chairman of the CAA Board, Nigel Gould. Nothing was heard from Mr Gould and on 14 August we raised this with Minister Bridges, pointing out that the CAA Board’s inaction was unacceptable.

He replied on 6 September, saying that “the CAA advises me that the Authority Board’s Chairman is preparing a response to your July 18 2016 letter. I trust it will address the issues you have raised with him”.

More than three weeks later, we have still not received even an interim response, let alone a substantive reply from Mr Gould.

This indicates that the Board prefers to distance itself from GA issues.
Fuel Excise Duty: The cross-subsidy will continue

We’ve already reported on the GAA’s appalling experience with MoT officials since May 2013, when we began a “user pays” initiative for aircraft owners using MOGAS to recover the fuel excise duty.

Now Transport Minister Bridges has told us that “work was paused on the fuel excise duty refund regulations review and the Ministry has yet to make a decision on restarting the review at this point in time as other significant projects are currently being prioritised.

“I fully support the Ministry’s decision to pause the review until sufficient resource is available to complete it to a standard that is acceptable to me”.

So is Mr Bridges also equally content to continue cross-subsidisation of the $0.66 per litre taken from the MOGAS-powered aircraft operators to spend on roading projects?

Charity Flights: They’re still grounded

Once again, we have been stonewalled by the MoT, which has not replied to a letter sent on 8 August
2016. We’re not surprised, since the petition for a general exemption to enable charity flights was filed with the CAA on 21 October 2014. Since then, it has remained at the bottom of what would seem to be a very deep “pending” tray on someone’s desk.

There is little chance of it being successful under the present Director, whose record shows that he is lukewarm or lazy about progressive initiatives such as those the UK CAA and FAA have adopted - or if Graeme Harris is supportive, he is hobbled by his masters… the gridlocked and under-resourced MoT.

Aviation Industry Group wins Aircare debate

Attached to this update is the August bulletin from our partner organisation, the Aviation Industry
Group. It expands on these issues:

Aircare

The AIG has succeeded in negotiations with the Auckland City Council to have the Aircare accreditation requirement removed from the council plan. Aircare, which is controlled by Aviation New Zealand, has been widely criticised as an attempt to stifle competition.

The AIG says this decision reflects the group’s opinion that Aircare is not an example of best practice or a quality assurance system and recognises the CAA's exclusive right to determine who can fly and who cannot, rather than a local authority.

AIG Secretary Walter Wagtendonk said: “It should become the template to be used in dealing with other councils and organisations with which AIG members are experiencing similar restrictive trade difficulties.”


Part 135 training – another change is sneaked in

A major change by the CAA is the introduction of the title “Operational Instructor” in a way the AIG says conflicts with the rule-making procedure.

The AIG contests the CAA’s decision to change pivotal parts of rules without going through the proper NPRM process, which was introduced to prevent arbitrary changes without consultation or the right to lawful redress.

The Operational Instructor status also affects A- and B-cat instructors whose privileges are clearly stated in Part 61, and nowhere is there any mention of Part 135 topics that they are not authorised for. Again, a change to a rule has been made without adherence to the mandatory NPRM process.
Health and Safety fundamentals

Health and Safety issues are a hot topic, particularly since the recent change in legislation. Walter
Wagtendonk of the AIG gives his take on the law, available on the website by clicking on the link below.

www.caa.gen.nz/health-safety-plain-truth/

Some respected experts in New Zealand aviation have recently joined the two original principals in the GAA social network, to provide backroom advice. This is significant but, above all, we value your personal interest and that of more than 2000 fellow supporters, without which the GAA could not exist.


Thank you, and kind regards

Des Lines
and Brian Mackie

[Peter Lewis]

I recommend that you take part in this survey.
Note the closing date

Fellow aviators,

Aerodrome survey – with a $250 teaser

Navigatus Consulting is researching challenges faced by pilots using airports and aerodromes in New Zealand.

It has developed a short survey to allow pilots to share their knowledge, and at the same time enter a draw for $250 Downunder Pilot Shop voucher.

This survey is open to all pilots who fly in New Zealand and takes about five minutes to complete.
The company says: “Whether you are a student preparing for your first solo, an experienced commercial pilot, or a passionate weekend warrior, you will have a unique perspective formed by your experience in the skies.

“The information will be used to help us gain an understanding of the in-flight challenges faced by aviators operating at our aerodromes. All information provided is in strict confidence”.

The survey (and the draw) closes on Tuesday 25 October.

To take part, click here www.surveygizmo.com/s3/3034548/NZ-Pilot-Survey

Kind regards,

Des and Brian
From Des Lines at the General Aviation Advocacy Group of New Zealand

[Peter Lewis]

May 2017 update

Fellow aviators:
PPL Medical Certification Consultation - a further reminder
Below is a link to the AOPA NZ website relating to the CAA consultation process on PPL medical certification. AOPA NZ has done a great deal of work on this initiative and on the left hand side of the AOPA NZ home page, titled PPL Medical Review 2017, you will find a convenient link to the AOPA NZ policy and submission documents, as well as the CAA consultation feedback form. The link is:
www.aopa.co.nz/page.php?id=183

The President of AOPA NZ, Ian Andrews, has said: "There has been a lot of thought put in to this proposal and it began in Chicago last year, when AOPA NZ moved a resolution at the International AOPA World Assembly for IAOPA to work with ICAO to develop a medical standard for PPL that is based on the drivers licence standard of the contracting state. New Zealand is driving this for IAOPA”.
We cannot stress strongly enough how important it is for all pilots to get behind this initiative and offer their support by either making their own submissions or by joining as a co-submitter to the AOPA NZ submission.
If you support this initiative and wish to join as a co-submitter to the AOPA NZ submission, email Des Lines with your name and CAA client number to the email address [e-mail]. Des will add your name to the list of co-submitters.

Small Issues NPRM
The CAA has advised ACAG that the proposal to amend the definition of major modification and major repair (included in the Small Issues NPRM) will not be progressing as part of the final rules package.
The CAA seems to be still finalising its position, which will appear in the response to submissions, but the current draft reads:
As a result of industry feedback on the proposed Part 1 definitions for “major modification” and “major repair”, the CAA has recognised that additional work is required in relation to these and potentially other related definitions not currently addressed in the NPRM. The CAA accepts that the proposed definitions, by identifying specific aircraft systems, go to a level of detail below that intended by the current definitions’ inclusion of higher-level hazardous situations. It is not the CAA’s intention to broaden the scope of these definitions, rather to provide additional clarification as to what modifications and repairs could potentially have an appreciable effect on an aircraft’s airworthiness, and therefore be considered as “major”. The CAA agrees that this intention may be better achieved by way of additional guidance material to support any potential rule changes. The CAA will revisit these definitions in light of industry’s feedback and provide further draft proposals in the future.

It’is nice to have an occasional win…

Leaving helicopters unattended with rotors turning under power
The amendments proposed to Part 91 and Part 135 which introduce restrictions on the ability of a helicopter pilot to leave the controls with the rotors turning are not a Small Issue, are inconsistent with current practice, will have significant unintended consequences, and should not be proceeded with.
Furthermore, the CAA’s unilateral decision - that unless the flight manual specifically permits this activity, it is prohibited - is a 180-degree reversal of the permissive manner in which flight manuals have historically been read. The CAA has itself identified its own inconsistency in interpreting how the flight manual should be applied and it set about analysing the issue (16/ISS/17); yet the proposed amendment cuts directly across this ongoing work with a unilateral and incorrect interpretation.

Had this proposal been subjected to a meaningful risk analysis involving stakeholders, it would have become apparent that safety risks around helicopters are elevated when the aircraft is on the ground and unaccompanied persons are in the same vicinity.

The primary (and in most cases only) available mitigation, especially in off-airport landing areas, is for the pilot to leave the controls and accompany people to/from the aircraft. Far more people are alive today having been accompanied in the vicinity of the aircraft by the pilot than have been injured by helicopters lifting off without a pilot on board.
Other scenarios where the benefits exceed the risks include situations where temperature/altitude may preclude achieving an engine start, locations where inability to achieve an engine start would place the helicopter occupants at increased risk, and conditions where having the heater/demister functioning during passenger boarding is preferable.

This rule amendment is opposed and should not proceed under any circumstances.
There is no word at this stage on whether rotors in motion or CAA Notices will be progressing to final rule.

The new CAA levies
Qwilton Biel has written an article regarding the longer-term implications of the new levy structure. Clicking on the link below will access the article:
www.caa.gen.nz/a-proposal-challenge-caa-levies/

Apply the figures in Qwilton’s article to your operation to determine how much you will pay the CAA under this new regime. Compare it to how much you currently pay annually for routine audits and this will tell you whether you are immediately better or worse off.
One operator has done his sums and found that because he is classed as a “good operator” and is on a two-yearly audit regime, he is facing a cost increase of 188%. Where, we ask, is the fairness in that?

Performance Based Navigation approval process for Part 91 operators
Those of you who operate IFR have probably seen the article titled “Performance Based Navigation for Part 91” in the March/April 2017 issue of Vector magazine.

By 2023, Performance Based Navigation (PBN) will be how all IFR aircraft find their way around the country. Between now and then, we will see PBN procedures become more prevalent and aircraft/operators equipping and transitioning to this new standard.

We have received comments from a couple of early adopters regarding their experiences when seeking Part 91 PBN approval, and would like to hear from others who have gone through either the airworthiness or operational approval process. Your contact for this is Qwilton Biel at [e-mail]

A number of forums and working groups have sprung up around this whole New Southern Sky project. Our input to these gives an opportunity for the experiences of “guinea pigs” to smooth the way for those who follow in the approval process.

CAA Notices
In dreaming up this CAA Notices concept, the CAA is effectively giving the finger to industry and needs to be firmly put back in its cage. The Authority has twisted the intent of the law-makers on a grand scale in order to increase its powers and subvert the checks and balances that exist in the rules development process. This has to be stopped.
If the CAA’s interpretation of Section 28(5) is allowed to stand, aviators will have no recourse to the MoT or Minister regarding the content of CAA Notices.

To read more about the CAA Notices process, where the CAA becomes the risk definer, the solution chooser, the rule maker, and the law enforcer, click on the link below. www.caa.gen.nz/caa-notices-reinvention-failed-methodology/

Risk tolerance
Now that we are entering the era of SMS, we have attached an article from the USA about 10 factors of risk tolerance. It covers such things as overestimating the capability of younger people, underestimating the seriousness of an outcome, the cost of non-compliance and so on.

RPAS - Post-implementation Review of Parts 101 and 102
The Civil Aviation Authority is undertaking a post-implementation review of New Zealand’s rules for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) / Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS):
• Part 101 - Gyrogliders and Parasails, Unmanned Aircraft (including Balloons), Kites; and Rockets - Operating Rules; and
• Part 102 - Unmanned Aircraft Operator Certification.
Phase one of this review is a short survey developed in consultation with the Aviation Community Advisory Group.
You can complete the survey here.

Once again, our thanks to an ever-growing band of supporters!

Des Lines and Brian Mackie

[Peter Lewis]

September 2017 Update:

Fellow aviators,

This September 2017 update bulletin contains articles covering:
1. The admissibility of video and audio evidence for the purposes of pursuing a prosecution by the
CAA.
2. Our successful work to secure a refund of the CAA fees for a RPL. At this stage, and because of an
anomaly in the CARs, the refund has only been made available to those pilots who hold a CPL or an
ATPL. We are continuing to strongly advocate on behalf of PPLs and we are asking for refund of the
NZTA driver check fee required for the FPP, to everyone who paid.
3. An article about challenging the Civil Aviation (Safety) Levies Amendment Order 2017.
4. A Bill of Rights for everyone involved in General Aviation.

1. Admissibility of audio and video used for the purposes of obtaining a prosecution by the CAA

A case is soon to be heard before a District Court involving a pilot who is being prosecuted for alleged
events that occurred on a cross-country flight during which he encountered unforecast bad weather.
The evidence that the CAA is principally relying on stems from audio and video material recorded by the
passenger, a young student pilot, during the flight. The student used a GoPro camera fitted inside the
cockpit, and a separate audio recording device.

The lawyer acting for the pilot is of the view that cockpit audio and video recordings are inadmissible in any criminal proceedings. There is Court of Appeal support for that following the Dash 8 crash on the approach to Palmerston North, with no other court decision to the contrary.

The need for domestic legislation reflecting Annex 13 of the Chicago Convention was highlighted following
the Ansett Dash 8 aircraft crash in June 1995. The police sought access to the CVR fitted to that aircraft to
obtain evidence for possible criminal charges against the flight crew. The matter went to the Court of
Appeal, which held that provisions of the Chicago Convention relating to CVRs were not part of New Zealand law. After the Court of Appeal decision, the police obtained the CVR by search warrant.

Subsequent to the Dash 8 accident, there was a law change by way of the Transport Accident Investigation
Amendment Bill introduced by the then Transport Minister, Maurice Williamson, in August 1999.
Mr Williamson said that “CVRs had a crucial role to play in safety investigations, given that they were often the only way of knowing what was happening on the flight deck in the period immediately prior to an accident.

The recorders also involved a significant intrusion into the privacy of the flight crew. The Bill recognised this by making all CVR information immune from use in criminal or civil proceedings against flight crew.
The Government has a firm view on the admissibility of CVRs in air accident investigations, and I am delighted that the select committee shares that view”.

The select committee found that it was not necessary for the CAA to have access to CVRs for its
investigations; it also found that the safety information CVRs have to offer heavily outweighs the possible
benefits of allowing that information to be used in court proceedings.
Mr Williamson said: "The police or the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) can still conduct their own interviews or use other forms of evidence against pilots to prosecute if they choose to”.

The CAA view
The CAA is taking the view that this exclusion of audio and video recordings applies only if TAIC is
investigating and that it is free to use such audio and visual evidence. This opinion was not supported by
the Court of Appeal decision. Also, when the TAIC Amendment Bill was passed through Parliament, the
Hansard records did not support the CAA opinion either.
The entire issue needs to be considered and ruled upon by the High Court.

The implications for GA pilots and operators
If the CAA is successful in securing the admissibility of audio and video recordings in cases other than a TAIC investigation, the implications for GA are serious.

Since the 1990s, when the TAIC Amendment Bill was introduced in respect to dedicated aircraft CVRs, rapid and probably unforeseen advances in technology have resulted in a proliferation of pseudo-CVRs in the form of GoPro camera, iPads, smartphones and the like.

Almost every passenger on a typical sightseeing, heli-skiing or glacier flight is likely to have a device capable of recording his or her experience. These devices, with their monocular depth perception and limited field of vision, will often portray an inaccurate view of what a pilot is actually encountering. The CAA, in a prosecution, could use such evidence unless a ruling of the inadmissibility of audio and video recordings is obtained.

The importance of the cockpit audio and video admissibility issue is also such that, should a positive ruling
against it be secured in the District Court, the CAA is likely to appeal that, and vice versa. That has serious
cost implications for the accused pilot, who is not well placed financially to legally contest this on his own.
We need to recognise, as a community of aviators, that what the accused is confronting has wider
implications for the rest of us.

This is why we are looking for expressions of interest from fellow pilots and operators prepared to assist in
the funding to obtain a definitive judicial ruling on the admissibility of these recordings as evidence in court
proceedings.

The pilot’s lawyer has extensive experience in aviation law and the pilot will be represented in court by a
barrister also very experienced in aviation-related cases as a former Crown Prosecutor.
We hope that, having realised the threat that this case may present to the entire GA community, you will
consider supporting the legal costs. To express an interest in financially supporting the cause, please email
[e-mail]. We will tell you how you can contribute.

2. The RPL and AC61.20 – a David and Goliath encounter

This issue began in June 2017, when an ATPL holder questioned the need to apply for a RPL on the basis that he was able to use the privileges of a lower licence without having to do so. The pilot also contended that AC61.20 was in fact an unlawful document, which contravened the CARs.
The CAA replied:
As you rightly point out, CAR 61.41 states that the holder of an ATPL who doesn’t meet currency requirements for that licence, but who meets the currency requirements for a lower licence – which, as you note, clearly includes the RPL – may exercise the privileges of that lower licence.
In this regard, the Advisory Circular is incorrect where it states that you would need to specifically hold an RPL because it is a “completely separate licence”. Again, you are correct that the Rule (which is binding law) overrides the AC, which is only advisory. Bearing that in mind, we’ll be looking to get that fixed as soon as possible.
You also mentioned that CAR 61.41 doesn’t refer to the PPL as being able to exercise the lower privileges,
because at the time 61.41 was written, there was no RPL. That is something we’ll think about in amending the AC.

Following on from that, the CAA has sent letters offering refunds to those CPL and ATPL holders who have
been issued with an RPL.

What was not offered was a refund of the fee for the NZTA drivers licence check that is part of the FPP test.
However, as a result of correspondence with the CAA regarding this, the Authority has agreed to refund the
$11.10 fee; but it has not made this straightforward, requiring licence holders to either produce a receipt or a credit card or bank statement clearly showing the payment made to the appropriate agency at the relevant time.

We have gone back to the CAA and said:
“With respect to the provision of proof of incurring the cost of obtaining an NZTA report for FPP purposes, the Authority can easily reference the personal files of the affected pilots to see whether a full FPP declaration was provided or only a statuary declaration was made at the time of application. Refunds of the NZTA fee of $11.10 can then be made accordingly.

We consider that the vast majority of CPL / ATPL holders who were issued with an RPL, are unlikely to have
completed a FPP within the previous 60 months and therefore would have had to fill out a full application.
Given that such payments for an RPL would not be tax deductible there is no requirement for the pilots to
retain the receipts or bank statements and would be unlikely to have done so.
As the charging error was the Authority’s, the onus is on the Authority to rectify the matter using its internal records. This would be a far preferable means of settling this matter”.

The CAA has advised us: “We will take that feedback into consideration. If there is a change in our current
position you will see that change advised through our website.”
The GAA has made its view clear to the CAA: We find it inappropriate and unacceptable that we should be
required to monitor the CAA website for a reply to our correspondence!

The current situation regarding PPL holders
In our letter of 21 July 2017, we asked the Authority to confirm that the implied intent of 61.41 (b) is to allow the holder of a higher licence to exercise the privileges of a lower licence, the RPL being the lowest in Part 61.
The legal justification for this is contained within the meaning of the words in CAR 61.41 (b). The rule is
prescriptive.
The holder of a pilot licence issued in accordance with this part (which a PPL is) who does not meet the
currency requirements of rule 61.207 or rule 61.257 for the pilot licence type (which a PPL never will) but
who meets the currency requirements for a lower licence (which a PPL can), may exercise the privileges of the lower licence.

The CAA has replied:
We (CAA) have discussed the content of your letter at some length and while agreeing that the current wording of Part 61.41 creates an anomaly we cannot change that in the AC as the Rule overrides the AC. We will be making it clear in the AC that in its current state the Rule only applies to ATPL and CPL. However, we are in the process of submitting an issue assessment recommendation to address this anomaly. Part 61.41 is prescriptive and will require a Rule change to allow PPL to be treated in the same manner as ATPL and CPL hence the need for this issues assessment. We encourage you to submit a request for a Rules issue assessment of Part 61.41 to add weight the process.
Please note that we cannot confirm the implied intent of Part 61.41(b) as the Rules are made by the Minister under section 14A(d) of the Civil Aviation Act therefore the intent is the Minister’s not the Authority’s.

The last paragraph of that reply regarding implied intent is curious.
The CAA would have written the NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rule Making); the CAA would have done the
consultation on the proposed Rule; the CAA would have sent the draft final rule to the MoT for
checking/review/approval; the MoT would then have put it in front of the Minister for signature.
In our opinion, to now say that the intent of the Rule is the Minister’s and not the Authority’s is a rather cute way of passing the buck!
We are still working to resolve this and we will keep you informed regarding progress.

3. Challenging the Civil Aviation (Safety) Levies Amendment Order 2017

Sufficient seed funds have now been raised to commence a challenge at the Regulations Review Committee
against these newly introduced levies. The challenge will focus on the fairness and equity of the new levies
on commercial general aviation, when many beneficiaries (including government) are not contributing their
fair share.

The Regulations Review Committee is constrained in terms of what it can and can’t consider. It can consider the consultative/authorisation process of the new levies, but cannot challenge the government’s decision not to contribute a dollar more to aviation safety.

There is no stomach within the CAA or the Ministry of Transport to question the Government’s decision not
to contribute a dollar more. In fact, we have been told repeatedly that if aviation considers the
Government’s lack of contribution to be a problem, then the sector must make the case.

What happened to user pays? The Government acquires a significant quantity of services from the CAA. The bureaucrats use all sorts of fancy terms such as output class one and club goods in an attempt to disguise the fact that each year about 26,000 hours of work is done by CAA for the Government and if this was paid for in the same way that the CAA’s other customers must pay, at a $284 hourly rate, then government’s contribution would be about $7.38 million.

This would be an increase of 200% over the Government’s present contribution, and would not only offset
the need for CAA to introduce any new levies but also facilitate a reduction in a number of other fees and
charges.

The Government has cynically manipulated the funding rules to suit its own agenda. This is not uncommon
behaviour, but a group of challengers have decided enough is enough. As we have said, a complaint will be
filed with the Regulations Review Committee focussing on those matters within the purview of that
committee, namely:
• Did the consultative process behind the new levies meet the threshold test for consultation?
• Are the new charges lawful?
• Do the new charges trespass on personal rights and liberties?
• Are the new charges effectively a tax?
• Are the new charges effectively retrospective taxes?   

Given the way the Civil Aviation Charges Regulations are written, this complaint is very narrowly targeted.
But that does not mean we have not turned our minds to other related matters – one being the
Government’s persistent underfunding of aviation safety as highlighted above, and another being the
exorbitant increase in CAA’s operating costs that has been disguised by the introduction of these levies.
The CAA’s full cost recovery hourly rate now stands at $466. No amount of smoke and mirrors can hide the
fact that this is excessive and makes a mockery of Minister Gerry Brownlee’s promised 100% cost recovery
hourly rate of $284.                 

How does the aviation sector hold the CAA accountable?
The CAA has all the cards. Its powers are enormous. It controls all the financial data and information. It is
not required, for example, to discuss its performance with its customers - yet those same customers, more
than anyone else, understand the upsides and downsides of regulating safety.

The CAA doesn’t undertake any customer surveys, so how does it know if the Authority is reaching its selfimposed performance targets? Are the self-imposed performance targets really that relevant in an SMS
regulatory environment?
We are well aware that a number of aviators have repeatedly attempted to engage with the primary
performance-monitoring agency – the Ministry of Transport – on these issues and have repeatedly been
rebuffed.

The core issue is the effectiveness and efficiency of the CAA and alternative avenues are being looked at to
tackle this as part of the challenge. It really comes down to how we force the CAA to put all funding matters on the table, including its ever-escalating demands for more money.     

If we look at our nearest neighbour Australia, CASA is funded 67% by a fuel tax; 23% by government; and
10% by direct fees and charges. CASA hourly rate charges were set in 2007 and vary between $A100 and
$A190 – and let’s not forget the massive differences in licensing and other fixed charges.

How can New Zealand aviation companies realistically compete in this environment?

Interestingly, CASA has as one of its mandates a regulatory cost reduction programme. Would our CAA ever consider going on such a diet?
There is no doubt that, since 2012, the CAA has had an insatiable appetite to consume more and more of
your hard-earned dollars. Like all monopolies, it will only change its behaviour if customers force a change – the Regulations Review Committee is our first port of call.

The strength of this challenge will be defined by the number and diversity of its supporters. If you would like more information, please contact Qwilton Biel, [e-mail], or 027 493 5655.

4. A Bill of Rights for everyone involved in General Aviation

All too often, we hear of people whose experience, when confronted by CAA personnel, turns out to be less
than satisfactory (and sometimes extremely costly). At their most serious, they involve audits or
investigations, where the interviewee has not realised the implications of the interview, or known their rights, or taken reasonable and lawful precautions to protect themselves.

Attached to this message is a document that outlines your rights and how to respond if the CAA comes to
call. You might like to print it out and pin it to the noticeboard, for everyone to take note.

Thank you, once again, for your support.

Yours faithfully
Des Lines and Brian Mackie

[Peter Lewis]

Actions and rights in the event of an accident or an incident

1. Be polite. Although you may have very strong feelings about the approach made by a CAA investigator and want to express them, do not give a prosecutor any chance to tell a court that you, as a defendant, had shown open hostility towards an investigation.

2. Give your name, address and date of birth and identify who was pilot-in-command. All the particulars set out in the CAA’s Part 12 do not need to be provided immediately; they are to be provided “as soon as practicable”.

3. NEVER comment on anything historical or theorise why the accident/incident happened, tempting as that may be.
Anything you inadvertently say or comment on may be held against you in court.

4. Immediately advise any passengers that they are not required to provide any comment regarding the flight or the incident.

5. If there is another flight crew member, caution that person about what is required to be disclosed by them.

6. Call your legal representative (and company manager and pilot union representative, if you have them) as soon as possible.

7. If pressured to provide information (and there is a strong chance that you will be by the CAA investigators) simply state that you need time to collect your thoughts and your principal concern is for the other persons who were on board, securing the aircraft and advising interested parties, such as your insurers and legal counsel. It is your right to seek legal advice before you make any statement. By doing this, you are not refusing to answer but merely deferring your answer and reserving your position.

8. Advise the person(s) interviewing you that you will provide the information required by Part 12 on the appropriate form. If they have any other questions, request that they be put to you in writing and state that you will respond appropriately.

9. Make yourself aware of the details you are required to provide under Rule Part 12, Sections 26 and 26A of the Civil Aviation Act 1990. Provide only the information you are required to – don’t be tempted to explain or theorise. This cannot be over-emphasised. Neglecting to do this could mean your legal counsel has no defence to mount on your behalf.

10. Be aware that the CAA also has a delegated authority to bring charges under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015. Under the terms of the Health and Safety at Work Act, the CAA has the power to introduce prosecutions that can involve charges of manslaughter. The CAA will not hesitate to use its powers under the Health and Safety at Work Act as well as bring charges under the Civil Aviation Act 1990.

11. CAA investigators are experts in interrogation techniques. Investigators include people previously employed within the New Zealand Police. The techniques have been fine-tuned to secure successful prosecutions. They were not designed to establish useful lessons to improve aviation safety. We repeat: CAA investigators are not there to help you.

12. We strongly suggest that, in any verbal exchange with a CAA employee, you a) make use of a recording device and advise the other person(s) that you will be recording the conversation and b) ensure the presence of an independent witness.
This advice is also of particular relevance during CAA audits. Do not allow yourself to be intimidated by an auditor and if you feel that they have acted in an inappropriate manner, or lack knowledge of what they are doing, advise them that you will be documenting that behaviour. This where an independent witness becomes very valuable.

13. Finally, never forget that the CAA information-gathering exercise is more to do with ascertaining if prosecution action is to be taken than determining the circumstances and causes of accidents and incidents with a view to avoiding similar occurrences.

[Peter Lewis]

Fellow aviators

We wish you all a safe and happy new year. Let's hope for a 2018 that includes positive
change for GA in New Zealand.

In this update, we report on first impressions from the independent CAA
Client Satisfaction Survey. The initial results are not very good news for
the Authority.

We also highlight some seriously bad news from across the ditch, where
general aviation is reported to be in crisis.

Kind regards

Des and Brian



From Des Lines at the General Aviation Advocacy Group of New Zealand

[Peter Lewis]

1 January 2018

Fellow aviators

The responses received so far to the GAA-initiated survey of CAA clients have provided some compelling
data and comments. The survey will remain open at least until the end of January.
SurveyMonkey has advised that there will be server maintenance on Saturday, 6 January at 1:00 am UTC
for about 12 hours. During this time, people won't be able to take the survey. SM has chosen this date
and time to minimise the impact to global businesses, as it is historically one of the least active periods
for surveys and responses.

Anyone trying to visit or submit a live survey during the maintenance window will see a message letting
them know the site is down and to try again later.

We strongly urge everyone to take part in this survey of CAA clients.

If you haven’t already done so, please get involved and have your say. It doesn’t take long - initial
results indicate that each part is taking an average of around eight minutes.
In recent years, there has been an insidious decline in our general aviation industry. NZ is not alone in
facing a crisis. Across the Tasman, The Australian newspaper has reported that general aviation there —
so vital in such a big country — is in serious trouble.

Crippled by skyrocketing regulatory costs and pointless red tape, businesses are closing and much of
the flying training industry is being sold off to Chinese buyers at bargain prices. A federal government
report showed the drastic decline brought on by excessive costs: general aviation flying hours, which
include the vital flying training industry, have declined by 40 per cent in just five years.
Dick Smith - businessman, Australian aviator and former CASA Chairman - has written an article on the
issue. We have attached a copy of it and we think that you will agree there are distinct parallels between
our two countries. (It’s also available on the GAA website, where you will find other troubling news about
pilot shortages.)

Survey responses
In Part 1 of our four-part survey, we asked: On a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is “very poor”, 5 is "no
opinion" and 10 is “very good”, please rate the CAA’s services in terms of value for money.
Unsurprisingly, the responses have so far returned an average score of 2.
We asked whether CAA clients considered that the Authority strove to minimise administration costs
and charges. Respondents have returned an even lower score: just 1.
We asked whether our survey participants considered that the CAA was openly accountable for its
actions. This question has returned a score of 2.

We asked if, in the view of responders, New Zealand’s aviation system would benefit from having an
independent aviation complaints authority. The answer has been a resounding 96% vote in favour.

The demographics of survey responders have also been interesting. For example, those who completed
Part One have come from:
Aerial work – 15%
Charter – 8%
Business – 8%
Air Transport – 24%
Private – 39%
Other - 6%

The length of time our responders had been in aviation in New Zealand, as well as their comments and
concerns, parallel those of the Dick Smith article. We asked: “How long have you been operating or
involved in the aviation sector?” The results were:
More than 40 years – 39%
31 to 40 years - 16%
21 to 30 years – 24%
11 to 20 years – 15%
4 to 10 years – 6%

The success of this GAA survey can be measured by 97% of our responders indicating that they are
willing to take part in future surveys. Our ultimate goal is to achieve change within the CAA, and this
depends on overcoming the lethargy that often persists with the mentality “You can’t fight city hall”.
The survey is not difficult to complete and your time spent is a very valuable contribution to overcome
an entrenched public service – yes, the people at the CAA are public servants!

In recent years, previous transport ministers have been in denial about the problems that exist within
general aviation and have shown little apparent interest in the civil aviation part of their portfolio. This
may soon change, because the survey has already produced significant results and they will be made
available to the CAA Board, the Minister of Transport and the Transport Select Committee.
The links are:
Part 1 - www.surveymonkey.com/r/R9LKDRC
Part 2 - www.surveymonkey.com/r/FVXFCLS
Part 3 - www.surveymonkey.com/r/FYWDWJR
Part 4 - www.surveymonkey.com/r/FYSNFW8

Kind regards
Des and Brian

[Peter Lewis]

Empty-skies-are-safe-skies policy is killing aviation

DICK SMITH
The Australian
28 December 2017

"I don’t think you should ever regard aviation safety as what is affordable".
— Federal transport minister John Anderson, October 5, 2000

I welcome the appointment of Barnaby Joyce as Australia’s new Transport Minister. He certainly has
a challenge in front of him when it comes to Australia’s general aviation industry, which is in a state
of near collapse after years of failed government policy.

It will take someone as senior as the Deputy Prime Minister to sort out this mess. As The
Australian has reported, general aviation — so vital in a big country like ours — is in serious trouble.
Crippled by skyrocketing regulatory costs and pointless red tape, businesses are closing and much of
the flying training industry is being sold off to Chinese buyers at bargain rates. A federal government
report last week showed the drastic decline brought on by the excessive costs: general aviation flying
hours, which include the vital flying training industry, have declined by 40 per cent in just five years.
But none of this is new. I have been warning for years that introducing regulations that ignore cost
have been crippling the industry. It was 17 years ago that I became involved in a very public
disagreement with Joyce’s predecessor, John Anderson, who introduced the policies that have resulted
in today’s mess.

At the time I was chairman of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and I warned Anderson that the
substantial additional costs that had been placed on the industry by the sell-off of the airports and the
“user pays” air traffic control system would have to be balanced by a reduction in other costs.
Driven by bureaucrats with little understanding of business, he pursued a policy of regulations -
regardless of cost, with the inevitable result that ridiculous levels of regulation have made it impossible
to maintain a viable industry. It seems that for the bureaucrats, the safest skies are empty
skies, similar to the Yes Minister episode about the hospital with no patients.

Anderson refused to meet me to discuss the issue, releasing a public statement that showed how little
he understood. “I don’t think that you should ever regard aviation safety as what is affordable,” he
claimed. “Safety is something which has the highest priority — it is not a question of cost.”
In effect he was saying that with air safety there was no cost that was too high to pay, ignoring the
fact this would make the cost of air tickets unaffordable to anyone other than the ultra-wealthy.
Anderson’s public statement was quickly embraced by the bureaucrats within CASA and the denial
that cost should be considered became an almost cult-like belief that still exists in that organisation to
this day.

Aviation is like anything else in life. The amount of money that you can spend on safety is always
limited by what the marketplace can afford. If regulations are written that increase the cost of flying
too much, people can’t afford to fly and businesses go broke.

The inevitable result of this stubborn insistence that there are no limits to the costs that could be
imposed on the aviation industry is a situation where operators simply can’t afford to meet the red
tape and expenses.

It has done nothing to improve safety and will very likely lead to a situation where most pilots in
Australia will come from Asia. The losers are many of Joyce’s constituents in rural and regional
Australia who rely greatly on general aviation as a vital link in Australia’s transport systems.
It means we will lose hundreds of millions of dollars in export earnings from flight training and other
operations that are no longer Australian-owned.

Before Anderson became minister, the CASA service charter directed that Australia should follow
“proven safe procedures and standards from leading aviation countries which best allocate finite
safety resources, to protect fare-paying passengers and encourage high participation levels in
aviation”.

But this directive was removed from the charter in the Anderson years. I fought these changes while
chairman of CASA but failed to overcome an entrenched public service and a transport minister in
denial. I resigned rather than be held responsible for the slow death of an industry that I have been a
part of for more than 40 years.

I hope now that under a new minister we can get back to a sensible policy that balances costs and
regulation in a rational way.

Joyce will need to move quickly to reverse the disastrous “ignore cost” policies of the past. I will give
him every support and I do hope he listens to the industry before it is too late.

Dick Smith is the former chairman of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

[Peter Lewis]

8 January 2018

Fellow aviators

PPLs and the RPL

Back in May 2017, we drew the Director’s attention to the unlawful content within AC61.20, namely that Rule 61.41 did not apply to the Recreational Pilot Licence.
Rule 61.41(b) states that a pilot who meets the currency requirements for a lower pilot licence may exercise the privileges of the lower licence.
The CAA subsequently reconsidered its initial view that the Recreational Pilot Licence is an entirely separate type of aviation document from the ICAO-recognised licences (ATPL, CPL and PPL). As a result, in applying CAR 61.41, holders of ATPL and CPL licences who had paid for the issue of a RPL became entitled to a refund.

In July, the CAA wrote to ATPL and CPL holders advising them that they would be refunded the cost of their RPLs.
Due to Rule 61.41 having been written before the RPL was created, the Rule only referred to the then existing licencetypes, with the PPL being the lowest licence category. Because of this, Rule 61.41 only applied to holders of a CPL or anATPL and PPL holders were not entitled to a refund.

In September 2017, the GAA filed a petition for exercise of the Director’s exemption power under s27 of the Civil Aviation Act 1990 to address the anomaly whereby ATPL and CPL holders were able to exercise the privileges of a lower licence but PPL holders could not.

On Friday 5 January 2018, the Director issued the exemption.
A copy of the exemption and its conditions is at the end of this update bulletin.

Part 2 CAA Survey responses

In Part 2 of our four-part survey, we focus on the CAA’s service delivery.

The survey demographics are showing that:
- 60% of our respondents have had direct contact up to 10 times with CAA staff over the last 12 months
- 10% have had direct contact 10 to 20 times over the last 12 months
- 10% have had direct contact more than 20 times over the last 12 months
- 20% have had no direct contact with the CAA over the last 12 months

We ask: On a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 is "very dissatisfied", 5 is "no opinion" and 10 is "very satisfied", how satisfied areyou with the CAA's service delivery?

At this stage, the CAA’s service delivery is getting an average score of 3.

Typical comments:
“The CAA's service delivery from senior managers is very poor with most taking 10 working days to reply to correspondence and some only replying after complaints have been laid. On the other hand, clerical staff are often very good with their service delivery.”
“Too short-staffed and it takes way too long for aircraft to be added to ops specs.”

There are a number of adverse comments regarding delays in the order of three to four months for relatively simple amendments to expositions.

The airworthiness section is attracting strong criticism with comments such as:
“From an airworthiness perspective, the current situation frustrates the industry. Relationship between the industry and the regulator is the poorest I have seen in my 50+ years in the industry.”

The withdrawal of the CAA staff contact details from the website is also drawing a significant number of adverse
comments from industry responders.

To the question: “Was your transaction completed at a reasonable cost?” our responders are ranking the CAA at 3.
We ask whether our responders “thinks that the CAA takes care to understand and relate to its customers”.
Predictably, the current response of a 3 indicates the widening disconnect between the CAA and GA. This is also evident when participants are asked “if the CAA values my input.” Our responders struggle to give the CAA a score of 3.

We ask:
On a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 is "strongly disagree" and 10 is "strongly agree", please indicate how much you agree that:
“The CAA is vital to ensuring aviation safety in New Zealand”

Responders so far give this question a 6, but with several provisos attached to qualify their answers.

There’s still plenty of time to take part!

Here are the survey links:
Part 1 - www.surveymonkey.com/r/R9LKDRC
Part 2 - www.surveymonkey.com/r/FVXFCLS
Part 3 - www.surveymonkey.com/r/FYWDWJR
Part 4 - www.surveymonkey.com/r/FYSNFW8

Other work in progress…

A General Exemption for Charity Flights not to be classified as “hire and reward”

We began this initiative back in July 2014 and the basis of the petition lies in the grounds contained within s37(2)(c) – being that “the prescribed requirements are clearly unreasonable or inappropriate in the particular case”.

The underlying reasons for seeking this exemption lie within the interaction between GA pilots and their local
communities. Pilots are often asked if they would be prepared to donate a flight in an aircraft as an auction prize. The money raised from these auctions is usually to provide funds for buying unfunded equipment such as defibrillators.
Whenever pilots receive such a request, they are obliged to explain that they are unable to do so because it would be categorised as a “hire and reward” flight and thus not be permitted under the CAA rules.

The public has considerable difficulty in understanding how a flight, which is free of any charge and where there is no monetary reward to the pilot, can be classed as “hire and reward”. Sometimes our community minded pilots have been left with the feeling that they are perceived to be mean-spirited - which can be embarrassing.

In August 2015, as part of the UK “cut the red tape” initiative, the UK CAA recognised this important interaction between GA pilots and their communities by issuing blanket permission, which is now available for pilots if they meet certain basic requirements. This removes any need for pilots to have to apply to the UK CAA to carry out individual flights. The changes place more emphasis on pilots providing a thorough explanation to passengers of the level of safety and risks prior to the flight.

As well as simplifying the requirements, other changes include:
- Extending the types of aircraft that can be used to include permit aircraft such as hang gliders, paragliders,
microlights, gyroplanes and powered parachutes
- Allowing flights to take place from unlicensed airfields    

Three and a half years later, we are still waiting for our petition to be assigned to a CAA policy advisor.

And finally, here’s a pat on the back for our heroic Wanaka chopper pilots, from a GAA supporter…
Hi Des
We live on the boundary of the Hillend Station on which this fire occurred on the Mt Alpha hills. We have frequently been the base for previous helicopter ops. No water nearby this time. Have monitored the VHF frequency for three days and have been impressed with the totally professional communications and procedures used by up to seven or eight helicopters at a time to extinguish the fire.
In spite of some twit with a drone causing all choppers to be grounded on Wednesday, hence delaying the fire fight considerably, and the idiots in boats, on paddle boards, etc on Lake Wanaka getting in the way of the choppers filling their buckets by driving through the downwash, we have had good success.
Thought you could comment favourably ahead of any CAA comment. The variations of visibility due to smoke, sun
angle, and numbers of choppers flying, alternative routes, water drop patterns (clockwise, figure of eight, etc.) were well done and highly professional.
Regards, Peter R

And regards from us, too
Des and Brian