OK, I've been thinking about this a bit over the last couple of days. The 'Director' has publicly stated his intention to act upon public compaints in the media.
I'm assuming that every time CAA gets a complaint from a punter, they are going to at least attempt to take some form of administrative action against the pilot, and possibly the operator. That 'action' may be as little as a letter or a 'talking-to' by a GA Inspector; possibly as severe as civil action through the courts, which could lead to a loss of licence/career/income for the pilot or have severely adverse effects on a business, with attendant costs and very public 'damage' to the reputation and standing (within both the aviation and wider communities) of both. Either way, there will be at least a record of a complaint on your official record within the Puzzle Palace -something that in later years could be used to paint a picture of incompetence or a comprehensive and deliberate disregard of Rules and public safety. Make no mistake: whatever they have will be used against you in the future, whether it be an incident, complaint (proven or unproven, from a member of the public or a competitor with an axe to grind) or just that you 'dissed' a member of CAA staff on some vaguely recalled occasion. They'll use that to paint a picture or to enforce an administrative action against you.
Now, I ain't no lawyer. But in the context of this current 'world-leading' initiative from the acting Director there may be something we can do collectively to protect ourselves: correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that under NZ law, there is an assumption of innocence until proven guilty -I think, enshrined in the Magna Carta, upon which NZ law is based. With that in mind, every time CAA tries to bring any form of action against any one of us as a consequence of this ill-considered 'initiative', we must contest it through the courts (as is our right) and lodge a claim against CAA for wrongful action which would include our court-costs. We must place the burden of proof on CAA.
The basis upon which the defence would be built: that very assumption of innocence until proven guilty. The only witness CAA would be able to present to the court to support their action would be the original complainant, which achieves several things:
* Your accuser will have to face you in a court of law (which is your right as the accused), with their allegations. They can no longer expect to hide behind a veil of public anonymity, held for them by CAA;
* They wil be asked and expected to present to the court their qualifications, experience and recognised knowledge upon which they have a basis for their complaint;
* CAA's legal advisors will be tied-up in court endlessly trying to prove the unprovable, with inappropriate and totally unqualified member(s) of the public as their only witness;
This sort of action will in its turn have these effects:
* Faced with the loss of their anonymity, members of the general public will be far less willing to present mischievous, spurious and/or unsupportable complaints to CAA;
* Those who still feel they have a basis for their complaint will take it forward in the full knowledge that they will be facing the person they accuse of misconduct in a court of law, whilst opening themselves to the possibilty of a counter-action for perjury, libel or slander ('m not sure which -indeed if any- is the appropriate one) as a consequence;
* CAA will become quite 'choosy' of which 'cases' they will proceed with;
* Valuable court time will be wasted by CAA prosecuting cases they will have the greatest difficulty proving, given the lack of specialised knowledge of their witness -your accuser;
Further, the Judiciary is staunchly independent of Government. Should the Judiciary find their courts becoming clogged with spurious claims and cases arising from the likes of this ill-considered 'initiative', there may be at least a possibility of CAA via the Director facing action on the basis of wasting court time or being a serial-accuser! In a circumstance like that, justice would indeed be sweet. However, I am not sure whether there are any protections under law for government departments from that form of action -maybe, maybe not. It may need to be tested through the courts...
By taking an action such as this into the public arena, one could assume that CAA intend pursuing a path of adversarial administration (us against them) -at least, as far as the administration of General Aviation (GA) is concerned. It is a continuation of the attitude and ethos entrenched in the Puzzle Palace in the days of a previous Director, when ego's and personalities were bigger than the job -or indeed the industry. It seems to me that the attitude within the Puzzle Palace is that we GA Pilots and Operators are a thorn in their side. A bunch of cowboys and misfits needing to be kicked, thrashed and regulated into submission. Well here's a newsflash for you Director: in 30 years within industry, I have never met a pilot that deliberately sets out to die in an aircraft, or to jeopardise their own, their passengers or any other persons lives, property or safety. May I suggest Director that Education rather than Regulation should be given more emphasis in your dealings with GA.
In 'the Big End of town' (Air NZ, Mt Cook, Air Nelson et al) there is appropriately (some might say excessively) a series of SOP's that regulate, mandate and guide a pilots actions in all but the most extreme circumstances. There is (again appropriately) a rigid adherence both corporately and individually to those procedures. They operate in an environment where consistency and predictability of action is a prerequisite: a two-pilot crew. Of necessity, they must both be 'on the same page' (without discussion) in many of the circmstances they can or might face in flight. Their operational environment is also (and probably as far as is practically possible) controlled and controllable. It is not difficult to see how, from a regulators point of view, this may be desirable -it makes life easy, predictable, controllable with very few 'ripples' in the very uniformity of the operational or regulatory fabric.
The life of the GA pilot by contrast is very different: standardisation relates more to regulatory than operational matters to the GA pilot. In every sense of the word the GA pilot is the Pilot in Command (again appropriately), making every decision with regard the conduct of the flight from engine-start to shut-down. As is often said: "when the doors are closed and the prop(s) are turning, I own the aircraft". That 'ownership' brings with it the responsibility of and for the safe and efficient conduct of the flight -in every regard; and 'ownership' of the responsibility for any failures or breaches of Rules, procedures or guidelines also. That 'ownership' is a matter taken very seriously by the industry participants you are so keen to flog Mr Director. We will not stand idly by whilst you colour us all idiots.
To further contrast the life of the GA pilot, pre-flight responsibilities commence often many hours before the wheels 1st leave the ground with the PinC conducting all pre-flight inspections and regulatory requirements including:
* Self 'pre-flight' -ensure that you are in all respects physically and legally able to conduct the flight, including checking of flight & duty time limitations, licence and medical currency and validity and currency of aircraft and instrumentation ratings -no personnel division;
* Aircraft documentation and maintenance releases present, current and complete -no corporate standards office;
* Route planning, weather and operational information present, complete and up-to-date -there is no op's department to do that for us;
* Aircraft physical condition in all respects at least equal to or exceeds regulator-mandated minimum standards, and includes minimum levels of required equipment and operational servicability -no maintenance division to cover this one;
* Aircraft run-up, to warm the engines, check and confirm the aircraft is in all respects ready and capable of conducting the flight as planned;
* Aircraft clean, presentable and prepared for pax boarding -no gate agents for us;
* Passenger, luggage and freight check-in -we're often on the job prior to the office staff (if there are any) starting their day;
* Complete required freight and luggage weighing and loading -again no ground-handlers;
* Finalise all load-sheets, flight-plans, file required documentation with required agencies -no ops department again;
* Board pax, final walk-around check of airframe, ensure airframe security -those non-existent gate-agents and cabin staff now too;
* Conduct pax safety briefing -it would be nice to have those cabin attendants;
* Strap the aircraft on yourself, making all required cabin-security checks, conducting pre-start checks and then engine start -no co-pilot to assist with this;
For many of us it is at this point that our day 'officially' starts -only now that we go on the Payroll! Everything prior to this point is often unpaid. Either we are on a 'salary' based on an 8 hour day/40 hour week, 52 weeks of the year, or are paid only airborne hours. The reality however is that we may often need to be at work much earlier because our first scheduled departure time will probably coincide with our official company 'start' time. Equally our official 'knock-off' time (or the time we go off the payroll) may be hours prior to the time we finally close the hangar doors behind us.
During the course of the flight, we are responsible not only for the safe conduct of that flight, the comfort, security and well-being of our pax, we must also;
* provide an interesting and informative commentary -we are the in-flight entertainment system;
* Manage the conduct of the flight whilst acting within constraints imposed by terrain, traffic and weather -we can't get above it all: it would sort of defeat the purpose of a scenic flight;
* Provide our own separation from other traffic by the principle of 'see and avoid' -we have no radar or traffic information in the aircraft supplemented only by what ground services are allowed to offer us
* We have no on-board weather radar -often no more information than what we can see out the window, or may from time-to-time be relayed to us by air traffic services;
* In-flight navigation is by following a standard route, or deduced reckoning navigation. If an in-flight diversion is required, then that must be managed by the PinC using only the resources in front of him, for which he is trained, licensed and rated to use. Something like (and as useful as) a portable GPS is deemed by the regulator to be 'for information purposes only -not for primary-use navigation';
* When on the approach into high traffic-density tourist destinations, we must manage the descent, approach and landing in a stream of other aircraft, all doing the same thing. There is at best an information service provided from the ground, not control and/or traffic separation.
* At the conclusion of the flight, we are responsible for seeing our pax safely off the airport manouvering area, and may be further responsible for arranging or directing them to ground facilities, as well as unloading and reuniting them with their luggage. Any freight carried has to be unloaded and seen to its destination or forwarding agent. Documentation relating to the aircraft and the flight has to be updated. The aircraft has to be refueled, cleaned, prepared for the next flight and secured.
The GA pilot does all of these things, many of them on his own penny. The list presented is not exhaustive.
