ICAO Compliance Project Session THREE Issues Assessment Group Meeting Record Chair / Facilitator: Chris Lamain Manager Rules Development Scribe: Lisa Farrelly Date: 28/2/08 Time: 09:30-11:30 Location: Wellington Airport Part 91 IAG Meeting Record ATTENDEES Bryan Pawson Airways Johnny Walker NZALPA and representative on ACAG Errol Burtenshaw Air NZ and representative on ACAG Barrie Malloch ATCANZ and representative on ACAG Lindsay Williams - NZPIA Hugh Barclay Lawyer representing NZPIA Keith Gallaher - NZPIA Tony Parrish Jetconnect Jason McGregor - AIA CAA: Paul Elton Rule Project Specialist Greg Perris Rule Project Specialist Mike Shouse Rule Project Specialist Len Wicks Aeronautical Services Officer Peter Lechner Business Planning & Reporting Agenda Item Subject Introduction 1 7/ISS/94 Night VFR for Air Transport Operations 2 7/ISS/42 Flight Safety and Accident Prevention Programme 3 7/ISS/43 Cabin Crewmember Flight and Duty Schemes 4 8/ISS/16 Routine, Local and Special Weather Reports 5 8/ISS/23 Rule 172.259 Use of GNSS in Separation 6 7/ISS/37 Revocation or Amendment of 172.157 7 7/ISS/64 Review of Part 172 8 7/ISS/69 ATS Safety Management 03/04/2008 Page 1 of 1 Date saved: 02/04/08
Discussion Introduction MRD Issues Assessment Groups (IAGs) are convened to assess an issue or a number of related issues that have been identified during the Trigger Phase of the rule development process. The purpose of each IAG is to focus on the problem identification and definition of each issue, undertake the risk assessment for each issue and identify solution options (rule-based and/or non rule-based). Each rule issue being assessed is reviewed to ensure that the issue description and risk details are accurate and that the appropriate solution is chosen. The purpose of the meeting is not to discuss the specifics of a rule amendment (should a rule amendment be the appropriate solution). Should this project be included on a future rules programme, the rule solution will be discussed in detail with a Project Working Group that will include key industry stakeholders. 03/04/2008 Page 2 of 2 Date saved: 02/04/08
1 RPS/MRD 7/ISS/94 Night VFR for Air Transport Operations CASO 9 Part 1, Section 1 prescribed requirements for night VFR for Air Transport Operations and provided excellent guidelines for aerial work, private and air transport operations, meteorological minima, aircraft equipment levels and numbers of aircraft in an aerodrome traffic circuit without ATC in attendance. CASO 20 provided an excellent framework for night helicopter operations. However, the CAR are much less clear and allow a more relaxed night VFR regulatory regime and operating environment under Rule Part 91 introduced in April 1997. As a consequence, there is a lack of consistency within CAA with regard to interpretation by staff and in guidance to industry regarding the various rule parts applicable to all forms of night VFR operations, namely: Air Transport Operations Commercial Transport Operations Emergency Medical Service Training Private operations It was noted that this issue was driven from a lack of clarity in the rules and should cover licensing, training, equipment etc. The CAA s GA Group has already been restricting NVFR through the Ops Specs so this rule amendment should not be too much of an issue for Part 135 operators. The intent of the rule change is to remove NVFR for passenger commercial operations. It would be left in place for Police, EMS, close-in night sightseeing. It was queried whether NVFR was an identified safety risk. The most recent event was a night helicopter accident in the Rimutakas. It was noted that the main reason for this issue is that the rule is silent on NVFR operations and what is looked for is the prohibition on such operations unless the operator has approved systems and procedures in place primarily in Part 135 and possibly Part 125. Rule making action required. 2 RPS/MRD 7/ISS/42 Flight Safety and Accident Prevention Programme ICAO Finding OPS/02 states that although air operators have implemented a flight safety and accident prevention programme, including a non-punitive flight data analysis programme containing adequate safeguards to protect the sources of data, no regulatory requirement has been established in the CARs for such a programme. ANZ has got a programme in place largely due to the IATA requirement/losa audit. This programme is restricted due to the use de-identified data. Higher level protection of the data is required to ensure that its use will be non-punitive. Preferable that such protection is included in the Civil Aviation Act. 03/04/2008 Page 3 of 3 Date saved: 02/04/08
Rulemaking action required 3 RPS/MRD 7/ISS/43 Cabin Crewmember Flight and Duty Schemes ICAO Finding OPS/03 states that New Zealand, as the State of the Operator, has not established rules specifying the limits applicable to flight time, flight duty periods and rest periods for cabin crewmembers. Air New Zealand already has this requirement in its exposition. The rule should not get into prescriptive flight and duty schemes it should be outcome-based. The project will link in with the work being developed out of the fatigue workshop e.g. fatigue management systems. Rulemaking action required 4 RPS/MRD 8/ISS/16 Routine, Local and Special Weather Reports The provisions for basic weather reporting in Part 174 are not compliant with Annex 3. Consequential amendments to Parts 121, 125 and 172 will also need to be considered. DMS reference DW1117774-0 sets out the necessary changes to the rules and AIP. The current rule and AC terminology does not align with the ICAO Annex. 5 RPS/MRD 8/ISS/23 Rule 172.259 Use of GNSS in Separation ICAO Doc 4444 amendment 5, effective 22 November 2007 allows for the use of GNSS instead of DME in longitudinal separation. Rule 172.259 does not mention the use of GNSS. Rule 172.261 on Lateral separation does mention GNSS. We need to either add GNSS to.259 or incorporate both parts. 172.259 also specifies the separation is of climbing or descending aircraft, not mentioning aircraft in level flight which are included in Doc 4444. We should consider including this situation in the Rule. An option is to include Doc 4444 by reference, or using Rule 172.75's reference to Doc 4444, remove 172 259 and.261 entirely. Doc 4444 has brought in GNSS as well as DME for lateral separation. The rule change is intended to align with the ICAO requirements. There was discussion on the wider need to improve the rules to take advantage of developing technology and was in favour of the proposal. It was pointed out that 172.75 could allow the use of the Doc4444 separation. Although he has heard differing opinions about the interpretation of this rule. Part 19 currently allows GPS distance to be used and this rule 03/04/2008 Page 4 of 4 Date saved: 02/04/08
amendment would align Part 172 and Part 19. 6 RPS/MRD 7/ISS/37 Revocation or Amendment of 172.157 Refer Letter from ACNZ dated 31 Oct 06 "Withholding of ATC Clearances for Parachute Drops". Correspondence ID 18036. ACNZ seeking revocation of the rule to provide them with the legal basis upon which to deny a parachute drop clearance for the non-payment of ACNZ charges. While this issue is not related to an ICAO requirement, it has been included in this IAG as another issue relates to a complete review of Part 172. The CAA noted this could be considered to be a commercial issue not a safety issue and that the current rule should remain unchanged. The NZPIA asked whether the pilot or parachutist would be breaking the rules if a parachute drop went ahead without a clearance. It was clarified that it would be the pilot breaking the rule. It was thought that this issue was resolved by the court case between Airways and the parachute organisation. It was noted that SOE s need tools to ensure payment of services and this was considered to be an option. There further discussion about the revocation of 172.157 for reasons other than those stated in this issue was beyond the scope of this IAG and could be raised as new issues if required. Not recommended for rulemaking action. 7 RPS/MRD 7/ISS/64 Review of Part 172 The ICAO audit identified that "The CARs, Part 172 contains information that is not consistent with ICAO provisions, including but not limited to, expansion of rule applicability to include all areas of New Zealand FIRs, fatigue management requirements incorporating, where appropriate, material from ICAO human factors manuals and circulars, reduced runway separation criteria, minimum separations from aircraft dumping fuel and reduced vertical separation minimum (RVSM) monitoring requirements. " It was explained that including all areas of the NZ FIR s was not considered to require rulemaking action at this stage and that fatigue management requirements had been dealt with at an earlier IAG. The reference to reduced runway separation criteria refers to the amendment to Doc4444 in Nov 2005. ACNZ noted that the change to reduced runway separation requirements could require a large number of risk assessments. However, the CAA stated that adopting ICAO provisions for reduced runway separations would not require risk assessments. It was noted that the minimum separations from aircraft dumping fuel was not in Doc4444 when Part172 was written and is now included. ACNZ is applying the larger ICAO separation and the rule needs updating. 03/04/2008 Page 5 of 5 Date saved: 02/04/08
8 RPS/MRD 7/ISS/69 ATS Safety Management The ICAO audit identified that "The CAA has not developed a system to ensure that appropriate safety management programmes are implemented, including, but not limited to, the establishment of policies, regulations, oversight procedures and safety performance targets in relation to the provision of ATS. Furthermore, resources and guidelines to support the implementation of safety management programmes have also not been identified." Following brief discussion on the CAA s proposed Safety Management System requirements, it was agreed that rulemaking action is required. 03/04/2008 Page 6 of 6 Date saved: 02/04/08