Regulatory Impact Statement
Rule Part 139 Aerodromes – Certification, Operation and
Use
Agency Disclosure Statement
1. This Regulatory Impact Statement has been prepared by the Ministry of
Transport with assistance from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).
2. It provides an analysis of options for improving safety practices at both
certificated and non-certificated aerodromes to bring the New Zealand Rules in
line with international best practice.
3. There is a deficit of information and data upon which to base analysis of
uncertificated aerodromes especially. Therefore many of the cost and capacity
estimates contained in the RIS have been made by technical experts at the
CAA.
1
Executive Summary
1. This Civil Aviation Rule amendment is addressing two areas of concern
a)
Uncertificated aerodromes: Gaps in safety oversight: The Director has limited
mechanisms fir regulatory oversight over the safety of participants and the
general public at uncertificated aerodromes despite this being a stated goal of
the Civil Aviation Act (1990).
b)
Certificated aerodromes: ICAO compliance: New Zealand has fallen behind in its
alignment and obligations with the International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO) Standards And Recommended Practices (SARPs) for aerodromes
potentially undermining New Zealand’s reputation for tourism safety and
subsequently its economic situation
2. To address these concerns the Rule introduces the following:
a)
A new risk-based regulatory tool that the Director can use to assess and address
risk on a case by case basis.
b)
New standards for certificated aerodromes to align with ICAO requirements
3. A range of options were considered and discarded, from voluntary approaches to
mandatory certification and new prescriptive standards for uncertificated
aerodromes. The selected options are considered to be the most effective as they
will allow the CAA to target interventions at the aerodromes that exacerbate risk in
the system, rather than spreading the regulatory burden across the system
regardless of risk.
4. The rule has undergone two rounds of public consultation, and has substantially
changed since the original proposals to take into account submitter’s views and to
align with the CAA’s move to a risk based approach to regulation. Key stakeholders
agree with the proposed approach.
5. The Rule will come into force at different times. The new risk based approach for
uncertificated aerodromes will come into force immediately. Three years will be
provided for certificated aerodromes to comply with the new operating standards.
Those who re-certify, or are required to be certified under the new risk based
process in the interim will be able to choose whether to comply with the new
requirements.
Status quo
6. New Zealand has 26 certificated aerodromes1 and 172 published aerodromes, 49 of
which are heliports and 3 water aerodromes. It also has hundreds more
unpublished aerodromes, serving various aircraft types. More than 2.5 million
travellers pass through New Zealand’s aerodromes annually with over 1 million
Part definition: Aerodrome— (1) means any defined area of land or water intended or designed to be used either wholly
or partly for the landing, departure, and surface movement of aircraft;
1
2
aircraft movements per year. The majority of passengers use New Zealand’s 26
certificated aerodromes.2
7. Aerodromes in New Zealand are diverse in their size and purpose - from small grass
club fields to regional airports run by councils to large publicly listed companies with
international operations. Aerodromes are owned by a mix of owners with a range of
capabilities to ensure safety and regulatory practice at their aerodromes, ranging
from private for-profit companies, councils, to trusts and aeroclubs. In addition,
there are a large number of aerodromes that just service general aviation3 or
agricultural operators. Each aerodrome has its own unique characteristics.
8. Aerodromes are an integral part of the aviation sector which contributed $2,177
million (in 2010 prices) to New Zealand’s gross domestic product in 2012. Over the
ten years to 2012 GDP in the aviation sector increased by 3.7% per annum compared
with 2.3% in the national economy.
Regulatory environment
9. In New Zealand the Civil Aviation Act (1990) sets overarching requirements for
certification of participants in the aviation system. Specific certification processes
and the standards that certificated aerodromes must comply with are specified in
Rule Part 139 - Aerodrome - Certification, Operation and Use.
10. Rule Part 139 currently applies to aerodromes servicing international operations and
regular Part 121 operations (larger domestic operators with greater than 30 seats).
11. Some requirements on the use of aerodromes also exist in other Civil Aviation Rule
Parts – for example smaller Part 135 and Part 125 commercial flight operators must
comply with operating rules that ensure the aircraft only uses aerodromes that are
appropriate for the operating limits of the aircraft, including runway length, width
and strip width. Part 91 contains a generic requirement for pilots to ensure that the
aerodrome is appropriate for their aircraft.
12. There is no requirement for certification or any standards that apply to noncertificated aerodromes. To maintain overall safety oversight at uncertificated
aerodromes, the CAA focusses on the use of guidance (through aerodrome visits and
advisory circulars that set out best practice) and provision of information to pilots
through the publication of the New Zealand Aeronautical Information Publication
(NZAIP)4.
2 International Travel and Migration: November 2011, Statistics New Zealand
3 General Aviation covers small aircraft operations both private and commercial, and helicopters.
4
The NZAIP is a document that is used by pilots to determine whether an aerodrome design is appropriate
for their specific operation. It publishes runway widths, strip widths, lengths, slope strength, obstacles and
other useful data that enables the pilot to judge the risk and make a decision about whether or not it is
safe to land.
3
International obligations
13. Regulation of aerodromes in New Zealand is driven at least in part by international
obligations. New Zealand is a member of the International Civil Aviation
Organisation (ICAO) as a signatory to the Chicago Convention. ICAO sets Standards
and Recommended Practices (SARPs) for aviation safety, security, efficiency and
environmental protection. The SARPs relating to aerodromes are contained within
Annex 14 Volume 1 of the Chicago Convention and include minimum specifications
for aerodrome physical characteristics and obstacle limitation surfaces, facilities and
technical services.
14. ICAO standards are binding for member States unless the State files a difference
with ICAO. New Zealand complies with ICAO standards for international aerodromes
but has filed a difference to notify ICAO that it does not comply with ICAO standards
for domestic aerodromes.
Relevant decisions
15. In May 2014, Cabinet (EGI min (14)11/3) agreed to implement the National Airspace
and Air Navigation Plan (New Southern Sky). This is a 10 year programme designed
to modernise all elements of the aviation system. The Plan included a chapter on
Aerodromes setting out a process to ensure integration of aerodrome planning with
the rest of the system (including land use planning) through greater collaboration
and use of master planning.
Problem definition
16. This Civil Aviation Rule amendment is addressing two areas of concern
a)
Uncertificated aerodromes: Gaps in safety oversight: The Director has limited
mechanisms for regulatory oversight over the safety of participants and the
general public at uncertificated aerodromes despite this being a stated goal of
the Civil Aviation Act (1990).
b)
Certificated aerodromes: ICAO compliance: New Zealand has fallen behind in its
alignment and obligations with the ICAO SARPs for aerodromes potentially
undermining New Zealand’s reputation for tourism safety and subsequently its
economic situation.
Safety oversight at uncertificated aerodromes
17. There are currently 172 aerodromes on the Civil Aviation Authority database and
hundreds more that are unpublished. Many of these are essential infrastructure
serving communities across New Zealand for transport, tourism, medical and other
emergencies, and recreation.
What is the problem?
18. The Director currently has very limited regulatory powers to address significant
aviation safety concerns at these aerodromes except through guidance and
4
encouragement of voluntary action. While section 44 of the Civil Aviation Act
bestows some powers on the Director to deal with dangerous situations in a punitive
sense, the Act specifically excludes aerodromes from Section 21, the provision that
provides the Director with the power to address safety concerns while the Civil
Aviation Rules make no mention of uncertificated aerodromes.
19. An analysis of the aerodromes published in the NZAIP has identified that over a third
of uncertificated aerodromes do not meet best practice international guidelines for
aerodromes.
What are the safety implications?
20. While the Director is able to work collaboratively with many of these aerodromes to
mitigate safety issues, there are occasions where a voluntary approach has failed
and the Director has very limited ability to ensure the safety of the public at the
aerodrome. By example, Te Kowhai has two runways end to end separated by little
more than a chain fence. It is considered unsafe by the Director, but he has not been
able to address the problem because of the lack of powers.
21. Similarly, a recent Coroner’s report on a mid-air collision in Paraparaumu in February
2008 identified failings in the CAA’s ability to regulate uncertificated aerodromes 5.
As a result of the accident Paraparaumu chose to become certificated and has come
under the CAA’s audit programme. However there are a number of aerodromes still
serving reasonably large communities where the Director has limited ability to
provide formal oversight and intervene as necessary in the public interest.
22. It is difficult to precisely assess the safety risks associated with this inability to
provide adequate oversight. A study of incidents at aerodromes over the past three
years indicates that there are no obvious trends that would require immediate
comprehensive action – in fact New Zealand’s incident rate of 0.2 per 1000
movements is significantly lower than the world average or 1 incident per 1000
movements.
23. However the level of data reporting by uncertificated aerodromes (despite a
requirement under Rule Part 12: Subpart B), is very low. Of all incidents reported,
94% are from the 21 certificated aerodromes, while the remaining 6% are reported
by all other aerodromes. The data available cannot therefore be relied on to provide
confidence that uncertificated aerodromes are safe.
What are the domestic economic implications?
24. The cost of any accident in aviation is high, both in terms of reputation for New
Zealand and in human cost (e.g. the death of six Japanese tourists in Milford Sound
1989, the reputational impact of which was estimated at $30m in lost tourism
5
revenue)6. A CAA analysis indicates that at least 13 small-medium air transport
operations fly in and out of aerodromes across New Zealand that may have design
limitations. It is therefore important that the Director has an effective mechanism to
reduce risk where it is identified, and when education and encouragement of
voluntary action fails.
ICAO compliance at Certificated Aerodromes
25. New Zealand is a signatory to the Chicago Convention and is thus obligated to follow
the Standards outlined by ICAO for international airports where practicable. In 2006,
an ICAO audit of New Zealand’s compliance with international requirements
resulted in nine findings associated with inadequate regulation of aerodromes. The
findings included issues with:
a)
runway friction levels
b)
runway end safety areas (RESAs)
c)
emergency management including fire services at aerodromes
d)
obligations to monitor land use changes
e)
the effective use of aeronautical studies (risk assessments) and safety
management systems as a management tool.
26. Lack of compliance with international standards at international aerodromes can
result in increased safety risk. However, statistics show that 2% of all accidents since
2005 have happened at or around aerodromes so therefore having consistent
management and design standards at international airports is an important way of
reducing accidents. A consistent approach to runway friction coefficients, for
example, is necessary for international operators to calculate landing and take-off
distances. Differences in these critical elements can mean the difference between a
safe landing and a runway overrun.
27. In reality most of New Zealand’s international aerodromes largely comply with ICAO
standards despite the lack of alignment in our regulatory system. The problem is
that because our regulatory system does not match the ICAO requirements, this can
lead to a perception of non-compliance (both within ICAO and by other States) – and
therefore creates a reputational risk for New Zealand that could result in economic
impacts should our lack of international alignment discourage operators from flying
to and from New Zealand.
28. Of the remaining certificated aerodromes that serve regular Part 121 operators,
many also largely comply, with the notable exception of compliance with signage
requirements. These aerodromes are often the end point of a flight that originated
overseas. In these cases, international tourists should have some comfort levels that
6
TAIC report 89-112: http://www.taic.org.nz/AviationReports/tabid/78/ctl/Detail/mid/482/InvNumber/1989112/Page/29/Default.aspx
$30m figure from Te Ara: http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/air-crashes/page-4
6
their total trip – including the final domestic leg - will provide a similar assurance of
safety.
Objectives
29. The key objectives for the proposed rule are to ensure effective safety oversight of
all aerodromes in New Zealand by providing the Director with the appropriate tools
to be able to manage risk without overburdening the aviation industry with
unnecessary cost.
Regulatory Impact Analysis
30. To address the identified problems a number of options were explored






Status quo
Education campaign
Voluntary enforcement
Alignment with ICAO international Standards
o Update standards for certificated aerodromes only
o Set minimum standards for uncertificated aerodromes that align with
ICAO requirements
Extend certification to certain higher risk uncertificated aerodromes
Risk based regulatory approach.
31. A summary of the options analysis is contained in Table 1 in Annex 1:
32. Two options are preferred:
1) Align standards for certificated aerodromes with ICAO requirements
2) Implement a new risk-based regulatory tool that the Director can use to assess
and address risk on a case by case basis.
33. There is no clear safety or economic justification for choosing not to align our
regulatory system to ICAO standards at international aerodromes and those serving
regular Part 121 operations (which are often the final destination for international
tourists).
34. For uncertificated aerodromes, the problems described in this paper would not be
resolved by either the status quo or through even more focus on education and
voluntary enforcement. The CAA is already making maximum use of these tools to
manage aviation safety at aerodromes.
35. For these aerodromes, a mandatory or prescriptive approach may lift the standard,
but are a crude way of ensuring risk is addressed as they are a one-size fits all
solution. Risks at New Zealand’s range of aerodromes are unique. They depend on a
wide range of factors, including the local physical environment, weather patterns
and the types of operation, the pattern of movement volumes. The interaction of all
these factors with the specific design at an aerodrome is also a consideration.
7
36. To reflect this variability, a risk based approach to certification is favoured. This will
provide the Director with the ability to assess the risk at currently uncertificated
aerodromes on a case by case basis, with a clear process to follow. Specifically it
would allow the Director to:




Require an aeronautical study (risk assessment) if he or she considers it
necessary or if triggered by a set of criteria as outlined in the Rule
Assess the risk based on the aeronautical study
Consult with the operator to mitigate the risk
If this process identifies the need, require a qualifying operating certificate
37. Aerodromes that are required to obtain certification through this approach would
undergo a separate process to obtain a qualifying aerodrome operator certificate.
Certification and operating requirements for these aerodromes are more flexible,
and are designed in a way that that aligns with the risks identified during the
aeronautical study
38. To support the risk based approach, a requirement for movement reporting will be
extended to all aerodromes. Smaller aerodromes will be able to report estimated
movement volumes rather than absolute data so that this requirement is not too
onerous. Smaller aerodromes will also only be required to report annually whereas
larger aerodromes will be required to do so quarterly. Very small agricultural air
strips will be exempt from reporting requirements.
Benefits
39. At international aerodromes and those serving large air transport operations,
standards will be consistent with other similar sized aerodromes across the world,
thereby ensuring a common safety standard and protecting New Zealand’s
reputation as a safe country to visit.
40. For all other aerodromes, the risk based assessment process will allow for the
flexibility to address safety concerns at our domestic aerodromes based on the
highest need or greatest risk. It also allows individual assessment of the unique
range of factors at each aerodrome rather than a one size fits all solution.
41. As a consequence, the CAA will be able to target interventions at the aerodromes
that exacerbate risk in the system, rather than spreading the regulatory burden
across the system regardless of risk. This means that aerodromes with proven risk
management systems and culture in place will not be forced to pay for the
regulatory oversight of risk exacerbaters as much as they had previously.
42. It is difficult to properly assess how many incidents will be avoided due to the new
risk based approach, but it is estimated that the changes will result in a net safety
benefit based on the assumption that the ability for the Director to target high risk
aerodromes will result in fewer incidents at these aerodromes.
8
9
Costs
Government costs
43. It is estimated that the net impact of the changes for the government will be
minimal. While it is difficult to properly quantify this until the new rule is in place,
this is based on the assumption that all costs are recovered from the industry
through fees and charges.
44. It is not expected that there will be a net increase in government oversight costs as
resources that were previously spread across the system regardless of risk will now
be focused more closely on risk exacerbators, rather than those that have
appropriate and effective safety systems in place.
45. Because the risk based approach to certification is relatively new, it is expected that
there will be some learning and training requirements for the CAA in the
implementation of the new approach.
Industry costs: Of ICAO changes on certificated aerodromes
46. In the last year, 16 of the 26 certificated aerodromes have been re-certificated.
During this process, CAA auditors checked aerodrome design and procedures against
the aerodrome Advisory Circulars, which already contain all of the new ICAO
standards. The majority were assessed to be in compliance with the advisory
circulars (and therefore ICAO standards) with the exception of certain signage
requirements (i.e. many do not have illuminated signage).
47. It is anticipated that the remaining 10 aerodromes are in a similar position, and are
largely compliant with proposed additional ICAO requirements relating to runway
friction levels, Runway End Safety Areas (RESAs), fire-fighting and emergency
planning. Upgrade costs for illuminated lighting vary depending on the size and
nature of the aerodrome, but range up to $50,000 per certificated aerodrome. This
will differ from airport to airport depending on the standards already in place.
Industry costs: Of risk based approach to certification of other aerodromes
48. The main compliance costs associated with the risk based approach will be
a)
When either the Director requires an aerodrome to undertake an aeronautical
study or when it is triggered by a change at the aerodrome.
b)
When the Director requires an uncertificated aerodrome to obtain a qualifying
operator certificate following his assessment of the Aeronautical Study.
Costs of aeronautical studies
49. Aeronautical studies are risk assessments. Depending on the issue, the scale of the
risk assessment required will vary, so that small concerns or issues should require
relatively low cost studies and mitigation options while larger issues my require
10
more comprehensive assessment. Examples of different types of aeronautical study
and their estimated costs are set out below:
a)
Small issue – e.g. the Director identifies trees at the end of the runway have
grown too high and may be causing a safety risk.
Total $1550. Including:



b)
survey costs ($400)
two hours of time for a person to complete the study and identify risk
mitigation options ($300/hr).
two hours of CAA time to assess the study ($278/hr)
Medium issue – e.g. the Director has concerns about a mid-size aerodrome
where data movement reporting indicates traffic volumes have increased
significantly and some incidents have been occurring – for example
Total $4500: Including


c)
10 hours of an expert time to assess likely risks associated with the interaction
between the range of operations and identify risk mitigation options ($300/hr)
5 hours of CAA time to assess the study
Large issue – An aerodrome already serving a large number of small- medium
size tourist operators adds a parachute operation and a new international flying
school. The aerodrome is identified by the Director as a potential safety concern
due to known issues with runway width, strip width and local terrain and
weather patterns
Total $12,000


30 hour study to assess the risks associated with the introduction of the new
operations
10 hours of CAA time to inspect the aerodrome, assess the study
Costs of certification
50. Should any of the scenarios above result in the Director concluding that the only
possible risk mitigation to address the risks is a form of certification, then additional
certification costs apply. As for an aeronautical study, certification standards for this
group will be designed to reflect the risks posed by the aerodrome – not all
standards for larger certificated operators will apply.
51. The average cost for the CAA to certify a small-medium aerodrome is $6000.
However depending on the capital and management changes that the aerodrome
needs to make to comply with the standards there will be initial upgrade costs and
ongoing operating costs to obtain and maintain the operating certificate.

11
Initial operating costs could range from minimal cost (e.g. the cost of tree pruning)
to over $300,000 to widen runways and runway strips, install markings and signs
and employ senior people – depending on how much change is required. Many midsize aerodromes are already compliant with design and personnel requirements.

Ongoing operating costs including the regular additional maintenance costs (e.g.
runway resurfacing and painting) and personnel costs, and the costs associated with
ongoing CAA oversight.
Consultation
52. The final proposed draft rule is the result of five years’ work
53. The significant changes proposed as part of this RIS have been through two NPRM
consultation periods and years of consultation with the relevant sectors of the
aviation industry.
54. Several draft proposed changes remained contentious throughout the consultation
period for the NPRMs. Our final draft proposal as represented in this RIS reflects the
significant feedback received as part of that extended consultation period.
55. Stakeholders – (most notably those aerodrome affected) supported the need to
maintain alignment with ICAO standards for international and regular part 121
aerodromes. Misalignment with these standards can result in increased safety risk to
the flying public, loss of commercial opportunity if air operators choose not to fly
into our aerodromes, and wider economic impact due to our reliance on
international air transport for travel and international trade.
56. They did not support the need for minimum standards aligning with ICAO standards
at New Zealand’s uncertificated domestic aerodromes. With limited data available
supporting a safety case to extend international requirements to our domestic
aerodromes, the potential cost of this requirement is not justified with over a third
of New Zealand’s domestic aerodromes potentially not compliant with these more
stringent international standards.
57. Stakeholders also resoundingly rejected the idea of mandatory certification for an
extended group of aerodromes. They argued that risks at each individual aerodrome
are unique – and depend on a wide range of factors, including the local physical
environment and weather patterns, the types of operation, the pattern of
movement volumes and the interaction of all these factors with the specific design
at an aerodrome. Setting minimum standards or requiring mandatory certification
may therefore not be the most appropriate approach at certain aerodromes, and
impose unnecessary cost on operators.
58. The final draft rule was amended to reflect this this stakeholder feedback, with the
risk based approach to certification receiving positive feedback from stakeholders
contacted as part of the redrafting process.
59. The New Zealand Airports Association was provided with an opportunity to review
the redrafted rule. The Association indicated strong support for the proposed final
rule but expressed concern about the requirement that the aerodrome operator
should pay for the cost of the aeronautical study when required by the Director. The
proposed responsibility is based on the principle that aerodrome operators are an
12
immediate beneficiary of aviation activities at the aerodrome in most cases via the
collection of landing and other fees where these are in place. In addition the
aerodrome operator has the opportunity/ability to engage with users to share and
distribute the costs that it may incur in undertaking an aeronautical study if it
wishes/decides to (regardless of whether or not a landing fee system is in place).
60. The Association also expressed concern that the proposed Rule should not attempt
to make the aerodrome operator generally responsible for assessing the risks
associated with airspace around the aerodrome. This is accepted, the rule
development follows advice that has been recently corresponded between the CAA
and NZ Airports that the allocation and extent of an aerodrome’s individual
responsibility must be commensurate with the ability of that aerodrome to take
reasonable practicable steps to manage the risk. This approach will be further
elaborated in advisory circulars providing guidance about Aeronautical Studies.
Conclusions and recommendations
61. New Zealand’s current regulation of certificated aerodromes does not align with
international standards. Its regulation of uncertificated aerodromes does not allow
the Director to intervene in uncertificated aerodromes where there is a safety risk.
62. The preferred options present the best way to increase safety at New Zealand’s
aerodromes at minimal cost to the industry. The preferred options also align with
the CAA’s moves become a risk based regulator.
Implementation
Transition
63. The proposed new risk based process for certification of aerodromes will come into
force on immediately.
64. A 3 year transition period will be implemented to enable transition for certificated
operators to comply with the new ICAO standards
65. Any aerodrome which is re-certificated in the interim, or which is required to
undergo certification by the Director will have the choice to continue with
certification under the old rule, or comply with the standards before the 3 year
deadline.
Industry notification, guidance and information
66. The aerodrome industry will be notified when the Rule is made and copies of the
new rule will be available on the CAA website. The relevant Advisory Circulars will be
updated to ensure that operators are aware of the potential safety risks and changes
to aerodrome procedures that may lead to an aeronautical study or intervention by
the Director.
13
CAA training and procedures
67. The proposed changes, especially around risk based assessment of aerodromes, will
require changes to the way the CAA approaches the enforcement of aerodrome
regulation. Revised procedures are under development.
Offenses and penalties
68. New offenses and penalties for failure to supply an aeronautical study and failure to
comply with the proposed new standards for certificated aerodromes have been
created. These are comparable to existing offenses and penalties
Consequential amendments
69. There are no significant consequential amendments
Monitoring, evaluation and Review
70. The proposed risk based certification process is a novel approach to certification and
therefore is relatively untested. Data collected about movement data, as well as
data collected to implement the risk based approach will be used to assess the
effectiveness of the Rule, and in particular the new risk based certification process.
14
Option
Status quo: Do not align certificated
aerodromes with ICAO standards and
continue to provide guidance and
support to uncertificated
aerodromes.
Criteria 1
Criteria 2
Criteria 3
Criteria 4
Lower the safety risk at all aerodromes, thereby improving
the level of safety in the aviation system
Enhance New Zealand’s
international reputation
Achieve its purpose in a way that minimises compliance and
government administration costs
Be appropriately targeted to reflect
safety needs across the wide range of
aerodrome operators
It is likely that ongoing guidance would reduce the risk at some
uncertificated aerodromes. However, the safety of our
aerodromes could be compromised as this option does not
allow the Director to ensure the safety of an aerodrome at
which he/she had a safety concern. Therefore this option
would not actually lower the risk; rather it would manage it at
its current level.
If New Zealand continues to fall
behind in its alignment with ICAO,
our international reputation will
likely suffer.
Regulatory costs are, to a more or lesser extent, spread evenly
across aerodromes, rather than being targeted at aerodromes that
exacerbate risk in the system. It is assumed that
This option does not target those who
exacerbate risk.

The status quo is not effective in circumstances where the CAA
(or other person) has identified a significant safety risk that
cannot be resolved through working with a willing operator. In
these circumstances, the Director has no mechanisms
(including through the Civil Aviation Act) to resolve the safety
risk.
Education campaign: Encourage
operators to assess and mitigate
potential risks associated with design
and management limitations
This options does not provide the Director with the regulatory
powers to address risk at uncertificated aerodromes
This option would not guarantee
the safety of aerodromes and could
thus undermine New Zealand’s
safety reputation.
It is assumed that the compliance costs for the industry would vary
as the implementation of measures would be voluntary.
An education campaign could be
targeted at the higher risk operators.
Voluntary enforcement: Similar to
the education campaign, but with an
industry body regulating the
implementation of standards, rather
than the CAA.
If an industry body was tasked with ensuring safety at
aerodromes, it may have some success in that it would be
incentivized to pressure high risk aerodromes to increase their
safety in order to protect the reputation of the industry as a
whole. It would not, however, have any regulatory power to
intervene at aerodromes that refused to increase their safety
standards.
New Zealand’s reputation would
likely suffer if we were seen to be
lax in the enforcement of our own
CARs.
It is assumed that the compliance costs for the industry would vary
as the implementation of measures would be voluntary.
This option would go some way towards
appropriately targeting for risk and the
industry is well aware of the large range
of aerodromes.
Alignment with ICAO international
Standards – Level 1: Update Part 139
to align with standards prescribed by
ICAO. Options include: Update for
certificated aerodromes only
If all international aerodromes were brought up to the latest
ICAO standards, this would likely contribute to lowering.
This option would increase our
international reputation.
Consultation on the proposed introduction of ICAO standards is
supported by affected aerodromes and their representative
organisation, the Airports Association. Clear and unambiguous
standards that demonstrate international compliance is critical to
the commercial success of these aerodromes. Compliance costs are
not fully known as they depend what new measures an aerodrome
might need to take.
15
ICAO standards are considered international best practice and
have been devised by a wide range of technical experts.
This option would likely reduce government and industry costs.
Although a reduction in cost may merely be the result of lax
enforcement, rather than because voluntary enforcement is a more
efficient manner of compliance.
This option would affect the intended
aerodromes.
Alignment with ICAO international
Standards – Level 2: Set minimum
standards for certificated and
uncertificated aerodromes that align
with ICAO requirements
The CAA does not have the appropriate data to properly justify
and quantify the safety implications of the introduction of
minimum standards for uncertificated aerodromes.
It is likely that the addition of
minimum standards would initially
increase New Zealand’s reputation.
In addition, there was also strong evidence from the industry
that the imposition of minimum standards would lead some
aerodromes to just withdraw from the AIP, a move that would
have significantly increased the safety risks of landing at some
aerodromes.
However, an incident related to an
aerodrome pulling out of the AIP
would significantly undermine New
Zealand’s reputation for evidence
and risk based policy making.
Risk based regulatory approach
This approach would give the Director and the CAA the abilities
to target interventions and guidance at the highest risk
aerodromes.
This option would maintain New
Zealand’s reputation for safety at
aerodromes without
overburdening the industry.
By also requiring mandatory data reporting (with the
exception of very minor agricultural strips), the Director will be
able to better able to target interventions. The only proper
way of ensuring that we have a full and robust data set is to
require it of all of the AIP listed certificated and uncertificated
aerodromes.
A preliminary analysis of uncertificated aerodromes in eh AIP
revealed that approximately 30% would fall short of the ICAO
minimum standards. A large number of these aerodromes would
have neither the capital nor capacity to comply.
This would capture the large range of
aerodromes in New Zealand. However it
would do this in a one size fits all
approach that doesn’t tailor
requirements to the safety risks present
at each specific aerodrome.
Aerodromes would only have to undertake an aeronautical study
when the Director has a concern about safety or when triggered by a
certain set of criteria Aeronautical Studies will be scalable and
relative to the degree of risk. Any regulation resulting from this
process should therefore be fully justified on a case by case basis.
This approach would, by design, be
aimed at targeted intervention.
It should be noted that this option represents a change from the
initial proposals to in response to repeated comments by submitters
that the cost of regulation of aerodromes needs to be proportionate
to the risk.
Under a risk based approach, the net safety gain should therefore
outweigh the cost of the regulation
Extend certification to certain higher
risk aerodromes uncertificated
aerodromes: For example, those with
high traffic volumes or those serving
mid-size air transport operations)
Meets criteria
16
This approach proved extremely contentious with stakeholders
over two consultation periods over more than two years. We
agree with submitters core concern was that the proposed
classification was not necessarily reflective of actual risk at
individual aerodromes which meant that the proposals could
not be supported by a robust safety justification.
Partially meets criteria
Does not meet criteria
This option would maintain New
Zealand’s reputation for safety at
aerodromes but could undermine
our reputation for risk based policy
making.
Average certification costs are around $5-6000 for small-medium
size aerodromes. This option would have disproportionately affected
smaller aerodromes that cater to remote communities and those
aerodromes that serve the general aviation community and are
generally operated not-for-profit.
This approach would take a several sizes
fits all approach that would not target
based on risk.
17