April 2020 | www.sayer.com

have personally had the pleasure

of meeting the charismatic Dr Liu,

listening to her presentations and

interacting with her informally on

two occasions when she graciously

attended our IAOPA gatherings in

Chicago, USA, and Queenstown,

New Zealand over the past few years.

She has considerable academic

achievements and experience in aviation

legal matters, holding a PhD in international

law from Wuhan University in China, a

Master’s degree in air and space law

from the Netherlands, as well as many

years’ experience as an administrator and

negotiator for the Chinese government, Civil

Aviation China and ICAO.

ICAO has the function of developing

and overseeing international aviation

standards which must be given effect to

by national aviation authorities around the

world in order to comply with the precepts

of the Convention on International Civil

Aviation. In a nutshell, the Convention

facilitates international civil aviation by

ensuring that regulations, licences and

certicates issued by national civil aviation

authorities comply with ICAO standards

and recommended practices (SARPS), thus

making for consistent aviation administration

acceptable to all member states.

This is no easy task. As a United

Nations body, ICAO must transcend the

panoply of differing and often conicting

economic, social, political and cultural

mores of all 193 member states consistently

and diplomatically, even when they are at

war with each other.

THE LAGGARDS

Unfortunately, not all states are created

equal. Many developing countries, mostly

in the African, South American and some

Asia/Pacic regions lack the national

infrastructure, skills and funding to properly

perform their functions in compliance with

the SARPS.

ICAO performs regular audits of these

states to measure their levels of compliance,

so that other states can evaluate whether or

not to permit unfettered air travel to and from

them, or to place limitations on international

operations. Naturally, limitations on air

trafc to and from countries which have

difculties with compliance has a further

detrimental effect on the fortunes of

struggling developing nations.

ICAO’S SOLUTION

ICAO’s “No Country Left Behind” (NCLB)

campaign is a little vague, but broadly

consists of advocacy activities intended to

raise awareness of ICAO policies, provide

guidance and encouragement and an

awareness of the importance of civil aviation

to national economies. In this regard, ICAO

has encouraged countries with stronger

aviation authorities to take neighbouring

countries under their wing, so to speak.

ICAO performs regular and ongoing

audits of member states and reports on their

levels of compliance and implementation

of the SARPS. This covers the national

authorities’ areas of legislation, organisation,

licensing, operations, airworthiness,

accident investigation, air navigation

HAVE WE BEEN

LEFT BEHIND?

AOPA BRIEFING

CHRIS MARTINUS - PRESIDENT AIRCRAFT OWNERS & PILOTS ASSOCIATION – SOUTH AFRICA

The SACAA is

proud of how it

performs above the

world average in

ICAO standards.

When Dr Fang Liu, an attorney, became the rst woman to be appointed to

the prestigious position of Secretary-General of ICAO in August 2016, she

enthusiastically embarked on ICAO’s “No Country Left Behind” (NCLB) campaign.

www.sayer.com | April 2020

services and aerodromes. Where the audits

show weaknesses, ICAO, with the assistance

of stronger national authorities, will provide

such assistance as may be reasonable.

In this regard, South Africa has

undoubtedly been the strongest aviating

nation in Africa for many years, particularly

in respect of general aviation. Sadly, in

commercial aviation we are slipping from

our dominant position with our state-owned

airlines now in desperate circumstances. All

around, our CAA has been slipping as well,

with inconsistent and onerous regulation,

poor service and a structure more inuenced

by socio-political objectives than the

promotion of aviation, aviation safety and

development of the industry as a whole.

Nevertheless, the SA Civil Aviation

Authority passed a 2017 ICAO audit with ying

colours. Compliance and implementation

of the ICAO standards far exceeded the

global average, and even bettered many

nations which also have very strong aviation

regulators. CAA was over the moon. At

regulatory meetings, the chairperson even

insisted that stakeholders clap and cheer

CAA’s amazing accomplishment.

THE RANT

I was nevertheless suspicious and

doubtful about the ICAO audit outcome.

Although South Africa’s accomplishments in

aviation are and have been impressive, they

are not THAT spectacular. I wrote an article

in this publication setting out how CAA has

largely failed general aviation and entitled

it “Has CAA Failed the General Aviation

Audit?”

The response from CAA was

spectacularly hostile. CAA Director Poppy

Khoza penned a long and vitriolic letter,

sent to SA Flyer by CAA spokesman

Kabelo Ledwaba, in which vague and vile

accusations were levelled against AOPA,

its directors and myself in particular. I was

bafed and bemused. The letter ranted on,

with vague emotional and deeply defamatory

statements about AOPA and myself.

Yet there was little new in the “audit”

article. It was largely about deciencies in

CAA’s handling of general aviation which had

been canvassed before over many years.

But the vitriolic response indicated that I had

touched a very sensitive nerve.

A campaign of vilication of AOPA

ensued, through CAA itself and several of its

proxies. Their lawyers threatened website

owners who had published our mostly

measured comments and views. Even Dr Liu

seemed rather cold towards me at our last

meeting in New Zealand.

There appeared to be a massive over-

reaction, but I could not understand why. But

now I think I know.

COLUMNS

The Civil Aviation Act's clearly stated requirement for an independent accident investigation authority.

join.the.leader

Cape Town Flight Training Centre

Private, Commercial & Advanced Pilot Training

(021) 976 7053 or (084) 440 7922

www.cape-town-flying.co.za CAA/0188

April 2020 | www.sayer.com

ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION

ICAO Annex 13 prescribes that every member state must have

an aviation accident investigation authority. The Annex emphasises

that, “The accident investigation authority shall have independence in

the conduct and have unrestricted authority over its conduct...” in the

gathering, recording and analysis of evidence, the issuance of safety

recommendations, the determination of causes and the completion

of a nal report.

In the United States, accident investigations are conducted by

the NTSB, the National Transportation Safety Board, which is entirely

independent from the FAA or other bodies. In the United Kingdom,

there is a similarly independent AAIB, or Air Accidents Investigation

Branch. Other ICAO member states have independent accident

investigation authorities, or less developed nations may use the

services of an authority from another state in order to give effect to

Annex 13.

South Africa’s 2009 Civil Aviation Act devotes an entire chapter

to the establishment of an independent Aviation Safety Investigation

Board (ASIB). Chapter 4 of the Act is devoted to the strict

independence of an ASIB, its jurisdiction, powers, public nominations

of board members and their own independence from political and

commercial vested interests. Accident reports must be published to

the public, since unbiased accident ndings are of crucial interest to

the industry and regulator in improving and correcting safety issues,

as well as to passengers and personnel.

Several years ago, the Minister of Transport gazetted a call

for nominations for members of the ASIB, and AOPA submitted

nominations of three eminently suitable, qualied and experienced

candidates. However, the Minister never established an ASIB as

prescribed by the Act, leaving accident investigations to a department

of the CAA, whose investigators are employed and remunerated by

CAA.

More than a year ago, there were two tragic accidents involving

Boeing 737 Max aircraft which were operated by Indonesian and

Ethiopian airlines, both countries are considered to be “developing

nations” within the purview of ICAO’s NCLB campaign. Indeed,

questions have been raised, particularly regarding Ethiopia’s

preliminary accident report which appears to lay the blame for its

accident solely at Boeing’s doorstep, while underplaying probable

deciencies in the airline’s training, procedures and crew skills. This

has been extremely damaging to Boeing, with the entire 737 Max

worldwide eet having been grounded for over a year. Further, the

Ethiopian accident report’s assessment of the Ethiopian Airlines

Flight 409 Boeing 737 crash after takeoff from Beirut has been widely

contested by other aviation authorities.

More recently, SACAA’s Cessna Citation C550 calibration aircraft

crashed into mountains near George in the Western Cape. All three

crew, employees of CAA, perished in the accident. CAA nevertheless

proceeded to investigate the accident themselves, notwithstanding

an outcry from industry and the media that it was wholly inappropriate

for CAA to investigate an accident involving an aircraft owned and

operated by itself and crewed by its own employees.

ICAO published the audit results of member states on its website.

The global average of implementation of ICAO standards for accident

investigations stands at a dismal 57.31%. Indonesia’s implementation

is little better at 65%. Ethiopia manages an implementation of

accident investigation at 66.67%. This is contrasted with ICAO’s 2017

audit of South Africa’s CAA implementation of accident investigation

standards, placing it at an astonishing 90.91%. To put this into

perspective, ICAO rates the USA’s ASIB implementation at 81.32%

and the United Kingdom at a mere 82.95%.

It appears from their own data that ICAO rates South Africa’s

accident investigation capabilities way above the most advanced

aviating nations in the world, even though our CAA accident

investigation division cannot be considered to be independent, and

most certainly not when investigating accidents involving its own

aircraft, operations and crew. To top it off, although South Africa

has legislation that scrupulously gives effect to Annex 13, this has

never been implemented, the Minister and CAA having made lame

excuses for not observing legislation enacted by Parliament more

than a decade ago.

So how could ICAO have given the SACAA and for that matter

the Ethiopian Accident investigation capabilities such a high rating?

QUESTIONS:

This state of affairs begs several questions:

Does ICAO implement its NCLB campaign by simply overlooking

deciencies in developing countries?

Or did CAA somehow hoodwink ICAO into believing that

SA’s accident investigation deserves a stellar 90.91% gold star of

compliance – better than the USA, Russia, Austria, New Zealand and

most other European and Asian countries?

Or did they work together to mislead the rest of the world?

Does this explain the almost rabid hostility towards AOPA and our

criticisms which got a little too close to the bone?

And does this place ICAO’s audit of CAA into question on aspects

other than just accident investigation?

I have my own conclusions. You make up your own mind.

AOPA BRIEFING

The objectives of the accident investigation safety board.