ICAO Audit Findings and Recommendations Relating to Personnel Licensing and Training

APPENDIX 3-1

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO PERSONNEL LICENSING AND TRAINING

State: Australia

Finding and Recommendation Number

PEL / 01

Audit period:

9 to 20 August 1999

Document reference:

Convention and Annex 1

CARs Parts 5 and 6

Audit protocol reference:

PEL -3.001

Type of finding:

x

Non-compliance with Chicago Convention or State Regulations

x

Non-conformance with Annex Standard

o

Non-adherence with Annex Recommended Practices

o

Non-adherence with guidance material

o

Non-adherence with relevant safety related practices

FINDING:

Due to the differences between the Standards of Annex 1 and the Australian CARs and CAOs, flight crew issued with Australian licences did not always meet all the international requirements. Under such circumstances, the holders of licences rating issued by Australia do no benefit from the automatic international recognition given under Article 33 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation. In addition, article 39 of the Convention also requires that the licences be endorsed with the particulars on which the licences do not meet the ICAO standards.

Flight crew members holding such licences and rating or holding non-ICAO licences and rating issued by CASA such as the restricted flight engineer licence and the Instrument rating - aeroplane and helicopter - for co-pilot, shall participate in international navigation only with the permission of States whose airspace is entered.

The differences between Annex 1 and Australian regulations which have an impact on the international recognition of Australian flight crew licences are identified in the list of differences contained in Appendix 6-A of this report

RECOMMENDATION:

Pending the amendment of the CARs and CAOs to ensure their conformance with Annex 1 Standards, the CASA should take immediate action to ensure that:

a) flight crew members who hold an Australian licence which does not fully conform with the Standards of Annex 1, are made aware that they can participate in international navigation only with the permission of States whose airspace is entered; and

b) any flight crew licence which does not fully conform with the Standards of Annex 1, be endorsed as is required by Article 39 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation.

Should this issue be addressed by the State in its Corrective Action Plan?

x

Yes

o

No

Auditor:

Mr. Paul Lamy

Date:

20 August 1999

Team Leader:

Mr. Paul Lamy

ICAO RECOMMENDATIONS

AUSTRALIAS COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS

IMMEDIATE ACTION

SHORT TERM ACTION

LONG TERM ACTION

PEL/01: Pending the amendment of the CARs and CAOs to ensure their conformance with Annex 1 Standards, the CASA should take immediate action to ensure that:

a) flight crew members who hold an Australian licence which does not fully conform with the Standards of Annex 1, are made aware that they can participate in international navigation only with the permission of States whose airspace is entered; and

b) any flight crew licence which does not fully conform with the Standards of Annex 1, be endorsed as is required by Article 39 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation.

ICAO comments are generally agreed. Differences require regulatory change and full consultation in the longer term to align with ICAO.

CASA will review each difference to determine whether in the longer term, conformance will be sought or the difference will be monitored.

a) and b)

• Notify industry organisations
• Notify international operators re ATPL, RFE and FE.
• Inform all pilots via AIC of differences, means of compliance and need to obtain permission of other States to operate if not compliant.

a)

• Notify differences to ICAO by 30 November 1999 and list all significant differences in AIP.
• Use Flight Safety magazine plus other means to inform pilots of the issues and how to comply with ICAO.

b)

• Endorse all Annex 1 identified (**) items on new paper licences issued from Jan 2000 and for those pilots seeking re-issue/renewal.
• Make reference on licence to other items listed in AIP
• Insert remark that where differences exist, pilots must carry proof of compliance and/or have permission of State to operate in other States airspace.

a)

• Remove ICAO differences, except where justified, in proposed new regulation CASR Part 61

b)

• Remove endorsements from licences as differences eliminated in Part 61.
• Issue new licences on request, with statement of compliance.

APPENDIX 3-2

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO PERSONNEL LICENSING AND TRAINING

State: Australia

Finding and Recommendation Number

PEL / 02

Audit period:

9 to 20 August 1999

Document reference:

Annex 1 Para 4.3 and 4.4

CAO 50.1

Audit protocol reference:

PEL 3.170, 3.260, 3.400

Type of finding:

o

Non-compliance with Chicago Convention or State Regulations

o

Non-conformance with Annex Standard

o

Non-adherence with Annex Recommended Practices

x

Non-adherence with guidance material

o

Non-adherence with relevant safety related practices

FINDING:

CASA had delegated to Airservices Australia the licensing of air traffic controller (ATCO). The delegation also covered the flight service officer licence which is not an ICAO licence. As a result, Airservices was responsible for developing and implementing the training programme, the standard of performance, the examination and testing system as well as the physical issuance of the licence.

CASA was auditing regularly Airservices licensing and training activities and found an unusually large number of discrepancies (close to 25% of the licences checked had problems). However CASA lacked enforcement power as it did not have legal oversight over Airservices and could only suspend individual licences or withdraw the delegation. The situation was compounded by the fact that the regulations governing the issuance of ATCO licence are broad in nature and that no CASA guidance exist on the subject. In practice, Airservices was essentially a self regulated body as far as personnel licensing was concerned.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Government should clearly affirm CASAs role in controlling the air traffic controller licence and ratings. CASA should also have clear enforcement power, should be directly involved in the approval of all training programs and Standards of Performance, and should have effective control of delegated testing authority and physical issuance of licences.

Should this issue be addressed by the State in its Corrective Action Plan?

x

Yes

o

No

Auditor:

Mr. Paul Lamy

Date:

20 August 1999

Team Leader:

Mr. Paul Lamy

ICAO RECOMMENDATIONS

AUSTRALIAS COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS

IMMEDIATE ACTION

SHORT TERM ACTION

LONG TERM ACTION

PEL/02: The Government should clearly affirm CASAs role in controlling the air traffic controller licence and ratings. CASA should also have clear enforcement power, should be directly involved in the approval of all training programs and Standards of Performance, and should have effective control of delegated testing authority and physical issuance of licences.

CASA agrees in principle with ICAO findings but is now able to confirm that there is a binding legal instrument dated 31 May 1999 rather than an MOU. This instrument gives CASA the ability, in its own right, to exercise powers of issuance, annotation, suspension and cancellation at its own determination. CASA agrees, however, that oversight may have been insufficient. It is pertinent that all of the discrepancies noted during audit were against Airservices Australia internal standards and were not discrepancies against ICAO requirements.

There is however, concern about a potential conflict of interest in service providers administration of some licence functions.

In the present monopolistic circumstance of service provision in which Airservices:

• is governed by the Airservices Act,
• is continuing the licensing regime that existed prior to the split of CAA into Airservices and CASA,
• controls all licensed Australian civil controllers within its own organisation, and
• has its licensing delegations governed by a legal instrument and audited by CASA,

it is considered the present arrangements have no negative impact on safety.

In consideration of preceding comments, no immediate change to arrangements is deemed necessary. However, CASA will investigate changes to internal guidance for our audits of AA.

The situation is being referred to Compliance for their consideration of closer attention during audit activity.

The prospect of multiple providers gives rise to a case for centralised administration at a high level.

Work is continuing within the framework of the ATS Contestability Project which includes new CASRs and licensing & training standards.

These incorporate CASA determination of training curricula and competency standards and propose more direct involvement for CASA in the licensing process.

With the advent of multiple providers, a centralised system of licence issuance by CASA will be enacted. This will involve:

• physical production and distribution of licences;
• annotation of ratings, endorsements & qualifications on receipt of certification from providers (while allowing interim use of qualified staff by providers);
• CASA management of suspension and cancellation action; and
• a more specific CASA audit function.

Implementation of centralised administration by CASA at a high level as proposed. The need for extra CASA resources is foreseen and will need to be discussed with Government/industry at the appropriate time:

• admin staff for database control, physical licence annotations and distribution;
• ATS staff for control of operational exams, training curricula, determination of suspension/cancellation action and audit of college & field training, tests and proficiency systems.

APPENDIX 3-3

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO PERSONNEL LICENSING AND TRAINING

State: Australia

Finding and Recommendation Number

PEL / 03

Audit period:

9 to 20 August 1999

Document reference:

Convention Article 32

Annex 1 para. 2.12 and 2.13

CAO 95.4 and 95.54

Audit protocol reference:

PEL 3.100

Type of finding:

o

Non-compliance with Chicago Convention or State Regulations

x

Non-conformance with Annex Standard

o

Non-adherence with Annex Recommended Practices

o

Non-adherence with guidance material

o

Non-adherence with relevant safety related practices

FINDING:

The supervision of Glider and Free Balloon activities had been delegated to the Gliding Federation of Australian (GFA) and the Australian Ballooning Association respectively. CASA had granted a exemption from holding a license for pilots of gliders and private pilots of free balloons when they met the competency requirements established by their respective Federation. Such an arrangement is obviously limited to the Australian Airspace as Article 32 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation requires that pilots engaged in international flight hold a licence issued in accordance with Annex 1. However, the team could not find any evidence on the documents issued by the Federation (Pilot certificate or operation manuals) that the users were made aware that they could not use their certificate abroad without the authorisation of the local aviation authorities even when they fly an Australian registered aircraft (glider or free balloon).

RECOMMENDATION:

CASA should take the necessary measures to ensure that Glider Pilots and Free Balloon private pilots are made aware of the limitations of their certificate to Australian territorial airspace and of the need to obtain permission from local aviation authorities when they intend to operate.

Should this issue be addressed by the State in its Corrective Action Plan?

x

Yes

o

No

Auditor:

Mr. Paul Lamy

Date:

20 August 1999

Team Leader:

Mr. Paul Lamy

ICAO RECOMMENDATIONS

AUSTRALIAS COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS

IMMEDIATE ACTION

SHORT TERM ACTION

LONG TERM ACTION

PEL/03: CASA should take the necessary measures to ensure that Glider Pilots and Free Balloon private pilots are made aware of the limitations of their certificate to Australian territorial airspace and of the need to obtain permission from local aviation authorities when they intend to operate.

Agreed.

• Inform GFA and ABF
• CASA to meet with the Gliding Federation of Australia (GFA) and the Australia Ballooning Federation (ABF)
• GFA and ABF to inform all certificate holders

by end October 1999.

• Require GFA and ABF to endorse all certificates. (CASA to provide suitable wording).
• Confirm long term requirement of GFA and ABF as issuing authorities.

• Issuing authority to issue ICAO compliant licences under CASR Part 61 (administered by industry organisations under proposed CASR Part 149)

APPENDIX 3-4

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO PERSONNEL LICENSING AND TRAINING

State: Australia

Finding and Recommendation Number

PEL / 04

Audit period:

9 to 20 August 1999

Document reference:

Convention Article 33

Annex 1 Paras 2.2.2 & 2.2.2.1

CAR 5.66 (3) and (4)

Audit protocol reference:

PEL -3.100

Type of finding:

x

Non-compliance with Chicago Convention or State Regulations

x

Non-conformance with Annex Standard

o

Non-adherence with Annex Recommended Practices

o

Non-adherence with guidance material

o

Non-adherence with relevant safety related practices

FINDING:

CAR 5.66 (3) and (4) provided the authority for CASA to authorise a Student Pilot to fly outside the Australian territory as a pilot in command. Australia did not have the authority to issue such authorisation as the acceptance of flight crew who are not qualified in accordance with Annex 1 rests exclusively with the State whose airspace is entered.

RECOMMENDATION:

CAR 5.66 (3) and (4) should be abrogated and replaced by a provision stating that international flight by a student pilot are not permitted unless a specific permission has been granted by the State whose territory is entered.

Should this issue be addressed by the State in its Corrective Action Plan?

x

Yes

o

No

Auditor:

Mr. Paul Lamy

Date:

20 August 1999

Team Leader:

Mr. Paul Lamy

ICAO RECOMMENDATIONS

AUSTRALIAS COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS

IMMEDIATE ACTION

SHORT TERM ACTION

LONG TERM ACTION

PEL/04: CAR 5.66 (3) and (4) should be abrogated and replaced by a provision stating that international flight by a student pilot are not permitted unless a specific permission has been granted by the State whose territory is entered.

Agreed.

• Inform SPL holders through schools in AIC

• Endorse SPL "not for international use subject to approval by the relevant State authority".

• Repeal CAR 5.66(3) and (4)
• Consider elimination of SPL in proposed CASR Part 61.