Pilots and Operators meetings

J Maber

Executive Officer

NZAAA March 2010

These meetings around the country (Auckland, Hamilton, New Plymouth, Palmerston Nth, Blenheim, Ashburton, Hokitika, Mosgiel, Gore and Te Anau) were intended to get discussion of some serious challenges to the future of the ag aviation industry. A meeting was held in Napier on January 22 2010, and the rest of the meetings were completed in the period March to April 30, 2010

The issues for discussion are summarised in a paper headed “Doing nothing is not an option” (see Appendix 3). Copies of this have been posted to all NZAAA members and to all Part 137 certificate holders. It is also on the NZAAA web site and is attached as Appendix 3. The outcome will hopefully be better informed members/Certificate holders who can then contribute more effectively to the discussion and decisions that need to be taken now on how best to protect the industry and ensure that agricultural aviation does have a future in NZ

Notes on each meeting

Napier January 21

Despite the very short notice 9 operators/pilots attended, from Dannevirke in the South to Gisborne in the North. This meeting was a “test case” for running more meetings around the country.

Conclusion – very worthwhile, strong support for more such meetings, good discussion and some good suggestions eg we need to put out some positive, good news stories about the ag aviation industry. It was pleasing to hear the strong support for Accreditation from a prominent EatCoast fixed wing operator.

Palmerston Nth March 4

Two apologies, 13 pilots/operators attended.

The main threat was thought to be the aviation regulations, over regulation and “picky” auditing/auditors. Some discussion on the Safety Review and what led to it. Most agreed that environmental impacts were a serious threat if not the biggest threat. Value of the Topdressing guidelines mentioned. Other comments included:

  • The cost of self administration thought to be too high.
  • Must keep accreditation going but align it with existing audits (of 137). Clients will have to demand Accreditation
  • The future of ag aviation is dim because of changes in farming practices eg the move to plant trees (carbon farming)
  • Notification is a big issue overseas
  • Perception of spraying especially by helicopter is poor
  • Not being Accredited will not stop any operator going to work tomorrow but it will in 10 years
  • More such meetings needed – (2/year?)

New Plymouth – March 5

Four pilot/operators attended

Biggest threat seen as low (inadequate) return on investment, and this situation is likely to get worse. Other comments:

  • Accreditation not seen as offering any advantage to the individual operator
  • On attendee thought that self administration was clearly the way to go because it givesthe industry authority
  • “CAA audits are not about safety they are about paperwork”
  • There aren’t enough operators who are “frightened enough” to do something about it
  • No money in agriculture

Some discussion on whether the entire contents of an exposition (signed off by CAA) would be audited. Two views:

a)that the CAA mandate extends only to what the rule covers, so it is confined to matters of aviation safety. Therefore anything outside that eg an environmental impact mitigation programme would not be audited.

b)Everything in an exposition must be audited so if environmental standards are in there they will be audited

At this point it is unclear which view aligns with the CAA view

Hamilton – March 9

Fifteen attended (8 from one company)

The question posed was that it is (adverse environmental impacts that most threaten the future of the ag. aviation industry, but the discussion strayed somewhat from that into areas which, while of concern, are beyond the scope of this industry to influence (eg the world population and all the pressures that brings). Public perception is seen as the greatest threat. The meeting was also, in my view, seen as an opportunity by some to air a few grievances and concerns on a range of issues, all of which is good except it deflected debate from the central issue and the “Doing nothing is not an option” paper. A summary of views expressed follows:

  • One company who had 8 representatives did not see there is any problem. This company wants (NZAAA) to oppose everything (that the regulator proposes).
  • This same company opposes the self administration idea, suggesting that NZAAA were becoming (or are already?) another CAA wanting to bring in more regulation.
  • NZAAA Accreditation is “OK” but must be voluntary
  • Keep away from Landcorp (?)
  • All the environmental standards will go.....
  • If only 5 out of the 105 Pt 137 operators responded to the original paper sent out in December 2009 thenit must mean all the rest are happy
  • More such meetings would be good
  • Accreditation numbers are low because there is no value to the individual operator and because of the cost.
  • Membership numbers are low because there is no value to the individual operator to belong

The general impression I gained from the meeting was that doing nothing is in fact an option according to many and we (NZAAA) acquiesce too readily in accepting new regulations because there really is no problem.

Auckland (Dairy Flat) – March 10

Three people attended.

While the low number attending was disappointing those that did come were positive and supportive. . Although again there were issues raised that had no direct relevance to the issue at hand (the threat of environmental impacts) this underlined the value of more such meetings. One example worth noting was the support that NZAAA members could or should expect from the EO. This is based around the case where the EO was subpoenaed to appear to give evidence for a Regional Council case against an operator, whereas the operator believed the EO should support members (of NZAAA) regardless. While to one side of the issue at hand it again showed the value of such meetings where the matter was discussed and clarified.

Point raised or comments made in the discussion included:

  • The trouble is that after discussion nothing ever happens so its not worth getting involved
  • The NZAAA Conference needs to be made more accessible
  • More such meetings would be good - base them around or at least include Regional Council contacts
  • NZAAA Accreditation needs teeth – non compliance produces no penalty or consequence so credibility suffers
  • Costs of Accreditation high

The general view was in support of proactive action on managing environmental impacts, mainly through strengthening Accreditation but also by looking hard at self administration.

Ashburton - March 17

Twelve attended.

Some new ideas emerged from this meeting. Initial discussion was on the Part 137 Rule and the requirement for expositions, QA management systems and fatigue management systems. Questions were raised over CAA Rules being “enabling” but the view that Aviation Safety was still the most important found support.

On Accreditation, a number of points were raised:

  • The client still works on price – including DoC and Landcorp
  • Accreditation is marketed for the wrong reasons – it should be for the protecting the future of the ag aviation industry
  • Better communication with members needed
  • The auditor quality, timeliness and consistency (for Accreditation audits) was questioned – it needs to improve. A comparison was made with an ACC tertiary audit where the auditor had some empathy and understanding of the industry yet carried out a rigorous and constructive audit.
  • Accreditation could be “conferred” for a year then audited to “check” that standards are being maintained. This would get operators into the scheme.
  • Resourcing of Accreditation needs to be improved. A (Part 137) Exposition template should be produced
  • An email should be sent to all who attended a meeting, asking, say, 6 questions, eg – What would persuade you to get Accredited.

Since this meeting some sound additional suggestions have been proposed eg why not tackle self administration in two parts:

a)Fixed wing operators

b)Helicopter operators

There are several advantages from this approach, chief among them is that the FW operator is likely to need more support than helicopter operators, most of whom are already Part 135 and hence used to expositions and operations manuals. Working with FW operators only would allow the systems and structures needed to make self administration work to be tested and proven on a smaller scale. A limited self administration of FW operators only may be easier to sell to CAA.

Regardless of such a split approach (eg FW/Helicopter) it is clear that the structure of NZAAA and AIA would need to change to allow the system to function so discussion on these issues needs to be actioned.

Blenheim – March 24

Eleven attended.

Some considered discussion on the nature and make-up of a “Board” that would administer the ag aviation industry. A range of views with some saying it should not include operators and others conceding that it should (to provide the necessary experience) but that the operators must have no affiliations or connection with any current ag aviation business. A general view was that the Board must be independent; it would have a CEO and could/should include CAA.

Other matters discussed included:

  • The low numbers Accredited is because the scheme is not recognised (by the regulator eg Regional councils), and is not backed because it wont achieve what you want it to eg Landcorp wont adopt it across the board
  • Policing of Accreditation is an issue
  • GPS data is almost universally used (an opinion – no data provided in support)
  • For compliance with environmental data we need to have control over product quality (eg fertiliser)
  • While the Accreditation programme has shortcomings the general view was that these should and could be fixed and the programme more strongly promoted
  • To counter that a couple of operators felt that doing nothing was in fact a viable option

Gore – April 06

Eight attended

Again a wide range of views among those attending, from those who believed there were no immediate threats to the industry and the pressures felt by some currently were cyclical, through to those who did see longer term threats around increased environmental performance standards, although issues such as “unreasonable competition” and “over capacity” and cash flow problems were also cited, with the suggestion that these were of equal concern. Accreditation also brought forth a range of views, with comments such as “too expensive to get and maintain”, and a comment that consents were needed from Councils (to discharge agrichemicals and fertiliser) so that accreditation was not needed. This was balanced by other comment that Accreditation should be a requirement for all agricultural aviation operators and that a checking system (on compliance) was needed.

Other points to emerge included;

  • Chemical liability needs clarification (eg how does it work and apply to aerial operators)
  • A written recommendation from the product supplier was promoted as an essential requirement – part of dealing with potential liability issues.
  • The place and nature of the chemical rating was stressed as very important, but the ensuing discussion indicated that pilot competency is just the start and that verification of the completed task was required.

Te Anau – April 07

No one attended

Mosgiel – April 08

Nine attended

This meeting was hosted by an operator, (Helicopters Otago) at their base. Perhaps because 7 of the 9 attending were from that base, the need for Accreditation was accepted by all and the discussion moved to exploring the detail, and what changes would be needed to improve the scheme, such as self policing. One issue explored in some depth was the extent to which Accreditation could or should provide a defence in the event of an incident – for example in a spray drift case. Particular points to emerge from this discussion were:

  • A claimant has 5 years plus 364 days to lodge a claim relating to possible spray drift
  • That the maximum sum it is possible to get insurance cover for spay drift damage is $250 000
  • That Accreditation should include the pilot as well as the operator. This point led to a subsequent discussion of the role and competency of E Cat Instructors to issue authorizations under the revised Part 61, where a chemical rating will be required regardless of what substance was being applied by air.
  • The chemical rating course must include comprehensive section on GPS systems and their use
  • The exposition that will be required under the new Pt 137 must include appropriate content on training standards and procedures, where training is being performed.

There appeared to be general agreement that radical action is needed to deal with the issues raised (in particular environmental impacts). The nature and functioning of the “Board” under self administration was briefly explored, including comment such as the liability of Board members and the collective decision making that would occur on issues for example such as Accreditation.

Hokitika – April 26

Six people attended including a representative from the West Coast Regional Council

There was general agreement that environmental pressures were the biggest threat to ag aviation although the threat was seen as relatively lower than in other regions. While everyone present thought Accreditation should be retained and was a vital part of the effort to address any adverse environmental impacts a number of problems with the scheme were identified including:

  • Inconsistencies in the tendering process where Accreditation was supposedly demanded
  • The cost of Accreditation
  • The lack of demand (from clients) for Accreditation
  • The time it takes to complete the process.

Some thought Accreditation should apply to all ag operators and that among other benefits that would give the Executive a mandate to approach the Govt – eg the Minister of Economic Development.

The involvement of a Regional council representative was very worthwhile. The requirements of a regional plan affect every aerial operator. In every case, regional plans make the discharge of fertiliser and agrichemicals a permitted activity subject to conditions. While the NZAAA objective is to have NZAAA Accreditation as the sole condition, it appears that may be too big a step for Councils and a more palatable approach may be to push for Accreditation (or an acceptable environmental management programme) as being one of several conditions.

Some discussion around the need for all operators to be Accredited but there was a lack of support for the option of self administration as a way of achieving that.

This meeting although scored highly for relevance and value by those attending suffered somewhat from a reluctance of attendees to engage in much discussion or to volunteer their views.

General comments

A total of 87 pilots/operators attended the ten pilot meetings around the country (see Appendix 1 for the meeting venues). While there was a full range of views on whether the environmental impacts posed the greatest threat to the industry’s future, there appeared to be agreement that while it was an issue, it was simply a matter of whether “excessive CAAregulation” or “profitability” was a bigger issue.

In all of the meetings it should be remembered that those who attended had not had the same exposure to the issues raised, despite having read the “Doing nothing is not an option” paper and therefore came to the meetings “cold” This may be the reason why so many apparently did not see any particular threats to the future of the industry apart from the usual cyclical cash flow related problems suffered by their clients which dictated when (and if) the services of an aerial operator would be required

The agricultural aviation scene in NZ is one of huge contrast in terms of the views and opinions of individual operators, the equipment and facilities used, the attitude and approach of different operators and pilots and the standards expected and achieved. It is not surprising that most operators think only about their own businesses and do not have the luxury of looking too far ahead, or thinking at an “industry good” level. To still be in business tomorrow is the first objective.

If the argument that it is (adverse) environmental impacts that most threaten the future of agricultural aviation in NZ is accepted, then the observation of a very experienced fixed wing operator sums up the situation very well. He said “not being Accredited will not stop me going to work tomorrow, but it will in 10 years”. My only comment is I am not sure we have got 10 years.

Currently the only mandated requirement to work as an aerial operator in NZ is to hold a CAA Pt 137 Operating Certificate. Part 137 also prescribes rules governing the certification andoperation of persons performing commercial agricultural aircraft operations. There is no mandated requirement to have any good practice standards for managing (minimizing) environmental impacts. The main discussion point in these meetings has therefore been to explore how the industry can move to a situation where there are two mandated conditions to work as an aerial operator – Part 137 Certification AND Accreditation (or a recognised equivalent).