[Peetwo]

Regional regulatory harmonisation and the #PICASST (Pacific Aviation Treaty)? -    

I couple of weeks ago I noted our miniscule tweeted this:

Proud to join DPM Tapaitau and aviation ministers from across the Pacific at the Regional Aviation Ministers’ Meeting.

Australia is committed to working closely with and listening to our Pacific partners as we together maintain and strengthen safe aviation across the region.



Ref: https://twitter.com/CatherineKingMP/stat...1649759232

Curious I tracked the relevant hashtags etc to a helpful twitter handle (https://twitter.com/SavvyVanuatu ) that provided a series of eight tweets which gave an excellent summary of what went down at the #RAMM2 (regional meeting): https://twitter.com/SavvyVanuatu/status/...5917062145

Pacific Aviation Ministers have committed to revising the Pacific’s civil aviation treaty and completing a 10-year regional aviation strategy to strengthen aviation safety and security and improve air connectivity post-pandemic. #RAMM2 #PASO #PICASST /1

 
I wonder what input (other than the obvious multi-million dollar tax payer funded cheque) our miniscule had to this meeting?

This then got me thinking back to when we (AP/BRB) covered off on the PASO in relation to the 1st and 2nd ATSB Pelair VH-NGA ditching investigations and innevitably this led me to this Mount NCN post from five years ago:  Blueprint for RRP harmonisation - i.e. Adopting NZed rule set.

In particular this passage:

 

New Zealand Law as Model Law

2.78 As noted above the global approach to civil aviation safety is highly dependent upon

all Chicago Convention contracting States giving effect to the provisions of the

Convention and the SARPs in their national law. This should mean that, regardless

of regional arrangements, a high degree of uniformity or harmonisation of law should

be achieved among all the contracting States. However as noted in the LTR the

correct implementation in national law of the key provisions of the Chicago

Convention and the many thousands of SARPs is an extremely challenging task.

The significance of the collaborative regional arrangements agreed in PICASST

therefore is that the parties to that treaty have agreed that New Zealand aviation law

can be used as model law.

2.79 On analysis it can be seen that the objective of achieving harmonisation of aviation

law among PASO member States involves two levels. At one level the object is to

achieve harmonisation between the SARPs and national law; and at another more

practical level the PASO member States propose to harmonise their national law

among themselves based on New Zealand law. In other words, the practical

harmonisation exercise should achieve compliance with SARPs as well...

New Zealand Secondary Aviation Legislation

2.103 A feature of the New Zealand regulatory system is that there are very few statutory

regulations and orders (i.e. made by the Head of State) in favour of extensive civil

aviation rules (i.e. made by the Minister of Transport)...

2.107 The most significant body of secondary aviation legislation therefore consists of the

Civil Aviation Rules divided into numerous different parts based upon the same

subject matter part numbers used in the United States Federal Aviation Regulations.

The current list of New Zealand Civil Aviation Rules in force is as follows...

 

Hmm...I wonder if anyone pointed out to the miniscule that Australia is totally on the outer in conforming with the fundamental principles of the PASO PICASST and maybe they may have highlighted the huge national economic benefits that would flow through to our aviation industry in the region if we were (like the rest of the PASO nations) simply to adopt the New Zealand aviation laws and regulations?

MTF...P2