[Peetwo]

FACT CHECK: The true leader of the pack on ICAO non-compliance?

Without going into the semantics of why it is possibly acceptable for the US (being the most aviation active country in the world on any scale) to be highly non-compliant with the ICAO SARPs, I note that is often quoted by aviation safety savvy commentators that the USA is the most non-compliant of any other ICAO signatory State.

Example from '40 Years' off PT:

40years
March 10, 2017 at 9:09 pm
Dan,
What ‘Western Standards’ do you mean?
Do you mean European surveillance and traffic management systems in use in Australia over the last 50 years? Tick!
Do you mean adherence to ICAO SARPS with minimum differences? Tick! ( The USA nominates the most differences from ICAO of any country)
Do you mean appointing a CEO from overseas such as the USA or, god help us, New Zealand? Tick!
What ‘Western’ standards do you mean?
Steve 777: Give examples. We’re sick of Sky-God pronouncements from above.
Put some meat on the bones, or perhaps visit a Centre or two. It may surprise you to find that Pilots do not have all the answers, any more than a driver on the Monash Carpark can provide useful traffic resolution proposals.

Which got me thinking to whether the USA is truly the Kings of ICAO non-compliance? Or whether us Aussies, with our locally modified non-harmonised, non-generic rule-set, coupled with a bureaucratic CYA top-cover modification/amendment service, could still possibly take the top prize for taking the complete and utter piss out of the ICAO SARPs?? 

So first I took a visit to the USA FAA version of AIP GEN 1.7 - see HERE - for a basic page count. Compared to (and to be fair reducing) page count from the latest AIP GEN 1.7 SUP (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/...7-h24.pdf) with the individual links provided for each ICAO Annex notified differences (i.e. our complicated and extrapolated version of AIP GEN 1.7).

In summary the US FAA have managed to contain their notified differences to ICAO SARPs within the AIP GEN 1.7 reference to 108 pages. In contrast the Aussie Airservices AIP has out grown the GEN 1.7 to the point where they feel the need to create an AIP SUP with individual applicable links for notified differences to each ICAO Annex to a total of 345 pages.

So on a page count us Aussies win hands down by a factor of 3.2 to 1 on non-compliance to the ICAO SARPs... (ps keep in mind this factor is calculated after Murky, and his merry band of minions, started tackling reducing the over 4000 NDs to ICAO)

And if you wondered if it is possibly advantageous for Australia to be so highly non-compliant with the ICAO SARPs, here is Ken Cannane's (AMROBA) considered opinion from their latest newsletter:

Australia’s Obligations under the Chicago Convention.

How close does Australia comply with ICAO [Minimum] Standards prescribed in the Annexes to the Convention? You can see what differences government has notified to ICAO quite simply by clicking on the link: http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/...17-h24.pdf , and open any of the Annex links in the Appendix of AIP H24-17. What it demonstrates is little policy is given to eliminating differences as new regulations and standards are developed and made. Many of the differences are failure to adopt the ICAO international terminology by creating our own or adopting terminology from other countries regulatory system. However, there are many ‘missing’ differences such as Annex 6: "a) the aeroplane is maintained in an airworthy condition". There should be a concerted effort to harmonise with the ICAO standards and practices, including adopting its international definitions. It is time for government to get serious and stop wasting resources. Adopt and harmonise.

   
  
MTF...P2