[Peetwo]

ICAO compliance: The Exemplar (Singapore) vs the Normalised Deviant (Australia) -

First an excellent article from the North Carolina University Journal of Law (Fall 2004), titled 'Compliance & Enforcement in International Law: Achieving Global Uniformity in Aviation Safety'. This article is well worth a full read for a layman's better understanding of the original spirit and intent and international legal obligations for compliance with the ICAO Annexures standards IE SARPs:

PG 10: "..Article 12 of the Chicago Convention requires every
contracting state to keep its regulations uniform, to the greatest
extent possible, with those established under the Convention. 29
Article 37 of the Convention attempts to achieve uniformity in air
navigation, by requiring that every contracting state cooperate in
achieving the "highest practicable degree of uniformity in
regulations, standards, procedures, and organization in relation to
aircraft, personnel, airways and auxiliary services in all matters in
which uniformity will facilitate and improve air navigation."3
The sentence that follows provides that, "[t]o this end [ICAO]
shall adopt and amend from time to time... international
standards and recommended practices and procedures" addressing
various aspects of air navigation.31 Therefore, ICAO's 188
member states have an affirmative obligation to conform their
domestic laws, rules, and regulations to the international leveling..

..standards adopted by ICAO.32

In 1948, the ICAO Council adopted a resolution encouraging
contracting states to adopt "so far as practicable, the precise
language of those ICAO Standards that are of a regulatory
character .... ICAO has drafted its Annexes in a way to
"facilitate incorporation, without major textual changes, into
national legislation. 34 Annex 1 (Personnel Licensing),35 Annex 6
(Operation of Aircraft),3 6 and Annex 8 (Airworthiness of
Aircraft) 37 require ICAO's 188 member states to promulgate
domestic laws and regulations to certify airmen, aircraft, and
aircraft operators as airworthy and competent to carry out safe
operations in international aviation.3

" Subject to the notification of
differences, the legal regime effectively assumes that states are in
compliance with these safety mandates. 39 Thus, although member
states retain the right to restrict particular aircraft from their
skies,4

" they lose the right to ignore the safety mandates of the..

..governing international organization - ICAO." This assumption
of universal compliance goes further with the Chicago Convention
requirement that an airman or operator certificate, or certificate or
airworthiness, issued by one contracting state shall be recognized
as valid by all others.42

Under Article 33, states are obliged to recognize the validity of
the certificates of airworthiness and personnel licenses issued by
the state in which the aircraft is registered, so long as the standards
under which such certificates or licenses were rendered are at least
as stringent as those established under the Chicago Convention.43
But this principle of mutual recognition works only if all states are
implementing the SARPs with an equal degree of diligence. Too
often, it is too difficult or impossible to tell." The negative
implications of Article 33 are that if a state fails to comply with
"the minimum standards which may be established from time to
time pursuant to this Convention,, 45 then other states are not
obliged to recognize the validity of the certificates of
airworthiness issued by the delinquent state, and may therefore
ban such aircraft from their skies. This is an important incentive
for compliance with the international obligations established by
ICAO.."

Perhaps this article should be required reading for Betsy, Su_Spence, Harfwit Popinjay and their bloated minions...

Especially when you consider the following WWC (weasel word confection), from Betsy's Department of everything website under the heading of 'Australia and ICAO', where it states:

As a foundation member of ICAO, Australia has contributed significantly to ICAO – including as a Part 1 State of Chief Importance on the ICAO Council - for more than 70 years. Australia participated in the 1944 Convention on International Civil Aviation, and was one of the first States to ratify it.

Since ICAO’s inception, Australia has demonstrated a strong commitment, dependability and leadership in the international civil aviation sector.

We work collaboratively with the international community, regional neighbours and the ICAO to enhance standards and guidance for safety, security and facilitation, air navigation, and environmental protection.

In particular, in the Asia Pacific region where air travel is vital to the economic development and social connectivity of the Pacific Islands, Australia works closely with our Pacific neighbours through providing capacity and capability building assistance on transport safety, air navigation and security issues.

Australia has maintained a Permanent Mission in Montreal for ICAO since 6 June 1945, and is represented on the ICAO Air Navigation Commission. We were successfully re-elected to Part I of the ICAO Council at the 40th Assembly in Montreal in September 2019 as one of the States of chief importance in air transport.

If Betsy & CO want an incentive to truly uphold any of that waffle and their commitment to harmonisation and compliance with ICAO SARPs, then perhaps the following extract from AMROBA's latest Newsletter will provide examples and motivation for a rethink on the current (take the piss) strategy/policy when it comes to international diplomacy on Aviation safety standards:

Differences with ICAO Annexes

The 2023/2024 ICAO audit/report “highlighted areas where “Australia could more fully realise the benefits of closer alignment with ICAO’s standards and practices (SARPs)” and these areas will be responded to through corrective action plans agreed with ICAO”. 

Those “corrective action plans” should be made public. It has nothing to do with security or secrecy. AMROBA has been recommending adoption of ICAO standards for 20 years.  Differences lodged with ICAO are very misleading to any other nations assessing our differences. For instance, Annex 1, Chapter 4 difference:

This is misleading information being provided to ICAO and other nations, stating Australia has competency-based training and qualifications but not working with ASQA or recognising AQF AME qualifications for helicopter and unpressurised aeroplanes in regulatory requirements.

All the major regulatory systems “provide specific guidance material on the design and development of training programs for aircraft maintenance personnel, especially EASR Parts 66/147 that were partially adopted.” 

By government not providing specific guidance material on the design and development of training programs for aircraft maintenance personnel, compliance with ICAO SARPs have not been implemented, nor has harmonisation with EASR Parts 66/147 A & B regulations.

• Australia now has a critical shortage of aircraft maintenance personnel.
• Australia is not a major regulatory system.

The USA, EU, Canada, Brazil, UK are major regulatory systems.

It is no wonder why ICAO stated that Australia (industry) would benefit from adopting SARPs.

Remember, past CASA CEOs stated they would urgently realign Part 21 with FAR Part 21 but have done nothing.

Ever since CASA decided to use EASA regulations as the model for CASRs, the differences with the ICAO Annexes SARPs have continued to rise.  Why haven’t governments met the intent of the Convention?
“ICAO: These ICAO standards are essential because they ensure uniformity and consistency across the global aviation industry. When countries adhere to ICAO SARPs, they can be confident that their aviation practices meet internationally recognized safety criteria. This uniformity is particularly crucial for international flights, where aircraft and personnel from different countries must operate seamlessly together.
ICAO monitors member states’ compliance with its safety standards and recommended practices through safety oversight audits and reviews.
These audits identify areas where member states may be falling short in implementing safety standards and recommend corrective actions. This proactive approach ensures that countries continuously work towards improving their aviation safety systems and practices.
The harmonization of aviation safety standards promotes global connectivity by removing barriers and ensuring compatibility among aviation systems worldwide. This enables smoother international travel, trade, and cooperation, ultimately benefiting economies and societies around the globe.”
• Why is government/CASA living in the past?  Nobody knows.
• Why won’t they look to the future?   Nobody knows.  
• Why won’t they implement ICAO SARPs?  Nobody knows.

ICAO provides courses for NAA staff on how to “Plan and Implement ICAO SARPs.” 

Next, let's rewind to page 1 for the original intent of this long running thread and with reference to the infamous UP Senate Inquiry thead...

Newsflash: JQ is Gobble's new chopper pilot in Montreal!

I was half way up Mt Noncompliance contemplating yet another FF crevasse followed by a geyser of FF pony pooh, when lo and behold JQ and Gobbles were hovering above me in a shiny new Bell 406. Gobbles manned the winch and within minutes I was pass the FF PNR onwards and upwards….we proceeded to a point 343 metres above sea level and this is what we found…



Note: Creamy touched on this NCN briefly but perhaps it needs a bit more exploring to test the FF veracity on their proposed actions/inactions (by proxi notified differences) and it is also relevant in regards to the inquiry i.e. Flight recorders err OBRs…err CVRs!

1) FF said they were going to file a difference with ICAO by 31 October 2008! Did they?
Well after much teasing, fluffing, huffing and puffing mixed in with a series of expletives (FFS there must be literally thousands of notified differences to ICAO!) while reading over the extremely convoluted AIP SUP H12/11, I finally think I’ve found it in the Annex 6 section.
Here is what it says at Para 3.6.3.4.2.2…“No standards are specified in Australian legislation for the preservation of flight recorder records.”

"..Okay so the reason for creating this thread is to; a) kick around and review Murky's latest bollocks SSP; b) attempt to scale (ICAO) Mount Non-compliance and establish whether c) it is possible to reign in the significant growth of NCNs prior to the upcoming ICAO/FAA audit..."

So the thread has developed since September 2016 highlighting that, when it comes to compliance with ICAO, Australia is clearly taking the piss with it's notification of differences lists to ICAO SARPs.

Extract from post #8:

..It is worth noting that of the listed 10,696 notified differences from the three countries, 4024 were from Australia, this is a disturbing 38% of the total. But what is more disturbing is the figure in the 'Less protective or partially implemented or not implemented' category (in other words the 'up yours' category... ), which was an UDB 2078, compared to 41 Serbia & 9 Vanuatu... :

4024 notified differences for Australia?? Recently I had collated from the 2015 AIP GEN 1.7 SUP that notified differences had grown to a total of 3116. However in actual fact between the 2011 SUP the figure had grown to 4024 but due to the loose ICAO arrangement of only listing NDs every 3 years this was missed. So from my approximate estimate from 2011 to 2014 the NDs had grown by 2500.

This means that in actual fact in the period between 10 February 2014 till November 2015 the Department has managed to reduce the notified differences by 908.

Still got a long way to go but perhaps this highlights more than anything else the impact that the Senator Fawcett inquisition had way back on the 10 February 2014...

Okay so that was the ND count back then and I believe, for a brief period, the total of NDs actually dipped below 3000 and less than 300 pages. However I have now conducted a rough count (with tired eyes maybe skipping or adding here and there?) and unfortunately the total ND count is on the way up again with over 400 pages and 3100 notified differences - see here: https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip...ndards.asp if you wish to verify.

The worst example of non-compliance with any of the Annexes was by a country mile Annex 14, with 69 pages and a 1024 NDs... I guess that's what you get when a Government and it's bloated Bureaucracy decide that is an acceptable safety risk to build massive shopping centres alongside active ILS runways...

Incidently when you review the 'Safety Audit Results: USOAP interactive viewer' for the latest self-assessed results for Australia for 'Aerodromes', Betsy and his Minions believe we are over 87% compliant with ICAO - UDB??

Next, Singapore has been a member State of ICAO since 19/06/1966, therefore a mature enough signatory State (IE working under the ICAO SARPs for more than 50 years) and in our region for a 'Chalk & Cheese' comparison. Therefore I refer you to the following AIP Singapore CAAS link: https://www.caas.gov.sg/docs/default-sou...y-2024.pdf

So therefore their GEN 1.7 totals 4 pages...









For Annex 14 there are 5 notified differences - WOW 5 vs 1024...

MTF...P2