Part 175 - Consultation
Note: This statement does not form part of the rules contained in Part 175. It provides details of the consultation undertaken in making the rules.
Background to the Rules
In April 1988 the Swedavia McGregor Report on civil aviation regulation in New Zealand was completed. Following the recommendations contained in that report, the Air Transport Division of the Ministry of Transport commenced a complete review and rewrite of all existing civil aviation legislation and where necessary initiated new legislation for the areas not previously covered.
Considerable research was carried out to determine the format for the new legislation. It was decided that the most suitable legislative framework should incorporate the advantages of the system being developed by the European Joint Aviation Authorities and published as Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR), and of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of the United States of America. The JAR are structured in a manner similar to the FAA’s Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) and aim to achieve maximum harmonisation while allowing for national variations.
New Zealand’s revised legislation will be published as Civil Aviation Rules (CAR) divided into Parts. Each Part will convey a series of individual rules which relate to a particular aviation activity.
Accompanying each Part of the CAR will be at least one associated Advisory Circular (AC) which will expand, in an informative way, specific requirements of the CAR and describe an acceptable means of compliance. For example, an AC may contain the minimum acceptable practice or standard which would be necessary to meet a rule.
The CAR numbering system is based on the FAR system. As a general principle the subject matter of a Part will be the same or similar to the FAR although the title may differ to suit New Zealand terminology. Where a CAR does not readily equate with a FAR number code, a number has been selected that does not conflict with any existing FAR Part.
The FAR has been used as the starting point for the development of many CAR but there are likely to be significant differences in the content of the rule. It should be noted however, that neither the FAR nor JAR systems presently include the equivalent of a Part 175.
The objective of the new rules system is to strike a balance of responsibility between the State authority and those who provide services and exercise privileges in the civil aviation system. This balance must enable the State authority to maintain continuing regulatory control and supervision while providing the maximum flexibility for participants to develop their own means of compliance.
Section 7 of the Civil Aviation Act 1990 (the Act) provides for the requirement to hold an aviation document for carrying out particular civil aviation activities. Section 12 of the Act requires the holders of such documents to carry out their activities safely and in accordance with the relevant prescribed safety standards and practices.
Notice of Proposed Rule Making
To provide public notice of, and opportunity for comment on the proposed new rules, the Authority, on 6 October 1993, issued Notice of Proposed Rule Making 93-3 under Docket Number 1036 NR. This Notice proposed the introduction of Civil Aviation Rules Part 175 to provide a regulatory safety boundary for the certification of organisations wishing to provide aeronautical information services for New Zealand.
All comments made on the Notice of Proposed Rule Making are available in the rules docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarising each substantive contact with the Civil Aviation Authority contact person concerning this rule making has been filed in the docket.
Availability of the Document
Any person may view a copy of these rules at the Civil Aviation Authority, Level 15 Asteron Centre, 55 Featherston St, Wellington 6140. Copies may be obtained from the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, PO Box 3555, Wellington 6140.
Summary of Comments on Docket Number 1036 NPRM
1. General Comments on the NPRM
From the five submissions received, one issue was raised concerning the rule making process and the introductory sections of the NPRM and one issue relates to charges for aeronautical information. These are discussed as follows:
1.1 Rule making process
The New Zealand Airline Pilots Association Industrial Union of Workers Inc. (NZALPA) considers that the aims of the rules as stated in the NPRM contradict the functions of the CAA as expressed in the Act. Particular concern is expressed over the aims to "remove excessive costs", "reduce international barriers", "reduce CAA intervention", and "reduce unnecessary regulatory requirements".
CAA response: The CAA does not share NZALPA’s concerns and is satisfied that the aims of the rules are consistent with Government policy, the Civil Aviation Act 1990, and the policy of CAA.
The concept for the overall review of the civil aviation regulatory system in New Zealand originates from the Swedavia McGregor Review of Civil Aviation Safety Regulations and the Resources, Structure and Functions of the New Zealand Ministry of Transport Civil Aviation Division that was carried out in 1988. The concept for the recommendations of that review are that participants in the civil aviation system will be required to take greater responsibility for the safety of their operations with the regulatory authority being less involved in the day to day activities of aviation. Under the Act, the Minister is required to promote safety in civil aviation at reasonable cost. Also, under the Convention on International Civil Aviation 1944, each contracting State is required to collaborate in securing the highest practical degree of uniformity in regulations, standards, procedures and organisation.
The CAA therefore considers that the stated aims for the new rules are consistent with:
- the concepts established by the Swedavia McGregor review;
- the Minister’s functions; and
- New Zealand’s obligations under the Convention.
1.2 Charges for aeronautical information
Airways Corporation of New Zealand Limited expressed concern about the various requirements in the NPRM relating to charges for aeronautical information provided by a certificate holder. The NPRM requires details of charges to be included in the exposition and under 175.111 these charges cannot be changed without the acceptance of the Director.
The Corporation is opposed to the Civil Aviation Authority having any degree of control over the product pricing of the New Zealand Aeronautical Information Publications (NZAIP). They see this control as contrary to the commercial rights of the NZAIP publisher. They argue that the threat of competition and market forces are enough to ensure sensibility in charging and price stability. As publisher of the information the Corporation considers that they are in the best position to establish appropriate market prices. They consider that such commercial restraints and details of charges should not be included in a safety rule. They suggest that responsibility for establishing charges for aeronautical information should be delegated under Section 23B of the Act to the certificate holder.
CAA response: Section 75(2) of the Act states that the Authority is responsible for ensuring that aeronautical information is made available to any person upon the payment of a reasonable charge that is fixed by the Authority.
The Authority is also responsible under section 72B(g) of the Act, for ensuring the collection, publication and provision of charts and aeronautical information and for making arrangements with any other organisation to collect, publish and distribute such charts and information. Therefore, in addition to the safety requirements prescribed in Part 175, the CAA will need to establish formal agreements with those organisations certificated under Part 175 for the provision of the relevant aeronautical information services.
Charges for aeronautical information can be regarded as a safety concern as excessive charges could discourage aircraft operators from subscribing to and obtaining up to date information.
The CAA acknowledges the Corporation’s concerns and accepts that it may not be appropriate for details of charges for aeronautical information to be included in regulatory safety rules. References to charges have therefore been removed from the rules with the view to including these details in the formal agreement between the CAA and the aeronautical information service certificate holder.
1.3 Status of NZAIP
The Airways Corporation queried the status of Part 175 and therefore the status of the New Zealand Aeronautical Information Publications (NZAIP) with respect to other associated Rules. They consider it inequitable that a Part 175 certificate holder must work within a quality system imposed by the Rule to publish the NZAIP when the current flight operating rules do not require aircraft operators to use the NZAIP for the planning and conduct of their flight.
CAA response: The CAA acknowledges this concern and it is one of the issues to be addressed during the drafting of CAR Part 91, General Operating and Flight Rules.
2. Specific comments on rules proposed in the NPRM
Nine issues relating to the general requirements (Subpart A) of Part 175 were raised. These are discussed as follows:
2.1 175.1 Applicability
The Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators agrees with the requirement for organisations providing aeronautical information services for New Zealand to be certificated. However they also note that other organisations publish aeronautical information for New Zealand that is used extensively by the industry. The Guild seeks clarification regarding the application of Part 175 to these organisations.
CAA response: Part 175 prescribes rules governing the certification and operation of organisations providing an aeronautical information service (AIS) for New Zealand on behalf of the Authority. This includes the AIS organisation that publishes the New Zealand Aeronautical Information Publications (NZAIP). There will be only one certificate holder for this service (the AIP service). The NZAIP is the official publication for aeronautical information relating to services and facilities in the New Zealand air navigation system. Part 175 does not apply to any organisation that reproduces information that is published in the NZAIP.
Before commencing any flight, pilots are required to obtain information on the condition and suitability of any aerodrome that they intend to use. Where appropriate, they are also required to obtain information on any radio facilities available on the route to be followed and information on appropriate air traffic rules and procedures. The acceptable source for this information is the NZAIP. Where pilots use sources other than the NZAIP, they may be required by the Civil Aviation Rules to establish procedures to ensure that the source of their information is reliable and that the information they are using is accurate.
2.2 175.3 Definitions
2.2.1 NZALPA suggested that the definition for "Aeronautical Information Service" should be amended to ensure that the aeronautical information service for New Zealand comprises each and all of the individual AIS services listed.
The association is of the view that there should be only one organisation in New Zealand providing the aeronautical information services at any one time. They consider that this would ensure that the aeronautical information services for New Zealand are integrated, reliable and non-conflicting. They are concerned that there is the potential for the dilution of this goal in the presence of commercially driven competition for the provision of those services.
CAA response: The CAA does not consider that the definition needs to be amended. The rule includes under the definition for aeronautical information service, the "AIP service", the "NOTAM service" and "pre-flight information services". As detailed in the commentary to the NPRM, the CAA intends that there be only one certificate holder at any one time for the AIP service and for the NOTAM service.
However due to the nature of Pre-flight Information services there is potential for there to be more than one certificate holder for these services. A pre-flight information service can be tailored to meet the needs of specific sectors of the aviation community.
The CAA remains responsible for ensuring that appropriate levels of aeronautical information service are provided and this will be covered by formal agreements for service between the CAA and the applicable certificated AIS providers.
2.2.2 Air New Zealand queried the applicability of the rule in relation to the definition for "pre-flight information service" and their responsibility as an aircraft operator to pass NOTAM to aircrew as pre-flight briefing material. They maintain that this is an activity carried out under their air services certificate and therefore would not require certification under Part 175.
CAA response: Part 175 does not apply to aircraft operators who obtain aeronautical information and assemble that information into pre-flight briefing material for their own flight crew.
However Air New Zealand also receives NOTAM directly from the NOTAM office and assembles them into appropriate packages for other air operators who have contracted Air New Zealand to provide them with handling/turnaround services. In this case, Air New Zealand is considered to be providing pre-flight information services on a contract basis to a third party and therefore would require an AIS certificate under Part 175 for such services. This is similar to the requirement that will apply to aircraft operators to be certificated as a training organisation if they provide training services for another operator.
To clarify the intent of the rule, the definition for pre-flight information is amended to make reference to the provision of information to a third party.
2.3 175.5 Requirement for Certificate
2.3.1 NZALPA suggested that the wording of 175.5 should be changed to "every provider of an aeronautical information service shall hold an AIS certificate and shall comply with its provisions". They consider that this change is needed to emphasise the requirement to hold an aeronautical information services certificate.
CAA response: The CAA does not consider any amendment is necessary. The rule states quite clearly that no person shall provide an aeronautical information service except under the authority of, and in accordance with the provisions of an aeronautical information services certificate. The wording used in 175.5 is the standard wording used for all the rule Parts covering the "requirement for a certificate".
2.3.2 Airways Corporation requested clarification regarding the applicability of the rule to the States and Sectors which lie within the Auckland Oceanic Flight Information Region (FIR) but are outside New Zealand’s jurisdiction.
CAA response: The rule has been amended so that it is only applicable to the areas within the Auckland Oceanic FIR for which New Zealand is responsible for air traffic services.
2.4 175.7 Application and Issue
2.4.1 NZALPA consider that it may be unduly inhibiting to state in the rule that applications for a certificate or the renewal of a certificate are to be made on a specific numbered form. They consider that the rule should state that applications are to be made in a form and manner acceptable to the Director.
CAA response: The CAA considers that the use of specifically numbered forms for applications for aviation documents simplifies the process for both the applicant and the CAA. The use of a specific form ensures that all relevant information is provided by the applicant.
2.4.2 NZALPA oppose the requirement in 175.7(b)(1) for the applicant and the applicant’s senior person or persons to be fit and proper persons. They consider that this repetition of the Act’s requirements in the rule adds nothing to section 9(1)(b) of the Act and in fact they consider that the rule imposes additional requirements.
CAA response: The CAA does not agree. In many cases the rules reflect requirements that are imposed in the Act. The inclusion of such requirements in the rule makes the rule complete and therefore applicants do not have to cross reference to other documents (regulatory requirements) to find out what is required of them. Although rules are permitted to impose greater requirements than those specified in the Act, the CAA considers that the requirement in 175.7(b)(1), which is a standard requirement in all the rules for approved organisations, is fully consistent with the requirements of the Act.
2.4.3 NZALPA consider that the exposition must not be just acceptable to the Director, as required in 175.7(b)(3), but should be approved by the Director.
CAA response: The CAA does not agree. Amendment 31 to the Civil Aviation Regulations 1953, moved away from the requirement for the Director to approve manuals and other such documents submitted by participants in the civil aviation system. Such approval by the Director meant that the Director accepted responsibility for the accuracy and content of the manual or document and this is an unrealistic requirement. The purpose for the new rules approach to regulation of the civil aviation system is to make participants responsible for their own activities and this includes the content and accuracy of their manuals. The manuals must obviously meet a standard that is acceptable to the Director and therefore the rules are written in this manner.
2.5 175.17 Safety Inspections and Audits
NZALPA submitted that 175.17 does not necessarily reflect the provisions in the Act and suggest that the rule requirement may introduce some confusion. They consider that the requirement should be deleted from the rule.
CAA response: The CAA considers that 175.17 does reflect the provisions in the Act. The rule reflects the requirements of two sections of the Act, sections 15 and 24. Section 24 covers the general powers of entry by authorised persons and section 15 covers the Director’s authority to carry out inspections and audits. The rule makes it clear that such inspections and audits must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
2.6 175.19 Exemptions
NZALPA consider that the provisions of 175.19 allowing the Director to grant exemptions should not be part of the rule as section 37 of the Act covers the exemption power of the Director.
CAA response: The exemption provision in the rule is a standard provision for all the rules relating the certification of organisations. Section 37 of the Act allows the Director to grant exemptions from any specified requirement in any rule provided the criteria specified in section 37 are met and provided the rule does not specifically prohibit the granting of an exemption. Paragraph 175.17 simply informs the reader that there are no such prohibitions.
3. Certification Requirements
Eleven issues relating to the certification requirements (Subpart B) of Part 175 were raised. These are discussed as follows:
3.1 175.51 Personnel Requirements
NZALPA consider that reference to senior persons in this rule and other rules throughout the Part adds nothing to the rule and should be deleted.
CAA response: The CAA does not understand NZALPA’s concerns. The rule requirement to have senior persons identified is consistent with the requirements of section 9 of the Act. This section requires those persons who have or are likely to have control over the exercise of the privileges under the aviation document to be fit and proper persons. It is the senior persons of an organisation that will have control over such privileges and therefore these persons need to be identified.
3.2 175.59 Collection of Information
3.2.1 NZALPA consider that a catch all subparagraph should be added to 175.59(b)(1) to require information to be collected from any other individual or organisation who might possess relevant aeronautical information.
CAA response: The CAA considers that such a catch all subparagraph is not necessary. The rule requires applicable information to be obtained from organisations that provide services in support of the New Zealand air navigation system. Some of these organisations will be outside of the direct civil aviation regulatory requirements but they provide services that support the overall air navigation system. As detailed in the Advisory Circular, they include Defence, Customs, Immigration etc.
Furthermore, the format for the NZAIP sets out all the categories of information to be included in the publication and therefore the certificate holder needs to ensure that they obtain appropriate input information.
3.2.2 Airways Corporation expressed concern that certain organisations appear to be exempt from the requirements of the Rule. They refer to the CAA and Defence who represent significant users of the AIS system and advise that military charts are published and issued to all subscribers. They consider that a single standard should apply to all.
CAA response: Part 175 relates to providers of aeronautical information services. The Part does not exempt any organisation from the requirements of the rules.
The Advisory Circular explains that some of the aeronautical information that is required to be published by the AIS organisations originates from organisations that are not directly regulated by the civil aviation system. The Advisory Circular lists the CAA, Defence, Customs etc as organisations not directly subject to Civil Aviation Rule requirements but who provide information that is required to be published by an AIS organisation. The AIS organisations therefore have to be pro-active in obtaining the necessary information from these originator organisations who are themselves responsible for the accuracy of the information provided.
The standard applicable to the input of information applies to all originators whether they are inside or outside the civil aviation regulatory system. If military charts are issued to all subscribers as part of the NZAIP package then the certificate holder for the AIP service will need to ensure that the charts meet applicable standards.
3.2.3 Airways Corporation pointed out that New Zealand now has flights from Auckland and Christchurch which are direct to destinations in flight information regions which are not adjoining the Auckland Oceanic FIR. Therefore applicable information needs to be obtained from beyond the States adjoining the Auckland Oceanic FIR.
CAA response: The CAA accepts the comment and the rule has been amended accordingly.
3.3 175.61 Publication of Aeronautical Information
3.3.1 NZALPA consider that the aeronautical information needs to be published in a format that takes into account human factors and the circumstances under which the information is to be comprehended by the user. For example, documents and charts that are intended for use in the cockpit must be physically suitable for such use and must be able to be easily read under typical cockpit lighting conditions.
CAA response: The CAA accepts this comment and the rule has been amended accordingly.
3.3.2 The Airways Corporation considers that the Rule and the Advisory Circular do not specifically address the format for publishing aeronautical information. They refer to the move internationally to provide information in an electronic digital format and consider that the rules need to state which formats are acceptable.
CAA response: The CAA acknowledges that there is a move to provide aeronautical information in an electronic format and that this is likely to become a requirement in the future as more advanced automation is introduced into the air navigation system. However the rules require the aeronautical information to be published in a format that:
- is applicable to its operational significance;
- is suitable for the operational needs of the users;
- is in accordance with relevant specifications that are contained within the rules and the guidance information in the Advisory Circular.
Hard copy of aeronautical information publications and charts is still required to meet the operational needs of the users, but the service provider has the choice of also making them available in electronic format, to meet particular user needs, provided suitable quality control and integrity measures are in place.
3.3.3 The Airways Corporation consider that some clarification is required on the intent of 175.61(b)(1). Under 175.61(b)(1) a certificate holder’s procedures for the publication of aeronautical information must ensure that input information received from originators is checked against other available information to verify its accuracy prior to publication. The Corporation sees the AIP Service certificate holder as purely a publishing organisation for the NZAIP with a responsibility for verifying the authenticity of the information received for publication and for accurately publishing that information.
CAA response: The CAA accepts that an originator of information for publication in the NZAIP or NOTAM must be responsible for the accuracy of the information provided to the AIS certificate holder. However the role of the AIS certificate holder is a little more than just a publishing house and the rule requires the AIS certificate holder to check the received information against other available information prior to publishing. The AIS certificate holder therefore needs to have an overall appreciation of the air navigation system to carry out a check on the information prior to publication to ensure that there are no obvious errors or inconsistencies. The certificate holder is not responsible for correcting any such errors but must refer them back to the originator for verification. The Advisory Circular provides further information on sources of other information for this checking responsibility.
3.4 175.63 Error Correction
3.4.1 NZALPA consider that the requirements contained in 175.63(b)(1) do not reflect the requirements in paragraph 3.2.1 of Annex 15 where States are required to take all reasonable measures to ensure that aeronautical information for their territory is adequate, accurate and timely. They consider that adequate, accurate and timely should be included in the rule.
CAA response: The CAA does not agree that this is necessary. The establishment of Part 175 is one of the "reasonable measures" that the State is taking to ensure the requirements of Annex 15 paragraph 3.2.1 are met. Other reasonable measures include requirements in other rule parts, (such as Part 139, Part 171 etc) for those certificate holders who provide services and facilities for air navigation to forward applicable information to AIS for publication. The originators of information are responsible for the adequacy, accuracy and timeliness of the information they forward to AIS for publication. Part 175 also requires the AIS certificate holder to make arrangements with these originators for the input of information. These arrangements need to include measures to ensure that the input information is adequate, accurate and timely. Other measures to be taken by the State will include formal agreements with the aeronautical information service certificate holders to provide the AIS service on behalf of the Authority.
3.4.2 NZALPA further consider that the rule should include a requirement for the source of the error to be identified and where possible eliminated.
CAA response: The CAA accepts this suggestion and the rule is amended accordingly. Furthermore the publication of inaccurate information may constitute an incident that must be reported to the CAA. The rule has therefore been amended to require a report to the Director where the publication error affects or could affect the safety of aircraft operation.
3.5 175.65 Records
NZALPA considers that 30 days is too short a period for the retention of temporary information and suggest that 90 days would be a more appropriate period.
CAA response: The CAA considers that a period of at least 30 days for the retention of temporary aeronautical information after its cancellation is adequate. ICAO provide no specific guidance on the period that aeronautical information should be retained. Annex 11 recommends air traffic services voice recordings be retained for at least 14 days and Annex 3 requires copies of written or printed flight documentation given to flight crews be retained for at least 30 days from the date of issue.
3.6 175.67 Internal Quality Assurance
NZALPA consider that certificated organisations should also be required under the rules to obtain ISO 9000 quality management system certification.
CAA response: The CAA does not agree. The CAA has designed the rules so they reflect and compliment ISO 9000 quality management systems. Caution is appropriate in relation to the use of ISO quality management systems to manage safety. ISO 9000 Quality standards do not adequately address aspects of safety risk management. This is why the CAA has not simply accepted certification to the ISO 9000 standard as an effective means of regulatory compliance.
The rule is a "customised" ready to use organisational template for organisations wishing to supply aeronautical information services for New Zealand. The objectives of the rule system and procedures are common to the ISO 9000 management system. The ISO 9000 programme may be pursued by any organisation and the rule does not preclude them from doing so.
4. Operating Requirements
Four issues relating to the operating requirements (Subpart C) of Part 175 were raised. These are discussed as follows:
4.1 175.107 NOTAM Service
4.1.1 Airways Corporation raised the following issues relating to the responsibilities of the certificate holder for the NOTAM Service:
(a) Will the NOTAM office (which is currently operated by ACNZ) require a list of all the ACNZ staff approved to request NOTAM action?
(b) Will the NOTAM office have a responsibility to ensure that aerodrome licensees who may initiate NOTAM action are duly authorised to do so?
(c) What action does the NOTAM office take if a request is received from an airport authority and the authorising signature is out of date?
(d) What action does the NOTAM office take if a pilot, or an employee, is unable to contact the aerodrome operator to notify a safety matter regarding the aerodrome? May the NOTAM Office issue a NOTAM?
CAA response: The CAA response to the above queries is as follows:
(a) ACNZ staff may be originators of aeronautical information the same as any other participants in the civil aviation system. ACNZ therefore needs to identify those staff who it authorises to request NOTAM action for the services and facilities that the Corporation is responsible for. In accordance with the requirements of 175.59(b)(3) and the guidance information in the Advisory Circular, the NOTAM Office will need to hold details of those authorised ACNZ staff.
(b) Aerodrome operators who have details of their aerodrome published in the NZAIP are originators of aeronautical information and therefore need to identify the person or persons who they authorise to be responsible for the accuracy of the information they forward for publication. The NOTAM office will need to hold details of those authorised persons. The Regulations for the licensing of aerodromes are to be revoked on 30 June 1994 and therefore aerodrome licensees will no longer be relevant.
(c) If the request to issue a NOTAM relates to an immediate danger to air navigation, then the NOTAM office must issue the NOTAM. Appropriate follow up action would then need to be taken to obtain a current authorisation. If the request does not relate to an immediate danger to air navigation then the originator should be requested to provide an appropriate authorisation before the NOTAM is issued.
(d) If the safety matter relates to an immediate danger to air navigation, then the NOTAM office must issue a NOTAM. Appropriate follow up action would then need to be taken by the person reporting the safety matter or by the NOTAM office if necessary to notify the aerodrome operator.
4.1.2 Airways queried the format of the agreements that are required to be established under 175.107(b)(3) between international NOTAM offices.
CAA response: The agreements required between the relevant international NOTAM offices can be in the form of Letters of Agreement. ICAO Doc 9426, Air Traffic Services Planning Manual provides a sample Letter of Agreement between States and ATS facilities. The Letter of Agreement between NOTAM offices could be in a similar format. The CAA would not need to be directly involved in such letters but they would need to be made available during a CAA safety audit if requested.
4.2 175.109 Pre-flight Information Service
4.2.1 Airways Corporation queried how all the aerodromes and route stages are to be specified for a pre-flight information service covering a national service as currently operated by the Corporation.
CAA response: The CAA accepts that it would not be necessary for the Airways Corporation to list all the routes stages originating from aerodromes on the national airways service currently operated by the Corporation. In this case the Corporation could describe the geographic coverage for their domestic pre-flight information service. The listing of aerodromes and associated route stages or coverage zone is primarily aimed at the international aerodromes and the pre-flight information services for international air navigation. Such a listing would also apply to a service provider who provides a specialised pre-flight information service for only selected aerodromes and route stages. The appropriate rules have been amended to reflect this intent.
4.2.2 Airways Corporation queried the requirements for "summary of current NOTAM" in the pre-flight information bulletin and the provision of relevant maps, charts and elements of the Integrated Aeronautical Information Package as part of the pre-flight information service. They advise that it is impractical to deliver some of this information with the modes of briefing services provided.
CAA response: The rule requires these items of information to be included where applicable to the type of service provided. The CAA accepts that pre-flight information services are moving to centralised services with increased use of automation and self briefing. It is therefore impractical to provide information such as maps and charts. The summary of current NOTAM in the pre-flight information bulletin can take the form of a simple list of current NOTAM for the selected route or area or copies of the NOTAM could be provided depending on the format and degree of automation provided by the service provider.
4.2.3 Airways Corporation consider that it is impractical for them to make provision for aircrew to file post-flight information reports at the aerodromes covered by their service.
CAA response: The Corporation currently provides a 24 hour centralised Briefing Office service which has a free telephone number for the filing of flight plans and requesting or receiving a briefing. The CAA considers that the provision of this freephone service is an adequate means for the Corporation to meet the requirements of 175.109(c) for aircrew to file post-flight information reports.
5. New Zealand Aeronautical Information Publications
5.1 175.201 Contents of NZAIP
NZALPA consider that the aeronautical information needs to be published in a format that takes into account human factors and the circumstances under which the user has to comprehend the information. They suggest that paragraph 175.201(d)(1) should be amended accordingly.
CAA response: The CAA accepts this comment and the rule has been amended.
5.2 175.401 Specifications for NOTAM
NZALPA consider that all NOTAM should be prepared in accordance with the ICAO communication procedures, ICAO NOTAM code, abbreviations, indicators etc.
CAA response: Although it is necessary for internationally distributed NOTAM to conform to the ICAO standard formats, it is not a necessary requirement for NOTAM that have only domestic distribution. The intention is that the series A domestic NOTAM be kept as simple as possible.
There are no regulatory amendments or revocations associated with the coming into force of this rule Part.