AIRCARE™ History and Background

History and Background

1. AIRCARE is the trademark-registered brand of the Aviation Industry Association’s safety strategy within the Australasian region. (AIRCARE is trademark-registered as a brand in both Australia and New Zealand and has its own domain registered, but no operative website) Its aim was to achieve a 25% measured reduction in general aviation accidents within three years of its inception and a 25% reduction thereafter. (In the first three years of the strategy being fully operable CAA was reporting reductions of around 40% in some of the GA areas and an across-the-board reduction of 30%)
    
2. AIRCARE originated as a vision of John Funnell, president of the AIA from 2002-2007 in response to the ever-increasing accident rate experienced by the general aviation (GA) industry in the years immediately prior to 2000. Industry safety forums were held in 2001, with invited participants, to analyse the causative factors behind 40-fixed wing and 48-rotary accidents.
    
3. A number of members of today’s council participated in those forums, which were held in both the north and south islands. Using the specialist skills of a risk analysis consultant the industry concluded that the primary causes of accidents were:
   • Poor understanding of risk
   • Poor decision-making skills
   • Poor understanding of organisational safety culture
    
4. From this analysis emerged a decision to approach the CAA and ACC to come on board in a tripartite partnership to foster and develop an industry-wide safety programme covering all aviation document holders. (AIRCARE was established as a charity with three trustees. The trust deed document needs to be updated to reflect changes to the Charitable Trust Act and the three trustees need to be approached again to reaffirm their involvement)
    
5. The CEOs of CAA and ACC supported the initiative on the basis that there was a joint and shared responsibility for improving/enhancing safety across the industry. While the primary focus of the strategy was intended to be GA the initial three aspects of the strategy, i.e. the three bullet points 2-4, affected everyone. The CEOs endorsed the concept of a co-ordinating committee being appointed with equal representation from all parties.
    
6. Seed funding was obtained from the Airways Corporation and subsequently CAA, ACC, Kauriland and MetService all contributed to the project along with approximately $500,000 of funding in cash and kind from the industry
    
7. The appointed co-ordinating committee of CAA, ACC and industry commenced operations in early 2005 and agreed a strategy of industry-wide education on the three key causative factors of accidents, with a subsequent decision that once the three causative factors had been addressed there would be industry-specific issues which had emerged from the risk analysis also being addressed, but at a later date. (In all, eight or nine DVDs were to be produced. Three covering the whole industry and then sector-specific DVDs with the next one addressing agricultural aviation and the specific hazards risks)
    
8. It was also agreed that the primary mode of communicating information would be via DVD and some 30,000 DVDs have been produced addressing risk management and decision-making. Funding for the third DVD is currently stalled, although some work has already been undertaken on this.
    
9. During the period when AIRCARE was particularly active (2003-2006), the accident rate in GA trended down significantly and while all the safety gains could not be attributed to this strategy the fact that the industry and the regulator were working as a collaborative effort did not go unnoticed.
    
10. A crisis-in-confidence emerged with AIRCARE, not so much because of the strategies it was pursuing, but a shift in philosophical direction, within government agencies, away from a collaborative approach, to re-establishing regulatory salience over the industry. AIA submitted information that demonstrated the value-adding nature of the AIRCARE programme, audited financial information, clear governance management of the strategy and addressed all issues raised.
     
11. The previous Minister for Transport Safety, as late as 3 November 2008, reaffirmed his support of the strategy, but pointed out that this was an operational matter for CAA’s board and director to determine. The in-coming government supports the concept and is most anxious to inquire of the previous government as to why a safety strategy, which produced significant benefits to industry, was derailed.
     
12. Since the programme was put in abeyance, there has been an 80% increase in accidents per 100,000 hours flown to the year ended 31 December 2008. It is also significant that CAA are reporting a decline in the number of incidences reported. This is generally interpreted as a lead indicator that the air safety culture requires improving.
     
13. There is no indication from the present minister as to whether he supports, or otherwise, the AIRCARE programme and CAA have indicated they no longer wish to continue the partnership. They will however, give consideration to sponsorship of the programme and assess sponsorship alongside other proposals received. This, for the industry, is disappointing, as the industry itself has invested considerable time, effort and money into a project, which was having the desired results.