Trial date SIA vs. Gladiator
Guest
Posts: n/a
Trial date SIA vs. Gladiator
United States Dustrict Court
Case Number C99-699R
Order setting trial and pretrial schedules and designating case under Local Rule CR 39.1
Having reviewed the Joint Status report filed by counsel, (Check PPRuNe back dates, Singapore Airlines vs. Gladiator [active case])the court now sets the following pretrial deadlines and trial date:
A 5 day jury trial will begin at 09:30 a.m. on 28 August 2000;
Trial briefs, proposed voir dire, proposed jury instructions, and motions in Limine shall be filed by 14 August 2000;
Counsel shall lodge an agreed pretrial order on 31 July 2000;
All motions other than motions in limine shall be filed by 25 May 2000;
Discovery shall be completed by, and all discovery motions noted for consideration no later than 15 May 2000 (see below); Note: Each side shall be limited to ten depositions (excluding expert depositions) of no more than 6 hours per deponent unless leave to take additional or longer depositions is granted by the court.
Disclosure of rebuttal expert witness in conformity with Local Rule CR 26(a)(2)(B) Shall occur no later than 24 April 2000;
Disclosure of expert witnesses in conformity with Local Rule CR 26(a)(2)(B) shall occur no later than 3 april 2000;
Additional parties shall be joined by 29 November 1999.
The dates set forth in this order may not be changed by agreement of counsel or the parties, but only by order of the court.
Case Number C99-699R
Order setting trial and pretrial schedules and designating case under Local Rule CR 39.1
Having reviewed the Joint Status report filed by counsel, (Check PPRuNe back dates, Singapore Airlines vs. Gladiator [active case])the court now sets the following pretrial deadlines and trial date:
A 5 day jury trial will begin at 09:30 a.m. on 28 August 2000;
Trial briefs, proposed voir dire, proposed jury instructions, and motions in Limine shall be filed by 14 August 2000;
Counsel shall lodge an agreed pretrial order on 31 July 2000;
All motions other than motions in limine shall be filed by 25 May 2000;
Discovery shall be completed by, and all discovery motions noted for consideration no later than 15 May 2000 (see below); Note: Each side shall be limited to ten depositions (excluding expert depositions) of no more than 6 hours per deponent unless leave to take additional or longer depositions is granted by the court.
Disclosure of rebuttal expert witness in conformity with Local Rule CR 26(a)(2)(B) Shall occur no later than 24 April 2000;
Disclosure of expert witnesses in conformity with Local Rule CR 26(a)(2)(B) shall occur no later than 3 april 2000;
Additional parties shall be joined by 29 November 1999.
The dates set forth in this order may not be changed by agreement of counsel or the parties, but only by order of the court.
Guest
Posts: n/a
By: Rav Dhaliwal
Date: 4feb97
CH: CAAS, Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore, SIA, Singapore Airlines
HD: CAAS needs more pilots for safety checks, US body
PH: News focus
SH: Air Safety
Given 3 months to engage more pilots
The United States Federal Aviation Authority has told the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore that it does not have enough pilots to check on the safety of Singapore Airlines flights leaving Changi airport.
SIA has an unblemished record and maintains high standards of safety through rigorous checks of its own, but the FAA feels that the airport authority needs more pilots to check on the airline.
The FAA has given the CAAS three months to engage more pilots to do the job, and talks between the two sides are still going on.
Neither authority would comment on the matter, but it was learnt that the CAAS has been taking steps to bring more pilots on board. The Straits Times learnt that in this region, airports in Hong Kong, Malaysia and Brunei met the FAA standards, whereas Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines fell short. Mr. Robert Jensen, manager of the FAA’s International Field office (Asia) location here, said Singapore was one of the last few countries to be assessed. About 600 airlines from 100 countries fly to the US, and he said the FAA action was part of a worldwide effort to check safety at airports from which flights to the US originate.
After a series of air mishaps in the US in the early 1990s, the FAA embarked on the effort to ensure that carriers flying to the US are safe, operate safe aircraft, follow safety procedures and have comprehensive training.
Its officials have been assessing aviation authorities to see if they meet International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards. He said that they started in South and Central America before moving to Europe, Africa, and Asia and the Pacific, and have rated airport authorities as those that:
Category I, Meet the standards;
Category II, Fall short and must fix specified problem areas. The affected airlines can continue to fly to the US, but cannot add more flights or ask to operate to new points.
Category III, Do not meet the standards and are barred from flying to the US. A handful of South American carriers have met this fate.
But Mr. Jensen would not comment on the ongoing discussions with the CAAS. It was learnt that an FAA team visited Singapore for a few days last November and told the CAAS that it needed more pilots to check on SIA. In about two to three months time, the FAA is expected to decide its rating of the zCAAS safety regulation machinery. A CAAS spokesman also felt it was inappropriate to give details of the consultations.
It was learnt that CAAS had approved a budget some time ago to engage more pilots familiar with the various types of aircraft SIA operates.
Captain Ken Toft, a senior SIA pilot due to retire in two months time, was seconded to the CAAS last month to help carry out safety checks. Asked about this, the CAAS spokesman said it had been eyeing him well before the FAA assessment. “He is now able to join us because he is due for retirement soon,” the spokesman said. “We have been looking for good, experienced pilots all along to join our team of inspectors.” The CAAS has three pilots, among other airworthiness officers, to check on emergency and safety aspects of SIA’s operations, including pilot training and airworthiness of aircraft.
They also fly with SIA pilots to check that they follow procedures. The CAAS efforts are augmented bt the airline’s own comprehensive system of checks, which which has helped it maintain a record of flying for almost a quarter of a century with no fatal accident.
An Aviation industry source was surprised to learn that the FAA had found CAAS wanting, given SIA’s reputation for maintaining a high standard of safety and operating one of the youngest fleets in the world.
Follow up article.
By: Rav Dhaliwal
Date: 27mar97
CH: CAAS, Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore
HD: CAAS gets top marks for airline safety
PH: News Focus
SH: Air Safety, Singapore Achievements
It meets worldwide safety standards fully
The United States Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) has given a top rating to the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore for complying fully with International safety standards.
This comes soon after the American body gave the CAAS three months to recruit more pilots to check on the safety of SIA flights leaving Changi airport.
Although SIA has an unblemished safety record and a system of checks of its own, the FAA felt that the airport authority needed more pilots to check on the airline.
The CAAS brought in two pilots recently as part of a plan approved last year for recruitment of pilots and airworthiness specialists up to the year 2000. It also expects to recruit more pilots and other safety inspection personnel over the next three years.
Following a series of air mishaps in the US in the early 1990s, the FAA launched a worldwide programme to assess the capability of aviation authorities to oversee the safety of their national carriers.
It checked whether they meet International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards. Singapore was one of the last few countries to be assessed.
The FAA announced two days ago that Singapore was rated in Category 1, which means that it met the standards fully. To qualify for a top rating, an aviation authority must,
a) Meet ICAO minimum standards of safety.
b) Have current rules that meet these requirements.
c) Have procedures to carry out the requirements.
d) Have the capability to conduct routine inspection and surveillance programmes and certify airlines as safe.
e) Have the organizational and personnel resources to implement and enforce the various requirements.
Commenting on CAAS rating, Mr. Chan Yat, its director (human resource and public relations), said: “CAAS has always placed importance and priority on civil aviation safety, the results of FAA’s assessment are further confirmation that Singapore has an adequate infrastructure, laws; and regulations, systems and procedures, and resources to meet the International aviation safety standards set by the ICAO.”
He said the body brought in two pilots recently to supervise SIA operations, bringing the total number of such pilots to five. It will recruit another two over the next three years, and another five airworthiness specialists, surveyors and engineers by the year 2000.
There are 12 such officers now and their job is to check Siam’s maintenance programmes and its aircraft, and ensure that it makes modifications as directed by manufacturers.
Date: 4feb97
CH: CAAS, Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore, SIA, Singapore Airlines
HD: CAAS needs more pilots for safety checks, US body
PH: News focus
SH: Air Safety
Given 3 months to engage more pilots
The United States Federal Aviation Authority has told the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore that it does not have enough pilots to check on the safety of Singapore Airlines flights leaving Changi airport.
SIA has an unblemished record and maintains high standards of safety through rigorous checks of its own, but the FAA feels that the airport authority needs more pilots to check on the airline.
The FAA has given the CAAS three months to engage more pilots to do the job, and talks between the two sides are still going on.
Neither authority would comment on the matter, but it was learnt that the CAAS has been taking steps to bring more pilots on board. The Straits Times learnt that in this region, airports in Hong Kong, Malaysia and Brunei met the FAA standards, whereas Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines fell short. Mr. Robert Jensen, manager of the FAA’s International Field office (Asia) location here, said Singapore was one of the last few countries to be assessed. About 600 airlines from 100 countries fly to the US, and he said the FAA action was part of a worldwide effort to check safety at airports from which flights to the US originate.
After a series of air mishaps in the US in the early 1990s, the FAA embarked on the effort to ensure that carriers flying to the US are safe, operate safe aircraft, follow safety procedures and have comprehensive training.
Its officials have been assessing aviation authorities to see if they meet International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards. He said that they started in South and Central America before moving to Europe, Africa, and Asia and the Pacific, and have rated airport authorities as those that:
Category I, Meet the standards;
Category II, Fall short and must fix specified problem areas. The affected airlines can continue to fly to the US, but cannot add more flights or ask to operate to new points.
Category III, Do not meet the standards and are barred from flying to the US. A handful of South American carriers have met this fate.
But Mr. Jensen would not comment on the ongoing discussions with the CAAS. It was learnt that an FAA team visited Singapore for a few days last November and told the CAAS that it needed more pilots to check on SIA. In about two to three months time, the FAA is expected to decide its rating of the zCAAS safety regulation machinery. A CAAS spokesman also felt it was inappropriate to give details of the consultations.
It was learnt that CAAS had approved a budget some time ago to engage more pilots familiar with the various types of aircraft SIA operates.
Captain Ken Toft, a senior SIA pilot due to retire in two months time, was seconded to the CAAS last month to help carry out safety checks. Asked about this, the CAAS spokesman said it had been eyeing him well before the FAA assessment. “He is now able to join us because he is due for retirement soon,” the spokesman said. “We have been looking for good, experienced pilots all along to join our team of inspectors.” The CAAS has three pilots, among other airworthiness officers, to check on emergency and safety aspects of SIA’s operations, including pilot training and airworthiness of aircraft.
They also fly with SIA pilots to check that they follow procedures. The CAAS efforts are augmented bt the airline’s own comprehensive system of checks, which which has helped it maintain a record of flying for almost a quarter of a century with no fatal accident.
An Aviation industry source was surprised to learn that the FAA had found CAAS wanting, given SIA’s reputation for maintaining a high standard of safety and operating one of the youngest fleets in the world.
Follow up article.
By: Rav Dhaliwal
Date: 27mar97
CH: CAAS, Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore
HD: CAAS gets top marks for airline safety
PH: News Focus
SH: Air Safety, Singapore Achievements
It meets worldwide safety standards fully
The United States Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) has given a top rating to the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore for complying fully with International safety standards.
This comes soon after the American body gave the CAAS three months to recruit more pilots to check on the safety of SIA flights leaving Changi airport.
Although SIA has an unblemished safety record and a system of checks of its own, the FAA felt that the airport authority needed more pilots to check on the airline.
The CAAS brought in two pilots recently as part of a plan approved last year for recruitment of pilots and airworthiness specialists up to the year 2000. It also expects to recruit more pilots and other safety inspection personnel over the next three years.
Following a series of air mishaps in the US in the early 1990s, the FAA launched a worldwide programme to assess the capability of aviation authorities to oversee the safety of their national carriers.
It checked whether they meet International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards. Singapore was one of the last few countries to be assessed.
The FAA announced two days ago that Singapore was rated in Category 1, which means that it met the standards fully. To qualify for a top rating, an aviation authority must,
a) Meet ICAO minimum standards of safety.
b) Have current rules that meet these requirements.
c) Have procedures to carry out the requirements.
d) Have the capability to conduct routine inspection and surveillance programmes and certify airlines as safe.
e) Have the organizational and personnel resources to implement and enforce the various requirements.
Commenting on CAAS rating, Mr. Chan Yat, its director (human resource and public relations), said: “CAAS has always placed importance and priority on civil aviation safety, the results of FAA’s assessment are further confirmation that Singapore has an adequate infrastructure, laws; and regulations, systems and procedures, and resources to meet the International aviation safety standards set by the ICAO.”
He said the body brought in two pilots recently to supervise SIA operations, bringing the total number of such pilots to five. It will recruit another two over the next three years, and another five airworthiness specialists, surveyors and engineers by the year 2000.
There are 12 such officers now and their job is to check Siam’s maintenance programmes and its aircraft, and ensure that it makes modifications as directed by manufacturers.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just who the hell do the FAA think they are?
They embarked on their inspection of overseas operators simply to cover up the fact that their own back-yard was in a very bad mess, many accidents/incidents brought about by bad or non-existant regulation etc.
Why don't they concentrate on cleaning up their own act first and try to set themselves up as some kind of example to others? Right now they are making themselves into a laughing stock. Putting up a 'snow-job' simply won't work, the FAA have to get down and dirty and sort out their own enormous mess before they start trying to play the "Heavy Brother" on anyone else.
They embarked on their inspection of overseas operators simply to cover up the fact that their own back-yard was in a very bad mess, many accidents/incidents brought about by bad or non-existant regulation etc.
Why don't they concentrate on cleaning up their own act first and try to set themselves up as some kind of example to others? Right now they are making themselves into a laughing stock. Putting up a 'snow-job' simply won't work, the FAA have to get down and dirty and sort out their own enormous mess before they start trying to play the "Heavy Brother" on anyone else.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Methusalah.
I totally agree with you, the FAA should
fix a questionable poor sub standard service
and safety record,in their own country
before trying to be the "check airman" of
the world; In South America they put out
of business a few airlines and in trouble
to a large number, just to "protect" and
let the U.S. carriers to expand their
operations, It is appalling that they use
economics and politics in the name of safety.
------------------
I totally agree with you, the FAA should
fix a questionable poor sub standard service
and safety record,in their own country
before trying to be the "check airman" of
the world; In South America they put out
of business a few airlines and in trouble
to a large number, just to "protect" and
let the U.S. carriers to expand their
operations, It is appalling that they use
economics and politics in the name of safety.
------------------
Guest
Posts: n/a
For those of you that are not familiar with the FAA's program, the following info might help.
Methusalah I know you know a lot about these matters, but have a read and don't jump into conclusion.
The FAA's program does not tell other airlines what to do, hence FAR 129 which governs operation of foreign carriers to and from the US state that they should follow ICAO Annex 6 part 1. The assessment program's purpose is to make sure that the CAA of different countries that are ICAO member and have signed the Chicago convention are in fact following the articles of the convention and respective ICAO annexes in governing their airlines.
CAAS was not meeting their obligation, remember the program is an assessment of the CAA and not the airline. Whether the airline
is following the proper rules is another story.
We will prove in the US Federal Court that SIA is not operating according to the minimum safety standards set by ICAO. That puts SIA and CAAS in hot soup. Hence CAAS is scheduled for an audit by ICAO in mid 2000 and American Airlines ceased codeshare with Singapore Airlines end of August 1999.
OVERVIEW OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION FLIGHT STANDARDS SERVICE INTERNATIONAL AVIATION SAFETY ASSESSMENT (IASA) PROGRAM
SUMMARY: The United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) established the IASA program through public policy in August of 1992. The FAA’s foreign assessment program focuses on a country's ability, not the individual air carrier, to adhere to international standards and recommended practices for aircraft operations and maintenance established by the United Nation's technical agency for aviation, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).
BACKGROUND: In mid-1991, FAA began to formulate a program to address these concerns. This program included visits to twelve countries with airlines seeking authority to operate to and from the United States. After a trial period our findings convinced us of the need to formally establish the IASA Program. Notice of our new policy was published in the Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 164, August 24, 1992. The purpose of the IASA is to ensure that all foreign air carriers that operate to or from the United States are properly licensed and with safety oversight provided by a competent Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in accordance with ICAO standards.
DISCUSSION: A foreign air carrier of a sovereign state desiring to conduct foreign air transportation operations into the United States files an application with the DOT for a foreign air carrier permit under the Federal Aviation Act, newly recodified at 49 U.S.C. 41302. Parts 211 and 302 of the Economic Regulations of Department Of Transportation (DOT), (14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 211 and 302) prescribe the requirements for issuance of these authorities. Consistent with international law, certain safety requirements for operations into the United States are prescribed by the FAA's Part 129 regulations (14 CFR part 129). 14 CFR Part 129 specifies that the carrier must meet the safety standards contained in Part 1 (International Commercial Air Transport) of Annex 6 (Operations of Aircraft) to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention). Before DOT issues a foreign air carrier permit, it notifies the FAA of the application and requests the FAA's evaluation of the respective CAA's capability for providing safety certification and continuing oversight for its international carriers.
Upon DOT notification of a pending foreign air carrier application, if the FAA has not made a positive assessment of that countries safety oversight capabilities, the FAA Flight Standards Service will direct its appropriate international field office to schedule an FAA assessment visit to the CAA of the applicant's country.
Once the assessments visits have been completed, the FAA assessment team will return to the United States to compile the findings. Appropriate notifications to the CAA and other U.S. Government officials of the results of the assessments will be made from Washington, DC., headquarters as soon as possible.
If a CAA is found to be meeting its minimum safety obligations under the Chicago Convention, the FAA will forward a positive recommendation to DOT. If there is a pending foreign carrier application, DOT will issue the requested economic authority and FAA will issue operations specifications to permit the carrier to begin operations to or from the United States.
When CAA's of countries with existing air carrier service to the U.S. are found to not meet ICAO standards, the FAA formally requests consultations with the CAA. The purpose of consultations is to discuss our findings in some detail and explore means to quickly rectify shortcomings found with regard to ICAO annexes, to enable its air carriers to continue service to the United States. During the consultation phase, foreign air carrier operations from that country into the United States will be frozen at existing levels. This policy is defined in a notice published in the Federal Register (Volume 60, No. 210, October 31, 1995). FAA may also heighten its surveillance inspections (ramp checks) on these carriers while they are in the United States. If the deficiencies noted during consultations cannot be successfully corrected within a reasonable, period of time, FAA will notify DOT that carriers from that country do not have an acceptable level of safety oversight and will recommend that DOT revoke or suspend its carriers economic operating authority.
When CAA's of countries with no existing air carrier service to the United States are found to not meet ICAO standards, the FAA does not, of course, undertake consultations. The FAA will notify DOT that the CAA does not have an acceptable level of safety oversight and its application for economic authority will be denied. The FAA will undertake a reassessment of the CAA after evidence of compliance with ICAO provisions has been received. FAA will, of course, be willing to meet with CAA’s at any time, as our resources permit.
After the assessment visit, consultations (if necessary), and notifications have been completed, the FAA will publicly release the results of these assessments. This policy revision, published in 1994 (Federal Register Vol. 59, No. 173, September 8, 1994), was made after considerable deliberation. We determined that the findings in our IASA program regarding safety oversight shortcomings must be provided to all U.S. citizens so they can make informed choices in their international flights.
The FAA plans to periodically revisit CAA's of countries with air carriers operating into the United States to maintain full familiarity of the methods of that country’s continued compliance with ICAO provisions. The FAA may also find it necessary to reassess a CAA at any time if it has reason to believe that minimum ICAO standards are not being met.
At present, there are close to 600 foreign air carriers that operate into the United States. There are approximately 103 countries or regional country alliances that have oversight responsibilities for air carriers that either currently operate into the United States or that have air carriers that have applied to operate into the United States. As of February 18, 1998 the results of 87 completed CAA assessments have been publicly disclosed.
The initial findings have shown that two thirds of these countries were not fully complying with ICAO standards. Deficiencies found in FAA assessments typically fall into major categories. These categories are almost identical to the deficiencies found by ICAO, during 1993, in its safety surveillance project surveying six Asian countries. These deficiencies included:
inadequate and in some cases nonexistent regulatory legislation;
lack of advisory documentation;
shortage of experienced airworthiness staff;
lack of control on important airworthiness related items such as issuance and enforcement of Airworthiness Directives, Minimum Equipment Lists, investigation of Service Difficulty Reports, etc.;
lack of adequate technical data;
absence of Air Operator Certification (AOC) systems,
nonconformance to the requirements of the AOC System
lack or shortage of adequately trained flight operations inspectors including a lack of type ratings;
lack of updated company manuals for the use by airmen;
inadequate proficiency check procedures; and
inadequately trained cabin attendants.
Some of the same items are also being found on FAA ramp checks of foreign carriers while in this country. This list is long but by no means exhaustive and points out a continuing safety oversight problem that several ICAO member States need to address within its own CAA. These are also problems that must be corrected before carriers from those CAA’s can operate on a regularly scheduled basis to and from the United States.
DESIRED OUTCOME: The FAA is working to determine that each country meets its obligations under ICAO and to provide proper oversight to each air carrier operating into the U.S. The continued application of this program will result in a lower number of safety-related problems, including accidents, incidents, and an improved level of safety to the flying public.
[This message has been edited by Gladiator (edited 01 October 1999).]
Methusalah I know you know a lot about these matters, but have a read and don't jump into conclusion.
The FAA's program does not tell other airlines what to do, hence FAR 129 which governs operation of foreign carriers to and from the US state that they should follow ICAO Annex 6 part 1. The assessment program's purpose is to make sure that the CAA of different countries that are ICAO member and have signed the Chicago convention are in fact following the articles of the convention and respective ICAO annexes in governing their airlines.
CAAS was not meeting their obligation, remember the program is an assessment of the CAA and not the airline. Whether the airline
is following the proper rules is another story.
We will prove in the US Federal Court that SIA is not operating according to the minimum safety standards set by ICAO. That puts SIA and CAAS in hot soup. Hence CAAS is scheduled for an audit by ICAO in mid 2000 and American Airlines ceased codeshare with Singapore Airlines end of August 1999.
OVERVIEW OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION FLIGHT STANDARDS SERVICE INTERNATIONAL AVIATION SAFETY ASSESSMENT (IASA) PROGRAM
SUMMARY: The United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) established the IASA program through public policy in August of 1992. The FAA’s foreign assessment program focuses on a country's ability, not the individual air carrier, to adhere to international standards and recommended practices for aircraft operations and maintenance established by the United Nation's technical agency for aviation, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).
BACKGROUND: In mid-1991, FAA began to formulate a program to address these concerns. This program included visits to twelve countries with airlines seeking authority to operate to and from the United States. After a trial period our findings convinced us of the need to formally establish the IASA Program. Notice of our new policy was published in the Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 164, August 24, 1992. The purpose of the IASA is to ensure that all foreign air carriers that operate to or from the United States are properly licensed and with safety oversight provided by a competent Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in accordance with ICAO standards.
DISCUSSION: A foreign air carrier of a sovereign state desiring to conduct foreign air transportation operations into the United States files an application with the DOT for a foreign air carrier permit under the Federal Aviation Act, newly recodified at 49 U.S.C. 41302. Parts 211 and 302 of the Economic Regulations of Department Of Transportation (DOT), (14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 211 and 302) prescribe the requirements for issuance of these authorities. Consistent with international law, certain safety requirements for operations into the United States are prescribed by the FAA's Part 129 regulations (14 CFR part 129). 14 CFR Part 129 specifies that the carrier must meet the safety standards contained in Part 1 (International Commercial Air Transport) of Annex 6 (Operations of Aircraft) to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention). Before DOT issues a foreign air carrier permit, it notifies the FAA of the application and requests the FAA's evaluation of the respective CAA's capability for providing safety certification and continuing oversight for its international carriers.
Upon DOT notification of a pending foreign air carrier application, if the FAA has not made a positive assessment of that countries safety oversight capabilities, the FAA Flight Standards Service will direct its appropriate international field office to schedule an FAA assessment visit to the CAA of the applicant's country.
Once the assessments visits have been completed, the FAA assessment team will return to the United States to compile the findings. Appropriate notifications to the CAA and other U.S. Government officials of the results of the assessments will be made from Washington, DC., headquarters as soon as possible.
If a CAA is found to be meeting its minimum safety obligations under the Chicago Convention, the FAA will forward a positive recommendation to DOT. If there is a pending foreign carrier application, DOT will issue the requested economic authority and FAA will issue operations specifications to permit the carrier to begin operations to or from the United States.
When CAA's of countries with existing air carrier service to the U.S. are found to not meet ICAO standards, the FAA formally requests consultations with the CAA. The purpose of consultations is to discuss our findings in some detail and explore means to quickly rectify shortcomings found with regard to ICAO annexes, to enable its air carriers to continue service to the United States. During the consultation phase, foreign air carrier operations from that country into the United States will be frozen at existing levels. This policy is defined in a notice published in the Federal Register (Volume 60, No. 210, October 31, 1995). FAA may also heighten its surveillance inspections (ramp checks) on these carriers while they are in the United States. If the deficiencies noted during consultations cannot be successfully corrected within a reasonable, period of time, FAA will notify DOT that carriers from that country do not have an acceptable level of safety oversight and will recommend that DOT revoke or suspend its carriers economic operating authority.
When CAA's of countries with no existing air carrier service to the United States are found to not meet ICAO standards, the FAA does not, of course, undertake consultations. The FAA will notify DOT that the CAA does not have an acceptable level of safety oversight and its application for economic authority will be denied. The FAA will undertake a reassessment of the CAA after evidence of compliance with ICAO provisions has been received. FAA will, of course, be willing to meet with CAA’s at any time, as our resources permit.
After the assessment visit, consultations (if necessary), and notifications have been completed, the FAA will publicly release the results of these assessments. This policy revision, published in 1994 (Federal Register Vol. 59, No. 173, September 8, 1994), was made after considerable deliberation. We determined that the findings in our IASA program regarding safety oversight shortcomings must be provided to all U.S. citizens so they can make informed choices in their international flights.
The FAA plans to periodically revisit CAA's of countries with air carriers operating into the United States to maintain full familiarity of the methods of that country’s continued compliance with ICAO provisions. The FAA may also find it necessary to reassess a CAA at any time if it has reason to believe that minimum ICAO standards are not being met.
At present, there are close to 600 foreign air carriers that operate into the United States. There are approximately 103 countries or regional country alliances that have oversight responsibilities for air carriers that either currently operate into the United States or that have air carriers that have applied to operate into the United States. As of February 18, 1998 the results of 87 completed CAA assessments have been publicly disclosed.
The initial findings have shown that two thirds of these countries were not fully complying with ICAO standards. Deficiencies found in FAA assessments typically fall into major categories. These categories are almost identical to the deficiencies found by ICAO, during 1993, in its safety surveillance project surveying six Asian countries. These deficiencies included:
inadequate and in some cases nonexistent regulatory legislation;
lack of advisory documentation;
shortage of experienced airworthiness staff;
lack of control on important airworthiness related items such as issuance and enforcement of Airworthiness Directives, Minimum Equipment Lists, investigation of Service Difficulty Reports, etc.;
lack of adequate technical data;
absence of Air Operator Certification (AOC) systems,
nonconformance to the requirements of the AOC System
lack or shortage of adequately trained flight operations inspectors including a lack of type ratings;
lack of updated company manuals for the use by airmen;
inadequate proficiency check procedures; and
inadequately trained cabin attendants.
Some of the same items are also being found on FAA ramp checks of foreign carriers while in this country. This list is long but by no means exhaustive and points out a continuing safety oversight problem that several ICAO member States need to address within its own CAA. These are also problems that must be corrected before carriers from those CAA’s can operate on a regularly scheduled basis to and from the United States.
DESIRED OUTCOME: The FAA is working to determine that each country meets its obligations under ICAO and to provide proper oversight to each air carrier operating into the U.S. The continued application of this program will result in a lower number of safety-related problems, including accidents, incidents, and an improved level of safety to the flying public.
[This message has been edited by Gladiator (edited 01 October 1999).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
VF, you made this statement:
:We will prove in the US Federal Court that SIA is not operating according to the minimum safety standards set by ICAO. That puts SIA and CAAS in hot soup. Hence CAAS is scheduled for an audit by ICAO in mid 2000 and American Airlines ceased codeshare with Singapore Airlines end of August 1999.:
When you said "we will prove", who are "we"?
Since it has yet to be provened, how come CAAS is due for an audit? Why did AA ceased codeshare? Or was it the other way round? It doesn't make sense to me. Flawed logic unless you care to elaborate further. I wish you didn't make boastful, misleading and confusing statements.
I believe ICAO audits are carried out as a matter of routine for all airlines operating to ICAO standards. It is quite unlikely for AA and SIA to cease codeshare because of safety concerns. If that is the case, why did United form an alliance with SIA? Not forgetting Lufthansa, Air New Zealand, Ansett and Scandinavian. South African Airways and Air Canada are also on the card.
We have to thread carefully in believing what we read here, bearing in mind that this topic is by a defendant who is being brought to court. One wouldn't expect a person who claims trial to admit guilt let alone say anything truthful to incriminate himself. In the previous case of SIA vs. Mr.xxx, the defendant goofed by making self-incriminating statements. The moral of the story is: You cannot be caught lying if you tell the truth.
VF, I wish you well for your upcoming trial and hope justice will be served.
:We will prove in the US Federal Court that SIA is not operating according to the minimum safety standards set by ICAO. That puts SIA and CAAS in hot soup. Hence CAAS is scheduled for an audit by ICAO in mid 2000 and American Airlines ceased codeshare with Singapore Airlines end of August 1999.:
When you said "we will prove", who are "we"?
Since it has yet to be provened, how come CAAS is due for an audit? Why did AA ceased codeshare? Or was it the other way round? It doesn't make sense to me. Flawed logic unless you care to elaborate further. I wish you didn't make boastful, misleading and confusing statements.
I believe ICAO audits are carried out as a matter of routine for all airlines operating to ICAO standards. It is quite unlikely for AA and SIA to cease codeshare because of safety concerns. If that is the case, why did United form an alliance with SIA? Not forgetting Lufthansa, Air New Zealand, Ansett and Scandinavian. South African Airways and Air Canada are also on the card.
We have to thread carefully in believing what we read here, bearing in mind that this topic is by a defendant who is being brought to court. One wouldn't expect a person who claims trial to admit guilt let alone say anything truthful to incriminate himself. In the previous case of SIA vs. Mr.xxx, the defendant goofed by making self-incriminating statements. The moral of the story is: You cannot be caught lying if you tell the truth.
VF, I wish you well for your upcoming trial and hope justice will be served.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Answer to your questions are:
a- "We", are the "people/consumer".
b- ICAO's audit will be audit of CAAS and not SIA, however rest assured it will be a more in depth audit than a regular audit. Amazing things happen when you put things under a microscope.
c- SIA is not part of United Airlines's Star Alliance. The only invovlment of SIA and UA is milage plus program. The members of the Star Alliance memebers are: Air Canada, Air New Zealand, Ansett Australia, Lufthansa, SAS, Thai Airways International and Varig.
Regional Alliances are: ANA-All Nippon, ALM-Antillean Airlines, Aloha Airlines, Ansett New Zealand, British Midland, Cayman Airways, Continental Connection/Gulfstream, Emirates, Mexicana, Saudi Arabian Airlines and Trans States Airlines.
d- Codeshare is when an airline sells seats under its own name on a flight operated by another carrier.
e- The same applies to Delta Airlines's involvement with SIA, SkyMiles only. No codeshare.
f- As for AA, they are not stupid.
Everything I post is public information. There're lots of juicy stuff I'm not able to yet post but will in due course. Stick around it'll get real good.
Why won't you answer two simple questions Methusalah? "I'll see you in court" is not the answer to "the questions".
Coming soon deposition from M DeV.
a- "We", are the "people/consumer".
b- ICAO's audit will be audit of CAAS and not SIA, however rest assured it will be a more in depth audit than a regular audit. Amazing things happen when you put things under a microscope.
c- SIA is not part of United Airlines's Star Alliance. The only invovlment of SIA and UA is milage plus program. The members of the Star Alliance memebers are: Air Canada, Air New Zealand, Ansett Australia, Lufthansa, SAS, Thai Airways International and Varig.
Regional Alliances are: ANA-All Nippon, ALM-Antillean Airlines, Aloha Airlines, Ansett New Zealand, British Midland, Cayman Airways, Continental Connection/Gulfstream, Emirates, Mexicana, Saudi Arabian Airlines and Trans States Airlines.
d- Codeshare is when an airline sells seats under its own name on a flight operated by another carrier.
e- The same applies to Delta Airlines's involvement with SIA, SkyMiles only. No codeshare.
f- As for AA, they are not stupid.
Everything I post is public information. There're lots of juicy stuff I'm not able to yet post but will in due course. Stick around it'll get real good.
Why won't you answer two simple questions Methusalah? "I'll see you in court" is not the answer to "the questions".
Coming soon deposition from M DeV.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Possibly so Gladiator, but the questions also carried a warning so I heed the warning and make it known where I might answer the questions, always asuming that "Methusalah" is one single person and not, like some of the posters interested in S.I.A, a conglomerate of 'hit and run' specialists using several brains and several computers, I suspect!
Guest
Posts: n/a
VF,
It is a matter of time before SIA joins the Star Alliance. You said American Airlines is not stupid. It appears there are other "stupid" airlines like Lufthansa, Air New Zealand and Ansett that either operate joint services or codeshare with SIA. If you are right about SIA operating below minimum safety levels, these airlines are not stupid to continue codeshare and operate joint services with SIA. Do you, the people and the consumers, want to tell them about it?
It is one thing trying to wrangle out of a bonding agreement but to insinuate without solid evidence about an airline's unsafe operation is another kettle of fish. You better come up with irrefutable facts. if you can't do so in a trial and provened to be lying or malicious, you will have to spend the rest of your life in debt, maybe unemployed too. All the Ayatollahs in the world will not be able to help you. Be careful, VF.
ICAO is an organisation like the U.N. comprising many countries, not a governing body. There is hardly any aviation
standardisation in this world. I wonder what is ICAO going by when it audits member countries' aviation authorities?
[This message has been edited by Kenny Naboo (edited 03 October 1999).]
It is a matter of time before SIA joins the Star Alliance. You said American Airlines is not stupid. It appears there are other "stupid" airlines like Lufthansa, Air New Zealand and Ansett that either operate joint services or codeshare with SIA. If you are right about SIA operating below minimum safety levels, these airlines are not stupid to continue codeshare and operate joint services with SIA. Do you, the people and the consumers, want to tell them about it?
It is one thing trying to wrangle out of a bonding agreement but to insinuate without solid evidence about an airline's unsafe operation is another kettle of fish. You better come up with irrefutable facts. if you can't do so in a trial and provened to be lying or malicious, you will have to spend the rest of your life in debt, maybe unemployed too. All the Ayatollahs in the world will not be able to help you. Be careful, VF.
ICAO is an organisation like the U.N. comprising many countries, not a governing body. There is hardly any aviation
standardisation in this world. I wonder what is ICAO going by when it audits member countries' aviation authorities?
[This message has been edited by Kenny Naboo (edited 03 October 1999).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Nice colorful selection of words Kenny, I specially like the one about the Ayatollahs.
How about Ayatollahs vs. Assahollas.
On a serious note, ICAO is a UN body. Read through the long post about the FAA's IASA program once again carefully. ICAO has set International safety standards in addition to recommended practices. These safety standards are written in black and white in the Chicago Convention and ICAO's related Annexes. They are not subject to interpretation or negotiation, they are a solid set of standards. ICAO member states per the Chicago Convention are therefore obligated to follow these standards or in this case face the music.
Codeshare is a very serious issue when it comes down to liability and accountability. Are we going to tell? You bet.
Is Lufthansa following the international safety standards? I don't know, but Lufthansa is not under a microscope. As long as Lufthansa does not sell tickets under UA flight number and name on SIA, what does UA care who Lufthansa codeshares with.
All these details will be posted in due course. At the end of the day, members of the jury will decide. We the people even have the power to put our president on the stand if it is a matter of public policy and accountability.
How about Ayatollahs vs. Assahollas.
On a serious note, ICAO is a UN body. Read through the long post about the FAA's IASA program once again carefully. ICAO has set International safety standards in addition to recommended practices. These safety standards are written in black and white in the Chicago Convention and ICAO's related Annexes. They are not subject to interpretation or negotiation, they are a solid set of standards. ICAO member states per the Chicago Convention are therefore obligated to follow these standards or in this case face the music.
Codeshare is a very serious issue when it comes down to liability and accountability. Are we going to tell? You bet.
Is Lufthansa following the international safety standards? I don't know, but Lufthansa is not under a microscope. As long as Lufthansa does not sell tickets under UA flight number and name on SIA, what does UA care who Lufthansa codeshares with.
All these details will be posted in due course. At the end of the day, members of the jury will decide. We the people even have the power to put our president on the stand if it is a matter of public policy and accountability.
