19 September 2017

The reason???



The deputy chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has resigned after an "error of judgment" involving an airline he part owns and a competitor. The crown entity, which oversees aviation safety, said deputy chairman Peter Griffiths had resigned after passing on information regarding the suspension of an airline. This was Tauranga-based airline Sunair Aviation, and the information was given to Great Barrier Island-based Barrier Air, which Griffiths bought 25 per cent of in April this year. Griffiths, and CAA chairman Nigel Gould said this was an error of judgment. Sunair had also received an apology from both Griffiths and Gould. "That said, it should be acknowledged that Peter's intent was to offer Barrier Air assistance to Sunair in order to minimise the adverse effect on its customers and when he initiated the contact with Barrier Air he did not realise that the suspension was not yet in place," the CAA said. "Despite that good intent, Peter freely admits to an error of judgement and has submitted his resignation from the board." Gould said the resignation and an internal debrief in this "very rare" case was sufficient to address the issue. Regulatory decision making was done by the Director of Civil Aviation, independent of the board, which meant while there were obvious risks to having people involved with aviation on the board, it also provided advantages. "On balance, providing that conflicts of interest are managed correctly and board members do not act on information held then the benefits of having some sector knowledge/involvement on the board outweighs the risks." Griffiths was also chairman of Z Energy and a director at NZX-listed Metro Performance Glass, having previously been BP New Zealand managing director. Griffiths' CAA profile said he had a lifelong interest in aviation and aircraft. Sunair was grounded by the CAA for the second time in less than a year earlier this month. The CAA said this decision was the result of an audit of Sunair records which found a number of anomalies and omissions in maintenance records. "These findings created a reasonable doubt about the airworthiness of the aircraft operated by Sunair and the Operator's maintenance control and the quality assurance systems intended to ensure their airworthiness."

15 comments:

  1. Is Sunair still grounded?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Incredible that caa are trying to justify telling GBA of the grounding prior to advising Sunair!! And what a pathetic excuse. Gould should have immediately distanced the regulator from griffith. "good intent", what a crock...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just shows the level of corruption (intended or unintended) that we now have in this country. How Griffith would think that his knowledge of the case would not put him in a conflict of interest situation when he owns a major share in a competing small airline is beyond belief. The only from Griffith can have only been to ensure he profited no matter what he says.

      Delete
    2. "The only good intent from Griffith" is how the final line should read. Apologies

      Delete
    3. Agreed. With caa becoming so grossly topheavy at a rapid rate, situations such as this will become more commonplace. It appears there's often a single contractor in each department doing the actual work. The rest of the inexperienced bureaucrats are too busy having meetings, running roadshows, on holidays or training to actually engage with industry and regulate at an effective level

      Look at the aussie industry and the damage CAsA have done..

      But rest assured, with the forced SMS implementation, there will be a measurable increase in safety within the NZ aviation industry!! The traveling public will be safe at last!

      Delete
  3. I think we all just found out why Barrier Air hasn't been looked at too closely in the last year! Couldn't have been if they are still flying.
    Feel for Sunair, it's pilots and customers.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dont believe all that you read. Yes Mr. Griffiths was a shareholder of Barrier, Yes he was a deputy chairman on the board of CAA, Yes that CAN be seen as a conflict of interest, however in his position on the board he had NO say on what happened to competing airlines. Fact of the matter is CAA found issues with tech logs and could no longer trust the state of Sunairs fleet. (Fair enough) Mr. Griffiths should not have mentioned the CAAs intent prior to action however it is my belief that he only did so to offer assistance. The CAA had been happy with the way Barrier has turned itself around thanks to them hiring a well respected Chief Pilot (ex sounds air) and I only heard good things from them despite their recent history.. If I was sun air I would also be trying everything to get me back in the air and for Mr. Griffiths he was the easy target in this.. meanwhile the Aztecs are still old machines that probably are not up to standard.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "however it is my belief that he only did so to offer assistance" How incredibly magnanimous of him to help out. Taking the time out from his no doubt busy schedule on multiple boards to ensure the customers of sunair are catered for is very generous of him... Pity he didn't wait until Sunair had been advised, and for someone in that position to claim he didn't know beggars belief

      Delete
    2. Barrier Air must have a new chief pilot if you refer to "well respected".

      Delete
    3. Recent history? Do elaborate. Also, chief pilots haven't existed for years now. Under the CAR 119 rules its a person responsible for air operations (therefore usually titled operations manager)

      Delete
    4. These days, the term "Chief Pilot" serves only to satisfy the egos of those who choose to take on the title.

      The same sort of people who wear 4 stripes in a light single.

      Delete
    5. There will always be tension between the Regulator and Industry, just like the Police with their radar speed guns and the driving public. However, the crossover between Governance and Operations by the board is intolerable and unacceptable. What other commercially sensitive information did Griffiths manage to obtain? The Chair should have acted a lot quicker in removing the Deputy. An externally led inquiry should take place as to how the situation arose in the first place as well as the culture that eminates from within.

      Delete
    6. It is interesting to observe some folks lack of acceptance of the CP role - without one a company can not operate and where do all the other pilots then work?

      Delete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete