The truth about blacklisting

April 7, 2010

We usually don't make a comment on the aviation news posted on our site. We also don't know if its just us that is being stupid or the government is trying to wrestle a justification to make a fool of themselves.

The latest folly apparently is the MA-60 Certification. Accordingly, The ICAO has told CAAP that it would recognize aircraft operating in the Philippines only if their flights were certified by the United States, Canada or the European Union.

Whoever said those statements has no clue what they were talking about. It's a shame they actually works for the aviation industry. The person who made that justification doesn't even know that such remarks, if its even written, is a clear case of unfair economic discrimination that warrant justification for resignation of the ICAO Official concerned. Perhaps none of them knew that.

And if we follow that argument further, then it would be safe to conclude that if it were the case, ICAO should also issue similar pronouncement to China where the plane is manufactured because currently they are growing by the numbers, and if we are not wrong majority of them were used and operated in that country.

And what about aircraft manufacturers from Russia, the CIS and Brazil? Did ICAO made similar conditions that tied their safety rating to the planes they make and fly? Apparently not because ICAO is not that foolish as our aviation agency would like us to believe. Because FAA and JAA (now EASA) certification are just mode of safety checks for the aircraft to be sold and flown on their respective territories as airworthy. Nothing more nothing less.

If the Philippines were up to the tasks required of them by ICAO, they would also make such safety assessments like what Russia and China did to its aircraft. Our country did not because the officials it hired doesn't know anything about civil aviation.

Maybe our friends at CAAP forget the basic ICAO rule of mutual recognition of aircraft certification and regulatory oversight. Or maybe they doesn't know that they exists at all.

So Does it mean that our friends at CAAP were sleeping on their job that they just doesn't know that such stipulation exists in the Montreal convention?

We are not about to accept such justification as an excuse. What is really happening is complete failure of regulatory oversight. Its what the FAA, the ICAO and EASA has said. Its not about accidents or pilot errors or maybe UFO. Its about doing a job.

At last, Alfonso Cusi found the solution fast his predecessor can't even figure in a years time, and yet they were professional strategists. Sadly, their incompetence fell on his lap and his actions were just too late.



    check this site for update on the Philippines USOAP results.

    1. is the philippines' civil aviation system also ready for the Continuous Monitoring Approach (CMA) effective 2011?
    2. does it have a State Safety Programme for the implementation of Safety Management Systems among aviation providers?
    3. how about Performance Based Navigation (PBN)?

    So much to do for the CAAP team. I hope they don't make another mistake of hiring "kamag-anak and kaibigan incorporated". Critical element 4 of USOAP evaluates the "technical personnel qualification and training".

  2. For now the air carrier is affected, maybe in the future we mechanic's will be next because, it might affect our licenses that other countries may not honor them.