An Assessment of the Caap Law

The CAAP law was the government’s resolution to the downgrading of the Philippine aviation industry to category 2 by ICAO. It has been two years since the CAAP law was enacted, and still the Philippines is still at category 2 with major issues in safety and security.

What has the law accomplished since its inception? CAAP said in October 2010 that it has addressed 46 out of 64 of the FAA audit findings, and said that with regard to the remaining 18 audit findings, CAAP said it will continue a top-down review of the organization and its operations. However, only ICAO’s audit will fully put the Philippines back to Category 1. Scheduled for an ICAO audit in December 2010, Cusi was somehow confident that we will regain our category 1 status. Further, in November 2010, CAAP boasts of addressing 87 out of 89 deficiencies set by ICAO. The two outstanding deficiencies were training of new civil aviation authority’s inspectors and computerization of the industry. However the supposed audit did not push through. Upon the appointment of seven new board members, ICAO had concerns about continuity and sustainability of the programs and policies implemented by the CAAP. According to a letter sent by ICAO,

“...I would like to inform you that due to operational concerns, we will need to postpone the ICVM. We will endeavor to work with you to re-schedule the mission for mutually agreed upon dates,” said Henri Gourdji, chief of ICAO's Continuous Monitoring and Oversight Section. These “operational concerns” are “related to the insecurity of ICAO in the sustainability of the present reforms being undertaken by CAAP.” Further, ICAO explains that “The present unclear political announcements of a change in senior management could create, in Icao’s opinion, an indeterminable future of professional processes within CAAP,”. Because of the postponement of the audit, no matter how many deficiencies were already addressed, the Philippine remain at category 2. In the last audit done by ICAO, the Philippines has actually satisfied most of the critical elements set by ICAO except for one. Safety has always been an issue and is still the major issue that concerns the aviation industry. There have been a lot of controversies surrounding the CAAP law. One is former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and CAAP’s midnight appointee former Chief Cusi. Second is President Noynoy Aquino’s appointment of seven board members without Cusi’s approval. Third is the corruption and syndicate issues that surround the agency.

In December 2010, Cusi resigned from his post as the director of CAAP. I believe this is a huge problem as ICAO’s major concern is the sustainability and continuity of the programs implemented by the CAAP, and with the new management comes new policies that might overthrow what Cusi has already accomplished. There is no doubt that there have already been accomplishments and major progress that might have put the Philippines back to category 1. I agree with Cusi in saying that President Noynoy is barring the development of the aviation industry in terms of getting back the industry back to category 1.

While there have been actions to restore the category 1 status of the aviation industry, we cannot rule out the fact that bureaucracy deeply affects the implementation of the law as a whole. It has already been two years since the implementation of the CAAP law and still we are far from getting back to category 1 because of all these political issues that hinders development. Possibly, the problem is not with the implementation but with the politics and the bureaucracy that surrounds the law and the implementation of the law.

Level of implementation of the Critical Elements of a Safety Oversight Systems State: Philippines | Audit Mission Period: | 7-10 Dec 2009 |

Level of Implementation of the Critical Elements of a Safety Oversight System | Critical Element | 1 = Not Implemented | | 10 = Fully Implemented | | = States Level of Implementation | | = Global Average | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Primary Aviation Legislation | | | | | | | | | | | Specific Operating Regulations | | | | | | | | | | | State Civil Aviation System and Safety Oversight Function | | | | | | | | | | | Technical Personnel Qualification and Training | | | | | | | | | | | Technical Guidance, Tools and the Provision of Safety-Critical Information | | | | | | | | | | | Licensing, Certification, Authorization and Approval Obligations | | | | | | | | | | | Surveillance Obligations | | | | | | | | | | | Resolution of Safety Concerns | | | | | | | | | | |
Source: ICAO Flight Safety Information Exchange (http://www.icao.int/fsix/auditRep3_icvm.cfm?s=Philippines&i=136)