7. REVISION OF ARTICLE 65 0F TEE CIVIL ARRONAUTICAL LAW

7. REVISION OF ARTICLE 65 0F TEE CIVIL ARRONAUTICAL LAW

The tragic accident of JAL Flight 123 on 12 August, 1985 involved 520 passengers and crew members. In the investigation that followed, the public was made aware through press coverage of the fact that the flight engineer acted in a highly commendable manner under situations of unimaginable stress. The flight engineer not only determined the condition of the aircraft, but actively participated in the effort to evaluate the condition of the emergency, gave advice concerning emergency procedures using the emergency checklist, backup the pilots on the radio both in communications with the company and ATC, maintained contact with the passenger cabin, and encourage the pilots under the high stress situation that they were operating under.
Prime Minister Nakasone declared flight safety to be a national concern immediately after the accident, but only three months after, on November 12, he presented the retrogressive revision of the Civil Aeronautical Law Article 65 to the Diet. Until this time, the presence of the flight engineer was mandatory on board the following aircraft:

1) 4 or more engines with a maximum takeoff weight at or above 35,000 kg 2) aircraft designed so that the presence of the pilots alone is not enough to ensure the safe handling of the engines and airframe

The revision deleted the first clause.
This retrogressive revision was included in a "package bill" aimed at easing restrictions which was intended to ease trade friction by liberating the market and revitalizing the private sector. This bi11's justification is highly questionable due to the fact that it caued for the Diet to deliberate on easing restrictions over 42 provisions of 26 laws from 8 ministries, all on one ballot.
Normally a revision of an aeronautical law required deliberation by a committee or commission from the Ministry of Transportation. In this revision, no discussion was made by technical ezperts, the "package bill" was sent to the House of Councilors for deliberation and the whole bill was approved in an unprecedented short span of a single month. It was given approval by vote on 13 December 1985.
Since the news of the revision of Article 65 was released by the press, the Japan Air Lines Flight Crew Union has united together with the Flight Crew Union Federation of Japan (FCUFIJ) and Japan Federation of Aviation Workers' Unions to take the matter up with the Diet. 2,353 individual signatures against the revision were collected mainly by the FCUF-J. 89 organizations also endorsed the opposition to the revision. These were presented to the Civil Aviation Bureau with a request to stop the revision of Article 65 along with a similiar request to the Ministry of Transportation. The Japan Air Lines Flight Crew Union acting together with Japan Federation of Aviation Workers'Unions sent letters of request to members of each political party, explaining the matter to them and asking them to tackle the problem. A total of eleven visits by thirty eight members of the union was made to the Diet to audit the deliberations on this revision.
The above actions prompted an amendment bill to be put before the Diet to request the removal of the revision to Article 65 from the blanket discussion but unfortunately it was voted down. Instead a decision was made to put a supplementary resolution along with the revision of Article 65 which would act as a braking force. Although this supplementary resolution has no legal effect, it expresses the spirit of the legislature and has a strong influence in judicial judgements.

A Summary of"The Supplementary Resolution of the Bill of Re-adjustment and Rationalization over Controls such as Licensing and Approval concerning the Revitalization of the Private Sector" concerning the revision of Article 65

The Government must study and deal with the following:

In regards to easing restrictions over the transportation sector, safety must be ensured and taken into consideration to prevent excessive competition from causing disorder in the sector and the deterioration of the work environment. Especially in regards to the category of aircraft that require a flight engineer to be on board, measures must be taken to direct attention to the ensuring of safety when easing restrictions.

The reason for the revision of the Civil Aeronautical Law Article 65 was publicized as preparing the legal conditions for the purchase of the four engine British jet BAe 146 by our country possible. No airline in Japan had the intention of buying the English aircraft. Study of the airline industry clearly points out that the real purpose was, without doubt, the preparation for the introduction of the two man complement of the B747-400.