The Government notes the article published by FBC News titled “Flight school hits back at Minister’s statement” and the issues it raises regarding Pacific Flying School and associated entities within the Joyce Aviation (Fiji) Group. The Government reiterates that Fiji’s aviation system must always operate to the highest safety and compliance standards.
Three points of clarification:
1. What the law requires for engine overhauls
Under Fiji’s Air Navigation Regulations (ANR) 145C, any organization performing aircraft maintenance, including engine overhauls for Fiji-registered aircraft, must hold a CAAF Approved Maintenance Organization (AMO) Certificate. Listing a facility in an operator’s exposition does not constitute CAAF approval for maintenance work on Fiji-registered aircraft. This is a fundamental safety control in our system.
2. On the claim that a foreign facility was “approved for years”
CAAF’s approvals apply to organizations that are specifically certified by CAAF under ANR 145C for the scope of work they undertake. Recognition in an operator’s internal documents or by a foreign authority is not a substitute for a CAAF AMO certificate for work on Fiji-registered aircraft. Where CAAF identifies potential non-compliance, it is obligated to act to verify airworthiness before return to service. This is standard practice globally and aligns with ICAO principles.
CAAF holds no record of an ANR145C approval being issued to the overseas facility. Mr. Joyce should be asked to provide the ANR145C Certificate he claims was issued by CAAF for the subject facility.
3. On student impacts and timelines
We recognise delays are stressful and costly. Government has already outlined measures to support affected trainees while ensuring safety, these include close coordination with the operator, expediting regulatory steps once complete documentation and compliant maintenance pathways are in place, and prioritizing testing and check activities when aircraft meet requirements. These commitments were set out publicly and remain in force.
About the allegations raised today
Grounding and audits: When safety or compliance questions arise, temporary restrictions and audits are required until airworthiness is verified. This protects students, instructors, and the public.
“Blocked entry” of aircraft: Entry and release to service of aircraft depend on satisfactory records and compliance checks. Where documents or maintenance histories are incomplete or involve work by a non-approved facility under ANR 145C, additional verification is necessary.
Claims of missing records: CAAF maintains chain-of-custody procedures for technical records. Any allegation of mishandling is being addressed through established processes.
Process and next steps
Regulator independence: CAAF is the State’s independent technical regulator. Government will not interfere in operational safety decisions. The proper avenue for any party disputing a decision is through the regulator’s statutory review/appeal mechanisms, which are underway.
Student pathway: Our focus is getting eligible students flying again as soon as aircraft and maintenance pathways meet regulatory standards. Government continues to facilitate timely processing once the operator satisfies the requirements under ANR 145C.
Key message:
We empathise with affected students and families; however, the safety of training operations cannot be compromised. The fastest route back to flying remains the simplest one; use properly CAAF-approved maintenance organizations, present complete documentation, and close out findings so aircraft can be released to service without delay.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Clarifying key points raised in public discourse
Q: Is Government interfering with CAAF’s decisions?
A: No. CAAF is an independent statutory regulator. Government supports its evidence-based decisions made under Fiji’s aviation laws and ICAO obligations.
Q: Did CAAF change the rules mid-stream regarding the Australian engine shop?
A: No. Contracted maintenance must be performed by organisations approved or accepted by CAAF for Fiji-registered aircraft. That has long been the standard; an operator’s own exposition does not confer CAAF approval.
Q: Did CAAF “approve” the overseas facility?
A: CAAF approvals are granted only via ANR 145C AMO certificates. An operator’s exposition or a foreign approval does not equal CAAF approval for work on Fiji-registered aircraft.
Q: Why were engines/aircraft restricted? A: Because there were compliance questions requiring verification before flight. That’s standard safety practice until airworthiness is confirmed.
Q: Why not let the aircraft fly to help students while paperwork is sorted? A: Safety requires verified configuration and maintenance history. CAAF offered two internationally recognised routes—CASA Export CoA or FAA documentation—to progress these aircraft swiftly and safely.
Q: What is Government doing for the students?
A: We are coordinating with CAAF and industry to prioritise compliant approvals and reviews, reduce bottlenecks, and map pathways for students to complete required modules as soon as safety requirements are satisfied.
Q: What about allegations that CAAF lost logbooks?
A: The regulator has recorded the allegation, initiated checks, and is engaging the operator. Given ongoing processes, and court matters, we won’t comment on specifics, but accurate records remain a non-negotiable safety foundation.
Q: Will Government support an independent investigation?
A: Government is open to appropriate independent mechanisms. At the same time, formal regulatory and judicial avenues are underway; we will respect those processes.