Helicopter Association in Formation

Aviation by its nature – and particularly rotary wing aviation, is an undertaking made up of fairly individualistic people. People become involved in rotary wing aviation for quite a number of reasons but one of the things is that it is one of the last areas which is some respects is relatively uncontrolled.

I say that at risk of seeming to contradict myself later.

Much of rotary wing aviation takes place in the bush and while there are plenty of controls on it, it is virtually unsupervised.

Many people find that attractive – to be able to go out and fly, much as the barnstormers of the twenties and thirties did. That is the stage the helicopter industry was at in the sixties and early seventies. It was the last great frontier of aviation and it attracted people who in terms of their personalities were individuals.

In terms of the regulatory aspect of the industry, the greatest potential for growth is in metropolitan areas. Notwithstanding the individualistic personality traits of people who have been involved in helicopters in the past, it is inevitable that we must form an effective industry lobby if that type of aircraft is to achieve its physical potential.

The market definitely exists and that is one of the reasons there have been efforts for some time to get an association going.

The industry is maturing to the stage where we can no longer afford to be the ‘Biggies’ style individualists roaring around the bush.

JS: Who are you going to lobby about what?

Terry Summers: The main aim of the association is to promote the Australian helicopter industry.

We decided it was important to start this show at a national level with representatives in each State along similar lines to the regional offices of the Department of Aviation.

There is a requirement to establish an exchange of information among Australian helicopter owners, operators, pilots and engineers users and the support industry.

Another aim is to exchange information between the helicopter industry and the government at all levels and the community at large on the other, with a view to providing better services to the public.

Other aims include:

To spearhead efforts to provide facilities for helicopter operations- something that has been neglected in the past because of lack of planning.

To make representations to the Government at all levels to secure facilities, regulations and legislation or modification of any of these, for the advancement of the Australian helicopter industry and to enter into any arrangement with those government authorities to those ends. The association also plans to exchange information with other national and international helicopter organisations.

To promote at all times a high standard of integrity within the Australian helicopter industry.

JS: Does that suggest that in some areas there is a lack of integrity at the moment?

Terry Summers: It certainly suggests that in a lot of areas, there are a lot of individuals.

All facets of aviation only evolved as a successful industry because there are individuals and it is a requirement for most pilots to be quite individualistic in many regards to be captain of an aircraft.

But obviously, that does cause lots of disharmony through lack of communication between the individuals.

JS: That does suggest one of the fundamental reasons for the association is the maintenance of professional standards. That tends to run parallel to or possibly cross over the Department of Aviation’s obligations to ‘surveil’ as they put, operating standards. What will be the relationship between the association and the DofA?

Dan Tyler: We hope it will be a very close and cordial one. We would point out though, that the departmental expertise has a tendency to be expertise in a technical operational area. In virtually every industry, the notional level of safety is always a level that is related to the cost.

The industry is aware of what it costs to do a particular thing – but basically, we feel the department tends to look only at the technical side, without looking at the cost of various steps.

We feel we need to put the other side and find a midpoint.

Obviously, if the helicopter industry had no self-restraint whatsoever – even with controls – the industry would self-destruct.

Its reputation would be very bad. Helicopter crashes are very spectacular affairs and they tend to make a big impression.

Any operator involved in marketing helicopter services to the public will tell you that after a much-publicised crash, his work will fall off.

So he does not favour crashes and if you removed all forms of government control, I personally do not think the industry would operate that much differently in terms of the level of safety.

It is not in its own interest.

JS: You are suggesting that safety standards are well and truly up to an acceptable standard?

Dan Tyler: I am not suggesting that in every respect safety is at an acceptable standard.

There is plenty that can be done. For example, I do not think the present enforcement is terribly effective. Our association may be able to encourage, means of enforcement which are different to the means that the department uses.

For example, if we made a collective approach to the insurers of helicopters in Australia offering, for example, an approved operations manual and an undertaking that if we operate to a certain standard, we will get 1. 5 per cent knocked off our hull insurance.

By agreeing to a set of operational standards that might be even more stringent than what the department would require, we get the benefit of a tremendous cost-saving in insurance- 1. 5 per cent on a larger helicopter is tens of thousands of dollars.

Terry Summers: To qualify the statement about whether or not the industry is at an acceptable level of safety – in many areas it certainly is not- in development-type operations of a private or aerial work nature, not affecting the paying customer.

On the other hand, there is a gross overkill requirement of departmental legislation concerning safety requirements for other types of work.

What we are saying is that there needs to be an ongoing rationalisation of safety levels across the board and that requires a body such as this association which has much closer contact with the industry than departmental bodies, to keep monitoring that safety update requirement, or lobby for amended legislation to be more practical to the eighties versus the sixties.

Dan Tyler: We object to legislation that really buys nothing in the way of safety and adds a tremendous amount to operating costs.

This association has submitted to the department a paper about the operational standards for multi-engined helicopters.

There are now light twin-engine helicopters on the market that were not available before but there are virtually no operational standards for them. The department is in the process of drafting some operational standards and has sought some input from the industry.

The lack of an operational standard has meant that a proposal to put a twin-engine helicopter on a run which previously utilised a single engine helicopter was refused virtually on safety grounds because there were no multi-engine standards.

Terry Summers: We had a problem, which could occur again, with other operators, where to meet the existing legislative requirements, the operator is being forced out of multiengine helicopters on paying passenger commuter or charter type runs back to single-engine helicopters- and offshore and overwater work.

The department recognises this is a problem and we are trying to co-operate.

Dan Tyler: Another example is in first-of-type certification for multi-engine helicopters. The department has a policy of requiring the applicant in a first-of-type certification for any multi-engine helicopter to pay for a technical visit to the factory by a team of departmental officers comprising from three to eight,· for a visit lasting from a week to perhaps four weeks, costing something in the vicinity of $40,000.

The department insists that before it will issue a first-of-type certification it must take this trip overseas (this also applies to any fixed-wing aircraft above 5700 kilos).

In the case of a type that may sell many examples in Australia, or a type that is so expensive that the $40,000 for the technical visit is virtually peanuts, that may not be significant.

But if a person wants to bring one twin-engine helicopter in as a private applicant and has to bear the burden of that cost, it can be quite significant.

The Surf Life Saving Association had on offer a light twin engine helicopter which was not on the register in Australia, from a charter operator in the Middle East who insisted that the SLSA looked after the first-of-type certification.

This type of helicopter had an excellent safety record and was particularly well adapted to rescue work – virtually designed from the ground up for it.

Because of the technical visit requirement, and the fact that the department could not even tell how long they would stay – they would only determine that when they got there – and the whole cost of the visit was to be borne by SLSA, we simply could not put a price on it and therefore had to abandon that project.

The used helicopter was about the same price as the single-engine helicopter we bought which we think will do the job very well but we wanted to move into twin-engine capability for reasons of safety.

There are about 19,000 helicopters on the civil register around the world and about 280 in Australia.

The vast majority of helicopters on civil registers around the world are designed to FAR 27 standards.

With only 280 helicopters in Australia, I do not think any manufacturer in the world is going to change his design just for the Australian market.

I do not suggest that Australia does not have the right to set its own airworthiness standards and make sure that they are enforced but to arbitrarily require a visit at the applicant’s expense and particularly as the applicant does not get to treat that information as proprietary – once an aircraft is on the register the design data is a matter of record and does not have to be presented again- creates great difficulties.

Peter Vincent: We do not however want to be seen as just knocking on the department.

Dan Tyler: We want to present more of a united front to other bodies apart from the federal government.

Such things as landing facilities for helicopters include state bodies and local councils and it certainly proposes that some representations will be made to state bodies by branches to improve facilities relating to helicopters.

One of the greatest single things we lack would probably be landing space – a spot to set the darn thing down.

JS: Do you think helicopters have a better or worse name with the general public than fixed wing, and does the association have any plans for public relations in the direction of the general public?

Dan Tyler: Flying in a helicopter is viewed as a bit more of an adventure. It is very hard to make a fair comparison between the safety of fixed and rotary wing aircraft because the capabilities of the helicopter are such that it tends to be utilised in operations which by their very nature are more hazardous than fixed wing.

If you flew helicopters from a prepared airport to a prepared airport straight and level the way most aeroplanes fly I believe the safety record would be much better.

In fact, helicopters are not flown that way and statistics would probably not indicate they are better.

Terry Summers: But there is an incredible lack of awareness among the public about any facts concerning the helicopter industry and a lack of awareness of how versatile the whole concept is.

Also working against helicopters is the fact that all of our legislation is so completely entrenched in meeting fixed-wing requirements for the last X decades, it is very much penalising the helicopter.

Australia is lagging behind other developed Western countries with the employment of modern technology helicopters, very much to the detriment of the overall population.

JS: What would be some examples?

Terry Summers: Commuter runs in single or twin-engine helicopters within the city area and takes sea pilots out to ships at vastly reduced costs to what they currently incur with launches.

JS: That was tried in Port Phillip?

Peter Vincent: It was tried but no one was able to come up to the extremely high standards which were laid down.

JS: Were they unrealistic standards?

Terry Summers: The standards laid down were given to the DofA in very raw terms by the pilot service.

JS: What are your causes for reservations about joining the General Aviation Association?

Chris Johnson: I feel the only thing we have in common with fixed-wing aviators is that we share the same piece of sky- and there it ceases. The total type of operation is different and operational and height requirements are totally different.

It becomes important when the department tries to adapt fixed-wing legislation into helicopter legislation.

DofA interprets the rules differently and this is where most of our problems arise. To that end, I feel the HAA should try to go its own way. We are the people who really understand what we are trying to achieve, rather than trying to spell it out four times over to get the end result.

Peter Vincent: Also, the GAA is an employer association whereas what we are trying to establish is an industry – not an industrial – association.

Terry Summers: Traditionally you have polarising effects with these associations – the AFAP on one end of the spectrum and GAA on the other. The helicopter association has tried to pick an area in between.

We are an association which has put a lot of thought into its aims and objectives and the primary one is to support the helicopter industry. That is really what we are all about.

Dan Tyler: I personally feel that helicopters compete with ground vehicles and very seldom with aeroplanes. One of those areas where we do have things in common – such as separation standards – we might do very well to make a joint submission or a submission as part of their body. Certainly, their representation on AVIAC is not to be underestimated but I would like to think that some day the helicopter industry in its own right can have representation on AVIAC.

Chris Johnson: We will be asking members at our first annual meeting if, when or whether we should affiliate with GAA.

Dan Tyler: Comments I make may sound critical of the department but I do not want to put an unbalanced view. It has been pretty common to pile heaps of rubbish on the DofA and I think the department cannot really be blamed for the approaches it has taken.

It is really the industry’s fault because it has not put an effective voice up yet.

When we complain about the department it is certainly not a personal complaint against particular officers at the regional level who really bend over backwards to try and make what we consider to be an antiquated set of rules work.

The same could be said of air traffic controllers who on a personal and individual basis absolutely bend themselves over backwards to try to make a set of separation standards, which is really designed for two 747s, work when you are talking about two media helicopters trying to fly around the same fire to film it.

The criticism we level we would hate to have taken on a personal basis.

JS: So it is more at a policy level?

Dan Tyler: Yes, directed to the central office. What has been lacking is an effective industry lobby to tell them in Canberra what industry is thinking, instead of all individual differences of opinion that we have right now. I think that is the reason we have an antiquated set of legislation.

JS: That is the message Col Freeland gave at the GAA conference – if the industry can tell the department what it as a whole wanted, the department would work on that. But the odd individual popping up with a complaint was not an easy thing to deal with.

Chris Johnson: This was where the whole thing started from. We all felt individually that we were not getting anywhere and we were all trying to achieve the same ends.

We were our own worst enemy really in stunting the growth of the industry and the only way we were going to do better was to get together and organise.

Dan Tyler: When we started we sent out some surveys and we were quite astounded at how common the concept of where the weaknesses were and how similar the responses were; despite the difference we found so much common ground on which problems the association should attack first.

On some subjects, we had almost unanimous submissions.

JS: Such as?

Dan Tyler: Inadequacy of helicopter landing facilities, legislation.

JS: What form did the scepticism from helicopter operators take, how are you dealing with it, and how are you working up to your firm’s general meeting and how many members and potential members have you?

Terry Summers: The main problem is that there is inherent distrust between one operator and another. There are also 5000 pilots in amongst it all trying to find a job. Basically with the operator you have this distrust of Queensland people suspicious of an operation in Sydney. This is why we are working from the outset at a national level. In the long term we will respond to the votes on what the industry wants.

On March 17 – the week of the Schofields airshow – we would like to have our first annual general meeting. The interim office bearers will stand for re-election and we may see everything change.