CASA ELT Decision Analysis

CASA estimates that the cost of equipping the Australian fleet under the latest proposals will be reduced from $11m to $6.5m and will bring Australia into line with international air safety ELT requirements. A facts paper supporting CASA’s decision shows that JAA signatories (Europe), New Zealand, Canada and the United States all require automatically activated, fixed installations. ICAO recommends that they be fixed and mandatory with C91a being the minimum required from January 1 2000.

As reported elsewhere in this issue, the relationship between CASA and AOPA has soured to the extent that Leroy Keith felt compelled in his address to state publicly that whilst many of the responses and comments from organisations and individuals raised matters of substance which proved valuable in CASA’s deliberations; “On the other hand, the leadership of one industry body adopted a destructive campaign approach opposing the legislation relying mainly on rhetoric, personal attacks, and the use of a good deal of misinformation”.

Dick Smith, who together with AOPA staff attended the press briefing, publicly vowed to continue to oppose the CASA decision, attacking members of the Authority’s staff as being rigid and outdated in their thinking.

Subsequent to the press conference, the Shadow Minister for Aviation, Senator Warwick Parer issued a press statement indicating that the Coalition, would, should it come to power, rescind “any directive to force light aircraft to fit fixed ELTs”. Senator Parer said that the Coalition strongly believes pilots have a responsibility to themselves and to any passengers to carry some sort of ELT device. “They have no problem with that requirement. But they do have a problem about being compelled to install fixed ELTs when many believe the portable ELTs make more sense, particularly if a plane sinks or burns.”

Senator Parer said that “the Coalition will redraft CAR252A so that aircraft operators are required either to install a fixed ELT or to carry an approved portable ELT”. In concluding, Senator Parer left the door open by stating that “the regulation could be reviewed, if necessary, when the industry and search and rescue authorities had more experience with these units” (presumably portable ELTs).

Comment

Whilst there are a number of factors involved in the conflict between CASA and AOPA over the ELT issue, the essential differences may be summarised as follows:

CASA maintains that only fixed, automatic ELTs meet the SAR requirement. Portable ELTs rely on survivors being capable of activating them, and this might well be extremely difficult for young children, the elderly, or injured people. CASA maintains that pilots carrying passengers might themselves be incapacitated, thus placing their passengers at risk if they are relying on a personal portable ELT. This is a decision, CASA maintains, pilots should not be making on behalf of others. In the final analysis, there is no doubt that CASA has a strong case when viewed against international practice.

AOPA maintains that fixed, automatic ELTs, even to C91a standard, have proven to be not crash resistant, particularly in regard to fire, and are useless should an aircraft ditch. It is maintained that GPS has reduced navigational errors and hence pilots can transmit an accurate latitude and longitude in the event of an emergency.

Various figures have been bandied about as to the cost of a fixed installation, ranging from $1000 to $2000. A portable costs $200 to $300. However, apart from the straight cost of the various types of ELTs, included in the equation must be the cost to the taxpayer of mounting searches, the risk to those searching, and the human suffering that results from a lost aircraft. This must be taken into account when attempting to strike a financial balance. If CASA is correct in requiring fixed automatic installations, then the taxpayer would be subsidising those who advocate only a portable ELT, should a pilot, or his passengers be incapable of operating such a device following a crash.

With assertion and counter assertion there is no way apart from statistics, overseas practice, or perhaps computer simulation of various SAR scenarios, that members of the general aviation community can really make an absolute judgement on the issue. Surely, in the final analysis, as Leroy Keith maintains, the matter must be left to the regulator who is charged with the responsibility of setting the appropriate safety standards.

As a final comment, notwithstanding the actual matters of substance in the ELT debate, with the inordinate amount of time and money expended by the new management of AOPA in fighting CASA on the issue, a cynic might reach the conclusion that it is really a power play to challenge the authority of the new Safety Agency. Win this one and subsequent demands will be that much easier to force through.