Classifying operations

The uncertainty on this most basic decision continues to hamper regulatory development, with the latest CASA proposals for new maintenance regulations undermined by lack of a final decision on charter operations.

Few smaller maintenance or component shops are in a position to make a sensible decision regarding their future as CASA is yet to make a final decision on where charter operations will sit and what maintenance standards they will require. If they get pushed up into Part 145, then some smaller shops may fold or simply stop offering services to that market as they don’t want the hassles (or costs) of a full blown Part 145 shop. Alternatively, they may be committed to supporting the charter sector, but are unsure of what maintenance regulation they may operate their shop under, or the implications of this decision.

It is a far from acceptable position upon which to consult with industry when the ball is still in motion.

Similarly, simplification of helicopter operations is being handicapped by the lack of a clear policy despite significant industry consultation and support for improved aerial work definitions.

At the heart of this is the classification of operations and the hoary old chestnut of CAR 206.

While various Ministers’ letters to CASA have consistently endorsed the concept of the highest level of safety being pursued for passenger carrying, there is less clarity on how this is to be interpreted for charter ops and even some aerial work ops that may border on passenger carrying.

Again, much of this has been discussed with CASA by industry over the years and some very practical and workable solutions have been proposed but not implemented. For example, simplifying a range of operations by ruling that some people – such as fire-fighters being repositioned on a bushfire ground by helicopter – should not be classified as ’passengers’ (charter operation) but as ‘permitted occupants’ (aerial work) would provide some clarity and consistency of purpose to CASA policy – in place of what has previously been a policy decision dependent on individual CASA operational staff when asked the question.

We have had a number of classification of operations policies over the years, but none seems to be far superior to what has traditionally existed. In many cases, CASA’s bizarre interpretations of CAR 206 have led to significant delays, massive costs and inconvenience to industry for absolutely no safety benefit. The reasons for generally ignoring the flexibility inherent in CAR 206 (ix) – ‘operations of a substantially similar nature’ – have never been made clear in a coherent policy document.

To make a significant leap forward in regulatory simplification, it is now critical to put some meat on the bones of the basic structure of the classification of operations and to make some long term decisions about the status of charter and aerial work operations.

The improved definition of aerial application (as distinct from aerial agriculture) in Part 137 has had a significant impact on how much simpler day-to-day operational decisions can be and how common-sense can in fact be made to apply to Australia’s aviation regulations.

When the same aircraft, with the same equipment, flown by the same pilots can be flown on similar low-level missions without the need to recertify the aircraft, issue exemptions, insist on different (and inferior qualifications) for pilots, require check rides, or amend operations manuals or AOCs, then perhaps we can judge we have made progress – for safety, for clients and for costs.

That is the importance of a good classification of operations policy and without it aerial work operations in particular will continue to receive the rough end of the regulatory pineapple.

Simple regulations for simple operations is a good starting principle.

By permitting a matching of risk management required to risk involved, regulations can be greatly simplified. For example, perhaps not all aerial work operations require an AOC – perhaps they can be safely conducted guided by a CASA-published Standard Operating Procedure and pilot qualifications. This discussion has already taken place at length within the Part 133/138 consultative working group, but does not seem to have penetrated much beyond those few CASA staff involved.

Perhaps a suitable Christmas present for industry – or a New Year’s Resolution for CASA – would be a classification of operations policy that will guide and simplify future reg reform, reduce costs, promote flexibility and give people investing in aviation some encouragement and certainty.

A merry and very safe Christmas to all.