Comment: Regulatory Change for the Better

Keith Tonkin, managing director at Aviation Projects, noted that a major philosophical change with these regulations is a holistic shift to activity-based safety and compliance management, rather than the prior prescriptive guidance provided by CASA to industry. An interesting effect of this may be the enabling of more industry innovation and activity, although this was not as widely reported by mainstream media as peripheral regulatory changes such as pets being allowed on aircraft without as much red tape as previously. 

Before these rule changes, charter (non-scheduled) operations were treated differently to the higher requirements of Regular Public Transport (RPT) operations, and there was increasing friction between operators and the regulator in determining under which category to operate. Of concern to the regulator was that “baseline safety standards for charter flights were lower than those for RPT, even though identical aircraft were often used for both types of operation” (CASA, 2018). This also created operating and economic inefficiencies as operators struggled to meet requirements that arguably were not relevant to their scope of operations. 

Parts 119, 121, and 135 have created one category of air transport that can be flexibly applied to operations of different sizes and complexities. Now aircraft with nine or fewer passengers, which includes many small to medium-sized business jets, are allowed to operate commercially under a more flexible set of rules than before. Before, a charter operator needed to consider whether a flight was “scheduled”, “available to persons generally”, and conducted from “fixed terminals”, in a very legalistic framework – and ensure they didn’t encroach on these definitions lest they inadvertently meet the regulatory requirements of RPT, while only being capable of charter operations. CASA’s maturation to activity-based regulations is now in line with many foreign regulatory bodies, including the US and Europe. 

From an innovation perspective, during Airly’s formative years we found ourselves scrutinised by CASA to ensure we were compliant with charter regulations, and not infringing into RPT territory. Having to frequently justify and demonstrate to the regulator that our operating model was “closed charter” and not RPT took energy away from business development and kept us awake some nights in ensuring we were correctly interpreting and applying these regulations (with appropriate legal counsel). That is, we always intended to operate openly on the right side of the regulations in such a safety-conscious industry and sought to transparently demonstrate our compliance, while willing CASA to introduce the proposed changes rapidly through demonstrating the dated regulations were no longer relevant or effective from a safety perspective. 

With these regulatory changes, CASA has successfully reduced complexity while also elevating the safety requirements of charter and non-scheduled operations to a degree achievable and reasonable for industry, and consistent with the US and Europe. Although the changes introduce a temporary administrative burden, they also reduce historic barriers of entry for new entrants and business models. While it would be nice to be the only membership-based private aviation service provider in the industry, ultimately that does not serve aviation’s best interests or allow us to grow as a business and as an industry. 

CASA serves as the industry’s punching bag for a host of reasons – some are valid but many are not. For simplifying regulations and enabling improved operations, CASA deserves acclaim.