CASA yet to show why registration fee is necessary, aero clubs say

According to CASA, the fee would probably be between $50 and $250 per aircraft, likely falling at around the $72 mark, and would be used for a “modern digital aircraft register that meets the intended safety and compliance objectives and is compliant with International Civil Aviation Organisation requirements”.

CASA published 425 of 718 responses received, most of which reportedly asked why the fee is necessary amid the high costs the sector already faces.

Speaking to Australian Aviation, Lachlan Hyde, president of the Royal Federation of Aero Clubs of Australia (RFACA) – which opposes the levy – said “being asked how a new levy should operate is not the same as being asked whether industry supports introducing it”.

“Our concern remains that while CASA has identified legitimate issues with the accuracy of the aircraft register, it hasn’t adequately demonstrated why imposing an annual renewal requirement and perpetual levy on every VH-registered aircraft is the most appropriate or cost-effective solution,” he said.

“As we said following the consultation, there is an important distinction between supporting a modern, accurate aircraft register and supporting another recurring regulatory charge. In particular, we are concerned by the suggestion that because respondents largely addressed the implementation of the scheme, there was no substantial opposition to its introduction.

“The Government had already decided to proceed, and CASA’s consultation specifically asked respondents about how the scheme should operate rather than whether it should exist.”

VIEW ALL

>

According to Hyde, CASA’s own consultation summary “acknowledges that many respondents questioned its necessity and the claimed safety benefits”.

“For RFACA, the outstanding questions remain straightforward: why will a largely digital registration system cost approximately $1.08 million annually to administer, what measurable safety improvements will it deliver, and could the same objectives be achieved through less burdensome alternatives?” he said.

“We’re also concerned about the cumulative impact on grassroots aviation. Aero clubs, flying schools and private operators are already contending with rising fuel, maintenance, insurance, security and regulatory costs. Another seemingly modest annual charge needs to be considered in that wider context.”

In a statement, a CASA spokesperson noted that the decision to introduce annual aircraft registrations had been made by the government in its 2026-27 Budget.

“CASA’s consultation with industry was therefore not about whether a scheme should be introduced, but focused on the design and implementation of the scheme, including key policy settings, implementation considerations and any unintended consequences,” the spokesperson said.

“All feedback received through the consultation is being considered as we work through how to implement the proposed annual aircraft registration scheme. Feedback will help inform decisions about the design of the scheme and any future legislative or implementation proposals.”

Hyde said that RFACA remains “concerned about the cumulative impact on grassroots aviation” and supports “appropriate concessions for aero clubs, training aircraft, heritage and restoration aircraft, and aircraft temporarily out of service”.

“Aero clubs, flying schools and private operators are already contending with rising fuel, maintenance, insurance, security and regulatory costs. Another seemingly modest annual charge needs to be considered in that wider context,” he told Australian Aviation.

“We recognise this was a Government decision that CASA has been tasked with implementing, but that doesn’t remove the need for Government and CASA to demonstrate that the scheme is necessary, proportionate and represents value for money.”

The 2026-27 Budget pledged $66.5 million over four years from 2026–27 to “support [CASA] to continue its critical safety and regulatory functions”, as part of a $731.1 million package (and $9.8 million per year ongoing) to “support aviation priorities”.