BARS and its effect on GA companies?

[Riding the Goat]

Last Friday there was an article in the Australian which alluded to the new set of standards referred to as the Basic Aviation Risk Standard (BARS). This was also mentioned during a recent audit of our operation.

The intent is that all resource companies in Australia will use this set of standards when writing/evaluating tenders or auditing their current aviation companies. Which is a great idea in theory. If you have a read through the document (http://flightsafety.org/files/bars_v3.pdf (http://flightsafety.org/files/bars_v3.pdf)) there are a few sections that may have a big impact on the current GA companies that are servicing resource companies.

- On page 15, control 9.1, states that all single engine aircraft need to be turbine powered! How will this effect survey companies and small charter operations with C206, C210, GA8 aircraft? Might have to place an order for that C208 after all.

- Pg 20, Appendix 1, states the aircrew experience required. For single engine operations, 2000hrs total time is required. This may be a big ask, considering 2 years ago you couldn’t find someone with 1000hrs to fly single engine aircraft. It also states that Captains of >5700kg aircraft require 2500 command hours. How will this effect the WA charter companies that have cadets now getting promotions who have very little command time and total time less then 3000hrs? 2500 is a lot of ICUS. Qantaslink, REX, Alliance, etc may also have to limit some of their resource work to certain crews that meet these requirements.

- Pg 21, Appendix 2, outlines the minimum equipment required to meet the standard. For multi-engine aircraft TCAS and EGPWS are required. This may have an effect on those charter operators with 30 seat aircraft such as the EMB-120 as most of those aircraft are not required to and don’t have TCAS. Also how many PA31, C404, etc have EGPWS?

I am interested on people’s opinions on this document and its effect on GA in Australia. Has anyone been audited to this standard yet and if so did you meet all the requirements? How hard is it to get exemptions for certain criteria?

[bushy]

That's great, if they are prepared to pay lots more for their flying. A lot more.
And if the airlines invest some money in tarining their new pilots, instead of sucking them out of GA for free, thereby stuffing up GA.

The answer is for airlines to swallow their pride and start operating (or sontracting) some GA aircraft, flown by long term pilots who have agreements for career progression with the airline.

[Ixixly]

So, I read through a fair bit of it, but skipped a lot. Did the government just commission and pay an American Company to make a fancy document telling us most of the stuff we should already know and be doing and then go on to tell us that if we use reasonably well qualified pilots for such operations we'll be a lot safer?!

[Riding the Goat]

Not sure the government had anything to do with it. I think it is an industry association that has created the document. It is being backed by the private auditing companies that are involved with the resource sector.

[LeadSled]

Folks,

It is a Flight Safety Foundation/Mining Industry iniative ---- it is nor regulatory.

In practice, what effect will it have?? That will be a matter for negotiation between the operators and their customers.

Tootle pip!!

[neville_nobody]

The government or CASA do not have the intestinal fortitude to implement such a scheme, and then you'll have everyone want a dispo, just like the ETS, so I agree that it will be between the operators and the clients.

However, piston engine aircraft are getting pretty long in the tooth, with no replacements, so someone will have to do something about it sooner or later. Whether that is CASA or if major clients such as governments and miners move into a turbine only policy some action will have to be taken in the next five years.

[bushy]

I wonder if all our airmedical organisations comply with BARS.

[Mach E Avelli]

As leadsled says, it's an initiative, not a requirement. When the miners can get operators with the equipment and pilot experience they will. When they can't they will do what they always do and compromise.
And despite all the feel-good of BARS, the lowest bid often wins anyway. But another couple of fatals like the ones recently in Africa and PNG may concentrate a few minds on this so that we will eventually see it become the industry tendering standard.

[OZvandriver]

BARS? I thought they were the long wooden things at aero clubs where you get your beer.

[compressor stall]

Bring it on. If that's the standard they determine that they need, then that's what they will have to pay for and the operators will supply at the appropriate price.

I see it as a way our resources industry might help the aviation industry. Bring on the Caravan instead of the 210. :ok:

The flying community should support this!

And as for the hours on type - well to have that many hours and not b#gger off to an airline means that the pilots will have to be paid better. GA might continue to grow financially as a better place to spend one's career. :)

[tipsy2]

Stallie

Stop talking sense and highlighting the potential positives BARS can bring to the industry.

I do agree though, bring it on and we will all benefit.

tipsy:ok:

[Tankengine]

I can remember when 3000hrs was needed for oil rig FIFO in QLD in Navajo.:)

[CharlieLimaX-Ray]

Plus at least 1000 hours command in PA-23's, prior to getting near a Navajo.

[601]

I can remember when 3000hrs was needed for oil rig FIFO in QLD in Navajo

and over 4000 hours for Beech 65.

[AerobaticArcher]

Please note, the GA company must organise and pay for the BARS audit to be conducted, and there is still no guarantee of addition flying after the audit.

[megle2]

Who would like to have a guess at the cost to an Operator who requests a BARS audit request?

[insertnamehere]

I can remember when 3000hrs was needed for oil rig FIFO in QLD in Navajo.

And fair enough, too. Those oil rig strips aren't the longest.

[Wally Mk2]

Bring it on I say anything that enhances safety is a must, trouble is at what cost? Like a few have said here those hrs where the norm once upon a time & the industry survived. We ( as in the rule makers) eroded away that safety barrier (experience) years ago thru rapid expansion at the airline level but it's all starting to show that rapid expansion does bite you in the ass sometime down the track. But again can the current industry model sustain an increase in hrs/experience just to fly a basic machine? I doubt it:sad:

There will come a time & most likely not too far away that aviation/flying will not be a sort after career, something once only achievable by the very determined. Sad I know as it was once something to fight for & be proud of.

'Bushy' like all other sectors in this industry of ours Aeromedical is money driven,'BARS' means somebody has to pay for it.

Wmk2

[Grogmonster]

Mate I am sorry but with respect I have to correct you. As an organisation you cannot ring up and organise an audit that you are going to pay for. Conflict of Interest issues. So the normal process is that a mining company will request that you undergo an audit at their expense so that you can do work for them. I am led to believe that the most cursory audit of a small AOC holder will run about $5K and higher for larger organisations. Flight Safety International (not the simulator mob) are hawking the positive aspects of BARS to the big companies and to date I believe they have been very successful. There is a general consensus that this is the way it will be in the future.

It's not just about having your paper work in order as other items such as, aircraft age, check and training etc, will effect the end result. Piston engine aircraft are definitely not a priority. As stated above by various posters it will lift the game in GA. It just pisses me off that once again it has taken an outside influence to pick up the ball for CASA.

Groggy

[tipsy2]

As Groggy said

It just pisses me off that once again it has taken an outside influence to pick up the ball for CASA.

CASA can not be accused of being an authority on safe civil aviation. Forget about them, customers and our own industry will drive safety, CASA is only a regulator, end of story.

If you could regulate safety there would be no accidents. Just look how effective state governments have been at regulating "safety" on our roads..

I've done audits where there was a high degree of compliance and conformance, yet I would not say that organisation was safe. Mercifully that same organisation has folded.

tipsy

[AerobaticArcher]

No Worries Groggy.

My understanding of the concept when I attended one of their breifings was, the GA company organised a BARS audit, once completed, went on to a list of BARS audited operators with a compliance ranking. The resource (and other) companies using the services can expect to be charged more because the GA company needs re-embursement. However, what does a GA company do when only 1 or 2 flights a year come out of this audit?

And the GA company owns the audit, so they can use it where they like.

[megle2]

Aerobatic is correct.
At present it operates as Groggy describes but in the future it will be as AeroB describes.

Agree, it demonstrates how far behind Casa is.
They are just a regulator and sadly a poor one at that.

[triadic]

Sadly (?) CASA is misnamed - It should be CARA.. they are more interested in Regulation than Safety.

You can be 100% compliant and far from safe, yet you can operate a very safe operation and not be totally compliant. There are some compliant companies that as an auditor I would think twice before traveling with. Tell me how you assess & regulate "culture"?

This exercise has been driven by the major resource companies such as BHP and is placing the auditing into a standard that is acceptable to those users and has the potential flow on of actually reducing the number of audits that some companies undergo from that sector. Most of the GA companies that provide services to the mining/resource sector are already subject to regular audits and for them it will be no different. BARS does provide the prospect that the number of such audits will reduce which I am sure those GA companies will welcome.

Like others have said; the end result will be good for GA and will lift the bar in a way that CAS(R)A cannot.
:ok:

Further: IATA have been conducting IOSA audits now for some years with great success. This is really a mini version of that process. An IOSA audit puts 5 auditors on site for 5 days and usually costs about ~US$60k which the airline pays for. They have to have the audit every 2 yrs to remain a member of IATA. BARS audits, I understand, will take two days and have 2 auditors on site, so costs I would guess be about $4k plus travel and expenses etc. But this is a guess...

[megle2]

So down the track a bit after the number of audits reduce what happens to the various audit companies? Will they survive?

[David75]

So down the track a bit after the number of audits reduce what happens to the various audit companies? Will they survive?

Either they'll get audited by someone else and lose their accreditation or CASA will over regulate them....

[triadic]

The audit companies have nothing to do with CASA. (thank goodness!)

They are engaged by clients that use aviation resources to show/prove that the company is as safe as practical.

CASA do NOT regulate them and never will. The mining and resource industry have their own set of standards to which many of the audits are referenced. In some cases they surpass the regulatory standards, but are never less.

[Horatio Leafblower]

CASA is misnamed - It should be CARA.. they are more interested in Regulation than Safety.

True to some extent - except that their purpose is to regulate operators to a minimum level of safety.

The minimum standards set for CHTR operators are based on a range of factors that have been shown to influence the safety of the organisation. The BARS audit is no different - they just use different criteria, which (generally) will produce a standard higher than the minimum required by CASA.

CASA are slaves to their political masters and there would be political ramifications in implementing the BARS to all charter operators, for example. YES it would be safer to have the Bungles scenics done in a 2-crew turbine twin - but would it work?

The resource sector are free from the weight of public opinion and can set whatever standard they like amongst themselves, and good on them, but their "affordable safety" is different to the pastoral sector's "affordable safety".

[601]

I understand, will take two days and have 2 auditors on site, so costs I would guess be about $4k plus travel and expenses etc. But this is a guess...

Try $4k x 4.

For a small turbine multi-engine aeroplane AOC, that is more than the cost of getting up the AOC.

[megle2]

US$18,000 up front to commence audit process
The 2 day audit mentioned is just a start

[maralinga]

Looking from a different perspective.....if you have ever been in management, you will know that having an audit every two weeks from a different organization with varying standards and paradigms is an absurd drain on human and capital resources.

Moving to a common standard is a breath of fresh air....It might even free up time to source capital for that 208 or even reply to emails from prospective applicants :}

In reality, its the insurance companies set the standard. The standards the regulator sets (and not just in this country) are just a basic framework.

[mostlytossas]

This smells to me like one big con job by those audit companies out to make a quick buck.
I'm old enough to remember con's of the past.
First there was the Quality Assured con. Remember the 4 ticks on every van, advert, and document. Every company worth it's salt had to have this audit and rating or otherwise no goverment contracts etc for you.
Companies spent tens of thousands of dollars to get the privelige to have the ticks only to find as always the lowest quote usually wins the contract,ticks or no ticks.
Then there was the millenium bug con.
Millions of wasted dollars spend because everything that had computers involved was going to crash on the 1st January 2000 and thousands of companies had dozens of consultants going over the equiptment to make sure it didn't. No garantee however if it did and in fact turned into a fizzer.
Now this little beauty.
Bet charter companies are told there will be no contracts without it.
Just as before it will all come down to contract price and delivery capability.

[Frank Arouet]

Flight Safety Foundation

I am often troubled with the motives of "foundations" and where their cash flow comes from, and where it goes. Long lunch breaks and business class airfares come to mind.

I may be mistaken, but didn't this mob once do a thesis on ageing aircraft and recommended replacement with new turbo-prop aircraft, Much to the delight of CASA, but not so of Industry?

[Shed Dog Tosser]

I do not feel the B.A.R.S requirements are all that unreasonable, quite the opposite infact.

It will be interesting to see how "those"companies that "invested" heavily in the cadet programs will now suffer.

"Oh I'm sorry Mr Mining Company, less than half of our Captains meet your requirements, and with all those inflight incidents aside, we're pretty awesome".......

Scam or not, it will be interesting how the mining will deal with the issue.

[SIUYA]

mostlytossas...

Companies spent tens of thousands of dollars to get the privelige to have the ticks

Really?

I've been through the ISO9001:2008 certification process mostlytossas. I developed and documented my own quality system, got it checked by an independent consultant who also did my pre-certification audit, then got it certified for a total cost of about $5K, which included my time. I reckon it was money well-spent (Mrs SIUYA reckons it would have been better spent on a holiday though).

If the companies you're referring to needed to spend tens of thousands of dollars getting their certifications mostlytossas, then they either fcuked-up the whole process badly, or they got totally ripped-off. :(

Re the reference to the cost of a BARS audit - it seems to me to be about ballpark with some other industry-standard audits (eg., IBAC IS-BAO). And remember, a lot of audits are paid for by clients, not operators. And if you think a BARS audit is expensive, take a look at the eye-watering expense of an IATA IOSA audit as referred to by triadic. :ooh:

[601]

And remember, a lot of audits are paid for by clients, not operators

Wrong. BARS will be paid for by the Operator and upfront.

What amazes me is that Operators complain about Legislative requirements. However, the same Operator will bend over backwards and are willing to spend big money on these audits with no guarantee of resultant business.

Remember having an audit from a non-CASA organisation is no guarantee that your operation is compliant with Legislative requirements. You could pass an ISO or BARS audit one day and be grounded the next by CASA.

[mostlytossas]

SIUYA,
Well if it only cost you $5k for the 4 ticks I'm very happy for you.
For that cost your company must be very small.
I was talking about National companies as well as local companies and not just aviation related. In fact aviation overall is not a large industry compared to manufacturers, builders, suppliers and the like. I know of dozens of companies that got taken in by the "quality assured" catchcry of the day. Anything from electrical and plumbing manufacturers to truck and courier companies.
Guess what? Australians go out and buy on price. Usually from China.
So even do Government agencies. So much for 4 ticks.:ugh:

[SIUYA]

mostlytossas...

Thanks! Yes, my company is an SME. But irrespective of company size, you only need to document the procedures that you need, and there is nothing in the standard says you that need to do anything other than that.

601 - want to re-read what I said please?

And remember, a lot of audits are paid for by clients, not operators

Nothing in that statement suggested that the observation was directed solely at BARS audits. There's many other due-diligence audits performed other than BARS 601, and they are usually paid for by the client.

[601]

Nothing in that statement suggested that the observation was directed solely at BARS audits. There's many other due-diligence audits performed other than BARS 601, and they are usually paid for by the client.

That is the point of the exercise. Have one audit done on an Operator at their cost and that Operator, if successful with the audit, can fly for these companies, which until now, had to pay for each audit for each Operator.

So the cost of the audit will be shifted from the Charterer to the Operator. Admittedly there will be less audits for the Operator but the one the Operator does will be at the Operator's cost.

Question is, with only one organisation apparently doing these BARS audits in Oz, what is going to happen to the existing Aviation Auditors who do not have BARS accreditation?

In the old days, the auditor not only reviewed your documents but actually conducted observations in flight.

Doesn't seem to happen these days. Why?

With all the paper audits etc. that are undertaken by Operators, pilots can still descend from cruising level to the surface without recognising that the aircraft has stalled.

I would rather see the dollars spent on more pilot training than on a paperwork audit.

[SIUYA]

Thanks 601. However you STILL didn't address what I said. :ugh:

[Cactusjack]

Mostlytossas, you are bang on the money old timer!
On a personal note I do not criticize any safety initiative that will improve safety in the Australian aviation community, no problem there. But BARS is a standard and process that has been put together for the unofficial purpose of competitive tendering for audit work. The standards themselves are in several ways flawed, BARS is meant to cover not only GA but some LOCAP/HICAP operators as well. One size shoe does not fit all.

BARS is a commercially driven enterprise, it was designed after several high profile aviation resource incidents to spook resource companies into taking assertive action. Again I reiterate that any improvement in safety is commendable, no questions asked, but BARS has not been developed simply for the greater good of mankind, it is not 'the be all and end all'. I personally have working knowledge of several organizations who meet and exceed the BARS principles, so in effect any resource company that pays an auditor to audit these organizations against BARS is actually wasting their money. But on the other hand and to be reasonable, the fact that sets of specific standards are being developed and considered is a proactive safety initiative and is welcomed. I just get annoyed at seeing the guise of 'safety' being flogged when BARS is a money spinner.

[SIUYA]

Cactusjack...

Thank you!

And that's the REAL issue - the guise of 'safety' being flogged when it's got nothing to do with safety at all. :D

[Horatio Leafblower]

...so the aviation risk standards that were independently developed by BHP, Rio, SANTOS and Shell (amongst others) long before BARS turned up had nothing to do with safety?

Shell and others have been auditing and observing their Aviation suppliers for a long time. FSF haven't invented this... it's not new.

In fact, it is an excellent description of the risk controls available to aviation companies to control safety risks in their organisation. You can comply or not comply... for those areas you are non-compliant you provide alternate risk mitigators and the client company assesses the residual risk with those mitigators in place.

...and the CASA regulatory audit standard is the bare minimum to continue to hold an AOC, it certainly ain't a "safety standard". If the minimum standard is acceptable to you, that's fine, but you might not get your slice of the mining boom pie.

best of luck with that

[601]

I dislike the fact that this auditing has turned into a for profit exercise. I have been subject to audits conducted the client and have no problem with that.

But when this auditing is sub-contracted to a third party and the third party charges the Operator megabucks for the audit and not their client, I do have a problem.

Or do they charge the Charterer also?

Who carries the liability if, based on a favourable audit of an Operator, the Charterer uses that Operator and the worse happens?

ISO9001:2008 certification is not an aviation audit. It relates to quality management systems and can be adapted to just about any type business. You can be ISO compliant and CASA non-complaint at the same time.

[outnabout]

From first hand experience, I don't know of a mining company that accepts singles - either piston, a Caravan or a PC12. From what I've seen, most mining companies accept piston twins, with single pilot operations as a bare minimum, with turbo-prop twins & two pilot operations (whether or not the aircraft requires two pilot operations) as the preferred option. Pilots to have 1000hrs PIC.

I think that cost has less to do with it - I think that no board of directors will go against the recomendations of the safety officer. And if the safety officer has a thing about GA, then we're screwed, as a jet would then become the bare minimum. What I predict is that companies who are already established in this direction will get further ahead, while the smaller GA operations will get left further behind, fighting over the scraps of tourism, freight, or ad hoc charter.

What I'm starting to see is is that this is starting to fall over into other areas ie Govt work, who are now starting to insist that they can only travel in turbo prop twins, with two pilots, "for (unspecified) safety reasons". Whereas as recently as six months ago, a piston single, with single pilot, was fine for exactly the same job.

My personal opinion is that whoever gets the govvie contracts is whoever takes the purchasing officer of the dept out for long, lazy, lunch, every Friday. Sour grapes? Maybe......:hmm:

[MyNameIsIs]

From first hand experience, I don't know of a mining company that accepts singles - either piston, a Caravan or a PC12.

I know of one: FMG, Caravan.

[compressor stall]

I don't know of a mining company that accepts singles - either piston, a Caravan or a PC12.

You've obviously never been to Curtin when the A320 comes in from Perth. Seems like there are as many C208s on the apron picking up to head to the mines as there are Jaycos in the caravan park in Cable Beach...

I 100% agree with the thrust of your comments though, except for the long lazy lunch bit.

It's good too as if the contract requirements are that high, then operators are going to have to pay pilots good money to stay. We'll start to see 6 figure salaries to be a C208 driver in the Kimberley. :D

[pig dog]

Exactly right c.stall. I have been in aviation since 1992, almost 20 years. Back then, most GA aircraft were old and everyone complained they should be replaced with modern gear but no-one could afford it. Many of the same aircraft are still in use.

We cannot complain that the requirements of BARS will make the GA fleet obsolete, any rational evaluation of the fleet should already show that a GA aircraft made in the '80s is well and truly past it's used by date.

BARS is saying what we have known for a long time:


Turbine aircraft are safer than pistons.
Technology such as EGPWS and TCAS should be fitted to charter and RPT aircraft.
Crew operating these aircraft should be competent and experienced.
The highest safety standards should be demanded by FIFO companies

If this costs more than the current standard then so be it.


If new aircraft are required to meet the specs then so be it.


If experience and qualifications are valued in the marketplace then so be it.



If GA as we know it faces significant changes as a result, this may not be a bad thing.

[megle2]

The BAR Auditor list does not have any of the auditors we have had dealings with, why is that? Very strange. Surely one of them would back BARS.

From the BARS web page
BARS Audit Company list

Litson & Associates
Aviation Compliance Solutions Pty Ltd
Wake (QA) Ltd
AvLaw Pty Ltd
Morten Beyer & Agnew, Inc.
ASSET Aviation International Pty Ltd.
ARGUS PROS