Reform Scenic Flights regulation!

[Nulli Secundus]

Regular Public Transport
"Flight operations performed for remuneration and conducted to fixed schedules over specific routes, and on which seats and/or cargo space is available to the general public." - ref. CASA Glossary of Terms



The push is on, and supposedly has been since the GFC, for increased productivity and boosted opportunities for economic growth and employment, Australia wide.

Why then, in this country, is it simply not permitted for a scenic flight operator to publish and maintain a fixed schedule of departure times for any chosen air tour/ scenic flight without the ridiculous requirement to operate as RPT?

Imagine running a cinema and being denied the right to promote your viewing times? You must wait until enough people show up for you to switch on the projector, open the cinema doors etc. etc.

How long would you last? Not long!

Now consider this: say in the next town the cinema laws are different and those operators can publish their showtimes. Who's got the competitive edge? Who's clearly more productive and more efficient?

And here's the difference: in the US right now I can go online and book a single seat on a scenic helicopter flight over New York or a scenic air tour over the Grand Canyon, at a fixed price departing at a fixed time. I'm very confident these are not RPT operators.

No risk to safety, no reason not to reform for the 21st century.

Its definitely not just Qantas who feels it must compete with one arm behind its back!

[tmpffisch]

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - CASR Part 135 - Passenger Transport Services and International Cargo Operations - Smaller Aeroplanes (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PARTS135)

CASR Part 135. In 1999, CASA was directed to "minimise the distinction between charter and Regular Public Transport (RPT) operators". To address this, Part 135 will set in place a common level of safety for operators who are authorised to provide 'Air transport operations' - an amalgamation of current charter and RPT operations and standards - in order to carry Passengers in small aeroplanes. The safety level applies irrespective of whether an operation is scheduled or non-scheduled as described by the International Civil Aviation Organization in Part I of Annex 6.

Tick. Thread close. :ok:

[ButFli]

Is the fear that a dodgy operator might begin unregulated RPT ops under the guise of "scenic flights"?

The solution is easy - throw in an exception for flights beginning and ending at the same place. It might be Regular and Public, but no one is going to buy a ticket for "transport" purposes.

Although a truly dodgy operator might have a lot of unscheduled diversions to other aerodromes where they were "forced" to offload pax. :E

[Nulli Secundus]

Yeah, don't think so. To really make a scam like that work you'd need to have a quiet network get the word around that a certain flight, departing at a certain time will be landing at a certain port every day/ week. Wouldn't take long before CASA are waiting at the other end.

The US actually nominates a category known as Commercial Air Tours and for mine, it appears to be very effective as a way to further business opportunities.

This is not about common safety standards (Part 135) btw, its about smarter regulation to unlock business opportunity for GA operators.

[SgtBundy]

Well, the party that everyone is so fond of is in power and wants to get rid of red tape - perhaps have a word to your local member that this could be something to help promote tourism business.

Then give it 10 or 15 years to makes it way through the system :rolleyes:

[Tinstaafl]

Air tours under the FARs have a specific set of exemptions from 135 or 121 rules, including the requirements for an Air Carrier Certificate. There are still conditions though: An authority to operate is required, a drug & alcohol program is necessary and a landing back at the departure point. Probably a few more things but that's off the top of my head.

Still, it makes joy flights a relatively easy thing to establish.

[Nulli Secundus]

All very good ideas. Time is right to see a reform in this area. Thx Sgt Bundy - do plan to take it further ala relevant ministers/ MP's.

Tinstaafl - thx also. Was not aware of the references you listed - will check them out first. Can you actually publish a schedule?

Bottom line, yes we all want safety in our operations but also we need to encourage business activity, particularly if o/s businesses can, we should be able to also.

[Possum1]

What you have quoted is not the correct meaning of CAR 206 but is a CASA lie that has been peddled to the industry as the meaning of RPT for at least the last 20 years. You should not be quoting this rubbish on this forum, but instead quote the exact wording of CAR 206(1)(c) or for your scenic flight purposes, CAR 206(b)(ii), and discuss that.

You would find that the words "general" and "public" do not appear in the regulations, but the words "persons" and "generally" do. Have a read of these regs carefully with a Primary School English Grammar book nearby, which will clearly tell you that the word "generally" is an adverb and the word "persons" is a noun and as such, have nothing to do with one another.

An adverb modifies a verb or in this case the verb group "is not available for use". It means that you can have persons in your aircraft to a timetable but not for any general purpose, but a specific purpose e.g. the enjoyment of your scenic flight product.

I negotiated the wording of my brochure with my local FOI, and he agreed to listing my three branded scenic flights with descriptions that I was offering but listing my departure times - a choice of two as a suggestion - in a different part of the brochure well away from where my scenic flights were listed to keep Canberra happy. The FOI did not want the flights and departure times listed next to one another and it was a simple change to make.

[Nulli Secundus]

Quote what ever I like, pal!

[Possum1]

The title of your thread is "Reform Scenic Flights Regulation" and the first thing you do is not quote the regulation! I'm not your "pal" by the way!

[Old Akro]

yes we all want safety in our operations

How long has CASA / CAA / DOT / DCA been collecting incident safety data? We should be able to make well informed decisions on safety rather than the theoretical air-conditioned Canberra meeting room ones we are getting.

[Aussie Bob]

I negotiated the wording of my brochure with my local FOI, and he agreed to listing my three branded scenic flights with descriptions that I was offering but listing my departure times - a choice of two as a suggestion - in a different part of the brochure well away from where my scenic flights were listed to keep Canberra happy. The FOI did not want the flights and departure times listed next to one another and it was a simple change to make. This, in a nutshell is everything wrong with CASA, the regs and operating scenic flights. You got one FOI's opinion on something of zero consequence to aviation safety and all that happened was you changed the wording of a brochure? You think this is good? Do you seriously think you should need a CASA opinion for a tourist brochure? Negotiate even. Faaaak, heaven help this industry. I guess you think this is the safest outcome for your punters?

Edit: Possum I mean no offense to you, I am sure you are bound to do the best you can for your company under the available circumstances and if this is a good outcome :ok:

[Nulli Secundus]

You hit the nail on the head Aussie Bob.

With the greatest of respect to Possum1, this is about reforming the day to day work practices of scenic flight operators to activate greater productivity, greater efficiencies & boost the opportunity to maximise their return on capital. There are of course enormous ongoing benefits.

This is not at all about how one individual may come to an arrangement with an FOI.

In the simplest of terms, what is sought in this instance is regulation, and by default legislation, which will encourage & welcome air charter companies to not only operate fixed schedule scenic flights, available to any group or individual, but most vitally be able to advertise their scheduled times of departure.

These services are offered in other nations and yet we wonder why our economy is faultering. Fred Hollows would often say don't tell me why it can't be done, tell me how it can be done! If other places around the world can do it, we here in Australia must also do it.

[Possum1]

Yes the regulations are very restrictive but with a little creative thinking, look what you can come up with.

You just have to be a little discreet with your departure times(for the people in Canberra who erroneously think scheduled departure times for the general public means RPT) see here: Day Tour ex Gold Coast | Lady Elliot Island Eco Resort Great Barrier Reef (http://www.ladyelliot.com.au/content/day-trip-ex-gold-coast) . Seair has expressed their departure time as a hotel pick-up time but still charges a per person price and operates in the charter category. Everybody on the aircraft is there for the specific purpose of a scenic return flight plus a day on Lady Elliott Island, yet they are the general public.

I offerred scenic return flights with a champagne breakfast on an island airstrip for six years, a shameless but improved copy of one of Seair's earlier trips way back when. I did not remove my departure time from my brochure. I simply put it in a different and as it turned out, better place on the brochure.

And you're right Aussie Bob. This was nothing to do with safety but everything to do with CASA not understanding their own regulations.

The Hot Air balloon operators offer a similar product with a single passenger fare and a departure time.

Nulli Secundus, if you sit down with pen and paper and think how you can package a product suitable for your location, I think there is good chance of success.

No - it shouldn't be this hard but then if it was easy, everybody would be doing it.

[thorn bird]

What you guys fail to realise is that CAsA does not give a toss whether your making money or not, nor are they required to. They don't care if the tourist industry is collapsing, or half the population thrown out of work. Their brief is "Safety" and the reason for this is we, the industry, let them do a snow job on the pollies to ensure thats all they have to consider. On another thread there is Mc Comics submission to the Truss review., read it and weep if you can avoid throwing up, but it illustrates there is faint hope of reforming anything connected to CAsA. The Aviation Industry surges ahead in Kiwiland, Airline making record profits, maintenance organisations expanding, flying training booming. Compare them with us, then read their Regulations that McComic ridicules, No wonder so many in the world are adopting them, they are effective, clear, concise and business friendly, and they are achieving better safety outcomes than ours.

Possum, you are going to invest your capital, time and energy to set up a business based on a bureaucrat's opinion of what the regs mean?
All fine until a new FOI turns up with a different opinion. These are "Criminal" offences we are talking about.

[Seagull V]

Good Folks, CASA released a DP the subject back in 0h Twelve. Time for comment is now closed, but can still be found on the CASa website.


Seagull, who has done his share of scenic and joy flights, is of the opinion that Scenic flights that travel from A to B are properly classed as Air Transport (Part 135). However flights that start and finish at A, without intermediate landing, are little different to Aerial Work and should be regulated similarly i.e. outside of Part 135.


There may be a case for differentiating between Air Experience Flights conducted in smaller (say up to 4 place aircraft), where the pax are there just for the experience of flight, as at an air show or airport open day or even aerobatic (but not Warbird) flights, and pure Scenic Flights conducted in larger aircraft e.g. Ayres Rock flights.


The smaller aircraft should attract less CASa oversight, while the larger aircraft might be operated on an equivalent Aerial Work OC or on the back of another OC e.g. Part 141 flying training.

[601]

I negotiated the wording of my brochure with my local FOI

Where in the Regs does it say that one can negotiate with a CAsA employee as to the interpretation of a particular Reg?

As for the above mentioned company operating to an offshore island, which company is supplying you with the seat, the aircraft operator or the island operator?

[Nulli Secundus]

Thorn bird makes a very good point. CASA certainly aren't motivated by success or failure of specific segments of the aviation industry. In fact logic says they may quietly be happy to see a contraction in flying activity as it reduces their workload. I can see from all the worthwhile comments here that this type of reform will be a huge achievement.

[scavenger]

Possum1, you have taken the ideas of the good Mr Fice as your own, without acknowledging them.

Direct Air AAT (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/AATA/2011/181.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=aat%20direct%20air)

Unfortunately for you, your grammar book, your (fictional?) FOI, the estimable Mr Fice and the whole industry, that interpretation of CAR 206 was rejected by the Federal Court (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/2012/1213.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=Civil%20aviation%20safety%20authority%20and%20caper), and CASA's view prevailed.

Send the details of your operation to CASA head office with your reasoning and see what happens...

[Possum1]

Where in the Regs does it say that one can negotiate with a CAsA employee as to the interpretation of a particular Reg?

Where in the regs does it say I can't? You don't do something just because there is no rule to cover it. It is always best to talk to people you are dealing with in the course of your business in a civil manner rather than ignore them and hope you don't get caught. How the FOI deals with his superiors and the degree of micro-managing he receives from them is his business.

If a new FOI wanted something different, I could have simply made the departure time "approximate" or "recommended."

This was a very minor matter at the time and I don't know why some people are sweating on this. Of far more importance and worry was the day to day safe operation of the aircraft within the weather and VFR minimas without being over cautious and cancelling a flight unnecessarily and, of course, the profitability of the business.

[Possum1]

My then correct interpretation of CAR 206 was formed independently and predates your "Mr Fice's" by 12 years.

CASA should hang their heads in shame. They lost in 2011 when the AAT upheld that, "The adverb, generally, cannot qualify or modify the noun persons. Unfortunately, it appears that this is the way in which the expression has been understood by CASA. It has resulted in attempts to distinguish charter from RPT on a basis which makes no sense and is not related to the safety of air navigation."

CASA then it appears, had the collossal hide to take this minor matter to the Federal Court at who knows what tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of costs to the Australian taxpayer to score a questionable victory.

Believe me, I referred to my old company's brochures that I still hold on file, the wording of which was approved by my FOI many years ago, before making these posts.

If this is so important, why did CASA or its predecessors not take any action 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago? Answer: It's not. They are just bully boys who want to win at any cost.

Scavenger, your post shows that you, like CASA, find the English language a bit of a challenge. I have always used the past tense when referring to my operation, so you know what you can do with your threat...

[601]

This was a very minor matter at the time and I don't know why some people are sweating on this.

It could mean the loss of your business if the FOI is incorrect. Would not be the first time.

[LeadSled]

In 1999, CASA was directed to "minimise the distinction between charter and Regular Public Transport (RPT) operators"Folks,
Not true, this has been a long running CASA misstatement of the findings of the Seaview Royal Commission. Further, all a Royal Commission can do is make recommendations. not directions.
CASA have further (in my opinion) misstated the words and intent of the Minister's S12 Policy Letter of the day, but, once again, a S.12A does not bind CASA.

CIVIL AVIATION ACT 1988 - SECT 12A

Minister may give the Board notices about its strategic direction etc. (1) The Minister may notify the Board (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/caa1988154/s3.html#board) in writing of the Minister's views on the following matters:
(a) the appropriate strategic direction for CASA (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/caa1988154/s3.html#casa);
(b) the manner in which CASA (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/caa1988154/s3.html#casa) should perform its functions.
(1A) Subsection (1) does not permit the Minister to notify views in relation to a particular case or a particular holder of a civil aviation authorisation (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/caa1988154/s3.html#civil_aviation_authorisation).
(2) In performing its functions, the Board (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/caa1988154/s3.html#board) must act in accordance with notices given under subsection (1).

Tootle pip!!

[LeadSled]

Folks,
During the reform program overseen by the PAP from late 1996 until 1999, one of the policy positions agreed between the PAP and the then CASA Director (but, very significantly, not the control freaks of the "Iron Ring") was that "A to A" joy-flights/sightseeing flights" in small GA aircraft up to six POB would operated under the then proposed Part 91, without AOC.

Quite simply, the AOC system, that was never intended for other than RPT, had filtered down through the whole system, was not judged to add anything to air safety outcomes, compared to simply complying with the basic "rules if the air".

As AOC "conditions" have progressively become more onerous,( regulatory creep) these conditions have become more and more divorced from reality --- and held hostage to the whims and prejudices of FOIs, whose lack of knowledge and experienced is continually obvious. I feel really sorry for the good FOIs around (and there are some, carrying the rest) whose reputations suffer for the sins of the incompetents.

For those of us who remember the old "Charter" licenses, the very first Charter License I obtained, for operations in FNQ, entailed a "manual" that was about 12mm thick, most of which was the heavy cardboard cover. The only important page was page 2, which simply stated that all operations will be conducted in accordance with the Air Navigation Act, Air Navigation Regulations, Air Navigation Orders and the AIP.

The only thing that the present AOC requirements does is greatly increase cost and complexity, and the opportunity to become an "inadvertent criminal", without adding one iota to the cause of air safety.

Sadly, many of you, whom I meet, do not know another system, and don't seem to be able to cope with the idea of operating without a modern CASA style Operations Manual/Exposition hanging like a noose around your neck.

Finally, on the subject of "negotiating" law.

jus publicum privatorum pactis mutari non potest
public law cannot be changed by the agreements of private individuals


Sadly, given the shambles that is the Act and Regulations, it happens all the time.


Tootle pip!!

[dhavillandpilot]

Leadsled

You are right about the old days, charter was less onerous and I believe safer.

With the exception of a couple of dramatic accidents such as Monarch Airlines at Young, General Aviation was reasonably safe.

However private flying was decidedly unsafe with CIFT a predominate factor in accidents. Now we don't hear of many probably due to the transition to RA type aircraft.

What I find amazing is the proliferation of Travel Agencies such as Captains Choice etc operating Air Tours. Even when they use Qantas Aircraft the route is a non standard RPt and would have to be listed as a Charter. I cannot see CASA TELLING Qantas to stop!!!!!!!!!!

[Nulli Secundus]

Any reason why all 3 levels of government should not be approached to garner support for changing the legislation?

[LeadSled]

Now we don't hear of many probably due to the transition to RA type aircraft.

Not so, all RAOz accidents are reportable, and the proportion that go unreported is probably no different to the GA accidents that went unreported over the years.
Indeed, with RAOz statistics now becoming big enough to be meaningful, it would seem that the overall accident rates of RAOz aircraft operations is a little better than the bottom end of GA. Don't forget that a very significant proportion of pilots flying RAOz aircraft hold or have held a conventional PPL or higher license. There is no shortage of CPL/ATPL holder and ex-military types flying RAOz aircraft.

However private flying was decidedly unsafe with CIFT a predominate factor in accidents



Again, not so. In the statistical category in which private GA is included, there have only been minor improvements over the years, nothing to match the improvements in the US, for example. Mostly, this can be attributed to the collapse in GA hours (have a look at the fuel sales).

CFIT has never been a major factor in private operations, but GA UCFIT, from various cause certainly has ---- indeed, not limited to private operations or PPLs.

There is one section where there does seem to have been some improvement, weather related accidents, VMC into IMC and uncontrolled flight into terrain. I would like to attribute this to the PIFR rating, and not just on the basis of pilots who have a PIFR, but pilots who have done some of the training, and discovered just how short their life is going to be, if they blunder into IMC, without training and currency. However, I have not completed a detailed study, it is just an impression, looking at the raw data.

Perhaps needless to say, CASA have managed to bugger up the PIFR, by making the recency requirements hard limits, like the normal CIR, the whole intent of the PIFR was some flexibility, and to leave it to the PIC and personal responsibility, which seems to have worked very well. Pilots, are not by nature, suicidally stupid.

But trust CASA to ignore the whole philosophy of a successful program, all in the quest for strict prescription, because, in their view, pilots cannot be trusted, despite the evident success of the PIFR.

Tootle pip!!

[Possum1]

I had the brochure for my three scenic flights approved in writing by the ______ Area Office on CASA letterhead as follows:

Revised Brochure

I refer to your correspondence by fax dated 2nd February 2004, concerning a review of wording in your brochure.

This revised brochure is acceptable.

If you should have any queries please call this office.

XXXXXXXXXXX
Team Leader
Flying Operations
XXAO
05 February 2004

CC Chief Pilot
XXXXXXX Pty Ltd

This new brochure listed my 3 Scenic Flights and descriptions including a per person price, but with the departure times now removed.

Another section of the brochure listed bullet points of what all the flights included, the last two bullet points being:

- Departs: 7.00 a.m. (9.45 a.m. departures also available)
- Returns 9.30 a.m. Available 7 days

I was happy, particularly as this actually improved the presentation by making the brochure more concise, less cluttered and imparting the info to my prospective customers in fewer words.

CASA was happy(at least the Area Office was) as my brochure no longer looked like a fixed schedule or timetable.

Especially on Saturdays, I would often do a 7.00 a.m. flight and a 9.45 a.m. flight.