Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

AHIA- Australia regulatory reform progress (?)

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

AHIA- Australia regulatory reform progress (?)

Old 29th Mar 2015, 20:37
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
AHIA- Australia regulatory reform progress (?)

Is Australia on the same sheet of EASA’s music?

Flight International, Edition 3-9 March 2015, page 29 has an interesting report by Regulation Reporter, David Learmouth. David’s article is titled:

EASA mends the rules with tighter focus on outcomes

The executive director at Europe's safety agency has overseen a wholesale shift in mindset

If a regulator dismantles its rule making doctorate it is a sign that things are changing, and at EASA they are.

Executive director Patrick Ky took over the EASA top job in September 2013, and a year later he closed the rulemaking department. "If you have a rulemaking directorate," he explains, "the director is judged by how many rules he makes, or how many existing rules he 'improves'." The result, he says, is ever-fatter rule books, the content of which nobody could possibly retain, and the complexity of which becomes "impossible to work with".

When he first arrived, Ky says, he gathered his troops and told them to reduce the existing rules down to the absolute essentials, so they could all see what was really necessary.

EASA retains its power to make rules, Ky confirms, but the way the need for rules is assessed, and the way that they are made and framed, is now different. The rulemaking process now starts with a risk assessment to determine whether a rule is needed at all, and if so what it needs to address. Only then is it framed.

ESSENTIAL.
Finally, the rate of technological progress is such that prescriptive rules involving equipment can rapidly become outdated, so the future, says Ky, is performance - based rulemaking (PBR), with prescriptive rules only where they are essential. Mostly the latter would define capabilities and responsibilities. PBR means that the required outcome of the rule is specified, and the means by which that outcome is achieved is not the main issue. This method has been foreshadowed for years by the approval of rulings on an "equivalent safety" basis, which allows flexibility in the means by which a safety objective could be achieved.

Rulemakers still work at EASA, but within one of the four directorates: strategy and safety management, certification, flight standards, and resources and support. "Rulemakers now only work six months at headquarters," Ky explains. "Then they are sent out on inspections so they can see what it's like to have to put EASA rules into practice."

But Ky, a noted simplifier, has actually created a new directorate: strategy and safety management, headed by Luc Tytgat, formerly the director of the pan-European Single Sky Directorate at Eurocontrol. Why?

Ky explains: "If we are to go to PBR, we have to establish what the risk is, and to prioritise our resources and action. Luc's task is to notice what is happening out there, to recognise risk and deter mine where action might be needed." There are areas crying out for attention, Ky says, and ground handling, where - in simple numbers - there are more safety incidents than in any other phase of an aircraft's operation, is one of them. And in general aviation, it has started down the long path of working with the sector towards replacing regulation that was effectively commercial-aviation-light with industry-specific guidelines.

Long-serving certification director Norbert Lohl was on 1 March replaced by Trevor Woods, who previously worked on flight standards. Lohl says it was tough in the early days, building a relationship with sceptical national aviation authorities. They were essential, because EASA was so under-resourced that it had to contract out a high proportion of new tasks to the national authorities. About 20 of the tasks still are contracted out.

Woods points out how much is happening on the operations side, especially in human factors and training. EASA is preparing to drive operators towards the application of safety management systems within training departments, and towards the principle of alternative training and qualification programmes, instead of prescriptive syllabus-based recurrent training, plus the application of competency-based training.

TRAINING
Aircraft manufacturers must now provide operational suitability data to prove their cockpit interfaces work. Airlines will be expected to follow the manufacturers' manuals on type rating training more closely. And work is being done to improve the effectiveness of simulators.

EASA is not blind to the fact that pilots frequently seem to be unable to cope with the unexpected, Woods emphasises, and it is looking for ways of dealing with this.

AHIA: Out thanks to David for use of his report to better understand where our CASA is heading at present.


AHIA Regulatory Review Coordinator
robsrich is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2015, 00:17
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: After all, what’s more important than proving to someone on the internet that they’re wrong? - Manson
Posts: 1,837
Received 49 Likes on 35 Posts
All pigs refuelled and ready to fly Rob - maybe in 30 years or so.

The rot is just too far ingrained.

Having flown and operated in Oz and EASAville for about the same period of ~15 years in each guess which one I prefer!

Mind you Oz would possibly be a good candidate as none of it makes any sense and never has.
RVDT is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2015, 05:17
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
Enough is enough!

Australian TAAAF demands a cost benefit analysis to justifying expensive changes to our fees and charges due to the introduction of the CASRs.

In a Media Release, the Australian Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF) has responded to a CASA draft Cost Recovery Implementation Strategy (CRIS) by telling the regulator to tighten its belt, become more efficient and review its activities that contribute little to aviation safety.

At a time when many aviation industry sectors are suffering a significant economic downturn due to the end of the mining boom, drought in two States and a multi-decade general decline in activity, all parts of the industry have had to tighten their belts and CASA’s regulatory services should not be immune.

On one side sits the Government’s budget predicament, Government’s red tape reduction plan, the Government direction regarding new regulations having to be cost neutral on industry and the Government’s announced adoption of most of the recommendations of the highly critical Forsyth Aviation Review.

In this environment it is not appropriate for CASA to propose some 90 new charges related to the bungled new Part 61 for pilot licensing, and to maintain complex bureaucratic systems that fail to deliver efficiency. Industry has concerns about the lack of urgency in reform and denial of the Forsyth report criticisms by a cohort of long term managers within CASA.

The new CASA Director of Aviation and the revamped Board are clearly engaged and focused on the challenging job at hand. They should make no mistake as to industry’s hostile reception of the CRIS proposal to simply increase charges before an attempt to improve efficiency.

Unfortunately, the Minister’s critical letter of expectations to CASA is still missing in action and this needs to be remedied urgently. That letter should include a clear direction for CASA to reduce costs, up to and including a reduction in staff.

That letter should include a clear direction for CASA to reduce costs,
up to and including a reduction in staff.


Participants in the Forum ask Deputy Prime Minister Truss to:

• Reject the draft Cost Recovery Implementation Strategy (CRIS).
• Refer CASA to the Government directive that new regulations should be cost neutral.
• Refer CASA to the Government policy on red tape reduction.
• Direct CASA to implement the Government’s response to the Forsyth Report
• Include a direction in his Letter of Expectations that CASA focus on cost reduction before more cost recovery
• Direct CASA to establish a joint industry/CASA taskforce to review all charges and the efficiency of the systems behind them, with a view to eliminating activities and their accompanying charges where they make no contribution to safety.

Note: The TAAAF is a forum of peak aviation bodies that includes the: Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia; Aerostructures and Aircraft Manufacture; Australian Association of Flight Instructors; Australian Business Aviation Association; Australian Helicopter Industry Association; Australian Women Pilots’ Association; Aviation Law Association; Aviation Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul Business Association; Recreational Aviation Australia; Regional Aviation Association of Australia and Royal Federation of Aero Clubs Australia.

AHIA

Last edited by robsrich; 3rd Apr 2015 at 05:42.
robsrich is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2015, 00:17
  #4 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
AHIA Quarterly Report - Jan to Mar '15.

It is a badly kept secret that the AHIA has decided to form a working group to investigate further the problems that are occurring as CASR Part 61 - Flight Crew Licensing is being finalised. Recently we received the revised costs of CASA services. CASA has suggested the revised Part 61 - Manual of Standards will be released; hopefully by July 2015.

Once this has been done we can obtain a clearer picture of what the enormous changes mean in dollar terms, and then ask the Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss (our Aviation Minister), how the safety case studies and their cost benefit analysis (a government requirement) were determined.

Our main gripe is that unless Part 61 can be made to work; then all the other 'advanced' legislation coming into being and resting on the foundation created by Part 61 will probably need extensive redrafting or exemptions (instruments) to keep the industry moving forward.

Understandably, we are attracting a lot of political, media (and legal) attention; however, at this stage our deliberations are confidential.

In the meantime, our latest AHIA Quarterly Report ending 31 March 2015 is available as a pdf from [email protected]. Readers can then see some of the emerging issues and long term predictions. The statement from the head of EASA in late 2014 indicates their recommendation advising against the tsunami of new regulations flowing from national regulatory reform programmers. EASA considers their efforts to be counter productive as a safety enhancement tool.

AHIA Members will be getting regular bulletins on our work in progress. Please join us if you can as we need to support our overworked volunteers.

AHIA, Australian Helicopter Industry Association

AHIA Regulatory Review Coordinator - [email protected].
robsrich is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2015, 05:42
  #5 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
STOP Press! STOP Press! STOP Press!

On Wed 8 Apr ’15, CASA representatives will meet with key industry figures on the Sunshine Coast to considering approving the proposed changes logged at the CASA/industry meeting in Dec ’14. If agreed upon, this will allow the changes to be presented to industry for comment and later issued as an amended Part 61 MoS – maybe by July 2015?

The outcome is being watched closely by the Transport and Logistics Industry Skills Council who is awaiting release of the final MoS version – the foundation for the National Skills Council’s Diploma of Aviation – CPL (H) about to be released. Should the MoS be delayed too long, (and therefore the Diploma) there is a possibility RTO approvals/renewals will cease when the current training packages expire. Result could be no overseas students as they must have a ‘visa’ based on RTO protocols, and other National Skills Council requirements.

Hopefully, anticipated work by all concerned will bridge the gap between CASA and the TLSIC; who eventually must work closer together.

An odd couple really, when you thing about it? CASA produces Part 61 MoS - about 670 pages. Complex in style based on EASA needs; and a complete change to the regulation of our industry - and then ComLaw does its thing and releases it after it has been put into' legalise'.

So what does the TLSIC do - they 'reverse engineer' the MoS to put back into English in a more easily read style for their competencies, etc.

Lets hope the guys concerned can make things work for us all - a divorce in this relationship could be an engine off autorotation with a jammed collective!

What do you think?

AHIA
robsrich is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2015, 02:05
  #6 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
AHIA strengthens regulatory review capability.

President, Peter Crook, has replaced the long running AHIA Part 61 Review Committee with a more robust AHIA Regulatory Review Team to assist CASA integrating CASR Part 61 – Flight Crew Licensing into other draft legislation. At Avalon Airshow 2015, CASA advised the helicopter industry, “there are 12 helicopter relevant Flight Operational Rule - standards development projects underway at the moment?”

The Part 61 Review Committee advised the AHIA Board new legislation now being offered for comment by the regulator often relied on CASR Part 61 as a foundation. It was further stated if Part 61 was allowed to run with unworkable and disputed elements; then the pending more advanced (and expensive) legislation associated with the heavy helicopter fleet would suffer excessive costs for compliance when no safety benefit can be determined by a cost benefit analysis. The latter is a federal government requirement.

Crook told the AHIA Board industry must be encouraged to be aware of the ‘domino effect’ of faulty overlapping rules. For example, the recent release by CASA of their draft fees was welcome and is still open for comment; the industry needs to recheck other draft legislation to see what efficiencies are lost or gained. The recent AHIA Quarterly Report – January to March 2015, indicated grave concerns for the future of the regulatory processes; which if not reviewed and corrected, will cause a retraction in the aviation industry in 2016/2107. The last ATPL being issued in September 2014 and the associated hiccup with Multi Crew Coordination Training are two examples forcing desperate candidates to seek overseas training facilities.

It is anticipated AHIA Regulatory Review Team will take over from the Part 61 committee on Monday 4 May 2015.

More info: [email protected].
robsrich is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2015, 03:04
  #7 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
Steve Creedy, Aviation Writer, The Australian Newspaper, reported on Fri 17 Apr ’15:

Helicopter growth in crossfire

Growth in the Australian helicopter industry appears to have stalled as it is caught in a crossfire of factors, including the fall in the dollar and the end of the mining boom.

Research by the Australian Helicopter Industry Association showed the growth rate for rotary-wing aircraft slumped from 7.8 per cent in mid-2014 to less than 1 percent for the nine months ending March. It warned the industry could be headed for a contraction in the next financial year.

The latest figure equated to the addition of just 10 helicopters over the nine months to bring the rotary-wing fleet to 2114 machines. This included 1304 single-engine piston machines, 563 powered by single-engine turbines and 247 multi-engine helicopters.

Queensland hosted 36 per cent of the fleet followed by NSW (21 per cent), Western Australia (16 per cent), Victoria (13 per cent), Northern Territory (9 per cent), South Australia (2 per cent). The Australian Capital Territory had eight helicopters. The association said sales of new machines had "declined substantially", although it expected medical transport and military training contracts to push deliveries of bigger helicopters next financial year, while pre-owned sales were steady.

Takeovers, mergers and the dramatic fall in the oil price had deflated the offshore helicopter industry, while harder to track on-shore exploration had fallen as the mineral and gas exploration boom had settled into the production phase. Scenic operators, who had initially been confronted with a high dollar, were expected to see some benefits from the lower exchange rate.

AHIA secretary Rob Rich said the steady growth in the helicopter fleet over the past decade had averaged 7-8 per cent. But the fleet's rate of growth had stagnated in the past three quarters. Mr Rich said many factors were responsible for the setback, including the end of the mineral boom and long-running droughts in Northern Australia combined with general global financial difficulties.

He also blamed the federal government's financial problems and the low dollar. "The collapse of the Australian dollar has made aviation assets more expensive to buy and operate," Mr Rich said in a letter to members. "The slight increase in aviation tourism activities has only provided token compensation."

The AHIA is also keen to work with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on sorting out problems with Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Part 61 on flight crew licensing. AHIA president Peter Crook announced this week that the association was beefing up its regulatory reform team to monitor and work on the integration of Part 61 into other draft legislation. The regulator has told the association it has 12 flight operations rule standards development projects under way and it is seeking comment on the new rules. Mr Crook said the association had recently been involved in fruitful talks with senior CASA officials about the problems it saw with Part 61. "We're here to help," he said. "We want to make sure this industry works."

Aviation groups at the smaller end of town have expressed concern about the way Part 61 was introduced and more recently about new fees associated with the changes. The Australian Aviation Associations forum called on CASA to "tighten its belt" rather than introduce the new Part 61 charges as part of a proposed cost recovery policy, even though CASA is not proposing to increase the overall amount it seeks from the industry.

The regulator promised to review all comments on the proposed fee changes and seriously consider all suggestions.

End. Our thanks to Steve for his updates. AHIA
robsrich is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2015, 07:13
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What do you think?
The ? in the thread title is in the correct position.
topendtorque is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2015, 11:15
  #9 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
The train leaves the station heading for Part 61 and beyond!

Just a historical note. On 21 Apr '15. AHIA President Peter Crook had a teleconference with Mark Skidmore, Director of Aviation Safety, CASA to set up a face to face meeting of AHIA and CASA regulatory key players.

This meeting will be in early May and will formally commence a process for establishing a process to identify problems and work on resolving matters to the benefit of both parties.

Industry and regulator now recognise Part 61 is the foundation upon much of the new and draft legislation will sit. Any hiccups in Part61 will flow into the next layer of legislation!

'In the beginning was the beginning'.

AHIA Board thanks all those who have been involved to date - your efforts will hopefully bear fruit!

AHIA Secretary
robsrich is offline  
Old 22nd Apr 2015, 17:36
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I guess that begs the question, how many layers of legislation do we need?

Has anyone in that show ever heard of the KISS principle?
topendtorque is offline  
Old 23rd Apr 2015, 02:30
  #11 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
AHIA and CASA commence work on regulatory review issues.

Following a series of informal meetings and telecoms involving (at times) the helicopter industry, CASA's DAS and Deputy Prime Minister; our President Peter Crook requested a face to face meeting with CASA's Standards Division, their DAS and AHIA executives to start a more formal and detailed process of industry/regulatory review of Part 61 and its effects on future draft legislation aimed at helicopter operators.

Accordingly, Peter and his team have been invited by DAS Mark Skidmore, to a meeting on Wed 6 May '15, at 1300. Venue is CASA Offices, Sydney.

CASA attendees: Mark Skidmore, Director Aviation Safety (DAS); Peter Boyd, Executive Manager, Standards Division; Roger Crosthwaite, Manager Flight Crew Licensing Standards; John Grima, Manager Flight Standards and Dale South, Section Head, Rotorcraft Standards.

AHIA attendees: Peter Crook, AHIA President and members Ray Cronin and Richard Davis.

Peter Crook recently stated this meeting would be seen as a major milestone in sorting out troublesome issues between CASA and the helicopter industry. Peter has also thanked Mark Skidmore and his Standards Division team for changing their plans to accommodate the urgent concerns of AHIA members.

Want to follow our special advisories? Just ask: [email protected] or check out AHIA, Australian Helicopter Industry Association.

AHIA
robsrich is offline  
Old 5th May 2015, 10:05
  #12 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
Under new management - CASA takes an enormous step forward – seeks feedback from aircrew individuals!

Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s Director of Aviation Safety, Mark Skidmore, has set in motion a most welcome consultation process not seen before in the global aviation industry. Only recently appointed to the job, Mark noted the industry has been struggling to accommodate the change to the EASA based Civil Aviation Safety Regulations. In particular, CASR Part 61 – Flight Crew Licensing, has had a unhappy reception.

So Mark has “bit the bullet” and written to all pilots seeking their feedback. The magnitude of this task was enormous because at 30 June 204 there were around 26,600 aeroplane pilots which included 7,496 ATPL (A); CPL (A) 3,849 and PPL (A) 12,437.

Helicopter numbers were around 3,300 of which 845 were ATPL (H), 1,667 CPL (H) and 802 private.

For our international readers, Australia has 23 million people, and a little over 15,000 aircraft of which are 2,100 are helicopters.

Mark’s letter was dated 23 April 2015 and states:

Update on new flight crew licensing regulations


I am writing to you about the new flight crew licensing suite of regulations that took effect in September 2014.

Following the introduction of the regulations, CASA became aware a number of people and organisations had concerns about some of the new requirements. To address these issues a special forum with representatives of the aviation community was held in December 2014. The forum was extremely valuable in providing CASA with first-hand experience and feedback on key issues. As a result of this feedback CASA has made adjustments to the way some aspects of the new rules are being implemented, as well as some changes to the regulatory requirements themselves. Where requirements have been changed this has been done by way of instruments and exemptions. Some of the changes already made relate to check pilots conducting proficiency checks, low level rating and aerial mustering training and flight testing, fire fighting operations, aerial application proficiency checks and R22 and R44 helicopter ratings.

Many of the issues identified to date relate to some of the transition arrangements for the new rules and I accept CASA has to do better in this area. The changes being made now by way of instruments and exemptions will be incorporated into a revised rule set at a later date.

Good progress is also being made on a range of other issues that need to be addressed. These include the student pilot dual check period, the low-level rating flight review period, updates to the Part 61 Manual of Standards, English language proficiency, flight examiner ratings and flight testing. We are also developing further guidance and information material to help everyone understand the new rules.

Already more than 10,600 new Part 61 licences have been issued, even though the transition period for pilots runs until September 2018. The fact that we are adjusting the new rules and the way they are applied shows we are committed to continuous improvement. Aviation safety standards are not intended to be static as they must adapt to reflect the real world environment.

To that end, I need your feedback. While consultation takes place as rules are being developed, inevitably there are issues or unintended consequences that need to be addressed. We need feedback from individuals and organisations about what is working well and what is not. I give my personal assurance that all comments, feedback and criticism will be looked at carefully and given full consideration. Of course this does not mean CASA can accept every suggestion or agree with every viewpoint, but we will listen and where legitimate issues or problems are identified we will respond.

If you have a contribution you wish to make to the review of the new flight crew licensing suite of regulations please send them to: [email protected]

I thank everyone for their patience and valued contributions as we collectively work to bed down the new licensing regulations and stress again that I want open and honest feedback on what is working and what is not. By co-operating we will get the right safety outcomes from regulations that support a vibrant and strong Australian aviation community.

You can find detailed information on the licensing suite of regulations on CASA’s web site: Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Licensing regulations.

Safe flying
Mark Skidmore AM
Director of Aviation Safety
robsrich is offline  
Old 8th May 2015, 07:32
  #13 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
MEDIA RELEASE

PART 61 AHIA/CASA MEETING - SYDNEY 6 MAY 2015

CASA agreed to a meeting request from AHIA to discuss industry concerns since the implementation of Part 61. This is a critical piece of legislation being the foundation of all the other licensing regulations. We acknowledge the framework of the legislation is sound but some areas require change or modification to better suit the Australian operating environment.

Representatives from CASA at the meeting were: Mark Skidmore, Director Aviation Safety; Peter Boyd, Executive Manager Standards Division; Roger Crosthwaite, Manager Flight Crew Licensing Standards; Dale South, Section Head Rotorcraft Standards and John Grima, Manager Flight Standards Branch.

The AHIA representatives were: Peter Crook, AHIA President; Ray Cronin, AHIA Senior Member Part 61 Review Committee and Richard Davis, AHIA Member, Partner and Aviation Law Specialist HWL Ebsworth.

The meeting concentrated on the post implementation industry concerns which all culminate to two basic issues:

Perceived COST, and
INTERPRETATION (Complexity).

There was agreement on both sides these issues require addressing. CASA advised that a Post Implementation Review (PIR) of the regulation is underway and that the important issues raised by AHIA will form part of the review. There were a number of issues identified in the feedback we requested from industry. There was not time to discuss all specific issues but a number of critical issues were identified requiring immediate attention to alleviate the anxiety currently existing.

The AHIA had prepared a list of issues with suggested actions and left this with CASA.

CASA has agreed to work on the critical issues first and should have suggested actions and/or changes to industry as soon as possible. The AHIA offered assistance to CASA by way of industry sector specific processionals to jointly look at areas requiring change and how those changes can be implemented in a manner that is both safe and financially acceptable to industry. In order to move forward in a positive manner we identified the following specific technical points as the matters of utmost priority, to create pathways for voids created by the implementation of Part 61:

* Expand the 61.040 testing approvals to include grade two instructors and those approved persons who held the relevant qualifications prior to the implementation date.

* Fast track the pending exemptions in relation to low level operations and flight testing for winch, sling and rappel operations and others in the system.

* Create a pathway to allow pilots to obtain ATPL in Australia, potentially by way of an exemption for the MCC course for the transition period.

The AHIA will increase representation at the CASA Flight Crew Licensing Sub-Committee meetings, the next of which is to occur on the 19 May 2015, we will also be in regular contact with our assigned CASA liaison officer.

This we believe was a "milestone event" being a most encouraging and productive meeting.

We will be communicating with CASA on a regular basis and advising the industry of outcomes as they occur.

Peter Crook
President
Australian Helicopter Industry Association
[email protected]
robsrich is offline  
Old 29th May 2015, 02:28
  #14 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
AHIA Research Project. (Our thanks to Airwaves - June 2015)

Are current pilot graduates enough to sustain our industry next year?

How do we estimate the number of new pilots needed to keep the industry ticking over during 2015-2016. What is the method of calculation which can be used to gauge investment needed if growth returns to the helicopter industry? Is there enough work to keep flying instructors gainfully employed when growth stalls, as is the situation today?

Since 30 June 2014 the CASA Aircraft Register showed an increase of only fifteen helicopter registrations over sixteen months, or an annual growth rate of less than 1%. Prior to June 2014 the industry’s long term growth rate was around 7% each year, then considered as a good result.

To find the answers, CASA’s Annual Report 2013-2014 is a very useful tool. On 30 June 2104 there were 3,308 pilots consisting of 845 ATPL; 1,667 CPL and 802 PPL licenses. The registered helicopters were then 2,104 helicopters.

This shows 1.5 licenses for every helicopter. This calculation does not consider those who have left the industry due age, accident, death or change of career and replaced by new comers.

To calculate the output from flying schools during 2015-2016, assuming fleet size remains unchanged (as it is now), the CASA report at 30 June 2014 may have the answer. For example, the number of ATPL is 845. On average 72 new licenses were issued each year over five years. When adjusted down for the growth of then of 7% per year, we need 67 new ATPL licenses per year.

Of particular interest to flying schools is the number of CPL graduates needed to sustain 1,667 licenses. Allowing for the 7% adjustment shown above, we need 250 per year. This shows annual loss rate of ATPL folks is 8% and CPL 15% which is the reverse of what is expected from the older ATPL pilot group.

A closer look at the 802 private pilot figures shows we need 110 new licence holders each year to maintain the status quo. In fact, PPL and CPL loss rates are almost identical, an interesting coincidence?

If the number of licenses remains unchanged, during 2015-2016, schools have to produce about 67 ATPL, 250 CPL and 110 PPL graduates. Assuming there are 25 or so active schools, their output would be at least ten CPL students for each school. If they are a Part 141 school then this is barely enough for work for two instructors and their CFI.

The AHIA is very concerned CASA may have not issued any ATPL licenses since September 2014. According to CASA sources, this situation may continue for a year or so. As you read this we estimate we are now 134 under the required number. But what about the large number of ME IFR aeromedical helicopters soon heading our way and the crews needed for the military civil training programme – Australian ATPL pilots may be in short supply.

So where do they come from? Overseas crewmembers on 457 Visas? And what happens to our ATPL trainers? Do they close their doors?

Septics are encouraged to look in detail at CASA's Flight Examiners Handbook version 1.2 of Mar '15 and associated Form 61-FEA. Look at currency requirements for Flight Examiner Ratings. In particular, how will CASA staff and other now ATOs maintain their currency? Have a peek at the Low Level Rating Flight Test Endorsement. The Handbook and Form run to around 240 pages.

Feedback from those managing training schools is most welcome. We need to update this thread; in this way we can see what has to be done as our work with CASA continues.

AHIA Secretary
robsrich is offline  
Old 30th May 2015, 23:53
  #15 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
At last! CASA DAS states in his May newsletter industry has a valid complaint about Part 61

The CASA Briefing – e-newsletter – 29 May 2015.

From the Director of Aviation Safety, Mark Skidmore.

I have been looking carefully at issues surrounding the development and implementation of new regulations to make sure CASA is learning lessons from the past. This has been my focus as we progress with the implementation of the new licensing suite of regulations that was introduced in September 2014. I fully accept CASA can make improvements in both the way regulations are developed and implemented.

We do start with the intention to make new regulations as clear as possible, using plain language without unnecessary complexities. We most certainly do not set out to write regulatory requirements that are hard to understand. But like many good intentions our goal can get lost during the journey and, for a range of reasons, the result can sometimes be regulations that are more complex than desired.

As the aviation regulations form part of Commonwealth legislation the legal framework and style governing all Commonwealth legislation must be applied. In addition, as our regulations often set standards for a wide range of complex aviation operations they may need to be detailed and comprehensive. In short, it is not always easy or even possible to create ‘simple’ regulations. But having said that, it is CASA’s job to strive towards the goal of clarity, coherence and precision using plain and easy to understand language.

In reviewing the development and implementation of the licensing suite I can see a number of improvements we can make in our processes. The first is to do more work up front before the regulations are made. This may involve testing the regulatory proposals in a practical way with the aviation community or running a pilot program to ensure implementation plans are optimal. At all stages we need a better dialogue with the aviation community to allow us to communicate, consult meaningfully and to listen carefully to all constructive feedback. Most importantly, CASA needs to put more effort into educating and training our own people about the new regulations and their implementation so we can give clear and consistent advice to the aviation community.

I recently wrote to all pilots and flying training organisations asking for further feedback on the licensing suite and I am pleased to say the response has been very helpful. At the time of writing more than 60 people and organisations have replied to my letter and I thank everyone for taking the time to respond. A wide range of comments and suggestions have been received, and all of these are being carefully reviewed and assessed.

While CASA will not be able to adopt every suggestion, we will act where feedback identifies issues or problems that should be addressed in the interest of getting optimal outcomes from the new regulations.

Please keep your comments coming.

You can read my letter in full at update on new flight crew licensing regulations.

Safe flying - Mark Skidmore AM.
_________________________________________

Australian Flying Magazine quick to respond.

Editor Steve Hitchen wrote in his e-news, ‘The Last Minute Hitch’ dated 29 May ’25 as follows:

“It seems to me that CASA is telling us gently that we can forget one of the Forsyth recommendations: plain-English regulations. In his CASA Briefing Newsletter for May, Mark Skidmore points out that they would like to get complexity out of the CASRs, but the government drafting style is getting in the way. I have no doubt he's right."

"The legislative drafting style is unwieldy, legalese gobbledygook designed to be interpreted by only legal minds, not the general public to which they apply. The incongruity is that the style actually impedes aviation safety rather than promote it because the average person has no idea what many regulations actually say."

"In 2010, US president Barack Obama signed an act that forced US regulations to be written in plain English. It's way overdue that we had something similar happen here, even if it's only for aviation safety regulations."

Thanks to Mark and Steve. Progress on the horizon?

AHIA - Secretary

Last edited by robsrich; 31st May 2015 at 07:35.
robsrich is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2015, 11:02
  #16 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
AHIA and CASA form partnership to streamline regulatory changes

MESSAGE FROM AHIA PRESIDENT

By a co-operative partnership with CASA, the AHIA and other industry members, CASA is moving forward with legislative changes to streamline regulatory provisions as a result of the post-implementation review of part 61.

AHIA President Peter Crook see this as a positive step closer to the industry contributing at a high level to legislative content for the betterment of the Aviation industry.

Communication between CASA and the AHIA representatives has improved considerably following a landmark meeting held in Sydney on Wednesday 6 May 2015 attended by the DAS Mark Skidmore and his senior Flight Standards and Flight Crew Licensing Management Team, AHIA President Peter Crook and AHIA Lead Part 61 Review Team member, Ray Cronin.

With other significant amendments in the pipe line these actions demonstrate industry input is now being taken seriously and it adds faith to those who want to contribute but may feel held back by the frustrations of the previous environment.

Positive gains have been made in the following areas:

Low level recency and flight review requirements extended to 24 months.
Sling, Winch and Rappel endorsement certifications and flight review requirements.
Expansion of the 61.040 approvals for flight testing and flight reviews to include a broader spectrum of approved persons and instructor qualifications to place specialist operational assessments within the upper level experience for each activity.
Student pilot recency requirements have been relaxed from 15 days to 30.

Other issues receiving high priority are:

A pathway to allow an Australian ATPL(H) to be obtained.
Amendments to the Part 61 MoS.
The transition requirements for the issue of a firefighting endorsement for those who have previously been active in those operations.
The development of a multi-engine class rating for helicopters.
The input to the development of CASR Part 138 – Draft document now available for scrutiny via the joint CASA/Industry Part 138 working group

Of importance is the appointment of Ray Cronin, AHIA Leader of Part 61 Review Team, to the Joint CASA/Industry SCC Flight Crew Licensing Sub-committee and Peter Crook, AHIA President, to the Aviation Industry Consultative Council.

Peter Crook
E: [email protected]
Mob: 0407 638 811
AHIA, Australian Helicopter Industry Association
robsrich is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2015, 09:39
  #17 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
Instrument training under new Part 61 rules.

Just doing some catching up on dozens of references to the review of Part 16 and have noticed few comments on the pending need for schools to provide instrument flying in a helicopter and FTSD.

Can some key players let us know how much the new rules will cost? Aircraft, FTSD and training of staff, etc?

If there is opposition, then tell the AHIA to add it to their extensive list of items they are working through with CASA.

Safe flying .....

AHIA Secretary.
robsrich is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.