And no one should be surprised at the ‘safety’ standard being writ large in the example of the fire-fighting aircraft. CASA doesn’t know the design standard and ICA for e.g. Blackhawk helicopters, therefore CASA isn’t ‘satisfied’ and therefore CASA will sit with its arms folded until someone (at their expense) ‘satisfies’ CASA. Doesn’t matter how many towns and fire fighters are immolated on the ground in the interim. That’s someone else’s problem.
Sadly true, LB. As the senators eventually got around to highlighting, the simple question of why a properly maintained aircraft can drop water, carry cargo and operate with 'task specialists' all day long but not carry firefighters from A to B should be easily answered, but is instead somehow incredibly tricky for CASA to quickly and effectively address, according to them.
This is not just about restricted category of airworthiness, it's bound up in the frankly stupid delineation between passenger transport and aerial work under Parts 133 and 138 respectively. Somehow a properly trained, briefed and current person who could legally be on board spotting fires suddenly turns into the equivalent of a first-time passenger who just walked in off the street for a scenic flight. We have the ridiculous situation of changing between rule sets not only on the same day, but the same flight sometimes for many helicopter operations, which can also make you jump between flight and duty appendices ... suddenly you had to have had a day off yesterday because now you're carrying passengers instead of task specialists!
This is the sort of rubbish the senators, via their staff if necessary, should be researching and then bringing to bear in these hearings, or require CASA to answer in detail by other means. When it comes down to it, just trying to read the CASRs and apply them to an actual operator's situation (what was formerly a charter / aerial work helicopter operation would be a good start point) quickly exposes many ambiguities and contradictions, which the reg writers have clearly not even considered. Just try and get a straight answer on a curly question out of CASA's guidance portal (supposedly the 'single source of truth') and you'll see what I mean. Same vagueness, different name.