Now is your chance to remove unnecessary rules and costs/VOR airspace thread merged

[Dick Smith]

I have so far attended two meetings of the Aviation Regulation Review Taskforce set up by Minister Mark Vaile. I believe there will be some very positive changes to assist aviation.

It is obvious to me that after many years of not really getting anywhere, in the last 18 months the people at CASA are focusing more on Government policy in relation to rule writing – that is, to only be prescriptive where required, harmonising internationally wherever possible, and ruthlessly removing any rule which adds to cost without effectively adding to safety.

In relation to this last point, I have been asking people of requirements in Australia which add to costs compared to requirements in other leading aviation countries. I ask one of the Moderators to “sticky” this thread so we can get a list of such items from anyone who is interested.

I will start off with a few here, and I look forward to dozens (if not hundreds) more.

Simply by listing these additional costly requirements does not mean that CASA will necessarily follow what happens (and is proven) overseas. In some situations – but not many – our conditions are different here in Australia. However if the differences can be brought forward, at least the people who have the responsibility in relation to regulatory reform can look at the issues.

I start as follows.

1. The requirement in Australia not to fly above 10,000 feet without oxygen. In the USA it is 12,500 feet for continuous flight and up to 14,000 for 30 minutes. A rough calculation shows that over $1 million per year could be saved in fuel costs alone if we harmonise with this requirement. And of course often the aircraft could be above the inversion layer flying in smooth air.

2. The requirement in Australia that if a pilot is to perform a straight-in approach it must be at least a 5 mile final. Imagine the time that is wasted by a farmer landing on his grass paddock or a cropduster wanting to do a straight-in approach. This is a unique Australian requirement – probably designed for 747s, but hardly necessary for the Piper Cubs and Cherokees which it applies to. A lot of fuel will be saved if this is harmonised internationally.

3. The requirement that flight instructors must operate under an AOC. In the USA, most flying training is by highly experienced instructors – quite often older, more mature pilots – who operate independently without the high cost of an AOC.

4. The unique Australian ADs, including AD/GEN/37, which requires the emergency exit of an aircraft such as a Citation to be operated and inspected every 6 months. Under the FAA requirements it is once every 3 years. This means the Australian cost is 6 times greater, possibly without any measurable increase in safety. There are many other costly ADs like this – such as AD/INST/9, which requires instruments to be removed from the panel every 3 years to be tested accurate. However many modern LCD indicators cannot be tested unless they go back to the factory – costing a small fortune (if indeed it is to be complied with).

These are just 4 examples. I look forward to others. I will compile a list of everything that is posted and send it off to the people who are developing the standards in CASA.