I have just stumbled upon some notices of proposed rule changes released on the 16th Feb.
Whilst the majority of changes seem to be "workable", i wonder will the introduction of TAWS B for IFR aircraft with 6 seats or more be the so called "straw" for some operators? In the paper it states the average cost per aircraft would be around the $23,000 mark. see:
3.6.11 The costs and benefits of mandating TAWS B equipment for IFR aeroplanes
carrying 6 to 9 passengers has been assessed by CASA. Equipment and fitment costs are
forecast to be approximately $23,000 per aeroplane. Options to offset these additional
costs are under consideration by the Government. Benefits are expected to flow to the
industry from increased public confidence with this equipment fit to small aeroplanes in
which passenger operations are conducted, as the overall accident rate is expected to
reduce.
Now some questions for those who know TAWS B , as i have very little knowledge about the system.
Would the introduction of TAWS B be "that" beneficial to GA?
Is it suited to the types of flying carried out at the GA charter level?
Are there that many CFIT accidents in GA to warrant this sort of outlay by operators?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for improving safety and preventing accidents, but burdening operators with more costs for these sorts of systems just puts them under more pressure to survive an already cutthroat industry. The money has to come from somewhere!
also this:
The CEO decision to limit passenger
aeroplanes to 9 passenger seats under Part 135 may affect some operators, for example
some operators of Cessna 400 series aeroplanes. The impact is likely to be minor, if any,
as the project team members indicated these aircraft are range limited with more than 9
passengers and it is mostly impractical to roster the aeroplane for the carriage of more
than 9 passengers. It should be noted that the limitation of 9 passenger seats does not
prevent an operator from carrying two infants or children that can be accommodated on
the one passenger seat. CASA is considering a transitional period for affected operators.
What benefits are to be gained by limiting pax numbers from say 12/11 to 9? will it make a great deal of difference?
Are there other areas CASA should be looking at better rather than these?
Thoughts??