NPRM Scenic flight operators
Sprocket Check,
We conduct scenic flights and charter in WA. It took 2 years of planning and a lot of money to write an ops manual, conduct appropriate training for our proposed operation and plenty of money I can assure you.
This isn't a case of competition or restricting competition, far from it. This is a case of reduced safety and implied risk. CASA are basically saying that they do not want to know about people operating aircraft with less than 5 seats in scenic flight operations. They are therefore saying that the risk of an accident involving the loss of six lives (pilot plus 5 pax) is acceptable to them. The NPRM is essentially removing all of the regulatory oversight on CASA's behalf and putting the onus of responsibility on the pilot of the said aircraft. You as the owner of a flash new CPL with a 210 that mum and dad or a friend bought, conducting scenic flights, will NOT be covered by the Air Carriers Liability Act and will only require Public Liability Insurance to a level you deem sufficient. If you feel that $5 million is enough, then you can get coverage for only $5 million.
Scenic flying is not rocket science, it involves (generally speaking) flights from point A to point A. The risk however is that anyone with a CPL and an AFR (or someone with no knowledge or experience in aviation and no licence) can purchase up to 5 aircraft each of 5 passenger capacity (25 pax total capacity), turn up anywhere in the country, get 5 pilots who want to fly, pay them nothing to do so, and start selling scenic flights out of the back of a car boot with a sandwich board, no SMS, DAMP, Risk register, ops manual, chief pilot etc etc. To the general public, they see a flash website, brochure or sandwich board and decide to go on a flight. Meanwhile the operator of charter services (air transport ops - Part 121 or 135) will have to maintain an SMS, a DAMP, an organisational hierarchy including Chief Pilot and CEO, undertake appropriate maintenance on their aircraft, training and checking regime and so on. An AOC acts in some part as a deterrent to the very rare cowboys getting a foot in the door and doing the wrong thing. If there is no requirement for an AOC, there is no way for CASA to hold you to account for your actions or to penalise you, except take your licence away as the pilot. But if the owner of the aircraft doesn't have a licence or an AOC then they have nothing to lose and will simply employ another pilot to replace you, or change their company name and start again.
Young pilots need some experience in the industry, training, mentoring to develop the skills and knowledge in order to move on to bigger and better. Companies such as mine and others in northern Australia offer young pilots that opportunity, a start in the industry, with training and guidance under the leadership and responsibility of an experienced Chief Pilot. This is the internship, where you learn about the industry, flying aircraft in a relatively low risk environment, learning about the need for standard operating procedures which you are most certainly going to adhere to in the airlines.
My greatest fear is that this will significantly increase risk at the expense of passenger and pilot safety. When an aircraft or helicopter crashes the media don't care who the company was, who the pilot or passengers involved were. They sensationalise the situation and all aircraft are deemed dangerous and risky. This in turn leads to all aircraft operators being tarnished by association. Any accident is a terrible thing and I hope that it doesn't happen to anyone, but it also affects everyone, not simply the company who suffered directly from the accident.
I would appreciate the thoughts of any other chief pilots, experienced pilots or operators who frequent pprune.