new rules for charter operators ?

[BNEA320]

in yesterdays Australia it said something to the effect, that new rules are finally being looked at, so any aircraft with more than 9 seats or over certain weight(think it was over ~8,000 kgs) will be required to operator under RPT rules. No link sorry.


Or am I reading this incorrectly ?


How with this effect charters operators like Corporate Air who have aircraft up to Saab 340 size(34 seats)? They seem to do a lot of govt work.

[Frank Arouet]

Charter operators flying bigger planes will have to meet the same safety standards as airlines under long-awaited new rules the aviation regulator says will boost safety for non-scheduled flights.

A rewrite of Civil Aviation Safety Regulations Part 121 released this week for comment by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority will put charter aircraft fitted with more than nine seats or with a maximum takeoff weight of more than 8618kg into the same air transport category as airlines.

A raft of changes include a move to formalise the cabin crew to passenger seat ratio at 1:50 — down from the previous standard of one for every 36 seats — in line with manufacturer recommendations. CASA has been granting exemptions to the 1:36 rule for some time but the move, strongly supported by airlines as an efficiency measure, for many years was opposed by the Flight Attendants Association of Australia on safety and security grounds.

CASA expects safety improvements to flow from areas such as record and document control, better information on non-certified aerodromes, improved procedures for pilots operating different types of aircraft, as well as simplified check and training requirements for flight crews.

There will also be improvements with safety management systems in conjunction with CASR Part 119, which deals with air operator’s certificates.

Other changes include the provision for new technology such as synthetic vision and enhanced vision systems, requirements for underwater location devices and additional medical equipment on some flights and rostering restrictions for inexperienced flight crew.

The authority said many of the changes would formalise current practices or simplify compliance and align “to the maximum extent possible’’ with International Civil Aviation Organisation standards and recommendations.

The move to put charter and airline operations under one umbrella stretches back over two decades and met with resistance in the early 2000s. The aviation authority has more recently come under intense criticism for the way it introduced new rules in areas such as flight crew licensing as well its failure to consult properly with the industry.

However, CASA said this time it had conducted comprehensive consultation on the proposed rules with airlines, smaller air ­operators, industry groups and unions.

It said consultations in nine working groups had culminated in the proposal, an associated technical draft of the manual of standards and draft acceptable means of compliance and guidance material.

The most recent consultation resulted in changes to the new rules, which are based on Euro­pean standards for air transport operations, to incorporate standards and rules commonly used in Australia.

A risk analysis had also shown that in most cases the new rules would mitigate known safety risks, the authority said.

“Generally, the application of a rule would not change the outcome but would reduce the probability of the risk being realised,’’ it said.

The regulator says it will consider all comments received as part of consultation process and wants them lodged by close of business on November 27.

[B772]

European standards will be a pain in the butt and strangle the local aviation scene even more. Why not consider FAA Part 135.

[Desert Duck]

B772

That would be too logical & practical

[neville_nobody]

More regulation just means more work for CASA. Bigger staff, bigger budget, more power etc etc.

To bring simpler, less bureaucratic, legislation would mean less work for CASA.

Unless you adopt a US style to minimalise governement intervention it will only get worse.

[roundsounds]

This shouldn't be a surprise to any commercial pilot / operator, the new regulations have been under development for over 10 years.
Being a "Professional " aviator is more than just getting an aeroplane from point A to B in one piece. Keeping track of changes in the industry and taking the time to provide input to the various consultation processes are professional traits. It's too late to whine about regulations being unreasonable at the 11th hour. If CASA receive only a handful of responses to NPRMs the results are going to be no better than the flight crew licencing debacle. A debacle from both CASA and industry perspectives. That's why there's always an outcry from GA that airlines get a better deal, it's because the airlines participate in the development and feedback processes, whereas GA only complain after the event and then only on forums and in bars.

https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/casr-part-119-air-operator-certification-management-and-systems-history

This will kill whatever there is left of GA Charter.

[Duck Pilot]

This isn't GA charter (aka new Part 135) they are consulting, it the heavy end of town.

To CASA's credit, these particular regulations have been heavily consulted with all the big players at the table, rumour is that some players want these regulations implemented ASAP. If there are any nasty surprises to any airline or interested party, they obviously haven't been involved in the consultation process, or simply haven't read the regulations.

[Oktas8]

This is not about FAA Part 135. It's about removing the distinction between RPT & Charter in favour of the catch-all "Air Transport Operations".

Part 135, for the countries that use it, deals with small aircraft carrying paying passengers.

Part 121 deals with large aircraft carrying paying passengers.

Whether you're paying via an agent (charter) or paying the operator directly (RPT) won't make difference to the level of safety. The only determining factor for level of safety will be size of aircraft.

As far as this goes, welcome to the 21st Century Australia, the rest of the world has missed you!

The issue at stake here, is whether CASA can turn what should be a 200 page document into a 2000 page document, as they have successfully done with Part 61.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Being a "Professional " aviator is more than just getting an aeroplane from point A to B in one piece. Keeping track of changes in the industry and taking the time to provide input to the various consultation processes are professional traits.

CASA typically offer 2 weeks for an operator to read and digest these things and then formulate a sensible, considered, measured response that might actually be "Constructive".

If you think this is reasonable or realistic, you have obviously never owned/operated a GA business.

GA pilots are typically either young blokes going somewhere with their careers (who have better things to do with their time, like drink beer and have sex) or tired old bitter twisted GA codgers like you & me whose responses come across as... well, tired, old, bitter and twisted.

I have never ever actually had time to make a response to any of their crap. Sadly perhaps. Perhaps not. :ugh:

[thorn bird]

Ce la vi GA, great while it lasted.
If anyone thinks any of this is sustainable they are delusional.
Europe is a great example.

[BNEA320]

but would any of this apply to New Zealand operators flying domestically in Australia under NZCAA rules ?

[AerocatS2A]

New Zealand already has rules like that don't they? No such thing as RPT in NZ, just big air transport and little air transport.

[YPJT]

I recall reading some time back a quote along the lines of the regulator only wanting to see RPT and military air traffic in our skies. Looks like this along with the upcoming SIDs compliance might just might let them achieve their aim.

I think I'll chuck this **** in and concentrate on my bee keeping. :{

[BNEA320]

so any New Zealand airline with an AOC that says they can transport passengers in New Zealand, can also transport passengers in Australia under NZCAA rules, without any reference to CASA at all ?

[waren9]

nz caa has a part 125. middle size.

check it out

[thorn bird]

And as our regulator endeavors to make aviation in Australia so "Safe" that nobody can afford it...think economy of scale... a few million here... split amongst a few hundred thousand for the airlines, against a few million there... split amongst a few thousand for GA.
There is a need out there, but at an affordable price, but when the commercial side of GA is dead, what choice do the punters have??
Oh yeah!! Our super safe highways, which of course are much safer than allowing people to make a choice and risk their lives by utilizing an airplane.
Skidmark and the Murky Macavellian of course will never take responsibility for any road deaths caused because Chartering an aircraft becomes unaffordable forcing people to use their cars.

[BNEA320]

nzcaa part 125 only applies to aircraft up to 30 seats I think which wouldn't even cover a dash 8.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Re. CASA Part 135, just have a very close look at the paragraphs on aerodrome standards.
That alone, ( plus the draconian penalties for non-compliance "in the opinion of the delegate" - my words) will eliminate a large proportion of traditional light aircraft charter.
Tootle pip!!

[Horatio Leafblower]

Re. CASA Part 135, just have a very close look at the paragraphs on aerodrome standards.
That alone will eliminate a large proportion of traditional light aircraft charter.

You keep saying this.

Give us chapter and verse please LeadSlug because I just don't see it.

[NZScion]

nzcaa part 125 only applies to aircraft up to 30 seats I think which wouldn't even cover a dash 8.

Importantly, Part 125 also applies to operators of single engine IFR aircraft such as PC-12s and C208s. Imposes more stringent requirements than Part 135.

[LeadSled]

Give us chapter and verse please LeadSlug because I just don't see it. Clearly, Horatio, you have not read and understood what is there, including the usual heavy penalties, all strict liability, for non-compliance. Read ALL of it, including where draft CASR Part 135 directs you to other CASRs.

I strongly suggest you read-read them, thinking like an FOI looking for scalps.

Re. NZ Part 135, just have a look at it, (or FAR 135) to see how different it is to the draft CASR Part 135.

Just for a start, all those ski planes up in the NZ snowfields could not operate under CASR Part 135.

Do you ever fly into any farm strips in Australia, or any number of council owned aerodromes that do not comply with CASR Part 139H??

Tootle pip!!