BARS and its effect on GA companies?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Up the road and around the corner
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Worries Groggy.
My understanding of the concept when I attended one of their breifings was, the GA company organised a BARS audit, once completed, went on to a list of BARS audited operators with a compliance ranking. The resource (and other) companies using the services can expect to be charged more because the GA company needs re-embursement. However, what does a GA company do when only 1 or 2 flights a year come out of this audit?
And the GA company owns the audit, so they can use it where they like.
My understanding of the concept when I attended one of their breifings was, the GA company organised a BARS audit, once completed, went on to a list of BARS audited operators with a compliance ranking. The resource (and other) companies using the services can expect to be charged more because the GA company needs re-embursement. However, what does a GA company do when only 1 or 2 flights a year come out of this audit?
And the GA company owns the audit, so they can use it where they like.
Aerobatic is correct.
At present it operates as Groggy describes but in the future it will be as AeroB describes.
Agree, it demonstrates how far behind Casa is.
They are just a regulator and sadly a poor one at that.
At present it operates as Groggy describes but in the future it will be as AeroB describes.
Agree, it demonstrates how far behind Casa is.
They are just a regulator and sadly a poor one at that.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly (?) CASA is misnamed - It should be CARA.. they are more interested in Regulation than Safety.
You can be 100% compliant and far from safe, yet you can operate a very safe operation and not be totally compliant. There are some compliant companies that as an auditor I would think twice before traveling with. Tell me how you assess & regulate "culture"?
This exercise has been driven by the major resource companies such as BHP and is placing the auditing into a standard that is acceptable to those users and has the potential flow on of actually reducing the number of audits that some companies undergo from that sector. Most of the GA companies that provide services to the mining/resource sector are already subject to regular audits and for them it will be no different. BARS does provide the prospect that the number of such audits will reduce which I am sure those GA companies will welcome.
Like others have said; the end result will be good for GA and will lift the bar in a way that CAS(R)A cannot.
Further: IATA have been conducting IOSA audits now for some years with great success. This is really a mini version of that process. An IOSA audit puts 5 auditors on site for 5 days and usually costs about ~US$60k which the airline pays for. They have to have the audit every 2 yrs to remain a member of IATA. BARS audits, I understand, will take two days and have 2 auditors on site, so costs I would guess be about $4k plus travel and expenses etc. But this is a guess...
You can be 100% compliant and far from safe, yet you can operate a very safe operation and not be totally compliant. There are some compliant companies that as an auditor I would think twice before traveling with. Tell me how you assess & regulate "culture"?
This exercise has been driven by the major resource companies such as BHP and is placing the auditing into a standard that is acceptable to those users and has the potential flow on of actually reducing the number of audits that some companies undergo from that sector. Most of the GA companies that provide services to the mining/resource sector are already subject to regular audits and for them it will be no different. BARS does provide the prospect that the number of such audits will reduce which I am sure those GA companies will welcome.
Like others have said; the end result will be good for GA and will lift the bar in a way that CAS(R)A cannot.
Further: IATA have been conducting IOSA audits now for some years with great success. This is really a mini version of that process. An IOSA audit puts 5 auditors on site for 5 days and usually costs about ~US$60k which the airline pays for. They have to have the audit every 2 yrs to remain a member of IATA. BARS audits, I understand, will take two days and have 2 auditors on site, so costs I would guess be about $4k plus travel and expenses etc. But this is a guess...
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So down the track a bit after the number of audits reduce what happens to the various audit companies? Will they survive?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The audit companies have nothing to do with CASA. (thank goodness!)
They are engaged by clients that use aviation resources to show/prove that the company is as safe as practical.
CASA do NOT regulate them and never will. The mining and resource industry have their own set of standards to which many of the audits are referenced. In some cases they surpass the regulatory standards, but are never less.
They are engaged by clients that use aviation resources to show/prove that the company is as safe as practical.
CASA do NOT regulate them and never will. The mining and resource industry have their own set of standards to which many of the audits are referenced. In some cases they surpass the regulatory standards, but are never less.
CASA is misnamed - It should be CARA.. they are more interested in Regulation than Safety.
The minimum standards set for CHTR operators are based on a range of factors that have been shown to influence the safety of the organisation. The BARS audit is no different - they just use different criteria, which (generally) will produce a standard higher than the minimum required by CASA.
CASA are slaves to their political masters and there would be political ramifications in implementing the BARS to all charter operators, for example. YES it would be safer to have the Bungles scenics done in a 2-crew turbine twin - but would it work?
The resource sector are free from the weight of public opinion and can set whatever standard they like amongst themselves, and good on them, but their "affordable safety" is different to the pastoral sector's "affordable safety".
I understand, will take two days and have 2 auditors on site, so costs I would guess be about $4k plus travel and expenses etc. But this is a guess...
For a small turbine multi-engine aeroplane AOC, that is more than the cost of getting up the AOC.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Suitcase
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking from a different perspective.....if you have ever been in management, you will know that having an audit every two weeks from a different organization with varying standards and paradigms is an absurd drain on human and capital resources.
Moving to a common standard is a breath of fresh air....It might even free up time to source capital for that 208 or even reply to emails from prospective applicants
In reality, its the insurance companies set the standard. The standards the regulator sets (and not just in this country) are just a basic framework.
Moving to a common standard is a breath of fresh air....It might even free up time to source capital for that 208 or even reply to emails from prospective applicants
In reality, its the insurance companies set the standard. The standards the regulator sets (and not just in this country) are just a basic framework.
This smells to me like one big con job by those audit companies out to make a quick buck.
I'm old enough to remember con's of the past.
First there was the Quality Assured con. Remember the 4 ticks on every van, advert, and document. Every company worth it's salt had to have this audit and rating or otherwise no goverment contracts etc for you.
Companies spent tens of thousands of dollars to get the privelige to have the ticks only to find as always the lowest quote usually wins the contract,ticks or no ticks.
Then there was the millenium bug con.
Millions of wasted dollars spend because everything that had computers involved was going to crash on the 1st January 2000 and thousands of companies had dozens of consultants going over the equiptment to make sure it didn't. No garantee however if it did and in fact turned into a fizzer.
Now this little beauty.
Bet charter companies are told there will be no contracts without it.
Just as before it will all come down to contract price and delivery capability.
I'm old enough to remember con's of the past.
First there was the Quality Assured con. Remember the 4 ticks on every van, advert, and document. Every company worth it's salt had to have this audit and rating or otherwise no goverment contracts etc for you.
Companies spent tens of thousands of dollars to get the privelige to have the ticks only to find as always the lowest quote usually wins the contract,ticks or no ticks.
Then there was the millenium bug con.
Millions of wasted dollars spend because everything that had computers involved was going to crash on the 1st January 2000 and thousands of companies had dozens of consultants going over the equiptment to make sure it didn't. No garantee however if it did and in fact turned into a fizzer.
Now this little beauty.
Bet charter companies are told there will be no contracts without it.
Just as before it will all come down to contract price and delivery capability.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight Safety Foundation
I may be mistaken, but didn't this mob once do a thesis on ageing aircraft and recommended replacement with new turbo-prop aircraft, Much to the delight of CASA, but not so of Industry?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not feel the B.A.R.S requirements are all that unreasonable, quite the opposite infact.
It will be interesting to see how "those"companies that "invested" heavily in the cadet programs will now suffer.
"Oh I'm sorry Mr Mining Company, less than half of our Captains meet your requirements, and with all those inflight incidents aside, we're pretty awesome".......
Scam or not, it will be interesting how the mining will deal with the issue.
It will be interesting to see how "those"companies that "invested" heavily in the cadet programs will now suffer.
"Oh I'm sorry Mr Mining Company, less than half of our Captains meet your requirements, and with all those inflight incidents aside, we're pretty awesome".......
Scam or not, it will be interesting how the mining will deal with the issue.
mostlytossas...
Really?
I've been through the ISO9001:2008 certification process mostlytossas. I developed and documented my own quality system, got it checked by an independent consultant who also did my pre-certification audit, then got it certified for a total cost of about $5K, which included my time. I reckon it was money well-spent (Mrs SIUYA reckons it would have been better spent on a holiday though).
If the companies you're referring to needed to spend tens of thousands of dollars getting their certifications mostlytossas, then they either fcuked-up the whole process badly, or they got totally ripped-off.
Re the reference to the cost of a BARS audit - it seems to me to be about ballpark with some other industry-standard audits (eg., IBAC IS-BAO). And remember, a lot of audits are paid for by clients, not operators. And if you think a BARS audit is expensive, take a look at the eye-watering expense of an IATA IOSA audit as referred to by triadic.
Companies spent tens of thousands of dollars to get the privelige to have the ticks
I've been through the ISO9001:2008 certification process mostlytossas. I developed and documented my own quality system, got it checked by an independent consultant who also did my pre-certification audit, then got it certified for a total cost of about $5K, which included my time. I reckon it was money well-spent (Mrs SIUYA reckons it would have been better spent on a holiday though).
If the companies you're referring to needed to spend tens of thousands of dollars getting their certifications mostlytossas, then they either fcuked-up the whole process badly, or they got totally ripped-off.
Re the reference to the cost of a BARS audit - it seems to me to be about ballpark with some other industry-standard audits (eg., IBAC IS-BAO). And remember, a lot of audits are paid for by clients, not operators. And if you think a BARS audit is expensive, take a look at the eye-watering expense of an IATA IOSA audit as referred to by triadic.
And remember, a lot of audits are paid for by clients, not operators
What amazes me is that Operators complain about Legislative requirements. However, the same Operator will bend over backwards and are willing to spend big money on these audits with no guarantee of resultant business.
Remember having an audit from a non-CASA organisation is no guarantee that your operation is compliant with Legislative requirements. You could pass an ISO or BARS audit one day and be grounded the next by CASA.
SIUYA,
Well if it only cost you $5k for the 4 ticks I'm very happy for you.
For that cost your company must be very small.
I was talking about National companies as well as local companies and not just aviation related. In fact aviation overall is not a large industry compared to manufacturers, builders, suppliers and the like. I know of dozens of companies that got taken in by the "quality assured" catchcry of the day. Anything from electrical and plumbing manufacturers to truck and courier companies.
Guess what? Australians go out and buy on price. Usually from China.
So even do Government agencies. So much for 4 ticks.
Well if it only cost you $5k for the 4 ticks I'm very happy for you.
For that cost your company must be very small.
I was talking about National companies as well as local companies and not just aviation related. In fact aviation overall is not a large industry compared to manufacturers, builders, suppliers and the like. I know of dozens of companies that got taken in by the "quality assured" catchcry of the day. Anything from electrical and plumbing manufacturers to truck and courier companies.
Guess what? Australians go out and buy on price. Usually from China.
So even do Government agencies. So much for 4 ticks.
mostlytossas...
Thanks! Yes, my company is an SME. But irrespective of company size, you only need to document the procedures that you need, and there is nothing in the standard says you that need to do anything other than that.
601 - want to re-read what I said please?
Nothing in that statement suggested that the observation was directed solely at BARS audits. There's many other due-diligence audits performed other than BARS 601, and they are usually paid for by the client.
Thanks! Yes, my company is an SME. But irrespective of company size, you only need to document the procedures that you need, and there is nothing in the standard says you that need to do anything other than that.
601 - want to re-read what I said please?
And remember, a lot of audits are paid for by clients, not operators
Nothing in that statement suggested that the observation was directed solely at BARS audits. There's many other due-diligence audits performed other than BARS 601, and they are usually paid for by the client.
So the cost of the audit will be shifted from the Charterer to the Operator. Admittedly there will be less audits for the Operator but the one the Operator does will be at the Operator's cost.
Question is, with only one organisation apparently doing these BARS audits in Oz, what is going to happen to the existing Aviation Auditors who do not have BARS accreditation?
In the old days, the auditor not only reviewed your documents but actually conducted observations in flight.
Doesn't seem to happen these days. Why?
With all the paper audits etc. that are undertaken by Operators, pilots can still descend from cruising level to the surface without recognising that the aircraft has stalled.
I would rather see the dollars spent on more pilot training than on a paperwork audit.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mostlytossas, you are bang on the money old timer!
On a personal note I do not criticize any safety initiative that will improve safety in the Australian aviation community, no problem there. But BARS is a standard and process that has been put together for the unofficial purpose of competitive tendering for audit work. The standards themselves are in several ways flawed, BARS is meant to cover not only GA but some LOCAP/HICAP operators as well. One size shoe does not fit all.
BARS is a commercially driven enterprise, it was designed after several high profile aviation resource incidents to spook resource companies into taking assertive action. Again I reiterate that any improvement in safety is commendable, no questions asked, but BARS has not been developed simply for the greater good of mankind, it is not 'the be all and end all'. I personally have working knowledge of several organizations who meet and exceed the BARS principles, so in effect any resource company that pays an auditor to audit these organizations against BARS is actually wasting their money. But on the other hand and to be reasonable, the fact that sets of specific standards are being developed and considered is a proactive safety initiative and is welcomed. I just get annoyed at seeing the guise of 'safety' being flogged when BARS is a money spinner.
On a personal note I do not criticize any safety initiative that will improve safety in the Australian aviation community, no problem there. But BARS is a standard and process that has been put together for the unofficial purpose of competitive tendering for audit work. The standards themselves are in several ways flawed, BARS is meant to cover not only GA but some LOCAP/HICAP operators as well. One size shoe does not fit all.
BARS is a commercially driven enterprise, it was designed after several high profile aviation resource incidents to spook resource companies into taking assertive action. Again I reiterate that any improvement in safety is commendable, no questions asked, but BARS has not been developed simply for the greater good of mankind, it is not 'the be all and end all'. I personally have working knowledge of several organizations who meet and exceed the BARS principles, so in effect any resource company that pays an auditor to audit these organizations against BARS is actually wasting their money. But on the other hand and to be reasonable, the fact that sets of specific standards are being developed and considered is a proactive safety initiative and is welcomed. I just get annoyed at seeing the guise of 'safety' being flogged when BARS is a money spinner.