BARS and its effect on GA companies?
Nothing to do with Safety?
...so the aviation risk standards that were independently developed by BHP, Rio, SANTOS and Shell (amongst others) long before BARS turned up had nothing to do with safety?
Shell and others have been auditing and observing their Aviation suppliers for a long time. FSF haven't invented this... it's not new.
In fact, it is an excellent description of the risk controls available to aviation companies to control safety risks in their organisation. You can comply or not comply... for those areas you are non-compliant you provide alternate risk mitigators and the client company assesses the residual risk with those mitigators in place.
...and the CASA regulatory audit standard is the bare minimum to continue to hold an AOC, it certainly ain't a "safety standard". If the minimum standard is acceptable to you, that's fine, but you might not get your slice of the mining boom pie.
best of luck with that
Shell and others have been auditing and observing their Aviation suppliers for a long time. FSF haven't invented this... it's not new.
In fact, it is an excellent description of the risk controls available to aviation companies to control safety risks in their organisation. You can comply or not comply... for those areas you are non-compliant you provide alternate risk mitigators and the client company assesses the residual risk with those mitigators in place.
...and the CASA regulatory audit standard is the bare minimum to continue to hold an AOC, it certainly ain't a "safety standard". If the minimum standard is acceptable to you, that's fine, but you might not get your slice of the mining boom pie.
best of luck with that
I dislike the fact that this auditing has turned into a for profit exercise. I have been subject to audits conducted the client and have no problem with that.
But when this auditing is sub-contracted to a third party and the third party charges the Operator megabucks for the audit and not their client, I do have a problem.
Or do they charge the Charterer also?
Who carries the liability if, based on a favourable audit of an Operator, the Charterer uses that Operator and the worse happens?
ISO9001:2008 certification is not an aviation audit. It relates to quality management systems and can be adapted to just about any type business. You can be ISO compliant and CASA non-complaint at the same time.
But when this auditing is sub-contracted to a third party and the third party charges the Operator megabucks for the audit and not their client, I do have a problem.
Or do they charge the Charterer also?
Who carries the liability if, based on a favourable audit of an Operator, the Charterer uses that Operator and the worse happens?
ISO9001:2008 certification is not an aviation audit. It relates to quality management systems and can be adapted to just about any type business. You can be ISO compliant and CASA non-complaint at the same time.
From first hand experience, I don't know of a mining company that accepts singles - either piston, a Caravan or a PC12. From what I've seen, most mining companies accept piston twins, with single pilot operations as a bare minimum, with turbo-prop twins & two pilot operations (whether or not the aircraft requires two pilot operations) as the preferred option. Pilots to have 1000hrs PIC.
I think that cost has less to do with it - I think that no board of directors will go against the recomendations of the safety officer. And if the safety officer has a thing about GA, then we're screwed, as a jet would then become the bare minimum. What I predict is that companies who are already established in this direction will get further ahead, while the smaller GA operations will get left further behind, fighting over the scraps of tourism, freight, or ad hoc charter.
What I'm starting to see is is that this is starting to fall over into other areas ie Govt work, who are now starting to insist that they can only travel in turbo prop twins, with two pilots, "for (unspecified) safety reasons". Whereas as recently as six months ago, a piston single, with single pilot, was fine for exactly the same job.
My personal opinion is that whoever gets the govvie contracts is whoever takes the purchasing officer of the dept out for long, lazy, lunch, every Friday. Sour grapes? Maybe......
I think that cost has less to do with it - I think that no board of directors will go against the recomendations of the safety officer. And if the safety officer has a thing about GA, then we're screwed, as a jet would then become the bare minimum. What I predict is that companies who are already established in this direction will get further ahead, while the smaller GA operations will get left further behind, fighting over the scraps of tourism, freight, or ad hoc charter.
What I'm starting to see is is that this is starting to fall over into other areas ie Govt work, who are now starting to insist that they can only travel in turbo prop twins, with two pilots, "for (unspecified) safety reasons". Whereas as recently as six months ago, a piston single, with single pilot, was fine for exactly the same job.
My personal opinion is that whoever gets the govvie contracts is whoever takes the purchasing officer of the dept out for long, lazy, lunch, every Friday. Sour grapes? Maybe......
I don't know of a mining company that accepts singles - either piston, a Caravan or a PC12.
I 100% agree with the thrust of your comments though, except for the long lazy lunch bit.
It's good too as if the contract requirements are that high, then operators are going to have to pay pilots good money to stay. We'll start to see 6 figure salaries to be a C208 driver in the Kimberley.
Exactly right c.stall. I have been in aviation since 1992, almost 20 years. Back then, most GA aircraft were old and everyone complained they should be replaced with modern gear but no-one could afford it. Many of the same aircraft are still in use.
We cannot complain that the requirements of BARS will make the GA fleet obsolete, any rational evaluation of the fleet should already show that a GA aircraft made in the '80s is well and truly past it's used by date.
BARS is saying what we have known for a long time:
If new aircraft are required to meet the specs then so be it.
If experience and qualifications are valued in the marketplace then so be it.
If GA as we know it faces significant changes as a result, this may not be a bad thing.
We cannot complain that the requirements of BARS will make the GA fleet obsolete, any rational evaluation of the fleet should already show that a GA aircraft made in the '80s is well and truly past it's used by date.
BARS is saying what we have known for a long time:
- Turbine aircraft are safer than pistons.
- Technology such as EGPWS and TCAS should be fitted to charter and RPT aircraft.
- Crew operating these aircraft should be competent and experienced.
- The highest safety standards should be demanded by FIFO companies
If new aircraft are required to meet the specs then so be it.
If experience and qualifications are valued in the marketplace then so be it.
If GA as we know it faces significant changes as a result, this may not be a bad thing.
The BAR Auditor list does not have any of the auditors we have had dealings with, why is that? Very strange. Surely one of them would back BARS.
From the BARS web page
BARS Audit Company list
Litson & Associates
Aviation Compliance Solutions Pty Ltd
Wake (QA) Ltd
AvLaw Pty Ltd
Morten Beyer & Agnew, Inc.
ASSET Aviation International Pty Ltd.
ARGUS PROS
From the BARS web page
BARS Audit Company list
Litson & Associates
Aviation Compliance Solutions Pty Ltd
Wake (QA) Ltd
AvLaw Pty Ltd
Morten Beyer & Agnew, Inc.
ASSET Aviation International Pty Ltd.
ARGUS PROS
