BARS and its effect on GA companies?

[Riding the Goat]

Last Friday there was an article in the Australian which alluded to the new set of standards referred to as the Basic Aviation Risk Standard (BARS). This was also mentioned during a recent audit of our operation.

The intent is that all resource companies in Australia will use this set of standards when writing/evaluating tenders or auditing their current aviation companies. Which is a great idea in theory. If you have a read through the document (http://flightsafety.org/files/bars_v3.pdf) there are a few sections that may have a big impact on the current GA companies that are servicing resource companies.

- On page 15, control 9.1, states that all single engine aircraft need to be turbine powered! How will this effect survey companies and small charter operations with C206, C210, GA8 aircraft? Might have to place an order for that C208 after all.

- Pg 20, Appendix 1, states the aircrew experience required. For single engine operations, 2000hrs total time is required. This may be a big ask, considering 2 years ago you couldn’t find someone with 1000hrs to fly single engine aircraft. It also states that Captains of >5700kg aircraft require 2500 command hours. How will this effect the WA charter companies that have cadets now getting promotions who have very little command time and total time less then 3000hrs? 2500 is a lot of ICUS. Qantaslink, REX, Alliance, etc may also have to limit some of their resource work to certain crews that meet these requirements.

- Pg 21, Appendix 2, outlines the minimum equipment required to meet the standard. For multi-engine aircraft TCAS and EGPWS are required. This may have an effect on those charter operators with 30 seat aircraft such as the EMB-120 as most of those aircraft are not required to and don’t have TCAS. Also how many PA31, C404, etc have EGPWS?

I am interested on people’s opinions on this document and its effect on GA in Australia. Has anyone been audited to this standard yet and if so did you meet all the requirements? How hard is it to get exemptions for certain criteria?

[bushy]

That's great, if they are prepared to pay lots more for their flying. A lot more.
And if the airlines invest some money in tarining their new pilots, instead of sucking them out of GA for free, thereby stuffing up GA.

The answer is for airlines to swallow their pride and start operating (or sontracting) some GA aircraft, flown by long term pilots who have agreements for career progression with the airline.

[Ixixly]

So, I read through a fair bit of it, but skipped a lot. Did the government just commission and pay an American Company to make a fancy document telling us most of the stuff we should already know and be doing and then go on to tell us that if we use reasonably well qualified pilots for such operations we'll be a lot safer?!

[Riding the Goat]

Not sure the government had anything to do with it. I think it is an industry association that has created the document. It is being backed by the private auditing companies that are involved with the resource sector.

[LeadSled]

Folks,

It is a Flight Safety Foundation/Mining Industry iniative ---- it is nor regulatory.

In practice, what effect will it have?? That will be a matter for negotiation between the operators and their customers.

Tootle pip!!

[neville_nobody]

The government or CASA do not have the intestinal fortitude to implement such a scheme, and then you'll have everyone want a dispo, just like the ETS, so I agree that it will be between the operators and the clients.

However, piston engine aircraft are getting pretty long in the tooth, with no replacements, so someone will have to do something about it sooner or later. Whether that is CASA or if major clients such as governments and miners move into a turbine only policy some action will have to be taken in the next five years.

[bushy]

I wonder if all our airmedical organisations comply with BARS.

[Mach E Avelli]

As leadsled says, it's an initiative, not a requirement. When the miners can get operators with the equipment and pilot experience they will. When they can't they will do what they always do and compromise.
And despite all the feel-good of BARS, the lowest bid often wins anyway. But another couple of fatals like the ones recently in Africa and PNG may concentrate a few minds on this so that we will eventually see it become the industry tendering standard.

[OZvandriver]

BARS? I thought they were the long wooden things at aero clubs where you get your beer.

[compressor stall]

Bring it on. If that's the standard they determine that they need, then that's what they will have to pay for and the operators will supply at the appropriate price.

I see it as a way our resources industry might help the aviation industry. Bring on the Caravan instead of the 210.

The flying community should support this!

And as for the hours on type - well to have that many hours and not b#gger off to an airline means that the pilots will have to be paid better. GA might continue to grow financially as a better place to spend one's career.

[tipsy2]

Stallie

Stop talking sense and highlighting the potential positives BARS can bring to the industry.

I do agree though, bring it on and we will all benefit.

tipsy

[Tankengine]

I can remember when 3000hrs was needed for oil rig FIFO in QLD in Navajo.

[CharlieLimaX-Ray]

Plus at least 1000 hours command in PA-23's, prior to getting near a Navajo.

[601]

I can remember when 3000hrs was needed for oil rig FIFO in QLD in Navajo

and over 4000 hours for Beech 65.

[AerobaticArcher]

Please note, the GA company must organise and pay for the BARS audit to be conducted, and there is still no guarantee of addition flying after the audit.

[megle2]

Who would like to have a guess at the cost to an Operator who requests a BARS audit request?

[insertnamehere]

I can remember when 3000hrs was needed for oil rig FIFO in QLD in Navajo.

And fair enough, too. Those oil rig strips aren't the longest.

[Wally Mk2]

Bring it on I say anything that enhances safety is a must, trouble is at what cost? Like a few have said here those hrs where the norm once upon a time & the industry survived. We ( as in the rule makers) eroded away that safety barrier (experience) years ago thru rapid expansion at the airline level but it's all starting to show that rapid expansion does bite you in the ass sometime down the track. But again can the current industry model sustain an increase in hrs/experience just to fly a basic machine? I doubt it

There will come a time & most likely not too far away that aviation/flying will not be a sort after career, something once only achievable by the very determined. Sad I know as it was once something to fight for & be proud of.

'Bushy' like all other sectors in this industry of ours Aeromedical is money driven,'BARS' means somebody has to pay for it.

Wmk2

[Grogmonster]

Aerobatic Archer

Mate I am sorry but with respect I have to correct you. As an organisation you cannot ring up and organise an audit that you are going to pay for. Conflict of Interest issues. So the normal process is that a mining company will request that you undergo an audit at their expense so that you can do work for them. I am led to believe that the most cursory audit of a small AOC holder will run about $5K and higher for larger organisations. Flight Safety International (not the simulator mob) are hawking the positive aspects of BARS to the big companies and to date I believe they have been very successful. There is a general consensus that this is the way it will be in the future.

It's not just about having your paper work in order as other items such as, aircraft age, check and training etc, will effect the end result. Piston engine aircraft are definitely not a priority. As stated above by various posters it will lift the game in GA. It just pisses me off that once again it has taken an outside influence to pick up the ball for CASA.

Groggy

[tipsy2]

As Groggy said

It just pisses me off that once again it has taken an outside influence to pick up the ball for CASA.

CASA can not be accused of being an authority on safe civil aviation. Forget about them, customers and our own industry will drive safety, CASA is only a regulator, end of story.

If you could regulate safety there would be no accidents. Just look how effective state governments have been at regulating "safety" on our roads..

I've done audits where there was a high degree of compliance and conformance, yet I would not say that organisation was safe. Mercifully that same organisation has folded.

tipsy