Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

ASETPA - Why is it such a challenge to obtain?

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

ASETPA - Why is it such a challenge to obtain?

Old 1st Apr 2015, 11:53
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Overhead but you didn't notice
Age: 21
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
ASETPA - Why is it such a challenge to obtain?

Hopefully somebody who knows CAsA's (har har see what I did there?) inner workings can answer this question.

As an onlooker why does it seem to be that a number of operators are yet to be granted approval to operate ASETPA? Why does it take so long to gain an approval?

It's a bit perplexing. It's legal to fly a TBM on a charter from A to B at 500ft AGL VFR but should you want to go into cloud then woah, woah, hold up, we're going to need to cut down some rainforests and get some dinosaurs to sit in on some flights.

Eg Vortex (Caravan) and Wagga Air Centre (TBM)

Thanks!
FoolCorsePich is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2015, 14:14
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,955
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
FCP,
This is Australia, you know, the air is different, hence the unique rules.

After all, if CASA didn't take a long time, they would not be able to "justify" their increasingly humongous charges.

At least be thankful that the new MOS for Part 61 exempts you from having to demonstrate and instrument approach and missed approach after an engine failure, quite a concession from CASA, after all this time.

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2015, 18:30
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
As a follow on to leadsleds comment, remember CASA'S motto--

"We're not happy until you're not happy, and broke to boot!!"
aussie027 is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 2nd Apr 2015, 00:03
  #4 (permalink)  
601
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Age: 78
Posts: 1,477
Received 19 Likes on 14 Posts
and missed approach after an engine failure,
Am I missing something, but how do you carryout a missed approach following engine failure in a single-engine aeroplane?
601 is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2015, 02:53
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The GAFA
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 601
Am I missing something, but how do you carryout a missed approach following engine failure in a single-engine aeroplane?
You are missing something... A sarcasm detector!
drunk_pilot is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2015, 04:25
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: where ever they tell me
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Actually its not that hard.

For the most post it can be obtained within 6 to 9 months if the operator has the correct staff, manuals and attitude.

ASETPA is looked at in a similar way to RPT. You must have a CAR 217, your aircraft must be class A maintained and your organisation must be suitable to monitor all of the above. If you treat it just like an extension of charter you end up taking three or more years.... just ask an operator in the Kimberely.

I have been involved in two ASETPA set ups that have been processed in well under 12 months.

OCTA
OCTA is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2015, 04:31
  #7 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Overhead but you didn't notice
Age: 21
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thanks Leady.

the correct staff, manuals and attitude.
If you have these things sorted then why does it take 6 to 9 months?

If you treat it just like an extension of charter you end up taking three or more years
Therein lies the problem. Why cannot it be so?
FoolCorsePich is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2015, 09:35
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: All at sea
Posts: 2,194
Received 155 Likes on 103 Posts
6 to 9 months? No wonder this country is so f**kd.
Not too long ago it would have been possible to set up a high capacity jet airline from scratch in that time. Even here, in Oz. Seen it done.
If a basic infrastructure and competent staff already exists, there is no excuse for not processing something so simple in 6 weeks. It is just a single engine aeroplane with a more reliable engine, or is it something akin to the space shuttle?
Mach E Avelli is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2015, 20:17
  #9 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 1996
Location: Utopia
Posts: 7,423
Received 201 Likes on 113 Posts
I have been involved in two ASETPA set ups that have been processed in well under 12 months.
Unbelievable bureaucratic procrastination for something so relatively simple! In the 1980s I obtained an AOC authorising charter in turbine pressurised aircraft in seventeen days and LCRPT in approximately forty five days.
tail wheel is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2015, 01:17
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: where ever they tell me
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Don't shoot the messenger! Yes it shouldn't take that long I agree BUT if you can get anything done by CASA quickly let me know how! My point was if the company is organized and prepaired it does not take 3 years as some people have quoted me.
OCTA is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2023, 00:19
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: TinselTown
Age: 45
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
PA-46-500T for PSEA (ASETPA)

Can anyone point me at the info that precludes the Piper Meridian from being ASETPA/PSEA? I had a look through the Type Certificate but couldn't make head or tail of it, even looking at the C208 TC can't see any direct reference to the aircraft being ASETPA, but we know that CASA has approved it...
Lumps is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2023, 01:14
  #12 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 1996
Location: Utopia
Posts: 7,423
Received 201 Likes on 113 Posts
I think there was an ASETPA requirement the aircraft turbine engine had a demonstrated failure rate of less than 1 in 100,000 hours? I seem to recall from many years ago and the early days of ASETPA that the PT6A-114 engine in the C208 (being of the same class as the -27 and -34) demonstrated that reliability rate, whilst the -41/-42 class of engines in the Piper PA46-500TP had not? I was told that by either CASA or P&W Brisbane?

Looking at the PA46-500 specs and performance, it appears to be more a rich man's toy, rather than a commercial aircraft? The payload at max range appears to be one anorexic pilot plus his handbag? Why bother with Class A maintenance and ASETPA approval?
tail wheel is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2023, 03:41
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Great South East, tired and retired
Posts: 4,380
Received 207 Likes on 95 Posts
Back in the mid-90s we decided to challenge CA$A by submitting a proposal for single-engined helicopter RPT from Parramatta Heliport to KSA. Hats hit the roof, with their staff falling off chairs, a mixture of astonishment and laughter.

The biggest hurdle was getting the Maintenance Control Manual approved - even Bell did not publish anything like an MEL for such a simple aircraft, they said "Make something up."

The original draft of the MCM, off my trusty 286 computer, went from 12 pages to a fourth edition of about 120 pages by the time it got through. And that was only because we paid the CA$A inspector to write it, so he could then approve it. There were multiple other hurdles thrown in our way, but finally we got the AOC after about 1 1/2 years.

CA$A moves in strange ways.
Ascend Charlie is online now  
Old 11th Sep 2023, 03:53
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 97
Received 17 Likes on 9 Posts
CASA's approval for an aircraft to conduct PSEA (the new ASETPA) is listed in the Type Acceptance Certificate.

https://www.casa.gov.au/search-centr...e-certificates

C208 certificates note approval for PSEA. PA46 doesn't. You'd be first of type trying to get it approved, which combined with the aforementioned abysmal performance as a commercial machine probably alludes to why someone else hasn't already done it, if it's even possible.
evilducky is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2023, 10:46
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,307
Received 223 Likes on 100 Posts
Originally Posted by drunk_pilot
You are missing something... A sarcasm detector!
That reminds me of when a local airfield tried to charge a touch and go fee for gliders.

What is ASETPA?
Clare Prop is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2023, 20:50
  #16 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 1996
Location: Utopia
Posts: 7,423
Received 201 Likes on 113 Posts
Clare. Approved Single-Engine Turbine Powered Aeroplanes, apparently now called Prescribed Single-Engine Aeroplane.

Single engine aircraft permitted to operate passenger IFR and RPT, subject to operator approval by CASA. Includes the Cessna 208 and Pilatus PC12.

Not sure why the question is being asked on the Piper Meridian, as it is a five seat turbine aircraft which does not have "commercial" payload/range capability. A pressurised Navaho with a single PT6 turbine.

tail wheel is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 11th Sep 2023, 23:06
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 452
Received 21 Likes on 13 Posts
Less room than a Navajo also.
On eyre is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2023, 23:35
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: TinselTown
Age: 45
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
whilst the -41/-42 class of engines in the Piper PA46-500TP had not?
Ok interesting.

​​​​​​​which combined with the aforementioned abysmal performance as a commercial machine probably alludes to why someone else hasn't already done it, if it's even possible.
yeah totally agree, it's a rich man's toy for sure - can hardly lift anything. However, there are slightly less rich men that do not own an aircraft, but would pay happily to be flown from A to B in turbine aircraft at less expense than taking a King Air, hence the question. Not asking because we are choosing between PSEA aircraft for a purely commercial purpose, there's no way you'd get a PA-46 with that reasoning.
Lumps is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2023, 12:46
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NSW Australia
Posts: 2,455
Received 33 Likes on 15 Posts
PSEA requires crashworthy seats and redundant systems that the PA46 doesn't have.

Horatio Leafblower is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2023, 00:54
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Equatorial
Age: 51
Posts: 1,068
Received 125 Likes on 62 Posts
How does the TBM stack up for the ASETPA?

Yes still small but fast and a pretty good range.
Global Aviator is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.