Rex says Part 61 has added $250,000 to its annual training costs
Thread Starter
Rex says Part 61 has added $250,000 to its annual training costs
Following is the text of an article by Annabel Hepworth which appeared in The Australian on Friday 2 March 2018. I was overseas so I missed it.
This seems a staggering amount of money to be added with no measurable safety benefit.
I understood CASA was going to give dispensations so that Part 61 had no measurable net effect compared to operating previously.
Can anyone advise if this is so, or was it only a half wind-back?
This seems a staggering amount of money to be added with no measurable safety benefit.
I understood CASA was going to give dispensations so that Part 61 had no measurable net effect compared to operating previously.
Can anyone advise if this is so, or was it only a half wind-back?
Rex says CASA regulations are causing costs to skyrocket
Regional Express says operating costs are skyrocketing due to regulatory demands.
Regional Express has fired a broadside at “over-regulation” by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
Rex says part 61 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations that deals with flight crew licensing has added $250,000 to its annual training costs.
The regional carrier also says the proposed changes to the fatigue rules have the potential to drive up operating costs by more than $7 million annually.
In a submission, the airline has told the Senate inquiry into regional services that it has to invest a “copious amount of time and commercial resources into simply filling out, sending and monitoring paperwork for CASA expiries”.
“The bureaucratic approval process for licence upgrades, training and checking approvals and synthetic trainer (simulator) approvals, results in diminished use of crew resources and vital check and training delays,” it says.
“These matters incur a higher cost to the airline operation and this is exacerbated by the current shortage of pilots.”
The regional airline said despite years of regulatory reform efforts, there was “little benefit realised to operators in recent times”. The reform is “in some cases unsubstantiated or is often in response to pressure from various interest groups”.
CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said the body “recognises the regulatory reform program has not progressed as we would all have preferred and the outcomes have not always achieved the desired goals”.
He said CASA’s chief executive officer and director of aviation safety, Shane Carmody, had tackled this “by setting an ambitious deadline to complete the outstanding parts of the regulatory change program by the end of this year”.
“Mr Carmody has put in place new consultation mechanisms to ensure the aviation industry plays an effective and constructive role in the completion of the new regulations,” Mr Gibson said.
“The focus is on ensuring new regulations deliver the best possible outcomes for everyone in the aviation community.”
On the proposed new fatigue rules, the spokesman said an independent review of them would be delivered this month.
“CASA has removed the deadline for transition to new fatigue rules to give the aviation community time to consider the findings of the review and provide further feedback to CASA,” he said. “New fatigue rules will not be implemented until CASA has carefully studied all the review findings and aviation community feedback.”
The spokesman said the authority was aware of the financial impact of regulation and it sought “to minimise costs, but it is important to note that CASA’s fees for regulatory services have not increased for more than 10 years”.
Regional Express says operating costs are skyrocketing due to regulatory demands.
Regional Express has fired a broadside at “over-regulation” by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
Rex says part 61 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations that deals with flight crew licensing has added $250,000 to its annual training costs.
The regional carrier also says the proposed changes to the fatigue rules have the potential to drive up operating costs by more than $7 million annually.
In a submission, the airline has told the Senate inquiry into regional services that it has to invest a “copious amount of time and commercial resources into simply filling out, sending and monitoring paperwork for CASA expiries”.
“The bureaucratic approval process for licence upgrades, training and checking approvals and synthetic trainer (simulator) approvals, results in diminished use of crew resources and vital check and training delays,” it says.
“These matters incur a higher cost to the airline operation and this is exacerbated by the current shortage of pilots.”
The regional airline said despite years of regulatory reform efforts, there was “little benefit realised to operators in recent times”. The reform is “in some cases unsubstantiated or is often in response to pressure from various interest groups”.
CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said the body “recognises the regulatory reform program has not progressed as we would all have preferred and the outcomes have not always achieved the desired goals”.
He said CASA’s chief executive officer and director of aviation safety, Shane Carmody, had tackled this “by setting an ambitious deadline to complete the outstanding parts of the regulatory change program by the end of this year”.
“Mr Carmody has put in place new consultation mechanisms to ensure the aviation industry plays an effective and constructive role in the completion of the new regulations,” Mr Gibson said.
“The focus is on ensuring new regulations deliver the best possible outcomes for everyone in the aviation community.”
On the proposed new fatigue rules, the spokesman said an independent review of them would be delivered this month.
“CASA has removed the deadline for transition to new fatigue rules to give the aviation community time to consider the findings of the review and provide further feedback to CASA,” he said. “New fatigue rules will not be implemented until CASA has carefully studied all the review findings and aviation community feedback.”
The spokesman said the authority was aware of the financial impact of regulation and it sought “to minimise costs, but it is important to note that CASA’s fees for regulatory services have not increased for more than 10 years”.
I understood CASA was going to give dispensations so that Part 61 had no measurable net effect compared to operating previously.
I hear you, Aussie Bob.
And add in the cost of ensuring aircraft are IFR compliant - what's that, I hear you cry? There was going to be a subsidy to reduce the costs?
Well, that disappeared faster than the speed of light..
However, when I hear that one of the chappies closely involved in aviation reform used to be Air Force, went to the airlines, and is now with CASA. Never run a small business in his life. Has no understanding how much of a difference to industry or a small business that an exaggerated risk assessment or a committee decision can make.
Did you hear that REX have re-adjusted their slogan? Their heart is in the country, their hand is in your pocket....
And add in the cost of ensuring aircraft are IFR compliant - what's that, I hear you cry? There was going to be a subsidy to reduce the costs?
Well, that disappeared faster than the speed of light..
However, when I hear that one of the chappies closely involved in aviation reform used to be Air Force, went to the airlines, and is now with CASA. Never run a small business in his life. Has no understanding how much of a difference to industry or a small business that an exaggerated risk assessment or a committee decision can make.
Did you hear that REX have re-adjusted their slogan? Their heart is in the country, their hand is in your pocket....
Part 61 was supposed to deliver a reduction in the administrative burden on operators, that’s how it was sold to the parliament to gain approval to proceed with the project.
At least read the convulsion on the last page - absolutely no accountability.
http://ris.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/...ensing-RIS.doc
At least read the convulsion on the last page - absolutely no accountability.
http://ris.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/...ensing-RIS.doc
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney Harbour
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How's this for a whopper!
The existing flight crew training businesses will be required to meet new standards, however, again whilst these represent a deviation from existing standards the changes are relatively minor, which is supported by the feedback that CASA obtained from the consultation process.
The existing flight crew training businesses will be required to meet new standards, however, again whilst these represent a deviation from existing standards the changes are relatively minor, which is supported by the feedback that CASA obtained from the consultation process.
I'm staggered that it's that low.
There are plenty of other companies shelling out money and time trying to wade though the regulatory mess.
There are plenty of other companies shelling out money and time trying to wade though the regulatory mess.
Dear Dick,
This isn’t the first thread that you’ve started that shows a complete lack of understanding of airlines, and airline flying. Some examples -“ why does CASA allow ETOPS”, or the thread regarding ‘complex visual approaches in Australia The amount of money that Rex claims to have lost, is equal to the compensation of one 737 First Officer for one year. Not including Superannuation or any other benefit.
You could be spending your time addressing the lack of any effective fatigue management system, management excess, outsourcing, or poor training. Instead you’re tilting at bizarre windmills for a sketchy regional airline.
This isn’t the first thread that you’ve started that shows a complete lack of understanding of airlines, and airline flying. Some examples -“ why does CASA allow ETOPS”, or the thread regarding ‘complex visual approaches in Australia The amount of money that Rex claims to have lost, is equal to the compensation of one 737 First Officer for one year. Not including Superannuation or any other benefit.
You could be spending your time addressing the lack of any effective fatigue management system, management excess, outsourcing, or poor training. Instead you’re tilting at bizarre windmills for a sketchy regional airline.
