AHIA - Air transport & aerial work operations
Thread Starter
AHIA - Air transport & aerial work operations
AHIA alerts CASA to 'hot' fire fighting problem next Monday 1 September 2014.
As you are (hopefully) aware, from 1 September 2014, CASR Part 61 will require a person conducting a firefighting operation below 500 ft AGL in an aeroplane or helicopter, to hold (a) an aerial application rating, and (b) an Aeroplane or Helicopter firefighting endorsement. The transitional provisions in the Civil Aviation Amendment Regulations 2013 (No. 1), do not have the result that a current authorisation can be taken to be a firefighting endorsement.
AHIA and CASA have worked on this serious problem (hiccup?) An AHIA Media Release is scheduled for release tomorrow.
CASA are seeking to avoid having most of the fire fighting pilots grounded so far as fire fighting operations are concerned.
Help is on the way - good news expected - watch this space.
AHIA
Australian Helicopter Industry Association
As you are (hopefully) aware, from 1 September 2014, CASR Part 61 will require a person conducting a firefighting operation below 500 ft AGL in an aeroplane or helicopter, to hold (a) an aerial application rating, and (b) an Aeroplane or Helicopter firefighting endorsement. The transitional provisions in the Civil Aviation Amendment Regulations 2013 (No. 1), do not have the result that a current authorisation can be taken to be a firefighting endorsement.
AHIA and CASA have worked on this serious problem (hiccup?) An AHIA Media Release is scheduled for release tomorrow.
CASA are seeking to avoid having most of the fire fighting pilots grounded so far as fire fighting operations are concerned.
Help is on the way - good news expected - watch this space.
AHIA
Australian Helicopter Industry Association
Rob,
What puzzles me is the requirement for an Aerial Application Rating and a Helicopter Firefighting Endorsement.
Is that an issue that you are raising tomorrow (Friday)?
How and why are all the firefighting pilots going to get a crop dusting rating just to fight fires, as well as have a stamp in the ratings page to say they have demonstrated their previous experience fighting fires?
Bizarre doesn't begin to explain this one.
What puzzles me is the requirement for an Aerial Application Rating and a Helicopter Firefighting Endorsement.
Is that an issue that you are raising tomorrow (Friday)?
How and why are all the firefighting pilots going to get a crop dusting rating just to fight fires, as well as have a stamp in the ratings page to say they have demonstrated their previous experience fighting fires?
Bizarre doesn't begin to explain this one.
Thread Starter
Meeting AHIA & CASA cancelled
A meeting between the Australian Helicopter Industry Association (AHIA) and CASA planned for Friday 29 August 2014 to discuss Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Part 61 (Flight Crew Licensing) was cancelled after several eleventh hour teleconferences.
AHIA President, Peter Crook had requested a face to face meeting with senior CASA staff to seek a delay in the introduction of the new rules on 1 September 2014. However, the AHIA and CASA agreed so many final changes were underway; the meeting would not achieve its objective; being scheduled on the last working day prior to the new rules coming into effect. However, some critical elements were clarified by the CASA’s AHIA Liaison Officer from the Standards Division.
Firefighting Authorisations. From 1 September 2014, CASR Part 61 will require a person conducting a firefighting operation below 500 ft AGL in an aeroplane or helicopter, to hold (a) an aerial application rating, and (b) an Aeroplane or Helicopter firefighting endorsement.
The transitional provisions in the Civil Aviation Amendment Regulations 2013 (No. 1) do not have the result that a current authorisation can be taken to be a firefighting endorsement. To overcome the problem, CASA is preparing an exemption which will relieve pilots from the requirement to hold an aerial application rating and firefighting endorsement subject to certain conditions. The conditions would be consistent with the requirements that apply to pilots currently when conducting firefighting operations with a focus on an operator’s training and checking requirements when managed under a CAR 217 organisation or the assessment of the operator’s Chief Pilot.
Pilots that would qualify for the exemption would be those that held requisite authorisations under CAR 1988; for example, for aeroplane pilots, an agricultural rating (aeroplane) and for helicopter pilots conducting bucket operations, a low level permission and sling endorsement.
Pilots would also still need to complete training in firefighting operations conducted by the operator and a proficiency check also conducted by the operator, as they do currently. The training operations would need to be conducted under an AOC that authorises that kind of operation. The exemption, if made, would be in force until 31 August 2015.
More to follow.
AHIA
AHIA President, Peter Crook had requested a face to face meeting with senior CASA staff to seek a delay in the introduction of the new rules on 1 September 2014. However, the AHIA and CASA agreed so many final changes were underway; the meeting would not achieve its objective; being scheduled on the last working day prior to the new rules coming into effect. However, some critical elements were clarified by the CASA’s AHIA Liaison Officer from the Standards Division.
Firefighting Authorisations. From 1 September 2014, CASR Part 61 will require a person conducting a firefighting operation below 500 ft AGL in an aeroplane or helicopter, to hold (a) an aerial application rating, and (b) an Aeroplane or Helicopter firefighting endorsement.
The transitional provisions in the Civil Aviation Amendment Regulations 2013 (No. 1) do not have the result that a current authorisation can be taken to be a firefighting endorsement. To overcome the problem, CASA is preparing an exemption which will relieve pilots from the requirement to hold an aerial application rating and firefighting endorsement subject to certain conditions. The conditions would be consistent with the requirements that apply to pilots currently when conducting firefighting operations with a focus on an operator’s training and checking requirements when managed under a CAR 217 organisation or the assessment of the operator’s Chief Pilot.
Pilots that would qualify for the exemption would be those that held requisite authorisations under CAR 1988; for example, for aeroplane pilots, an agricultural rating (aeroplane) and for helicopter pilots conducting bucket operations, a low level permission and sling endorsement.
Pilots would also still need to complete training in firefighting operations conducted by the operator and a proficiency check also conducted by the operator, as they do currently. The training operations would need to be conducted under an AOC that authorises that kind of operation. The exemption, if made, would be in force until 31 August 2015.
More to follow.
AHIA
A pretty disgraceful indictment to the regulator that only one working day before implementation of wholesale change that changes and compromises are still being fought and refined. Unchallenged, compliance with Part 61 would leave the WHOLE of Australia unable to use aerial assets to fight fire at the very least in the short term.
Surely, in all sense, the government, and therefore the will of the people (haha) should be intervening and telling CASA to go back and fix this 5hit before trying to push it through.
Even after a nine month delay to re-prepare for it's introduction the regulator has still manifestly failed in it's obligations to get this right. The legal aviation framework in Australia is a horses ar5e. The best possible solution would be to scrap what is there and buy a suite of rules and regs from someone else, either FAA or NZ CAA would be at least a better place to start than where they are right now.
Surely, in all sense, the government, and therefore the will of the people (haha) should be intervening and telling CASA to go back and fix this 5hit before trying to push it through.
Even after a nine month delay to re-prepare for it's introduction the regulator has still manifestly failed in it's obligations to get this right. The legal aviation framework in Australia is a horses ar5e. The best possible solution would be to scrap what is there and buy a suite of rules and regs from someone else, either FAA or NZ CAA would be at least a better place to start than where they are right now.
Since a query about this was sent to CASA back in May, it reflects badly that at the last minute they now have to look at creating an exemption to allow fireflighting helicopter pilots to operate this season.
It is obvious to blind Freddie that this was written with FW bombers in mind, totally oblivious to the fact that most helitack pilots don't go worrying about chemical spray drift in their day to day flying outside the fire season.
It is obvious to blind Freddie that this was written with FW bombers in mind, totally oblivious to the fact that most helitack pilots don't go worrying about chemical spray drift in their day to day flying outside the fire season.
Thread Starter
AHIA: Are there sufficient flight examiners and ATOs from 1 Sep '14?
The AHIA has always raised their concern about the availability of ATOs and Examiners to conduct the flight tests required by CASR Part 61 (Flight Crew Licensing) which becomes effective on 1 September 2014. Of particular concern were the class rating and type rating flight tests, flight tests for the aerial application rating and endorsements, low-level rating and endorsements and the NVIS rating and endorsements.
This was a major discussion topic between the AHIA and CASA during AHIA's Rotortech 2014 held on the Sunshine Coast during May 2014 and prior to that event; at AHIA's Pacific 2013 Offshore Helicopters Symposium held at Darling Harbour, Sydney, during October 2013. But is seems to have slipped by without due vigilance by both industry and the regulator?
More recently, the AHIA on behalf of their members, now preparing for the 2014/2015 fire and flood season, again asked CASA on the status of the problem after considerable information had been placed on CASA's website. Unfortunately, the updates provided needed more clarification; as many existing ATO and FE indicated they could not comply with the new protocols and would drop their qualifications.
With only days to run before the CASR 61 became effective, CASA advised the AHIA that CASA will deal with this by granting to appropriately qualified persons a reg. 61.040 approval to conduct flight tests and proficiency checks.
Specialists who are currently qualified in the 'old system' are encouraged to seek advice from their CASA contact to ensure they can remain effective. Industry is facing changes which will increase the need for testing officers of all types, according to operators.
More later as we research this matter further on your behalf.
AHIA
This was a major discussion topic between the AHIA and CASA during AHIA's Rotortech 2014 held on the Sunshine Coast during May 2014 and prior to that event; at AHIA's Pacific 2013 Offshore Helicopters Symposium held at Darling Harbour, Sydney, during October 2013. But is seems to have slipped by without due vigilance by both industry and the regulator?
More recently, the AHIA on behalf of their members, now preparing for the 2014/2015 fire and flood season, again asked CASA on the status of the problem after considerable information had been placed on CASA's website. Unfortunately, the updates provided needed more clarification; as many existing ATO and FE indicated they could not comply with the new protocols and would drop their qualifications.
With only days to run before the CASR 61 became effective, CASA advised the AHIA that CASA will deal with this by granting to appropriately qualified persons a reg. 61.040 approval to conduct flight tests and proficiency checks.
Specialists who are currently qualified in the 'old system' are encouraged to seek advice from their CASA contact to ensure they can remain effective. Industry is facing changes which will increase the need for testing officers of all types, according to operators.
More later as we research this matter further on your behalf.
AHIA
Ahh the Australian NAA in all its guises over many years seemed to have perfected the "Perpetual Clusterf&*k"
I am sure there is a Nobel Prize for that or soon will be.
Where do these clowns have a mandate to re-invent the wheel?
I guess if you have been a joke for years what does it matter about the future?
Billy Makejobs please take a bow.
I am sure there is a Nobel Prize for that or soon will be.
Where do these clowns have a mandate to re-invent the wheel?
I guess if you have been a joke for years what does it matter about the future?
Billy Makejobs please take a bow.
Thread Starter
AHIA: Safety Case Cost-Benefit Analysis CASR 61 – MIA??
No matter which side of the fence you are sitting; industry constantly asks what safety benefit do all these changes make? Was there an accident pattern or evidence one would start?
Why the overly complicated and lengthy rules written in a language which looks like Latin (for lawyers?). And a restructure and renaming of everything we were used to using for decades - now spawning an enormous industry of pen pushers needed to write the dozens of new manuals, briefing documents and applications for concessions, etc., etc.
And we must not push aside the fact CASA will need more pen pushers to correct pending glitches coming from the work of industry's equivalent compliance managers.
Several years ago during the struggle between CASA and the Australian MRO community as they went through the change to CASR (EASA aligned) rules, operational and front office people thought the maintenance people were a bunch of grumpy old men, usually seen in short pants to show off their knobbly knees. The battles they fought and lost were really looked upon with amusement. However, the costs being incurred did get the attention of the front office people and especially the association representing our engineers - many of which have left the industry.
For example, planned changes now means a $60K+ CPL(H) will cost closer to $80K. And then there is the horror of the IFR, ME extra costs! The cost of retraining and qualifying instructors and testing people is giving operators heart burn of the worst kind.
But flyboys (and gals) and those who sit in the front offices, away from the wonders of the hangar floor - it is now your turn! It is too late to leap up and grab the helm; we have already hit the rocks!
But you had a chance and did not speak up.
CASR Part 61 (Flight crew licensing) is here - Monday 1 September 2014.
It will be the first day of Spring in Australia? What do you think? Did industry drop the ball and allow the politicians to remain very, very silent as CASA underwent the ASRR and follow-up comments from industry asking that CASA slow down the CASR 61 process, still not completed even now and entering the concession phase.
So where was the cost-safety case - harmonisation with EASA is not a safety case!
Will Monday 1 September 2014 become known as "Black Monday?"
Why bother? Australia has the second largest helicopter fleet in the Western World - just over 2,100. So even a small change can be big dollars overall - the customer eventually pays - or just walks away - too expensive!
Will the silent ones now speak up? [B]Have we got it wrong?
Why the overly complicated and lengthy rules written in a language which looks like Latin (for lawyers?). And a restructure and renaming of everything we were used to using for decades - now spawning an enormous industry of pen pushers needed to write the dozens of new manuals, briefing documents and applications for concessions, etc., etc.
And we must not push aside the fact CASA will need more pen pushers to correct pending glitches coming from the work of industry's equivalent compliance managers.
Several years ago during the struggle between CASA and the Australian MRO community as they went through the change to CASR (EASA aligned) rules, operational and front office people thought the maintenance people were a bunch of grumpy old men, usually seen in short pants to show off their knobbly knees. The battles they fought and lost were really looked upon with amusement. However, the costs being incurred did get the attention of the front office people and especially the association representing our engineers - many of which have left the industry.
For example, planned changes now means a $60K+ CPL(H) will cost closer to $80K. And then there is the horror of the IFR, ME extra costs! The cost of retraining and qualifying instructors and testing people is giving operators heart burn of the worst kind.
But flyboys (and gals) and those who sit in the front offices, away from the wonders of the hangar floor - it is now your turn! It is too late to leap up and grab the helm; we have already hit the rocks!
But you had a chance and did not speak up.
CASR Part 61 (Flight crew licensing) is here - Monday 1 September 2014.
It will be the first day of Spring in Australia? What do you think? Did industry drop the ball and allow the politicians to remain very, very silent as CASA underwent the ASRR and follow-up comments from industry asking that CASA slow down the CASR 61 process, still not completed even now and entering the concession phase.
So where was the cost-safety case - harmonisation with EASA is not a safety case!
Will Monday 1 September 2014 become known as "Black Monday?"
Why bother? Australia has the second largest helicopter fleet in the Western World - just over 2,100. So even a small change can be big dollars overall - the customer eventually pays - or just walks away - too expensive!
Will the silent ones now speak up? [B]Have we got it wrong?
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Atlanta, GA
Age: 48
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seriously guys, I don't know how someone hasn't walked into the CASA offices and gone berko on these idiots. This is the second thing I have seen this year (along with that ridiculous colorblindness thing that had no validity either) over there that makes me glad I never pursued flying until moving here.
There is something fundamentally wrong with that agency and their priorities. If you have ever worked in a disfunctional office environment where people have to justify their existence or are encouraged to invent processes to make themselves look good that cause extra work to be done across a whole business for no good reason, then you know what I am referring to here.
There seems to be some sort of cowboy attitude where in CASA, with no oversight, they can just "POOF" invent a new regulation, with no safety case behind it, no background to support it and no good reason other than they think it looks good on paper, without once considering its national or industry consequences.
How does a thing like this, make it through what I would have thought would be some sort of multiple internal reviews, without someone saying "hey, hang on a minute, if we make this rule, it will ground all firefighting operations right before fire season, essentially leaving everyone unprotected without aerial support" along with the many other reasons that this is absurd.
I feel really sorry for you blokes back home, maybe helicopter pilots should do what the unions do every bloody time they don't like something and march on the government and invite every media outlet along to explain to them the absurdity that exists in this agency that is potentially putting lives at risk for no reason that they can back up with any hard facts or case studies.
I'll get back down of my soap box now fellas, I just can't control myself sometimes and have to have a rant in support of the crap you guys have to go through...
There is something fundamentally wrong with that agency and their priorities. If you have ever worked in a disfunctional office environment where people have to justify their existence or are encouraged to invent processes to make themselves look good that cause extra work to be done across a whole business for no good reason, then you know what I am referring to here.
There seems to be some sort of cowboy attitude where in CASA, with no oversight, they can just "POOF" invent a new regulation, with no safety case behind it, no background to support it and no good reason other than they think it looks good on paper, without once considering its national or industry consequences.
How does a thing like this, make it through what I would have thought would be some sort of multiple internal reviews, without someone saying "hey, hang on a minute, if we make this rule, it will ground all firefighting operations right before fire season, essentially leaving everyone unprotected without aerial support" along with the many other reasons that this is absurd.
I feel really sorry for you blokes back home, maybe helicopter pilots should do what the unions do every bloody time they don't like something and march on the government and invite every media outlet along to explain to them the absurdity that exists in this agency that is potentially putting lives at risk for no reason that they can back up with any hard facts or case studies.
I'll get back down of my soap box now fellas, I just can't control myself sometimes and have to have a rant in support of the crap you guys have to go through...
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Atlanta, GA
Age: 48
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seriously guys, I don't know how someone hasn't walked into the CASA offices and gone berko on these idiots. This is the second thing I have seen this year (along with that ridiculous colorblindness thing that had no validity either) over there that makes me glad I never pursued flying until moving here.
There is something fundamentally wrong with that agency and their priorities. If you have ever worked in a disfunctional office environment where people have to justify their existence or are encouraged to invent processes to make themselves look good that cause extra work to be done across a whole business for no good reason, then you know what I am referring to here.
There seems to be some sort of cowboy attitude where in CASA, with no oversight, they can just "POOF" invent a new regulation, with no safety case behind it, no background to support it and no good reason other than they think it looks good on paper, without once considering its national or industry consequences.
How does a thing like this, make it through what I would have thought would be some sort of multiple internal reviews, without someone saying "hey, hang on a minute, if we make this rule, it will ground all firefighting operations right before fire season, essentially leaving everyone unprotected without aerial support" along with the many other reasons that this is absurd.
I feel really sorry for you blokes back home, maybe helicopter pilots should do what the unions do every bloody time they don't like something and march on the government and invite every media outlet along to explain to them the absurdity that exists in this agency that is potentially putting lives at risk for no reason that they can back up with any hard facts or case studies.
I'll get back down of my soap box now fellas, I just can't control myself sometimes and have to have a rant in support of the crap you guys have to go through...
There is something fundamentally wrong with that agency and their priorities. If you have ever worked in a disfunctional office environment where people have to justify their existence or are encouraged to invent processes to make themselves look good that cause extra work to be done across a whole business for no good reason, then you know what I am referring to here.
There seems to be some sort of cowboy attitude where in CASA, with no oversight, they can just "POOF" invent a new regulation, with no safety case behind it, no background to support it and no good reason other than they think it looks good on paper, without once considering its national or industry consequences.
How does a thing like this, make it through what I would have thought would be some sort of multiple internal reviews, without someone saying "hey, hang on a minute, if we make this rule, it will ground all firefighting operations right before fire season, essentially leaving everyone unprotected without aerial support" along with the many other reasons that this is absurd.
I feel really sorry for you blokes back home, maybe helicopter pilots should do what the unions do every bloody time they don't like something and march on the government and invite every media outlet along to explain to them the absurdity that exists in this agency that is potentially putting lives at risk for no reason that they can back up with any hard facts or case studies.
I'll get back down of my soap box now fellas, I just can't control myself sometimes and have to have a rant in support of the crap you guys have to go through...
