Notice of Proposed Rule Making. Copy of Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) 0301OS Air Transport and Aerial Work Operations Rotorcraft.

Transcription

1 Passenger Transport Services Rotorcraft Annex J Copy of Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) 0301OS Operations Rotorcraft Note Please note that Annex J includes a copy of NPRM 0301OS which was previously published in Document NPRM 0811OS Page J1

2 Passenger Transport Services Rotorcraft INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Document NPRM 0811OS Page J2

3 Notice of Proposed Rule Making Operations Rotorcraft Proposed of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASRs) Who this NPRM applies to It is expected that this proposal will affect the following persons in the aviation industry: Personnel involved in the operation and maintenance of rotorcraft engaged in air transport and aerial work operations including operators, flight and other crewmembers, and ground support personnel. This NPRM does not incorporate issues and matters raised at the Flight Crew Licensing Operations + Training Conference. Issued as part of the process of public consultation by CASA s Standards Administration and Support Branch Document NPRM 0301OS March 2003

4

5 Foreword Context of this NPRM The proposals contained in this Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) are part of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority s (CASA s) regulatory reform program, which aims to develop standards that are appropriate, clear, concise and aligned with international standards and practice. Background This NPRM introduces, and invites consultation on, proposed new regulatory standards relating to the operation of rotorcraft used in air transport and aerial work operations. The proposed Civil Aviation Safety Regulation (CASR) will prescribe the operating and maintenance rules that will apply to the operation of all rotorcraft engaged in air transport and aerial work operations. These rules will apply either in addition to, or in substitution for, the rules in CASR Part 91 General Operating and Flight Rules. (Please note the rules for the operation of aeroplanes engaged in air transport operations will be prescribed in CASR Parts 121A Air Transport Operations Large Aeroplanes and 121B Air Transport Operations Small Aeroplanes, which will be subject to separate consultation. The rules for the operation of aeroplanes engaged in aerial work operations and aerial agriculture will be included in CASR Parts 136 and 137, also subject to separate consultation.) This NPRM introduces, and invites consultation on, a proposal to set in place, via proposed CASR, a common level of safety for both charter and Regular Public Transport (RPT) operators of rotorcraft. The safety level applies irrespective of whether an operation is scheduled or non-scheduled and accords to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex 6 (Operation of Aircraft), Part 3 (International Commercial Air Transport Helicopters). While much of this change will affect personnel involved in the operation and maintenance of rotorcraft engaged in air transport operations, the proposed CASR Part 133 also sets in place the rules for aerial work operations utilizing rotorcraft reflecting the wish of the helicopter industry that all legislation affecting rotorcraft operations be included in one document. A lesser level of certification for aerial work operations (the Operating Certificate) has been proposed to complement a new approach to the classification of aerial work operations. The proposed rules for operator certification have been subject to less consultation than the remainder of the rules and your particular attention to Subpart C of the proposed rules is requested. The Synopsis of Change Proposals (see Section 3) discusses specific elements of the proposed change that CASA intends to effect through new CASR. Document NPRM 0301OS Page 1 of 36

6 Proposed Changes In A Page The time-conscious reader will obtain a quick appreciation of this NPRM through the Proposed Changes in a Page (Section 2). A text synopsis of the proposed changes is also provided as background (Section 3). In the event you require complete information about the change, refer to the draft regulations to give effect to CASR (See NPRM Annex B). How you can help us CASA is responsible under the Civil Aviation Act 1988, amongst other functions, for developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards. In the performance of this function and the exercise of its powers, CASA must, where appropriate, consult with government, commercial, industrial, consumer and other relevant bodies and organisations. Civil Aviation Act 1988 Paragraph 9(1)(c) and Section 16 CASA is committed to working cooperatively with the aviation industry to maintain and enhance aviation safety. This is especially important as far as the development of standards and regulatory material is concerned. CASA Standards Development and Rule Making Manual, To ensure clear and relevant safety standards, we need the benefit of your knowledge as an aviator, aviation consumer and/or provider of related products and services. To make a submission, complete the Response Form and return it to CASA by 30 May Implementation Schedule CASA is working to achieve passage of the final CASR during the second half of 2003 with the objective of commencement from January The introduction of CASR will allow CASA to specify a minimum standards concerning rotorcraft training and checking requirements for flight and other crew members, fuel to be carried; flight planning and alternate aerodrome requirements; and standard passenger and baggage weights. I would like to thank you for expressing interest in this proposal and emphasise that no rule changes will be undertaken until all NPRM responses and submissions received by the closing date 30 May 2003 have been considered. Bill McIntyre Executive Manager Aviation Safety Standards 25 March 2003 Document NPRM 0301OS Page 2 of 36

7 Operations Rotorcraft CASR Contents Abbreviations... 5 Definitions and Descriptions The Consultation Process... 9 What CASA does with your Comments Proposed Changes in a Page Synopsis of Change Proposals Background Reasons for change Key change proposals Options considered Key proposed changes Benefits and impacts Implementation and review NPRM Response Form... COMPLETE AND RETURN TO CASA 31 Please note that an On-line Response Form is now available for submission of your comments to this NRPM. Access to the On-line Response Form may be gained by clicking on the following website address or, if you are working from a paper copy of the NPRM, by typing in the above website address. Annex A Comparison of CASR to CAR/CAO/AIP and Summary and discussion of principal differences between CASR and current requirements... Annex B Proposed Legislative Changes Civil Aviation Safety Regulation (CASR)... Annex C Differences between Proposed CASR and ICAO Annex 6, Part 3... Annex D Summary of Responses to Discussion Paper DP 0006OS - Commercial Air Transport Operations - Rotorcraft... D1 A1 B1 C1 Document NPRM 0301OS Page 3 of 36

8 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Document NPRM 0301OS Page 4 of 36

9 Abbreviations AC AFM AIP AOC CAO CAR CASA CASR CRM DP ELT(S) FAA FAR FL ICAO IFR JAA JAR MTOW MOS NPA NPRM NZ OC OLD ORR RRP RFP RPT RSVP SARPs SCC SOR USA Advisory Circular Aircraft Flight Manual Aeronautical Information Publication Air Operator s Certificate Civil Aviation Order Civil Aviation Regulation Civil Aviation Safety Authority Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Crew Resource Management Discussion Paper Emergency Locator Transmitter (Survival) Federal Aviation Administration of the USA Federal Aviation Regulation(s) of the USA Flight Level International Civil Aviation Organization Instrument Flight Rules Joint Aviation Authorities (Europe) Joint Aviation Requirements of the Joint Aviation Authorities Maximum Take-off Weight Manual of Standards Notice of Proposed Amendment (JAA NPRM) Notice of Proposed Rule Making New Zealand Operating Certificate Office of Legislative Drafting (Attorney-General s Department) Office of Regulation Review (at the Productivity Commission) Regulatory Reform Program Regulatory Framework Program Regular Public Transport Regulatory Structure and Validation Project Standards and Recommended Practices (ICAO) Standards Consultative Committee Summary of Responses United States of America Document NPRM 0301OS Page 5 of 36

10 Definitions and Descriptions For the purposes of this NPRM: air transport operations, for a rotorcraft, means rotorcraft operations for trade or commerce involving the carriage of passengers but excluding the carriage of passengers: (a) during aerial work operations, where permitted under this Part; or (b) for the purpose of engaging in parachute operations; or (c) of a kind mentioned in regulation (See Annex B to this NPRM). Note 1 Passenger is defined in this regulation to exclude a crew member, approved passenger or a person carried with CASA approval. Note 2 Regulation deals with operations by limited category aircraft. Note: CASA is currently reviewing the classification of operations. It is proposed that a new definition of air transport operations will be included in the CASR. The activities to be covered by the definition have not yet been finally settled. See NPRM 0304OS regarding proposed Classification of Operations Policy. An aerial work operation is proposed to be defined to cover a number of activities. Those activities have not yet been finally settled but are proposed to include the following: (a) aerial advertising banner towing; (b) agricultural seeding; (c) agricultural chemical spraying; (d) agricultural - solids application; (e) cloud seeding; (f) dropping of water and fire retardant; (g) dropping of forest ignition incendiaries; (h) dropping of oil and chemical dispersants; (i) domestic cargo-only operations in aeroplanes (less than 5700kg MTOW) or helicopters (less than 3180kg MTOW); (j) emergency and medical services; (k) flying training for Private Pilot's Licence; (l) flying training for commercial pilot's licence; (m) flying training for night VFR rating; (n) flying training for command instrument rating; (o) flying training for flight instructor rating; (p) flying training for application rating; (q) flying training for stock mustering; (r) geophysical, magnetometric, spectrometric or seismic surveying; (s) media operations and electronic news gathering; (t) photographic and filming operations below 500ft a.g.l.; (u) powerline inspection and surveying; (v) pipeline inspection and surveying. Document NPRM 0301OS Page 6 of 36

11 Operations Rotorcraft CASR Definitions and Descriptions (contd) aerial work operation means an operation in which a rotorcraft is used for a specialised service mentioned in Subpart 133.T (See Annex B to this NPRM). CASA may decide that an operation should be prescribed in Subpart 133.T and that such an operation requires an operating certificate in accordance with Subpart 133.C if it meets at least two of the following criteria: (a) the operation requires a significant supporting structure; (b) the operation requires crew with published procedures other than flight crew; (c) the activity will involve a potential risk to persons on the ground; and (d) the activity requires a special aircraft or one which has been specially modified for the task. aerial application operation means an operation that: (a) is carried out by a rotorcraft flying less than 350 feet AGL to drop or spray application material on the ground or water; and (b) includes: (i) an inspection, from a height of less than 350 feet AGL, of a work area; and (ii) a flight that is for, or partly for, application pilot training or checking; and (iii)flying from a landing area to the work area and back. air ambulance flight, for a rotorcraft, means a flight, usually planned in advance: (a) the purpose of which is to facilitate medical assistance where immediate and rapid transportation is not essential, but carriage by air is essential, to the well-being of a patient (including an inter-hospital transfer); and (b) for which the rotorcraft is specially equipped. aerial stock mustering operation, for a rotorcraft, means an operation in which the rotorcraft is used for aerial stock mustering, aerial stock spotting or animal culling or similar operations, under VFR. emergency service operations, means operations by an organisation established for the purpose of using rotorcraft to provide 1 or more of the following services: (a) firefighting; (b) law enforcement; (c) search and rescue. search and rescue flight means a flight for the purpose of giving immediate assistance to persons threatened by grave and imminent danger, or by a hostile environment. Document NPRM 0301OS Page 7 of 36

12 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Document NPRM 0301OS Page 8 of 36

13 Operations Rotorcraft CASR 1. The Consultation Process 1.1 CASA is committed to working cooperatively with the aviation industry to maintain and enhance aviation safety. The CASA Standards Consultative Committee (SCC) is a joint industry/casa forum, set up to involve the aviation industry formally during the development phase of regulatory material. The SCC brings together CASA staff and representatives from a diverse range of aviation industry organisations to work jointly during the development phase of regulatory material. The SCC examines proposed regulatory changes to determine if they are worth pursuing and assists CASA in the allocation of priorities to those projects. Aviation industry experts then work together with CASA staff in subordinate groups (SCC Sub-Committees and project teams) on the detailed development of regulatory material (both new regulations and amendments). 1.2 Development of this proposal has been a joint Industry/CASA undertaking. Following development of the initial framework by the development team, significant discussion has continued internally between CASA s Compliance Division, Regulatory Services Division, Aviation Safety Standards Division and the Office of Legal Counsel, as well as externally with the Attorney-General s Department/Office of Legislative Drafting (OLD) and the Productivity Commission s Office of Regulation Review (ORR). Further refinement of the proposal has been assisted by individual members of the development team. Development Team The CASR development team comprised (from time to time): Dave Allan Lloyd Helicopters David Anderson Noris Dinan Helicopters Mike Becker Becker Helicopters Tony Carmody CSIT International Aviation Safety College Darryl (Doc) Casey Esso Helicopters Peter Cook Hunter Region SLSA Rodger Cooper QES Rescue Stephen Dines Aero-Heli Services John Eacott Helicopter Services David Earley Aeropower Ian Galt Individual Tony Griggs Victoria Police Air Wing Rob Haylock Sydney Helicopters Graeme Hill-Smith Capital Helicopters John Hoad Careflight Phil Hogan Air Ambulance Service Victoria Kevin Joyce Network Ten Phil Knowles Channel 9 Melbourne Louise McCann Network Ten Steve Pearson Bristow Helicopters Rob Rich CSIT International Aviation Safety College Kerry Robinson Hevi-Lift Document NPRM 0301OS Page 9 of 36

14 Cameron C Ross BHP Aviation Doug Sinclair Channel 10 Perth Peter Spurgin Careflight Gold Coast Keith Stewart NSW Police Air Wing Terry Summers Heli-Check Services Dan Tyler the Helicopter Association of Australia Mal Walker Project Manager, Development Team, CASA Geoff Williams HSV Channel 7 Trevor Wilson Northern Region SLSA Representatives from OLD; Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS); and ORR. 1.3 A Discussion Paper (DP 0006OS) concerning proposed CASR, applicable to air transport and aerial work operations in rotorcraft, was distributed by CASA for public comment in September The closing date for comment was extended at industry request from November 2000 to 31 January 2001 and all responses have been reviewed. Detailed results of this DP process are presented at Annex D to this NPRM. 1.4 This NPRM has been circulated as a draft to the Standards Consultative Committee (SCC) and the SCC Operational Standards Sub-Committee for pre-issue clearance review. Committee members were given the opportunity to review the draft NPRM and to submit comment on the drafts prior to CASA finalising the NPRM for formal publication. Those comments received were considered and incorporated where relevant. 1.5 A draft version of the proposed rules was presented to attendees at the Flying Operations, Licensing and Training (FLOT) conference held 2-4 March 2003 and all attendees were invited to make comment. Due to the imminent release of the NPRM, it was not possible to incorporate any revisions arising from comments originating from the FLOT conference, however, these comments will be considered along with responses to this NPRM when formulating the final rules and action arising from the comments will be addressed in the Summary of Responses which will accompany the new rules. 1.6 The OLD has drafted the legislation contained in Annex B to this NPRM. 1.7 CASA now seeks comments on this proposal from the aviation industry and the general public before proceeding further. What CASA does with your comments 1.8 At the end of the response period for public comments, all submissions will be analysed, evaluated and considered. Subsequent to the closing date for comments, a Summary of Responses (SOR) will be prepared, and made publicly available in conjunction with the making of the Final Rule. 1.9 CASA is required to register each comment and submission received, but will not individually acknowledge a response unless specifically requested. The names of contributors will only be published in the subsequent SOR, where the respondent has given CASA permission to do so. Document NPRM 0301OS Page 10 of 36

15 2. Proposed Changes in a Page INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS EXISTING AUSTRALIAN STANDARDS CASR PART 133 NEW STANDARD ICAO SARPs - Annex 6, Part 3 - International Operations - Helicopters JAR OPS-3 - Commercial Air Transportation (Helicopters) Canadian CAR Standards Air Taxi and Commuter with separate sections for helicopters NZ CAA Civil Aviation Act 1988 Civil Aviation Safety Regs Civil Aviation Regs 1988 CAOs CASR will prescribe the operating and maintenance rules that will apply to the operation of all rotorcraft engaged in air transport and aerial work operations Part 91 Part 119 Part 133 Objective The objective of the proposals in CASR is to consolidate into one Part of the new CASRs all regulatory requirements additional to those contained in CASR Part 91 relating to the operation of rotorcraft and to update those requirements. Further, the rules in will respond to requirements in Parts 119 and 142 relating to certification and flight training requirements. The new Part will apply to holders of certificates authorising air transport operations and aerial work operations in rotorcraft and will also apply to aerial work operations such as search and rescue, sling loading winching. It will apply to aircrew wishing to conduct such operations. Key Points Introduce the Operating Certificate for aerial work operations in lieu of the Air Operator Certificate CRM training for crewmembers engaged in operations involving more than one crewmember Additional training requirements for crew members engaged in aerial work operations Revised fuel policy and revised standard weights Performance requirements for rotorcraft similar to requirements for aeroplanes Expanded provisions for restraint and seating of occupants A change in the point of stringency based on certification basis and passenger numbers, eg performance, flight crew complement and qualification requirements Revised requirements relating to all weather operations More stringent requirements for marine pilot transfer beyond 10nm when engaged in marine pilot transfer operations and introduction of limitations on the operation of single engine rotorcraft over water at night Safety Management Systems for certain aerial work operations Requirement for operational supervision and support Amalgamate RPT and charter requirements under one common classification Air Transport and revised certification requirements for certain aerial work activities Document NPRM 0301OS Page 11 of 36

16 3. Synopsis of Change Proposals 3.1 Background The purpose of this NPRM is to initiate formal public consultation on the proposed Civil Aviation Safety Regulation (CASR) titled Air Transport and Aerial Work Operations Rotorcraft The proposed CASR will prescribe the operating and maintenance rules that will apply to the operation of all rotorcraft engaged in air transport and aerial work operations. These rules will apply either in addition to, or in substitution for, the rules in CASR Part 91 General Operating and Flight Rules. (Please note the rules for the operation of aeroplanes engaged in air transport operations will be prescribed in CASR Parts 121A Air Transport Operations Large Aeroplanes and 121B Air Transport Operations Small Aeroplanes, which will be subject to separate consultation. The rules for the operation of aeroplanes engaged in aerial work operations and aerial application operations will be included in CASR Parts 136 and 137, also subject to separate consultation.) This NPRM introduces, and invites consultation on, a proposal to set in place, via proposed CASR, a common level of safety for, what is currently known, as charter and Regular Public Transport (RPT) operators of rotorcraft. The safety level applies irrespective of whether an operation is scheduled or non-scheduled and accords to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex 6 (Operation of Aircraft), Part 3 (International Commercial Air Transport Helicopters) While much of the proposal will affect personnel involved in the operation and maintenance of rotorcraft engaged in air transport operations, the proposed CASR Part 133 also sets in place the rules for aerial work operations utilizing rotorcraft reflecting the wish of the helicopter industry that all legislation affecting rotorcraft operations be included in one document A lesser level of certification for aerial work operations (the Operating Certificate) has been proposed to complement a new approach to the classification of aerial work operations. The proposed rules for operator certification have been subject to less consultation than the remainder of the rules and your particular attention to Subpart C of the proposed rules is requested Implemented in its proposed form, draft CASR would underpin safety requirements for rotorcraft engaged in air transport and aerial work operations and provide a level playing field by minimising the current distinction between RPT and charter operations. Further, by setting rules for operations in the aerial work category, would remove the reliance on exemptions from legislation which are found in the current 95 series of Civil Aviation Orders. Please note that this NPRM does not address airworthiness and maintenance control of rotorcraft, which is the subject of a separate consultative process to develop draft rules under Subpart M of CASR. Document NPRM 0301OS Page 12 of 36

17 3.2 Reasons for Change As a result of deliberations under CASA s Regulatory Framework Program (RFP), the Special Helicopter Operations Project Team proposed a dedicated block of legislation specific to rotorcraft, in recognition that a helicopter is not the same as an aeroplane. While similar operations may be undertaken by rotorcraft and aeroplanes, the methods employed and regulatory factors are different. Rather than bury legislation specific to rotorcraft in legislation relating to aeroplanes, the Project Team noted the efforts of various international jurisdictions favouring a discrete approach to rotorcraft regulation, including: ICAO SARPs - Annex 6, Part 3 - International Operations Helicopters; JAR OPS-3 Commercial Air Transportation (Helicopters); Canadian CAR Standards Air Taxi and 724 Commuter with separate sections for helicopters; and Recognition by NZ CAA that a disparate approach may not be satisfactory The distribution of DP 0006OS by CASA for public comment on issues relating to CASR, stimulated responses that indicate industry s interest in securing clarity and consistency through accepted mainstream global practices while retaining current practices established on the basis of existing legislation. Accordingly, this NPRM examines 6 options open to CASA and the industry to achieve an appropriate balance between the adoption of global practices and retention of acceptable practices under existing legislation. This NPRM proposes resolution based on existing legislation with changes to content reflecting: ICAO requirements; Harmonisation requirements; Consistency with CASR Parts 121A/B, 136 and 137; and JAR-OPS 3 format While the FARs and JAR-OPS 3 each provide a model on which to base Australian legislation, the joint CASA/industry project team that developed draft CASR opted for retention of current rules modified where necessary to reflect world's best practice. The JAR-OPS 3 format is of greatest clarity in outlining prescribed rules and closely follows the layout and content of the standards and recommended practices of ICAO Annex 6 Part 3 and is the same format adopted in the drafting of the other operational Parts The preferred option favoured by CASA is for discrete helicopter legislation, following a consideration of options that address various scenarios for the incorporation of helicopter requirements in aeroplane regulations. Discrete helicopter legislation is considered of greatest benefit to rotorcraft operators Safety factors are essential to consideration of the options and the emergence of the preferred option of discrete helicopter legislation. Australia s aviation safety regulations and standards requirements in relation to air transport operations are currently contained in the Civil Aviation Act 1988, Civil Aviation Regulations (CARs) and Civil Aviation Orders (CAOs). Document NPRM 0301OS Page 13 of 36

18 Like the current United States Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs), with which there are several layers of legal importance and a large amount of explanatory material and policy directives, the Australian legislation started out as simple common-sense rules. Over time, as a result of many additions and amendments to address a multitude of safety issues, the legislation (CARs and CAOs) have become more complicated to use Generally, some of the Australian air transport regulations are seen by CASA and industry as being overly prescriptive, ambiguous, disjointed and difficult to interpret. Other criticisms have been that they are difficult to comply with and enforce, and sometimes reliant on exemptions for their effect In the charter letter entitled A Measured Approach to Aviation Safety Reform, (November 1999), the Honourable John Anderson MP, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services stated Fare-paying passengers should be able to fly with any air operator, including charter operators, in the knowledge that the aircraft is maintained and its crew trained to the same standard that CASA requires of any other comparable operator, even if the company only provides aircraft for passenger services occasionally The Minister further sought that CASA: minimise the distinction between charter and Regular Public Transport (RPT) operators. Where they exist, the onus must be clearly on operators to ensure that their passengers are informed about them The Minister s charter letter was prompted by an unacceptably high accident rate for charter operations which compared unfavourably with RPT operations and with the accident rates of leading aviation nations. The accident rates for charter operations can be viewed at For example (extract from ATSB Accident Statistics): Accidents High Capacity - Air Transport Low Capacity - Air Transport a GA Charter GA Agricultural GA Flying Training GA Other Aerial Work GA Private/Business GA (General Aviation) Total a = Document NPRM 0301OS Page 14 of 36

19 These statistics make no distinction between aeroplanes and rotorcraft. In fact, the accident rate for single engine rotorcraft is generally greater than that for similar aeroplanes, however, the accident rate for multi engine rotorcraft is much less than that for similar aeroplanes. Further, a comparison between RPT and charter accident rates for rotorcraft produces no meaningful data due to the absence of rotorcraft RPT operations. Yet, if the argument for an increase in safety of aeroplane charter operations is based on an unacceptable accident rate, a similar argument can be addressed to single engine rotorcraft operations Multi engine rotorcraft operations in Australia are largely conducted by organisations, which have adopted many of the safety systems and procedures already evident in RPT aeroplane operations such as: pilot experience requirements; checking and training; standardised procedures; trend monitoring; operational standards; and regular auditing Accordingly, if the presence of such systems and procedures in the absence of legislation can result in a reduction in rotorcraft accident rates, there is a case for requiring similar systems in all rotorcraft passenger carrying operations Under current rules, charter flights may be operated to a lower level of safety than that which is applicable to Regular Public Transport (RPT) flights. Examples of areas where rules are less stringent include pilot overall and recent experience requirements and checking and training requirements. Passengers are generally not aware of these differences in safety levels and there is currently no legal requirement to make them so aware The current regulations and supporting material have been progressively altered over a number of years to keep pace with international trends but do not necessarily follow international best practice. The current regulations are not harmonised with international regulations including the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) of the USA, Joint Aviation Requirements (JARs) of the European Joint Aviation Authorities and the New Zealand Civil Aviation Rules (CARs) which limits CASA's response to incorporate international changes to safety related practices In addition, a number of differences between ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) and current Australian regulatory requirements exist with respect to air transport operations and need to be reviewed. For example the ICAO standards have no distinction between charter and RPT flights and have a requirement for Crew Resource Management (CRM) training, which Australia does not apply. 3.3 Key Change Proposals In order to align Australian legislation with international best practice, the existing CARs 1988 require amendment to address the above issues and to enhance the level of safety. The specific objective of this NPRM is to provide for public consultation on proposed regulatory changes, in accordance with statutory requirements. Document NPRM 0301OS Page 15 of 36

20 3.3.2 The main objectives of the proposed CASR are to: minimise the differences between charter and RPT operations by providing a uniform safety system for all fare-paying passengers regardless of whether the flight is charter or RPT; improve the safety standard of aerial work operations; and satisfy the criteria established for the development of the CASRs CASA s primary objective is to provide standards that are clear, concise and unambiguous. CASA also seeks to ensure those standards are: focused on safety, adopting a systems approach where appropriate; consistent with Australia s international obligations; harmonised with international standards, unless unique Australian circumstances require otherwise; cost-effective; and enforceable Annex A to this NPRM provides a comparison and analysis of the proposed regulatory framework for CASR and also gives the differences between the proposed CASR and the current rules. Changes made to the DP 0006OS technical working draft as a result of the DP consultation process and subsequent discussions are itemised and explained in Annex D to this NPRM. 3.4 Options Considered The principal options considered during development of CASR were: Option 1 Retain current Australian regulatory requirements (DP Option 3) but either: require operators to inform passengers about differences between RPT and charter standards; or apply all RPT standards to charter operations; Option 2 Expand proposed legislation in CASR Parts 121A and 121B to include rotorcraft air transport operations and adopt a similar strategy for aerial work operations (follows DP Option 4); Option 3 Follow the example of CASR Parts 121A and 121B but develop separate Parts for rotorcraft air transport and aerial work operations (follows DP Option 4); Option 4 Adopt another recognised authority s legislation without change in the interests of harmonisation (DP Option 1); Option 5 Completely restructure and reform the regulatory framework for rotorcraft air transport and aerial work operations; and Option 6 Follow the theme of CASR Part 121A and adopt another recognised authority s practices but adapt them to the Australian situation and legal framework (DP Option 2). Document NPRM 0301OS Page 16 of 36

21 Option 1 Retain current Australian regulatory requirements but either require operators to inform passengers about differences between RPT and charter standards; or apply all RPT standards to charter operations This option was considered during the development of CASR Part 121A (Air Transport Operations Large Aeroplanes) but was rejected. It is rejected for on similar grounds that: there are few, if any, rotorcraft RPT operations and, in many circumstances, there is no clear distinction between charter and RPT rotorcraft flights; the significance of the differences in standards, in terms of their combined effect on flight safety, would not be readily apparent to most passengers; informing passengers about differences between RPT and charter standards would not result in any improvement in flight safety, and the application of all RPT standards to charter operations would effectively prohibit most rotorcraft charter operations that, with suitable conditions applied or adapted, are, and could continue to be, conducted safely. Specifically, the following table examines this option against the objectives identified in paragraphs and Option 1 Retain current Australian regulatory requirements but either require operators to inform passengers about differences between RPT and charter standards; or apply all RPT standards to charter operations. Objective Determination for Option 1 Minimise the differences between charter and RPT operations by providing a uniform safety system for all fare-paying passengers. This objective would not be met because a continuation of the current regulations means present ambiguity in the regulations in distinguishing between charter and RPT operations would remain. This option would provide a uniform safety standard for all fare-paying aeroplane passengers regardless of whether the flight is charter or RPT. However, this option would prohibit most rotorcraft charter flights, which present no particular safety hazards, resulting in inconvenience to the travelling public. Satisfy the criteria established for the development of the CASRs: clear, concise and unambiguous; focused on safety, adopting a systems approach where appropriate; consistent with Australia s international obligations; harmonised with international standards, unless unique Australian circumstances require otherwise; cost-effective; and enforceable. Option 1 does not change the current Australian regulations. The current regulations are not clear or systemic in approach. They are also not consistent with the ICAO SARPs, which do not distinguish between charter and RPT flights. By avoiding harmonisation to world best practice, retention of the existing regulations will create the undesirable effect of continuing the relatively high accident rate that is characteristic of charter operations (refer paragraph 2.5). Document NPRM 0301OS Page 17 of 36

22 Option 2 Expand proposed legislation in CASR Parts 121A and 121B to include rotorcraft air transport operations and adopt a similar strategy for aerial work operations This option was rejected on a number of grounds: Significant elements of legislation which apply to the operation of aeroplanes is irrelevant for rotorcraft - performance, airfields, long range operations, all weather operations, instruments and equipment; The amount of documentation required for the operation of aeroplanes is superfluous to rotorcraft operations and could not be carried in the majority of rotorcraft; Extracts from documents would be required if the volume of material was to be reduced leading to the conclusion that separate documentation was preferable; and The distinction between operations of normal and transport category aeroplanes does not directly translate to a similar distinction for rotorcraft. Specifically, the following table examines this option against the objectives identified in paragraphs and Option 2 Expand proposed legislation in CASR Parts 121A and 121B to include rotorcraft air transport operations and adopt a similar strategy for aerial work operations Objective Determination for Option 2 Minimise the differences between charter and RPT operations by providing a uniform safety system for all fare-paying passengers. Satisfy the criteria established for the development of the CASRs: clear, concise and unambiguous; focused on safety, adopting a systems approach where appropriate; consistent with Australia s international obligations; harmonised with international standards, unless unique Australian circumstances require otherwise; cost-effective; and enforceable. This option would provide a uniform safety standard for all fare-paying aeroplane passengers regardless of whether the flight is charter or RPT. This option could produce regulations that are consistent with Australia s international obligations and harmonised with international standards. However, such action would: result in a complex split in rotorcraft operational requirements; increase the volume of material required for all operators; and not be cost effective.. Document NPRM 0301OS Page 18 of 36

23 Option 3 Follow the example of Parts 121A and 121B but develop separate Parts for rotorcraft air transport and aerial work operations This option was considered by the project team but rejected on the following grounds: During preparation of the DP it was apparent that the rotorcraft industry preferred all legislation pertinent to the operation of rotorcraft to be contained in as few documents as possible and that operators and crew members should not have to search through large amounts of irrelevant material to find the necessary legislation. The distinction between operations of normal and transport category aeroplanes does not directly translate to a similar distinction for rotorcraft requiring distinct legislation for each category of rotorcraft. Pursuit of such an option would lead to substantial duplication. Specifically, the following table examines this option against the objectives identified in paragraphs and Option 3 Follow the example of Parts 121A and B but develop separate Parts for rotorcraft air transport and aerial work operations Objective Determination for Option 3 Minimise the differences between charter and RPT operations by providing a uniform safety system for all fare-paying passengers. Satisfy the criteria established for the development of the CASRs: clear, concise and unambiguous; focused on safety, adopting a systems approach where appropriate; consistent with Australia s international obligations; harmonised with international standards, unless unique Australian circumstances require otherwise; cost-effective; and enforceable. This option would provide a uniform safety standard for all fare-paying aeroplane passengers regardless of whether the flight is charter or RPT. This option could produce regulations that are consistent with Australia s international obligations and harmonised with international standards. However, such action would: result in a complex split in rotorcraft operational requirements; increase the volume of material required for all operators not comply with industry requirements for simplicity not be cost effective. Option 4 Adopt another recognised authority s legislation without change in the interest of harmonisation Current regulations are developed in accordance with the Australian constitutional system, government policies and local conditions. Whilst some recognised authorities have similarities in some areas, there is no one regulatory system that can be adopted without changes to suit Australian conditions. More importantly, the constitutional issues that need to be addressed make this option impractical and time consuming. In other words, it may take just as long to sort out constitutional issues as if CASA started with a clean sheet to reform the regulatory framework. Document NPRM 0301OS Page 19 of 36

24 Specifically, the following table examines this option against the objectives identified in paragraphs and Option 4 Adopt another recognised authority s requirements without change in the interest of harmonisation Objective Determination for Option 4 Minimise the differences between charter and RPT operations by providing a uniform safety system for all fare-paying aeroplane passengers. The JARs could provide a uniform safety standard for both chartered and RPT flights but do not regulate rotorcraft aerial work operations. The FARs distinguish between flag, domestic, supplemental, commuter and ondemand operations. Satisfy the criteria established for the development of the CASRs: clear, concise and unambiguous; focused on safety, adopting a systems approach where appropriate; consistent with Australia s international obligations; harmonised with international standards, unless unique Australian circumstances require otherwise; cost-effective; and enforceable. No recognised Authority s regulations meet the Australian requirements completely. In particular, the exemptions and policy rulings on the interpretation and implementation of a foreign State s rules by that State s Authority would generally not be known outside that Authority. The lack of adaptation to Australian circumstances would not produce regulations that are clear, concise and unambiguous, nor would this option be cost-effective. This option could produce regulations that are consistent with Australia s international obligations and harmonised with international standards. Option 5 Completely restructure and reform the regulatory framework for air transport and aerial work operations While this option received some support, it became apparent during preparation of the NPRM that it is inadvisable for Australia to formulate an air transport operations standard in isolation from the rest of the world, for the following reasons: the incidence of accidents involving charter flights continues to be unacceptably high (paragraph 3.2.9), necessitating an early and considered regulatory framework to address current safety concerns. Promoting a uniquely-australian framework is likely to require an extended time horizon and involve significant experimentation in establishing key regulatory concepts that can be consistently and effectively adopted across the industry; responses by industry to the DP indicate a strong interest in securing clarity and consistency through accepted mainstream global practices (whether FARs or JAR-OPS 3). This interest is supported by a willingness among industry respondents to accept a level playing field setting minimum standards applicable to all operations that involve carriage of fare-paying passengers. Given industry s appetite for change, Option 5 would be likely to prove contentious because it is cumbersome and would involve significant further time and effort to regulate all facets of rotorcraft operations to an acceptable standard. Document NPRM 0301OS Page 20 of 36

25 3.4.7 Despite the inadvisability of Australia starting with a clean sheet with respect to rotorcraft legislation, it became apparent during drafting of the DP that no one nation had developed a stand alone suite of legislation for rotorcraft. To that end, an element of restructure is apparent in the decision of the working party to combine all rotorcraft operational legislation under one Part, which is reserved in the FARs for Rotorcraft External Load Operations. In contrast, the JAA would appear to be considering the development of two distinct Parts JAR-OPS 3 and JAR-OPS 4 for regulating rotorcraft air transport operations and rotorcraft aerial work operations. The development of two distinct Parts for rotorcraft operations is seen by CASA and the Project Team to be an unwarranted duplication. Specifically, the following table examines this option against the objectives identified in paragraphs and Option 5 Completely restructure and reform the regulatory framework for air transport and aerial work operations Objective Determination for Option 5 Minimise the differences between charter and RPT operations by providing a uniform safety system for all fare-paying aeroplane passengers. Satisfy the criteria established for the development of the CASRs: clear, concise and unambiguous; focused on safety, adopting a systems approach where appropriate; consistent with Australia s international obligations; harmonised with international standards, unless unique Australian circumstances require otherwise; cost-effective; and enforceable. This option could provide a uniform safety standard for all fare-paying aeroplane passengers regardless of whether the flight is chartered or RPT. This option could satisfy the criteria for clear, systemic, enforceable regulations that are consistent with Australia s international obligations and harmonised with international standards This option could be effective to a limited extent, particularly when no other Authority s requirements exactly meet Australian requirements. Option 6 Follow the theme of CASR Part 121A and adopt another recognised authority s practices but adapt them to the Australian situation and legal framework Given the time and resource constraints subsequently imposed on the regulatory review program, the most efficient way of producing legislation of the scope necessary to regulate rotorcraft operations was to base it on an existing, internationally recognised, ICAO compliant structure. This required a choice between using JAR-OPS 3 or the FARs as the base model for legislation. JAR-OPS 3 was selected for the following reasons: The FARs and supporting documents were criticised within the US during 1997 in a White House Commission report in a similar manner to criticisms being levelled here at the CARs/CAOs. Document NPRM 0301OS Page 21 of 36

26 Although the FARs were favoured by many in the rotorcraft industry, responses by major operators were supportive of the JARs, finding them generally less dis-jointed and easier to understand and interpret than the equivalent FARs. Under the current CARs/CAOs, the stringency of significant safety requirements depends upon whether an air transport flight is conducted as a charter operation or as an RPT operation. CASA s policy is to minimise differences in safety standards between scheduled and non-scheduled operations. This policy accords with the Minister s charter letter to CASA of November 1999 and with the way the ICAO specifies aeroplane-operating standards. Using JAR-OPS 3 as a model satisfies this criterion. While the FARs distinguish between different operating requirements (eg FARs 121, 125 and 135 refer to flag, domestic, supplemental, commuter and on-demand operations), a 1997 White House Commission report has criticised the relevant FARs as administratively cumbersome and lacking a universal and systematic distinction between operation types. Adopting JAR-OPS 3 as the starting point for CASR eliminates problems stemming from the wording of current CAR 1988, sub-regulations 206(1)(b) and (c) (refer paragraph 4.2.4). Further, utilising JAR-OPS 3 will ensure compatibility between this draft CASR and CASR Parts 121A - Air Transport Operations Large Aeroplanes, 121 B Air Transport Operations Small Aeroplanes and Part Aerial Work Operations since those Parts have also been based on the JAR and the numbering used for all CASR Parts would be similar. Specifically, the following table examines this option against the objectives identified in paragraphs and Option 6 Follow the theme of CASR Part 121A and adopt another recognised authority s practices but adapt them to the Australian situation and legal framework Objective Determination for Option 6 Minimise the differences between charter and RPT operations by providing a uniform safety system for all fare-paying aeroplane passengers. The JARs provide a uniform safety standard for both charter and RPT flights. The JAR framework could be used as a base for CASR meet this objective. Preferred Option Follow the theme of CASR Part 121A and adopt another recognised authority s practices but adapt them to the Australian situation and legal framework Comparing the options above to the established objectives and taking into account industry responses to the DP, the SCC determined that Option 6 Adopt another recognised Authority s requirements but adapt them to the Australian situation is the preferred option. This option could best achieve all the stated objectives. Document NPRM 0301OS Page 22 of 36