SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO NPRM 1304OS. Regulation of aeroplane and helicopter 'ambulance function' flights as Air Transport operations

Transcription

1 SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO NPRM 1304OS Regulation of aeroplane and helicopter 'ambulance function' flights as Air Transport operations SOR 1304OS October 2014 Project Number: OS 14/08

2 Readers should note that this Summary of Responses (SOR) contains an analysis of comments and Civil Aviation Safety Authority's (CASA s) summary disposition in response to a previously issued Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM). This document also contains detailed comments received by CASA, CASA s agreed policy and intended legislative changes. This document finalises the public consultation process in respect of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) 1304OS. Audience This summary of responses will be of interest to: operators of medical transport (MT) ambulance function type flights, both current and prospective current holders of a charter Air Operator s Certificate (AOC) prospective holders of an air transport (AT) AOC authorised under Part 119 Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR 1998.)) prospective operators under Parts 121, 133, 135 and 138 of the CASR 1998 state government ambulance and medical service providers individuals and entities who: provide aircraft maintenance for MT operations contract the services of MT operators. SOR 1304OS Page 1

3 Foreword In July 2013, CASA published NPRM 1304OS Regulation of aeroplane and helicopter 'ambulance function' flights as AT operations. The purpose of the NPRM was to advise the public and the wider aviation community of CASA intent to regulate, to the greatest extent practicable, ambulance function flights to the same safety standards that are currently applicable to AT operations. This intention would extend to the adoption of AOC certification requirements, operating standards and maintenance standards. The NPRM outlined a new and updated policy that specifically categorises MT flights so that they operate under the requirements of an AT AOC (issued under Part 119 of CASR 1998) and the applicable operational rule set (i.e. Part 133 of CASR 1998 for helicopter operations and either Part 121 or 135 of CASR 1998 for aeroplane operations). The NPRM sought comment in regard to the areas of the AT operations suite where additional compliance or relief considerations would be required, taking into account the purpose and nature of MT flights. CASA received 19 responses to the NPRM. This SOR presents CASA s evaluation of the comments received, together with the consequent disposition action. CASA would like to thank everyone who has taken the time to respond to the NPRM. Peter Boyd Executive Manager Standards Division October 2014 SOR 1304OS Page 2

4 Contents 1 Reference material Acronyms and abbreviations Definitions References 7 2 Summary of Responses Respondents Analysis of responses 9 3 Detailed responses to NPRM 1304OS Key Proposal 1 and to question regarding fatigue management Respondent Respondent Respondent Respondent Respondent Respondent Respondent Respondent Respondent Respondent Respondent Respondent 12 NSW Ambulance Service Respondent 13 RFDS Respondent 14 Australian Helicopters Respondent Respondent Respondent Respondent Respondent Respondent Conclusion 58 ANNEX A1 RFDS response to NPRM 1304OS A1 ANNEX B1 Australian Helicopters response to NPRM 1304OS B1 SOR 1304OS Page 3

5 1 Reference material 1.1 Acronyms and abbreviations The acronyms and abbreviations used in this SOR are listed in the table below. Acronym / abbreviation AMT ASNSW AT ATSB Description Aeroplane Medical transport Ambulance Service of New South Wales Air Transport Australian Transport Safety Bureau CAR 1988 Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 CASA Civil Aviation Safety Authority CASR 1998 Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 CAO CRM DTW EMS ESP FAA ft FRMS GM HEMS HLS HMT ICAO IFR IMC kg LDR MT NFRM NPRM Civil Aviation Order Crew Resource Management Down the Wire Person Emergency Medical Service Emergency Service Personnel Federal Aviation Administration (USA) Feet Fatigue Risk Management System Guidance Material Helicopter Emergency Medical Service Helicopter Landing Site Helicopter Medical Transport International Civil Aviation Organisation Instrument Flight Rules Instrument Meteorological Conditions (other than VMC) Kilograms Landing Distance Required Medical Transport Notice of Final Rule Making Notice of Proposed Rule Making SOR 1304OS Page 4

6 NTS NVG OEI OPC PC PIC RFDS RPT SAR SMS SOR VFR VMC Non-Technical Skills Night Vision Goggles One Engine Inoperative Office of Parliamentary Counsel Performance Class Pilot in Command Royal Flying Doctor Service Regular Public Transport Search and Rescue Safety Management System Summary of Responses Visual Flight Rules Visual Meteorological Conditions 1.2 Definitions Terms that have specific meaning within this SOR are defined in the table below. Term Conn Crew Crew member Flight crew member Definition means to direct, by voice instructions to the pilot, the steering and positioning of a helicopter of an aircraft comprises the crew members. a person is a crew member of an aircraft if the person is carried on the aircraft and is: (a) a person: (i) who is authorised by the operator of the aircraft to carry out a specified function during flight time relating to: (A) the operation, maintenance, use or safety of the aircraft; or (B) the safety of its passengers; or (C) the care or security of any cargo which may affect the safety of the aircraft or its occupants; and (ii) who has been trained to carry out that function; or (b) a person who is on board the aircraft for the purpose of: (i) giving or receiving instruction in a function mentioned in subparagraph (a) (i); or (ii) being tested for a qualification associated with a function in subparagraph (a) (i); or (c) a person authorised by CASA under regulation [91.125], or by the operator, to carry out an audit, check, examination, inspection or test of a person mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b). means a crew member who is a pilot or flight engineer assigned to carry out duties essential to the operation of an aircraft during flight time. SOR 1304OS Page 5

7 HMT aircrew member Medical crew member Medical Transport Operations Medical Transport operator Medical passenger Passenger Person directly involved means a crew member of a helicopter (other than a supernumerary crew member) who has been trained, found competent and assigned by the operator: (a) to assist the pilot in tasks specified in the operator s exposition in regard to the operation of the helicopter; or (b) to conn the pilot to position and reposition overhead a HMT operating site; or (c) to operate the winch on the helicopter (if any) during HMT operations; or (d) to supervise rappelling operations (if any) during HMT operations; or (e) to supervise or assist a medical crew member in the performance of his or her duties on the helicopter; or (f) to use an auto-hover system to position, or reposition, the helicopter by inputs to an auto-hover trim control (if any), under the supervision of the pilot in command. means crew members, with specific aviation medical transport patient care training and additional operator aircraft emergency proficiency training related to their role as a crew member on the aircraft, who are authorised by the operator for duty on an aircraft conducting a medical transport operation, and who are informed of, understand and accept the associated safety risks 1. means a flight in an aircraft the specific purpose of which is to facilitate emergency medical assistance, in situations where to render that assistance, rapid aerial transportation is essential, or alternately to facilitate medical assistance and transport, where aerial transport is considered necessary as determined by a medical practitioner or tasking agency, by carrying: (a) ill or injured persons (b) other persons directly involved with the person in (a) (c) medical personnel; or combinations of the above. means a Part 119 air transport AOC holder whose approved exposition authorises the operator to conduct medical transport operations means an ill or injured person on a medical transport flight, or other person directly involved with the medical care or support of an ill or injured person, who is carried on a MT operation. in relation to an aircraft, means a person: (a) who: (i) intends to travel on a particular flight on the aircraft; or (ii) is on board the aircraft for a flight; or (iii) has disembarked from the aircraft following a flight; and (b) who is not a member of the crew of the aircraft for the flight. a person (who may or may not be medically trained) whose carriage is considered necessary to the wellbeing of the ill or injured person, for the purposes of their medical transport flight. 1 An operator will be required to outline and define in its exposition the task and duty statements, training and recency associated with each medical crew member position and how it is integrated into their operations. SOR 1304OS Page 6

8 1.3 References NPRM 1304OS Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 48.1 Amendment instrument 2013 Consultation drafts: Part 91 of CASR 1998 Part 119 of CASR 1998 Part 133 of CASR 1998 Part 135 of CASR 1998 SOR 1304OS Page 7

9 2 Summary of Responses 2.1 Respondents Nineteen respondents submitted comments to the NPRM. The following CASA and industry representatives consented to having their names published: Industry Representative Gareth Davey Eugene Lee John Corcoron Genevieve Brideson Joint Response Graeme Field Dr Sam Alfred and Dr Anthony Cross NFP Graeme Wright Mathew Glynn Greg Rochford Zach Froneman Peter Vehargen Trevor Wilson Organisation Australian Aircraft Rentals Pel Air Corcoron Aviation Safety Flight Nurses Australia Hunter and Sydney Westpac Rescue Aeromedical Society of Australia Australian College for Emergency Medicine NFP NSW Ambulance Service Australian Helicopters Royal Flying Doctor Service (RFDS) (combined Sections) Aus West Airlines Lloyd Helicopters t/a CHC Helicopters Australia Emergency Management Queensland Rescue Individuals Jason Allery Daryl Humphries CASA Representative Peter Boyd Dale South Role Project Sponsor Project Leader David Threlfo Grahame Murray SOR 1304OS Page 8

10 2.2 Analysis of responses Analysis of the respondents disposition to each proposal is provided in the following sections Key Proposal 1 Key Proposal 1 recommended that helicopter and aeroplane MT operations be moved into the AT classification and authorised by an AOC issued in accordance with Part 119 of CASR MT operations would be subject to the requirements of the applicable AT regulation (i.e. Parts 121, 133 or 135 of CASR 1998) and any overarching regulations from Part 91 of CASR 1998, as applicable. There were 19 responses overall to Key Proposal 1: 2 of these were combined responses from Hunter and Sydney Westpac Rescue and the Combined Sections of the RFDS 4 of the respondents indicated the proposal was acceptable without change 14 respondents considered the proposal would be acceptable with some changes 1 respondent did not indicate a view on the proposal's acceptability but was supportive generally through their attached comments there were no respondents who considered the proposal unacceptable Acceptable without change Changes would make proposal acceptable Not acceptable under any circumstances 14 No response Question CASA asked, in relation to the new CAO 48.1 instrument 2013 and fatigue management generally, what approach could best manage fatigue risk in medical transport operations? Option 1: Work to the limits under the pertinent Public Transport Appendices of CAO 48.1, (i.e. Appendix 2 - complex multi-pilot Public Transport, Appendix 3 - non-complex multi-pilot Public Transport and Appendix 4 - single pilot Public Transport). SOR 1304OS Page 9

11 Option 2: Work to a new set of fatigue management rules under Public Transport, which are tailored specifically for MT operations and capture appropriate sections of Appendix 5 Option 3: Work to a Fatigue Risk Management System (FRMS) under Appendix 7 to the new CAO 48.1 Option 4: Other (please provide details) There were 19 respondents to the question in relation to the new CAO 48.1 Instrument 2013 and fatigue management generally for MT operations and to what approach could best manage fatigue risk in medical transport operations. Of these: no respondents indicated option 1 was acceptable 2 respondents considered option 2 was the best method 5 considered option 3 the best method 6 considered option 4 the best method to manage fatigue in medical transport operations. However, 5 respondents also considered that a combination of option 2 and option 3 presented the best approach to managing fatigue in medical transport operations. 0 6 Option 1 Option2 8 Option 3 Option 4 5 SOR 1304OS Page 10

12 3 Detailed responses to NPRM 1304OS Key Proposal 1 and question regarding fatigue management 3.1 Respondent Paragraph A.9.1 of Annex A of NPRM 1304OS Having conducted helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS), [the respondent] is a supporter of the intended change. [The respondent] offers the following feedback with reference to paragraph A.9.1 of Annex A: The definition of a medical passenger would include a parent of an infant, carried on-board the aircraft to sooth the infant during the flight. I do not believe it is reasonable, necessary or achievable for the crew to brief the parent to ensure that they can operate medical and emergency equipment held on-board. CASA agrees with this response to the NPRM and will include these considerations in the drafting instruction for the MT provisions. 3.2 Respondent Response to NPRM 1304OS Acceptable without change Option 2. Also acceptable alternative to Option 3. No comment required 3.3 Respondent Ability to comment without parent CASRs To invite comment on a proposal to align MT operations against CASR s 119, 121 and 135 (applicable in the case of [the respondent]) is confusing as these CASR s have not yet been promulgated and fully informed comment is therefore not possible. Comment is confined mainly to CASRs 119 and 135 which have progressed to the point where their contents are generally known. Some of the provisions of CAO 82.3, which would cause difficulty in MT operations, have been removed in the draft form of CASR 135 and it is assumed that this will not change. Additional requirements that may or may not be incorporated into the new CASRs obviously cannot be commented upon. [The respondent] supports the overall concept of aligning MT operations against AT operations and has already done so as far as practicable for its aeroplane medical transport (AMT) SOR 1304OS Page 11

13 operations. It agrees with CASA s preferred Option 3 as the best mechanism for achieving this. [The respondent] conducts AMT operations with aircraft both below and above 8,460 kilograms (kg) and will therefore fall under the proposed CASR 121 and the proposed CASR 135. Current procedures to add ports to an AOC for regular public transport (RPT) operations (for those operators without an area AOC) are cumbersome and would not allow the flexibility needed in MT operations. Draft CASR seemingly allows an operator to use an aerodrome provided it complies with relevant CASR 139 standards, without specific CASA approval and AOC issue for each port. This same system needs to be applied for MT operations conducted under CASR 121. The current route and aerodrome qualification requirements for AT operations under CAR 218 would be totally impractical for MT operations where unexpected re-tasking can occur in flight. Draft CASR will provide a practical solution to this and needs to be applied to MT operations conducted under CASR 121. It is noted that the current prescribed pilot experience requirements for AT operations under CAO 82.3 are replaced by a more competency based system under draft CASR [The respondent] fully endorses this change, particularly with regard to MT operations which can be highly specialised. [The respondent] assumes that similar provisions will be in CASR 121. [The respondent] is not sure what the requirements will be for radio communication confirmation systems for AT operations in the new regulations but feels that these should not be required for MT operations which require more flexibility than normal AT operations. Draft CASR contains provision for the seating of able bodied passengers in seats adjacent to emergency exits. This will need to be accepted in the case of medical passengers. NPRM A.2 Operational control Flight following procedure and capability able to update the pilot on operational matters during flight. Older aircraft do not have the sophisticated in-flight communications systems of modern aircraft and to fit them can be prohibitively expensive. This requirement should allow for basic systems (i.e. a sat phone) which [the respondent] has used on remote and international flights with its older aircraft. NPRM A.8.2 Experience [The respondent] feels this is already covered by the draft CASR (1) and any additional experience requirements over those prescribed for AT operations are not necessary. In the past some operators have turned prescribed minimum experience requirements into a standard training syllabus rather than concentrate on the competency and standard of each individual pilot. Any minimum experience requirements should be imposed by the operator as per CASR (1). Operations and training systems may vary widely between operators and a blanket minimum experience requirement for a certain type of MT operation may not fit all operators. NPRM A.8.5 Training and checking [The respondent] has in the past carried qualified medical personnel (doctors and/or nurses) on MT operations who may be considered as medical crew. These were often sourced from a hospital based pool of hundreds and it would not be possible to qualify them all for an annual proficiency check. Some flexibility may be needed to enable the operator to assign a qualified SOR 1304OS Page 12

14 medical person as either medical crew or medical passenger, dependent on the training they have received, irrespective of the fact that they would be performing the same medical task in the aircraft. CASA agrees Part 121 of CASR 1998 is, at this time, only available in NPRM form from 2002 and as an info pack from May 2009; however, CASA appreciates the feedback based on the current rule set from the respondent. Aerodromes CASA agrees and is considering using the Part 135 policy for Part 121 MT operations and will advise a final policy on this matter as part of future consultative meetings for MT operations. Aerodrome and route qualifications CASA agrees and will consider including a more risk based AD and route qualification system for MT operations in Part 121 of CASR, which will be managed by the operator and monitored by their safety management system (SMS). Communications confirmation systems CASA has not finalised the policy on radio communication confirmation systems and will take the respondent s view into consideration during development of this policy. Emergency exits To the extent practical with compliance with the design of the ambulance kit and certification of the aircraft, Parts 135 (for example, regulation ) and 121 of CASR 1998 will have exception provisions embedded within them for MT operations to avoid this being an offence during MT operations. NPRM A.2 Operational control CASA agrees with this comment regarding operational control and it is intended for this provision to allow the flexibility for the operator to develop their own policy for operational control within their exposition, albeit without impinging on the Pilot in Command's (PIC s) responsibly and authority. NPRM A.8.2 Experience CASA agrees that this process should be operator specific; however, certain operations (such as helicopter MT operations) do traditionally have minimum experience criteria. Regulation will be the baseline for small aeroplane operations. This will be further reviewed during the next consultation phase. NPRM A.8.5 Medical crew training within training and checking CASA is of the view the operator will be required to provide medical crew training and competency checking as medical crew are crew members on the aircraft. This is an essential requirement for the operator to meet their training and checking responsibilities for these crew members and for the operator's employees to be classified as crew on the aircraft. SOR 1304OS Page 13

15 The medical passenger definition has been designed to allow such persons to be carried as medical passengers when they have not been trained by the operator. This gives the flexibility required by the respondent. 3.4 Respondent Medical crew certification All medical crew members must hold a current crew member (aeromedical specific) emergency procedures certificate in accordance with CAO part 10, 12 Appendix IV, including wet drill ditching procedures in the water per annum. All medical crew members must hold aeromedical specific dangerous goods certificates (i.e.- Group C and /or Group D employees). CAO Appendix IV needs to be amended. CAO Appendix IV needs to capture aeromedical specific ops: fit protective breathing equipment (PBE) to aeromedical aircraft fit fire gloves to aeromedical aircraft fit dangerous goods spill kits to aeromedical aircraft require aeromedical specific safety on board cards require AOC holders to produce aeromedical specific cabin safety and emergency equipment and procedures manual require aeromedical operators to produce aeromedical specific dangerous goods manual require AOC holder to produce aeromedical specific crew resource management (CRM) human factors manual and training require all aeromedical emergency procedures (EP), dangerous goods (DG) and CRM instructors to hold formal CASA approval and training. CASA is of the view the crew training aspects outlined in the response will be captured in the flight and other crew training requirements outlined in Subpart N for the various CASRs. In the proposed change, MT operators will be classified under AT; therefore, the provisions of Part 119 of CASR 1998 for training and checking, and the specific flight and other crew training and competency requirements of the relevant operations Part 121, 133 or 135 should cover off these other suggested training requirements. CAO is not planned to be amended at this time as its requirements have been incorporated into the CASR operational parts. Parts 121, 133 and 135 of CASR 1998 all require non-technical and human factors training for flight crews. The instruction given to crews under the CASRs must be carried out by qualified personnel within the operators training and checking organisation or their Part 142 operator. The other points outlined by the respondent regarding PBE, DGs and other equipment will be captured by the move to the higher AT category. SOR 1304OS Page 14

16 3.5 Respondent Response to NPRM 1304OS Key Proposal 1 acceptable without change. Manage fatigue by working to an FRMS under Appendix 7 of CAO NPRM A.8.5 MT medical crew annual training Unless employed by the operator, MT crew change regularly and this regulation will mean a lot of expenditure and costs associated with training. Does this include escorts? Does this include ambulance personnel, State Emergency Services (SES), those who maintain private airstrips and facilitate landing of aeromedical aircraft (e.g. property owners who light emergency flares, fire service volunteers? Are all these people expected to be trained? NPRM A.9.2 Ground emergency service personnel (ESP) Needs further clarification around definition. Human factors training would be additional to the current schedule of training as is not included in the yearly checks training currently performed within most aeromedical organisations. This would be an additional cost to the organisation and is it necessary as a yearly check? Could it be 2-3 or 5 yearly? The record keeping re: incidents of 10 years is a very long time. Electronic resources can become corrupted and paper very difficult to store. Fatigue management CASA is of the view a specific MT appendix to CAO 48.1 will be applied and may be used for MT operations. The appendix will be modelled on Appendix 5, but with further specific MT requirements included based on consultation with the MT operators. This will not prevent an MT operator from using an FRMS under Appendix 7 if they so desire and can support such a system. NPRM A.8.5 MT medical crew annual training CASA is of the view the operator will be required to provide medical crew training and competency checking. This is an essential requirement for operator's employees being classified as crew on the aircraft. The medical passenger definition has been designed to allow such persons to be carried as medical passengers when they have not been trained by the operator. This gives the flexibility required by the respondent for those other personnel outlined in the response. NPRM A.9.2 Ground ESP CASA agrees and is of the view the final drafting of this policy into legislation will require a definition to be developed for these persons. SOR 1304OS Page 15

17 Human factors training CASA is of the view human factors and treat and error training are normal essential elements of crew training in a modern aviation environment, and is very supportive of this inclusion. The 12 month or annual recurrent requirements are standard process for cabin crew in modern airline operations; however, CASA is willing to consider extending this period if MT crews are to be considered different in the need for these skill sets and this can be supported by a risk based argument in this regard. At present CASA s disposition on this remains open. Record keeping CASA is of the view that portable memory technology currently available is of low cost. Any concerns regarding data becoming corrupt can be managed by duplicating data on back up devices. CASA will review this as part of the ongoing consultation and regulatory development processes. 3.6 Respondent 6 Draft Regulation This additional detail (Acceptable Means of Compliance [AMC]) permits relevant kind of aircraft and does not specify hours on type. Although not specified, a relevant kind of aircraft could be multi-engine transport category helicopters? Perhaps this modified wording makes this an acceptable item. Recommend nil response to this item. Draft Regulation To avoid getting bogged down in too much detail, it may worth leaving this out also. Recommend nil response to this item. Draft Regulations and No comment required Draft Regulation Recommend clarity on exactly who will require this. It is easy to see how this should apply to winch operators and rescue crew, but perhaps also to certain medical crew given the often blurry lines between rescue crew and paramedics. Given [the respondent's] flight dispatchers belong to Police/Health Departments, it is difficult to have them included in this. Recommend a response to request clarity on the intent for the helicopter medical transport (HMT) and AMT. In particular where rescue crew and paramedics (working as rescue crew) might sit. SOR 1304OS Page 16

18 Draft Regulation Recommend a response to request clarity on the intent for the HMT and AMT. In particular where rescue crew and paramedics (working as rescue crew) might sit. Draft Regulations and In regard to non-technical skills (NTS) training for flight crew, cabin crew and flight dispatchers, CASA agrees this should extend to rescue crew and aircrewman winch operators. As the rule specifically defines; flight dispatcher, for an Australian AT operator, as meaning a person designated by the operator to control and supervise flight operations (including supporting, briefing and assisting the PIC in the safe conduct of flights). It is evident that the dispatcher will need to have been designated by the operator for this training to apply to them. In any case, CASA supports the view (over and above this requirement) of extending this training as deeply into the operator s organisation as is manageable. Therefore, as rescue crew are part of the operator s crew, they should be covered by this requirement. In regard to Paramedics, if they are carried as part of the crew then this will also be the case; however, it will not be required if they are carried as medical passengers. Draft Subpart 119.G Recommend a response that requests a separate appendix for AMT/HMT. CASA is of the view a specific MT Appendix to CAO 48.1 will be applied and may be used for MT operations. The appendix will be modelled on Appendix 5, but with further specific MT requirements included based on consultation with the RFDS and other MT operators. This also will not prevent a MT operator from using an FRMS under Appendix 7 if they so desire and can support such a system. Draft Regulation It seems that double-ups of reporting will be required, at least until CASA and Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) can share reports. Recommend nil response. As outlined by the respondent, nil response at this time to the policy issue outlined; however, this can be further discussed at future MT working group meetings. Draft Regulation Recommend nil response on this topic to this NPRM, but save it for the Part 138 NPRM. SOR 1304OS Page 17

19 Nil response required. NPRM A.2 Tasking risk assessment CASA may need to consider methods of regulating AMT/HMT contracting agencies for the provision of data which allows a thorough risk assessment. Recommendation that each AOC holder produce their own risk assessment tool, but CASA require the participation of government tasking agencies in this process. This will ensure acceptance of varying risk levels is appropriate to the desired patient outcome. NPRM A.2 Inflight risk assessment Recommendation CASA to provide clarity of the extent and scope of inflight risk assessments. Bearing in mind single-pilot AMT operations, and for HMT operations, the often fluid mission environment where pilot intuitive risk assessment is being conducted constantly. NPRM A.2 Tasking risk assessment CASA will review the potential of extending this requirement to include tasking agencies; however, this may be beyond the applicability of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (The Act) without amendment. Regarding the recommendation: "that each AOC holder produce their own risk assessment tool" CASA supports this view but will need to consider it in more detail for final policy development. In regard to inflight risk assessment CASA will be producing a set of risk assessment tools in its guidance material (GM) for these requirements but agrees with the sentiment outlined in the response. NPRM A.5 Performance requirements HMT operations Recommendations: a. CASA permit Performance Class (PC) 3 operations (only below 1,000 feet [ft]) by day visual meteorologic conditions (VMC), and by night under night vision goggles (NVG), for a specified time that allows hospitals to be surveyed for PC1 or PC2 operations. This timeframe may vary across different groups of helipads in recognition of the varying degrees of public risk. b. Insert VMC and instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) in lieu of visual flight rules (VFR) and instrument flight rules (IFR). c. CASA reassures industry of the survey timelines and process required prior to PC1/PC2 compliance being mandatory. d. CASA reviews the time-based criteria for obtaining approval for PC2 with exposure. SOR 1304OS Page 18

20 a. Rotorcraft MT operations under day VFR may be operated to PC3, provided that the hospital heliport in use has sufficient space to accommodate a suitable forced landing area (i.e. during the approach and landing or take-off and departure stages of the flight). The flight will be conducted in accordance with Subpart 133.F of CASR 1998 for PC3 operations; however this may not be practical for most MT operations which normally require considerable operational flexibility for 24/7 type operations. b. As determined through earlier consultation rounds with industry, MT flights conducted under IFR, or at night under VFR, must be operated to PC1, PC2, or PC2 with exposure. c. No comment required at this time. d. CASA is working progressively with the industry on these matters and will allow reasonable transition periods to ensure that this process continues to move forward rather than stagnate. e. This is a function for the implementation teams for the new rule set and CASA is reviewing these as part of that process. NPRM A.8.2 Experience Recommend CASA advise on where such experience levels might lie, including any supervisory requirements on induction. CASA s preference is for this to be operator controlled via minimums outlined in the operator's exposition; however, there may need to be regulatory minimums established to ensure consistency across the industry. These will be determined via further consultation. NPRM A.8.5 Training and checking HMT aircrew member Recommend CASA consult with industry over additional items to add or subtract from the CASR Part 133. Presumably this will be via the Part 133 NPRM when it comes out. Also recommend CASA clarify the licencing status of the HMT aircrew member. CASA is intending further consultation meetings on this proposal; however, it should be noted CASA does not at this time envisage licencing aircrew members. Part 133 of CASR 1998 does intend to establish operator requirements for training and checking competencies for aircrew members in the MT amendments. It is not intended that Part 133 of CASR 1998 will be proceeding through the NPRM stage again; however the MT amendments will be separately consulted with industry. NPRM A.8.5 Training and checking medical crew member Recommend CASA clarify the fatigue management status of medical crew members, given many could be part-time paramedics, nurses or doctors on the helicopter, and so have other roles and rostering commitments. Training and checking of such personnel is easy, fatigue management is not. SOR 1304OS Page 19

21 CASA is of the view that if the person is to be considered part of the crew of the aircraft (rather than a medical passenger) then, like any part-time flight crew member, the operator has a responsibility to know they are sufficiently rested to be able to carry out their crew duties safely. As there are no specific crew fatigue rules at this time, CASA believes this can be achieved by a basic process within the organisation of the AOC holder which includes fatigue awareness education along with a requirement in the exposition for affected crew persons to report to the operator if they are fatigued. When crew fatigue standards are developed this may allow a more specific process to be considered such as incorporation into the operators FRMS or into the flight and duty fatigue monitoring systems. NPRM A.8.5 Training and checking HMT aircrew and medical crew crossover Recommendations: Allow for the provision of the con for medical crew members, without placing them under the full Part 133 requirements. In the definition for medical crew member, remove the words specific aviation medical transport, so that this definition can include rescue crewmen. As an alternative to point 2, create a new definition for rescue crewmen whom need not be licenced, but may be regulated by Part 133. Such a definition should specifically exclude persons not employed by the operator. CASA will continue to work with the industry on these definitions; however, it is cognisant that too many definitions to suit particular operator requirements may also add to the potential for confusion of what a person is when carried on the rotorcraft. NPRM A.9.2 Ground ESP Recommend section A.9.2 is not incorporated as a requirement CASA will continue to work with the industry on this issue at future working groups for MT operations. Regulation Recommend a HMT exemption from the requirement to carry floats. CASA will continue to work with the industry on this issue at future working groups for MT operations. Regulation Recommend nil response. SOR 1304OS Page 20

22 Nil response NPRM Definition of MT Recommend a lot more thought and discussion occur on this topic. CASA will continue to work with the industry on these definitions; however, it is cognisant that too many definitions to suit particular operator requirements may also add to the potential for confusion. The draft definitions outlined will also be reviewed by the legal drafters at the Office of Parliamentary Council and therefore may be subject to further change as part of the drafting process. Timeframes Recommend advice of time line for implementation. Nil response. Fatigue management CASA is of the view a specific MT appendix to CAO 48.1 will be applied and may be used for MT operations. The appendix will be modelled on Appendix 5, but with further specific MT requirements included based on consultation with the MT operators. This will not prevent an MT operator from using an FRMS under Appendix 7 if they so desire and can support such a system. 3.7 Respondent The complexity of aeromedical services The provision of aeromedical services is complex. Not all the work undertaken is emergency medical by nature: The application of fatigue management rules is a critical issue and requires further discussion as any FRMS imposed on pilots and flight crew cannot be the same as that imposed on medical crew. This is due to the fact that many medical crews do not solely undertake aerial work, but also road ambulance work as well. Further, there are generally more medical teams available throughout a 24 hour period than flight crew; While comparisons with overseas countries are useful, future legislative requirements must take into account the uniqueness of aeromedical operations in the Australian environment; The new requirements will determine the category of helicopter used as an air ambulance in the future, particularly if the aircraft is to meet urban hospital helicopter landing site (HLS) requirements. CASA needs to work much closer with state health authorities and governments in relation to hospital landing sites and medical helipads; SOR 1304OS Page 21

23 CASA form strategic partnerships with groups like [the respondent] for future and continuing work on development and application of all aeromedical standards and regulations; It is worth noting that the industry has been generally very good at setting and raising standards through the provision of contracts. It is therefore important not to restrict the industry in its endeavour to make do with available resources. For example, many states already insist on a RPT level for fixed wing aircraft for greater power to weight, and stronger build, but are then being restricted to balanced field length, extra isle width etc.; In addition to rotary and fixed wing, the new rules should consider potential new aircraft types not yet certified in Australia (such as the Tilt-Rotor and similar hybrids). While the move to higher standards is generally supported, [the respondent] recommends that the best way to progress the NPRM is to follow recommendation 12 of the recent Senate Committee Report into aviation accident investigations (The Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee report titled Aviation Accident Investigations, dated May 2013) - that CASA, in consultation with an Emergency Medical Services industry representative group.consider a new category of operations for Emergency Medical Services. Medical crew member fatigue CASA is of the view if the person is to be considered part of the crew of the aircraft (rather than a medical passenger) then like any part-time flight crew member the operator has a responsibility to know they are sufficiently rested to be able to carry out their crew duties safely. As there are no specific crew fatigue rules at this time, CASA believes this can be achieved by a basic process within the organisation of the AOC holder which includes education of the affected crew persons and a requirement in the exposition for them to report to the operator if they are fatigued. When crew fatigue standards are developed this may allow a more specific process to be considered such as incorporation into the operators FRMS. Australian aeromedical environment CASA agrees with, and is very aware of this requirement, and is required to do this in all its rule development processes; however, the uniqueness currently in place with aerial work aeromedical operations is so far removed from International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) requirements and international best practice that a repackaging is now a high priority. This is primarily due to the speed of growth and development in the sector with more sophisticated aircraft and more complex operations many involving international flights in modern transport category aircraft. CASA is of the view that moving MT operations from aerial work into the AT rule set is putting it into a new category. This move has many advantages over and above a specific MT category of operations classification. These are: a largely already constructed operational and certification rule set SOR 1304OS Page 22

24 ICAO compliant AOC certification base international recognition of the ICAO based AOC for Australian operations enhanced performance criteria for aircraft involved in these operations enhanced flight crew training and checking a robust operator organisational model supported by a SMS the advantages of having an AT AOC for other operations (if needed). Considering this, separate packaging of MT operations into a unique rule set would potentially remove many of these advantages, unless the standards were to be identical and reproduced in the separate unique Part. In such circumstances, it is highly likely Attorney-General s Department drafting guidelines would require the two separated parts to be amalgamated in any case due to their similarity and duplication of the majority of regulatory material. CASA will, as part of the development of this concept, consider the packaging options with the Office of Parliamentary Counsel (OPC) and continue to keep the industry involved in discussions in this regard. 3.8 Respondent Key change proposal 1 move MT into AT classification. [The respondent] considers this to be acceptable without change Key change proposal 2- Fatigue management. [The respondent]preference is to move into a FRMS under CAO Final comments [The respondent] would support their view that a separate set of regulations for MT was the best way forward only if they incorporated the essential safety aspects of the proposed CASR SMS, FRMS and a risk management plan. Key Change Proposal 1 No comment required. Fatigue management CASA is of the view a specific MT appendix to CAO 48.1 will be applied and may be used for MT operations. The appendix will be modelled on Appendix 5, but with further specific requirements included based on consultation with the medical transport operators and their flight crews. This will not prevent an operator from using an FRMS under Appendix 7 if they so desire and can support such a system. MT rule set development: CASA is of the view that moving MT operations from aerial work into the AT rule set is putting it into a new category, as is required by Senate Committee Report recommendation 12. This move SOR 1304OS Page 23

25 has many advantages over and above a specific MT category of operations classification. These are: a largely already constructed operational and certification rule set ICAO compliant AOC certification base international recognition of the ICAO based AOC for Australian operations enhanced performance criteria for aircraft involved in these operation enhanced flight crew training and checking a robust operator organisational model supported by a SMS the advantages of having an air transport AOC for other operations (if needed). Considering this, separate packaging of MT operations into a unique rule set would potentially remove many of these advantages, unless the standards were to be identical and reproduced in the separate unique Part. In such circumstances, it is highly likely Attorney-General s Department drafting guidelines would require the two separated parts to be amalgamated in any case due to their similarity and duplication of the majority of regulatory material. CASA will, as part of the development of this concept, consider the packaging options with the OPC and continue to keep the industry involved in discussions in this regard. 3.9 Respondent Response to NPRM 1304OS Draft Regulation Need further detail on what non-technical skills for crew members, will mean. It is hard to comment when it is not known what skills must be taught. Need a definition of a rescue crew member Down the wire person (DTW). Need clarification as to where the rescue crewman sits and where a seconded person doing the role of a rescue crewman (DTW) sits, with respect to FRMS (CAO 48.1) etc. Draft Regulation Need further details on human factors management training. Where do rescue crew and seconded crew (DTW) sit with respect to this? Draft Regulations and CASA has produced a set of GM for the integration of human factors into SMS and NTS training and assessment for RPT operations. CASA would consider an operator would tailor this training to meet the needs of their operation, possibly using this current GM in Civil Aviation Advisory Publications (CAAPs) (0), SMS-2(0) and SMS-3(1). The potential for adding definitions for the various crew members will be considered as part of the drafting process and via industry consultation. SOR 1304OS Page 24

26 Cabin and other crew fatigue rule criteria are being considered as part of next development stage of the new CAO The MT aspects of that will not be included in the operations rule but in the fatigue rule set. The MT rule set will just require the operator to know the crews are sufficiently rested for them to be able to conduct the task. NPRM A.2 Operational control guidelines CASA set guidelines for the tasking of AMT / HMT aircraft by outside agencies AOC holders do not task the aircraft, therefore cannot set up a tasking dispatch risk assessment. AOC holders can have a Mission risk assessment tool, to determine the risks associated with the dispatch tasking. Maybe CASA needs to set guidelines for the dispatch of AMT / HMT which will be followed by the outside agencies, which are usually state or federal agencies. CASA agrees and its policy in this area will be for AOC holders can have a mission risk assessment tool, to determine the risks associated with the dispatch tasking. As part of the supplementary activities associated with this project, CASA will review the potential for a set of GM for dispatch of AMT/HMT which can be followed by the outside agencies. NPRM A.2 Inflight risk assessment clarification Clarification of what is expected from an inflight risk assessment is needed. [The respondent's organisation]currently do a verbal risk assessment, once on scene. Single pilot helicopter operations will not be able to do formal risk assessments (written) due to their workload. It is also a risk for the crew in the back to do such risk assessments as there is likelihood that paper etc. may exit the aircraft as doors are usually open. Doing the risk assessment with the doors shut may compromise patient safety due to delay in rescue. CASA is of the view that this would be an ongoing process based on the original task or mission risk assessment, using in-flight hazard minimisation processes such as pause points, crew agreement and cross-check prior to proceeding and any crewmember knock it off call capability. This form of risk assessment has been introduced in the United States of America (USA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has produced significant GM on this topic. CASA will also need to do likewise. NPRM A.5 Performance requirements HMT operations CASA set guidelines for the survey of helipads for PC1/PC2. [The respondent's] understanding is that there are no surveys or guidelines for determining PC1/PC2. CASA agrees and will outline guidelines for the survey of helipads for PC1/PC2 in the GM for Part 133 of CASR 1998, and also has built flexibility into the relevant obstacle determination by the operator and/or PIC via current provisions in Part 133 of CASR Current criteria allows either a full survey or PIC determination; however, the PIC will then have the responsibility for ensuring this is achievable (as is the case today). SOR 1304OS Page 25

27 NPRM A.5 Performance requirements HMT operations timeframes CASA advises the timeframe for the introduction/compliance to surveyed helipads. Most HMT helipads are owned and controlled by local government. CASA need to discuss with those governments a suitable process to move towards PC1/PC2 helipads. [The respondent] feels this will take a considerable time and many millions of dollars. HLS and heliport standards are under consideration as part of a separate project. CASA s current policy is for any RPT or charter heliport to be designed to the standards outlined in ICAO Annex 14 Volume II, and this has not necessarily been the case for hospital HLS, which have a variety of standards. As part of the Part 133 and 138 projects, CASA has held discussions with several State Health Departments and believes this will be an ongoing element of the future development of heliport standards, and as such, subject to ongoing consultation with stake holders. NPRM A.8.2 Experience More clarification required. Unable to comment at this stage, will need to have a better understanding on how this may affect [the respondent's] operation. No comment from CASA, as this policy is still under development and may just be left as is in Part 133 of CASR 1998, where this is determined by the operator. NPRM A.8.5 Training and checking crew definitions and requirements Clarification required as to the position of the rescue crewman (DTW) with respect to the aircrewman requirements. It is currently unclear as to whether the rescue crewman will require the same standards as the aircrewman. A better definition of medical crew, and a medical crew member who helps with aircraft safety and clarification of the fatigue management requirements of such crew A better understanding of the status of medical crew on the aircraft will help to determine their fatigue management. AOC holders will have some difficulty controlling medical crew s fatigue management as they are a seconded person and do not work for the AOC holder. CASA is of the view this area will not change significantly from today s requirements; however, Part 133 of CASR 1998 has formalised the policy that an operator must ensure their crews are trained and knowledgeable of their job in the aircraft, and that they remain competent to carry that out over time. CASA has defined medical crew and medical passengers with specific differences to cover off these issues. If an operator cannot be sure a person is sufficiently rested and competent to carry out their tasks in the aircraft, then it seems difficult for them to be considered crew. In such cases, the person may still be able to fly as a medical passenger and complete the task with great efficiency, but not carry out functions such as being winched or clearing the aircraft s tail rotor, which involve heightened risk and can impact on the safety of the aircraft. CASA is simply SOR 1304OS Page 26