Here are some of the issues we have consulted on and their outcomes. See all outcomes
CASA published a consultation draft of the proposed regulatory instrument for performance-based communication and surveillance on the CASA Consultation Hub from 18 April to 2 May 2018.
CASA received a total of three responses to the proposed instrument.
One of the main objectives of the consultation was to obtain feedback on whether open-ended relief statements for aircraft documentation, agreement with the communication service provider and the Minimum Equipment List (MEL) would be acceptable to foreign authorities in the long term. One response indicated that such open-ended statements didn't appear to be a problem. Another response queried if CASA would be prepared to accept the open-ended statements and how certain older aircraft equipment would be treated if it is determined or declared to be non-compliant by the State of design.
There was a suggestion to prepare and publish guidance on the subject in the form of an Advisory Circular (AC).
Other comments indicated preference for the use of less-restrictive statements concerning monitored performance of aircraft data link operations and training of the personnel.
Finally, a suggestion was provided to use the definitions contained in ICAO documents.
As PBCS is a recently developed concept and that it may take some time for operators to obtain the required documentation, CASA and foreign authorities should accept operator's request(s) to appropriate authorities or entities for documentation as an acceptable means of compliance. Otherwise, affected operators would be disadvantaged due to no fault of their own.
The comment regarding the possibility of certain aircraft equipment being declared non-compliant by State of design has been addressed so that the subject aircraft are no longer authorised to declare applicable RCP and RSP capabilities.
A new Advisory Circular on PBCS has been published by CASA to provide general guidance on the subject.
Suggestions to use less-restrictive statements on the monitoring of aircraft data link operations and training of the personnel have also been taken into consideration. The word "notification" has been replaced by "advice" in the context of data link monitoring. Furthermore, requirements for flight crew and other personnel have become more general so that having appropriate knowledge is considered acceptable.
The definitions will remain the same. They are slightly reworded from those contained in ICAO documents and are for the purpose of the subject instrument only.
The regulatory instrument CASA 33/18 – Required Communication Performance and Required Surveillance Performance (RCP 240 and RSP 180) Capability Declarations – Direction 2018 – is available on the Federal Register of Legislation.
CASA published the Draft CAAP 20.4-01 v 1.0 — Supplemental oxygen requirements for cabin crew members in pressurised aircraft operating at flight level 250 and below — on the CASA website from 22 February 2018 to 9 March 2018. We asked should the cabin crew supplemental oxygen requirements, as set out in Civil Aviation Order 20.4, apply in emergency situations where cabin crew may not be able to promptly access a supply of supplemental oxygen apply in certain circumstances.
Respondents
CASA received a total of three submissions. All the respondents consented to having their comments published on the CASA website.
Key feedback
All responses received support the consultation explanation that CAO 20.4 need not be narrowly and strictly applied to supplementary oxygen requirements for pressurised aircraft engaged in flights not above flight level 250 when a sudden emergency results in extraordinary circumstances that mean cabin crew may not immediately be able to access a supply of supplementary oxygen.
Future direction
CASA will issue the final CAAP 20.4-01 v 1.0 verifying that cabin crew can use their professional judgment to deal with any number of threats to the aircraft, passengers and themselves during an emergency. Departure from narrow regulatory compliance may be excusable in situations where the evidence shows that the departure was necessary due to a sudden or extraordinary emergency.
We asked for feedback on a proposal to implement MULTICOM 126.7 up to 5,000 feet AMSL in low level airspace at uncharted aerodromes, and to expand the radius of common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF) areas to 20 nautical miles.
The aim of the proposal was to implement MULTICOM 126.7 and enhance safety benefits for VFR and IFR aircraft, protect passenger transport operations and keep air traffic control transmissions separate from general transmissions at aerodromes.
We received 1,064 survey responses to this consultation and some written submissions.
Overall, 42.8% of survey respondents supported the proposal and 57.2% of respondents did not support the proposal. Respondents raised a number of important issues and concerns requiring further consideration.
The common issues, questions or suggestions were around:
Due to the issues raised during consultation, CASA will not implement this proposal.
In acknowledgement of the broad support for the MULTICOM 126.7 component of this proposal, CASA is developing a new option that will be released for consultation later this month.