CASA Consultation Hub

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 The word "notification" has been replaced by "advice" in the context of data link monitoring.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.

In March 2018, we asked the aviation community to comment on the 24 recommendations made by a team of leading international specialists after they conducted an independent review of fatigue rules for operators and pilots. The final report of the independent review and a copy of the consultation survey is available at the bottom of the consultation webpage. The consultation asked you to raise any implementation issues and provide feedback to CASA on the highest priorities for action to help us develop our response to the review.

We received 26 responses from a wide range of stakeholders including unions and industry representative organisations covering aerial mustering, aerial application, rotary, charter, small and large air operators, as well as feedback from a number of individuals.

Feedback was generally supportive of the review recommendations including the need to modernise Australia’s fatigue rules.

We received mixed feedback on the need to develop a process to approve variations to prescriptive limits and multiple tiers of fatigue risk management systems.

Feedback was also mixed on the merits of aligning closer to international averages. Some argued that the use of simple averages ignored additional mitigations within other rule sets. In contrast, some argued that the Australian aviation environment was less demanding than other jurisdictions regarding terrain, weather and traffic.

Several additional suggestions were provided to improve the fatigue rules including gathering regular fatigue data, modifying off duty requirements when transitioning between prescriptive rule sets, mitigating the effects of consecutive early starts and standby arrangements.

Further consultation

The Aviation Safety Advisory Panel appointed a Technical Working Group including representatives of operators, pilot associations, industry associations and academia to assist us with finalising our response to the review recommendations. The working group met in July 2018 and considered industry feedback and CASA’s proposed response to the review recommendations. The Technical Working Group report is available on the CASA website.

In August 2018 the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel considered the Technical Working Group report. Based on their advice, the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel is generally supportive for CASA to progress with drafting the revised CAO 48.1. The Aviation Safety Advisory Panel recommend an additional Technical Working Group meeting to review the drafted regulations and seek to achieve further consensus on outstanding policy matters prior to further public consultation.

Overall, CASA will adopt 21 of the 24 review recommendations.

This includes the review’s recommendation for a staged approach to transition to the new fatigue rules. The new transition timeline provides time for us to amend CAO 48.1, develop improved guidance material, prepare our staff, and for industry to work with us to implement the changes.

High capacity regular public transport operators will transition to the new fatigue rules by 30 September 2019. To support these operators, we will revise flight duty periods to align more with international averages and improve the operation of fatigue risk management systems (FRMS). We will also establish an FRMS manager to oversight the review, approval and monitoring of industry FRMS and appoint an internal FRMS panel with additional training in FRMS management.

All other air operators will need to adopt the new fatigue requirements by 26 March 2020. To support the transition of these operators we will provide improved guidance for prescriptive limits and FRMS. This will include a sample FRMS manual and examples of acceptable means of compliance.

Aerial application operations will be aligned with the fatigue limits in Sub-Part 137.Q of Civil Aviation Safety Regulations and rules regarding standby and off duty periods will be reviewed to reduce complexity.

For those operators already transitioned, or in the process of transition, we will continue to review and approve applications under the existing CAO 48.1 Instrument 2013 and 2016 and will develop transitional arrangements to continue recognition of these approvals.

Ongoing actions including monitoring fatigue data and international regulations to inform future changes, monitoring transition to the new rules to review the need for an approved variation process and multiple tiers of FRMS, and assessing whether aerial application flight duty periods should be subject to regulation.

Industry engagement and consultation including ‘road-testing’ regulation amendments, and seeking industry input on guidance material, forms, education and communication material will be integral to our approach.

Additional detail regarding CASA’s response to the independent review, including further discussion of consultation feedback and the agreed action for each recommendation is available on the CASA website.

We will maintain the status of the recommendations and actions on the fatigue pages of our website, and will seek feedback from the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel prior to closing recommendations.

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.