Proposed new Part 105 Manual of Standards - Parachuting from aircraft - (CD 2213OS)

Between 8 December 2022 and 22 January 2023, we sought feedback on the Proposed new Part 105 Manual of Standards (MOS) - Parachuting from aircraft. The consultation sought feedback on the proposed Part 105 MOS for the rules governing parachuting activities.

This consultation has now closed, and a summary of the feedback received is provided below.

About this consultation
Part 105 of CASR and its associated Manual of Standards (MOS) integrate parachuting activities in the Part 149 self-administration framework. This means Part 149 approved self-administering aviation organisations (ASAOs) must follow Part 105 requirements for their Part 149 aviation administration functions. The Part 105 MOS provides the complex technical detail for the rules governing parachuting activities conducted under Part 105 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR). 

The Part 105 regulations commenced on 2 December 2021, concurrently with the other new flight operations regulations. As with these other Parts, Part 105 will have an accompanying MOS, which document was the subject of this consultation.

The Part 149 transitional arrangements that apply to sport aviation bodies that are not ASAOs, whereby the sport aviation body is exempt from Part 105 of CASR by the application of regulation 202.502 of CASR, self-repeal on 1 December 2023. The Part 105 MOS will therefore commence on 2 December 2023.

The scope of the proposed Part 105 MOS covers the following:

• relevant definitions; Technical Standard Orders and the prescribed activity of ground control
• standards for reserve parachute assemblies and emergency parachutes
• requirements relating to pilot training and recency requirements, aircraft maintenance requirements, and related exposition requirements, for parachute descents involving trainee parachutists or tandem parachutists
• requirements relating to the dropping of objects during the conduct of a parachute descent or from a parachuting aircraft
• operational requirements relating to parachutes
• requirements that apply to pilots of aircraft operated to facilitate parachute descents
• requirements for the safety of aircraft used for parachute descents
• requirements for the safe conduct of aircraft operations for facilitating parachuting descents
• requirements for the management of aircraft weight and balance, including the loading of aircraft being operated to facilitate a parachute descent
• requirements for the carriage and use of radio equipment and oxygen equipment for aircraft being operated to facilitate a parachute descent
• pilot requirements for parachute descents from a Part 103 aircraft or a manned free balloon.

The consultation sought feedback on each of these topics as well as general feedback on the policy underpinning the proposed Part 105 MOS.

The Summary of Proposed Change (SPC) for the Part 105 MOS also noted 3 issues identified within the Part 105 Technical Working Group (TWG) by industry members that were outside the scope of the Part 105 MOS. The TWG also noted that all of these matters are either managed under an exemption instrument or are currently subject to further review by CASA.

In total, there were 12 respondents to the consultation. Of the respondents who made written submissions, 8 consented to being published. CASA has published all that consented except for one with objectional content. Four respondents requested their submissions be confidential.

How many supported this change proposal and how many did not?

Most of the responses (6) received were from Jump Pilot Authorisation holders. Two of the responses were received from concerned parties affected by a previous parachute incident. Two respondents hold parachute packer or rigger authorisations. One respondent was a sport aviation body, one respondent was associated with ground control and one respondent was a Part 61 licence (non-jump pilot) holder.

The majority of the responses were in support of the proposed amendments, several others supported the proposed changes but with some changes and 1 response included responses that were in disagreement with the proposed changes.

Summary of feedback and issues raised
Issue 1: Jump pilot competency reviews
Five responses suggested the Part 105 MOS provides for a too short tolerance period for the holder of a jump pilot authorisation to conduct a competency review. Respondents noted that the Part 135 MOS, that provides requirements for smaller aeroplane air transport operations, provides for a 30-day period, before or after a check of competency or proficiency is due. 

CASA’s response
The submissions appear to be based on a misconception that the Part 135 MOS provides for the operation of an aircraft by a person for up to 30 days after they no longer satisfy the operator’s training and checking requirements. The Part 135 MOS provisions relate only to preserving the due date for a competency check conducted under the checking and training system of a Part 135 operator (for the purposes of management of the operator’s training and checking regime), which aspect is not usually relevant to a parachute operator. 

The respondent’s proposal would effectively introduce 7 and 13 month intervals between competency reviews, which would render the published intervals meaningless. The 6 and 12 month intervals are retained, but amendments have been made to the Part 105 MOS to expand the window for the conduct of a competency review, such that where a person with a valid competency review completes a new review 45 days or less prior to the expiry of that review. The period of validity of the new review will commence immediately upon that expiry.

Issue 2: Target panels
Two responses commented that the inclusion of target panel requirements is unnecessary on the basis that these panels are an obsolete medium no longer used by industry. One respondent also noted that the term “target” may be interpreted as an aiming point on the ground for parachutists (with associated safety risks if the panel is situated in an unsafe area), when in fact the function of the panel is as a ground to air communications medium. 

CASA’s response
CASA agrees that the use of the term “target” could result in confusion as to the purpose of these panels and has amended the MOS terminology to refer to “ground communication panels”. CASA is aware these panels are rarely used but is of the view that the panels provide a mechanism that would permit a parachute descent to be completed by providing an alternative communications medium if radiocommunications fail, in the same manner as light signals can be used at aerodromes as an alternative means of communication. 

Issue 3: Flight time should include flight time as PICUS
Five responses suggested that the pilot flight-time requirements (for powered-lift aircraft) include time as pilot in command under supervision (PICUS) in addition to the existing flight time as pilot in command (PIC) requirements. 

There were also suggestions that multi-engine aeroplane and single-engine turbine-powered aeroplanes allow PICUS flight-time to meet the pilot flight-time requirements.

CASA’s response
CASA does not consider that flight time gained only as PICUS, or under supervision by an ASAO jump pilot supervisor in the operation of a particular type of powered-lift aircraft (or a type of rotorcraft generally), provides an appropriate level of safety assurance (i.e. one that would not be likely to have an adverse effect on the safety of air navigation) because:

• there are no parachute operators using powered-lift aircraft
• there is not an established pool of appropriately qualified, experienced and current pilots capable of delivering an ongoing national capability of ASAO supervision and assessment for pilots of rotorcraft used in parachuting operations
• there are no established competency standards for such supervision.

The Part 105 MOS pilot flight time requirements for powered-lift aircraft will be limited to 10 hours on type as pilot in command. CASA will review these provisions when:

a.    CASA has a more comprehensive understanding of the risks associated with the operation of such aircraft in parachuting operations.

b.    Part 61 and Part 133 of CASR include appropriate oversight of the required pilot competencies for powered-lift aircraft operations used for passenger transport.

c.    There is an established pool of appropriately qualified, experienced and current pilots upon which an ASAO could depend to deliver an ongoing capability of ASAO supervision and assessment of jump pilots conducting powered-lift aircraft parachute training operations.

CASA will also extend the scope of the powered-lift flight time on type requirements to apply to helicopters used in parachuting training operations in the instrument mentioned below.

Changing the multi-engine aeroplane and single-engine turbine powered aeroplane flight-time on type provisions requires amendments to regulation 105.080 of CASR, which is outside the scope of the Part 105 MOS. However, CASA acknowledges that some flight time gained as PICUS or under supervision by an ASAO jump pilot supervisor can be recognised toward the flight time on type requirement for aeroplanes, because both Part 61 PICUS and Part 105 ASAO oversight of jump pilot competency and jump pilot training requirements for aeroplanes are established and ongoing. There is also a pool of pilots capable of conducting jump pilot training, competency assessment and supervision in aeroplanes across a number of parachute operators. 

An exemption instrument will, from 2 December 2023, provide for the recognition of up to 7 hours flight time on type gained as PICUS, or under supervision by an ASAO jump pilot supervisor, for single-engine turbine powered aeroplanes and multi-engine aeroplanes engaged in parachuting training operations. 

Issue 4: Manufacture of parachute components
Two responses raised concern around the wording in subparagraph (b)(ii) of the definition of rigger authorisation, which the respondents suggest means a rigger may only manufacture ‘parachute components’ and may be interpreted as excluding a rigger from manufacturing a main parachute. 

CASA’s response
CASA has amended the definition to remove any ambiguity.

Issue 5: Compatibility assessment of a main parachute with the container of a reserve parachute
One respondent proposed that the mechanism for who can conduct a compatibility assessment be expanded to include a person who has met competency requirements set by the ASAO to conduct the compatibility assessment – rather than being just confined to canopy relative-work coaches that are limited to compatibility assessments of parachutes used in canopy relative-work descents. 

CASA’s response
CASA has amended the Part 105 MOS to expand the scope of compatibility assessments to include a parachutist certificate holder who holds an ASAO authorisation to conduct compatibility assessments. However, the compatibility assessments of equipment used by a student parachutist or tandem parachutist remain confined to the holder of a packer or rigger authorisation. Consequential amendments to relevant definitions and provisions have been incorporated in the MOS.

Issue 6: Definition of rigger authorisation
One response raised a concern that the definition of rigger was too restrictive by limiting the manufacture of parachutes and parachute components to the use of a sewing machine.

CASA’s response
CASA has amended the definition of ‘rigger authorisation’ to reference the use of appropriate equipment rather than identifying specific tooling.

Issue 7: TSO/ETSO authorisation
One respondent commented that a manufacturer may claim compliance with TSO-C23 or ETSO-23 when that manufacturer may not be authorised to identify equipment with compliance markings (that is, may not be the holder of an approval mentioned in paragraphs 21.607(2)(a)-(ca) of CASR).

CASA’s response
CASA acknowledges a manufacturer of a parachute must be authorised for the purposes of TSO-C23 or ETSO-23. The Part 105 MOS has been amended to reflect this.

Issue 8: Manufacturers requirements documents
One respondent commented on the terminology of the Part 105 MOS regarding the manufacturers’ requirements about the airworthiness of an assembly contained in a document, implying all the manufacturers requirements are held in one single document, which is not accurate.

CASA’s response
In accordance with the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, references to the singular includes the plural and vice versa. Reference to a single applicable document in the Part 105 MOS therefore includes reference to all applicable documents. No changes made to the Part 105 MOS for this issue.

Issue 9: Amendment of a reserve parachute service life
One respondent suggested a means for an ASAO to amend the service life of a reserve parachute if the manufacturer no longer provides airworthiness support.

CASA’s response
Where the holder of a relevant design authority has specified a service life for a reserve parachute assembly, only the holder of the design authority may amend the specified service life. Where an ASAO has assumed responsibility for the continuing airworthiness of a reserve parachute assembly for which the manufacturer no longer provides airworthiness support, the ASAO may only amend the service life if:

a.    in the case the relevant design authority holder specified a service life, the ASAO also holds the relevant design authority and amends the authority in accordance with the civil aviation legislation of the national aviation authority that issued the authority
or
b.    the relevant design authority under which the reserve parachute assembly was manufactured does not specify a service life.

No changes made to the Part 105 MOS for this issue.

Issue 10: Parachute packing logbook requirements
One respondent noted a parachute packing log must be maintained for a parachute (not a reserve or emergency parachute) by a trainee parachutist. Elsewhere a trainee parachutist is defined to include a certified parachutist training for a rating or endorsement. This would effectively require a certified parachutist to maintain a packing log for a main parachute.

Additionally, it was noted Part 105 MOS requires that a packer or rigger must maintain a personal packing log which should include the packing of main parachutes used by a trainee or student parachutist. This requirement is captured elsewhere in the Part 105 MOS.

CASA’s response
CASA has amended the Part 105 MOS such that the main parachute packing log requirements only applies to main parachutes used by student parachutists or tandem parachutists.

CASA has omitted, from the Part 105 MOS, the requirement for a packer or rigger to include in their personal logbook the packing of main parachutes.

Issue 11: Change of parachute components
One respondent mentioned that the Part 105 MOS is not clear on the compatibility assessment requirements when a parachute component is replaced by an identical parachute component.

CASA’s response
The Part 105 MOS compatibility assessment requirements in relation to component changes are only intended to apply when a parachute component is substituted with a component other than one that is identical to the replaced component. The Part 105 MOS has been amended to reflect this intent.

Issue 12: Parachute descents over water
One respondent commented that the term ‘over water’ was too definitive and that there should be some inclusion for parachute descents not ‘over water’ but in close proximity to water.

CASA’s response
CASA has amended the Part 105 MOS to provide for an outcomes-based approach, that places the onus on the drop zone safety officer, for a drop zone, to identify water hazards.  We have also included a requirement that the drop zone safety officer, for a drop zone with a water hazard, must conduct a risk assessment to determine if flotation devices are required to be worn by parachutists during a descent at that drop zone.

Issue 13: Flotation device standards
One respondent mentioned that there are personal flotation devices (PFD) being used which are manufactured to Australian Standard AS4758 – Level 50 and Level 100 and that PFDs manufactured to these standards should be included in the Part 105 MOS.

CASA’s response
CASA acknowledges there is at least one personal flotation device manufactured to AS4758 – Level 100 standard, which is suitable for use whilst parachuting over or near a water hazard. 

The Part 105 MOS has been amended to:

• include PFDs manufactured to AS4758 – Level 100
• remove references to PFDs manufactured to obsolete standards that are no longer permitted to be used in maritime operations
• require a drop zone safety officer to ensure the level of PFD to be used is commensurate with the outcomes of the risk assessment they are required to conduct.

Issue 14: Safe conduct of parachute descents
Two responses submitted by concerned parties affected by a previous parachute incident raised safety concerns in relation to the accessibility of knives and the approval of the design of aircraft modifications that involve the fitting of a step for parachutists to the aircraft.

CASA’s response
CASA recognises the carriage and use of knives as a means to free a parachutist who has become tangled with their equipment or snagged on the parachuting aircraft. The Part 105 MOS makes specific provision (in section 5.40) that a knife suitable for emergency situations is to be carried on board the aircraft and readily available to the pilot in command and, for a parachuting training operation, the parachutist instructor. Section 5.25 of the MOS further provides that a Part 105 ASAO that administers parachute descents must include, in the ASAO’s exposition, procedures for the safe conduct of parachute descents of a kind it administers including, if applicable, descents by trainee or tandem parachutists. CASA expects that an ASAO’s safe conduct procedures would include the ASAO’s procedures for the carriage and use of knives in emergency situations.

In relation to design approval of aircraft modifications, Part 105 of CASR has no powers in relation to aircraft modifications because such modifications fall within the scope of Part 21 of CASR. Any aircraft modification must be compliant with the requirements of Part 21.

Next steps
Overall, the responses we have received have supported the proposals. As a result of the consultation, CASA has implemented the mentioned changes to the Part 105 MOS, which will come into force on 2 December 2023.