Proposed exemption – Part 145 temporary line maintenance facility approval (CD 2215MS)

This consultation opened for 1 week from 3rd November to 10th November 2022. We asked industry to provide feedback to the following question, "Do you have any comments on the proposed exemption?"

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

About this consultation

CASA is progressively transitioning the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR) to the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR) through the Regulatory Reform Program. This work involves a range of activities which will ensure that the new rules will be practical, proportionate, and effective. Where appropriate, CASA is working to bring forward agreed, beneficial policies to facilitate better outcomes for industry.

One of the issues identified through the Part 145 Post Implementation Review (PIR) was the unnecessarily restrictive requirements for approval of new maintenance facilities, particularly facilities that will only be used on a temporary basis. This issue has been further considered through the broader work on future maintenance organisation policies for the air transport sector.

The proposed instrument (CASA EX67/22) – Authorised Maintenance at Unapproved Locations (Part 145 Organisations) Exemption 2022 intends to exempt Part 145 Approved Maintenance Organisations (AMO) from the requirement to have new maintenance facilities approved by CASA through the significant change process in all cases. Specifically, CASA approval will not be required for facilities that will be used on a temporary basis to carry out line maintenance activities.

This will bring forward corresponding outcomes from the proposed future Part 145 policies (PP 1915SS). It will also reduce unnecessary administrative burden for industry and bring the Australian requirements into line with contemporary global practices.

In this consultation CASA was seeking industry and public comment on the consultation draft of the proposed exemption instrument .

Assessment of maintenance facilities and record keeping are important safety assurance measures associated with maintenance organisation approvals. A condition of this instrument will be that the AMO has appropriate procedures for assessment of new facilities, and that the organisation has appropriate record keeping procedures. These procedures would be included in the AMO’s exposition, enabling an individual approach to be tailored to each AMO's circumstances. Subsequently, the procedures would be approved by CASA.

In total, there were 36 respondents to the consultation. Of these respondents only 2 provided no written comments for the proposal.

Of these19 consented to having their responses/submission to being published. Fourteen requested their submissions be confidential. Three submissions were from CASA Officers.

The vast majority (19) of responses received were from Licenced Aircraft Maintainers (LAMEs), with the next biggest group being Maintenance Managers/CAM/HAAMC. The remaining groups in order of quantity of submissions were from Part 145 AMOs and then by Helicopter Operators/ Helicopter AMOs and then submissions from Avionics AMOs/LAMEs.

Two submissions were received from pilots.

The 36 responses are broken-down and categorised into the following:

• Eighteen submissions were very supportive and with comments that can be summarised as such:
  • industry has needed this for a long time, and this proposal should have always been available to provide the flexibility needed for most operators and their AMOs.
• Six submissions were supportive but with some confusion or discomfort about the scope, intent and implementation.
• Two submissions provided no comments so therefore we were unable to determine as supportive or non-supportive.
• Three submissions were simply suggested comments to make the instrument or proposal clearer.
• Seven submissions were clearly disappointed and were unsupportive of the CASA proposal with some considering that this proposal is flawed and will provide for unsafe practices.

Summary of feedback

The feedback can be summarised by saying that the majority of comments were brief and supportive. The feedback shows that industry does acknowledge that the current CASA requirements for the approval of temporary locations for maintenance are onerous and are burdensome to industry which itself is under pressure to constantly adjust their operation to market needs and community service requirements. The following feedback does show that CASA's efforts towards red-tape reduction is appreciated by industry. It also shows that, in these situations, the additional freedoms given to industry to make their own operational safety determinations is welcomed.

The general trend of the positive comments could be described simply as 'about time', 'industry needs this' and it 'makes sense'.

Examples of feedback and comments in favour of the proposed instrument:

"I think this is a great idea,………. we currently have 5-6 locations in our MOE, it is a time consuming and costly process to add another location and I have never been able to see the point in doing this.  The AMO uses the same MOE and CASA approvals for maintenance anywhere in Australia.  We have remote location forms and registers to keep track of any temporary locations we have visited and it all just gets filed away, I feel its pointless".

"I agree with the proposed instrument, this would certainly help alleviate issues with maintenance at remote locations".

"A step in the right direction, the whole idea of pt. 145 is to make the AMO responsible for best practice so if this is adhered to excellent".

"This proposal will make it easier for both the Part 145 and Part 42 to conduct maintenance."

"It will also reduce unnecessary administrative burden for industry….."

"This is a very welcome change and will permit an AMO to approve a temporary location when required. This especially important when an operator gives minimum notice that they require line maintenance at a location not listed in MOE".

(We are) "happy to see that CASA understands the need to do away with redundant paperwork that no longer is relevant.  Any real safety issues can easily be addressed with the AMO's Safety Management System".

"It is a no brainer. 145 organizations already have a high standard of regulatory compliance and remote location maintenance procedures in place in case of breakdowns. Just following these procedures over a longer period".

"The proposal appears logical and workable".

"Currently we are frequently saying no to customers who wish to charter our aircraft to destinations which are not on our Part 145 approval which is creating a large commercial disadvantage to our operation.  The current rules are not in line with other authorities worldwide and the proposed chance would allow our business to compete on a level playing field with other larger organisations.  This change has been a long time coming and is most welcomed. It really can't happen fast enough".

"Fully supported within capability of any AMO. AMO authorisation - no need for CASA duplication of approval".

Comments (de-identified and aggregated) which did not support the CASA proposal would fall into the 3 concern areas of:

1. 1. fairness of the proposal when considering that many AMOs have had to apply for and comply with the CASA process of significant change to their Exposition for a "new" location regardless of temporary use or permanent base
   2. shortcuts and loopholes in the regulatory system where there will be less rigour applied for the using of a new (but temporary) location for maintenance
   3. concerns about oversight ability in the regulatory system if the use of the temporary location is unknown and not always "visible" to CASA as the safety regulator.

Overall, respondents have strongly supported the proposal.

As a result, we have now undertaken to make the exemption Instrument EX03/23 with some minor changes as brought up in the consultation.

A future amendment will be required to Part 145 of CASR and Part 145 MOS to reflect this policy  by permitting future line maintenance activities at unapproved (for that operator) locations.