Proposed amendments to Part 138 MOS - Carriage of personnel involved in firefighting activities - (CD 2509OS)

This consultation sought feedback on proposed amendments to the Part 138 Manual of Standards (MOS) which implements a policy change to allow aerial work certificate holders to use helicopters to transport ground personnel under the aerial work rules in certain circumstances, instead of the air transport rules. This follows a previous consultation, undertaken in 2024, on the policy proposal for this change.

About this consultation

The consultation opened on 15 May and closed on 13 June 2025.

A Consultation Draft - Part 138 MOS Amendment Instrument 2025 (No.2), and a Summary of Proposed Change containing information on the intent of the amendments, were provided through CASA's Consultation Hub.

The two key objectives of the consultation were to:

• receive feedback from the sector on whether the proposed amendments appropriately implement the policy
• gauge interest from helicopter operators who may consider applying to conduct fireground personnel carriage operations.

A summary of the responses received is below.

We received a total of 14 responses during the consultation period. Six responses were from operators/pilots, 5 from emergency service organisations (including state/territory emergency service agencies), and 3 from other organisations or individuals representing the aviation industry, aviation safety and aviation training and education.

We asked whether the proposed amendments to the Part 138 MOS would appropriately implement the policy.

• Six respondents (43%) said yes, or yes with changes.
• Seven respondents (50%) answered no, and one (7%) did not indicate a response to this question.
• Twelve (86%) respondents provided comments on various topics suggesting changes or indicating reasons for their response.

Of the 6 responses from operators/pilots, 4 indicated that they may consider applying to conduct these operations in all or certain jurisdictions across Australia.

One further response was received after the consultation closed.

A summary of the key elements of the feedback is below.

While the focus of these amendments was acknowledged, at least 6 respondents made suggestions for broadening the scope to other non-fire emergency responses. This included comments about extending the policy to flood relief, police operations, or taking an all-hazards approach. Two responses suggested that all aerial firefighting operations should be aerial work, including flights from regional aerodromes and flights to position personnel, and that the proposed scope of fireground personnel carriage operations is too restrictive.

Conversely, 2 respondents raised concerns about the appropriateness of the aerial work rules for transporting passengers compared to the air transport rules. The comments raised issues such as concern about the more flexible fatigue management rules under Part 138 and operators’ processes for training and checking, safety management systems (SMS), fatigue management and human factors risk management. These responses noted the need for higher safety standards when non-aviation passengers are on board a helicopter, compared to other aerial work operations which may only involve aviation-trained crew.

The SMS implementation deferral was also raised as a concern in one response, particularly in relation to operators who intend to carry passengers in a fireground passenger carriage operation under Part 138 rather than an air transport operation under Part 133 and who have not yet adopted an approved SMS. The comments suggested that operators who wish to conduct these operations under Part 138 should be encouraged to adopt an SMS to gain access to this privilege and to view the SMS as a genuine risk mitigation mechanism for passenger carrying responsibilities. It was also suggested that operators should not receive any additional alleviations over and above the alleviations provided by the Part 138 rules.

Overall, the comments revealed there are varying views within different parts of the sector about the need for operational requirements and risk management processes that maximise safety, versus operational requirements that reflect the need to get the job done efficiently within a dynamic and challenging operational environment.

Four respondents commented on the proposed pre-flight passenger requirements. While the intention of the requirements was acknowledged and received support, respondents raised concerns about the ability of a passenger to fully understand the risks and therefore make a truly informed decision to participate. Comments were provided on the obligations of operators and their ability to verify the understanding of aviation risk for large numbers of personnel. Comments were also provided on the potential for confusion about the responsibilities of the fireground emergency organisation and operators in relation to meeting the pre-flight passenger requirements in proposed new Chapter 17A of the MOS.

Two respondents questioned the necessity of the proposed amendment to the definition of ‘aerial work passenger’ to add ‘passengers being carried as part of a fireground personnel carriage operation’.

Two respondents raised concern that a fire helibase is likely to be considered a populous area due to personnel gathering there, with one response noting that helibases often established in areas that are generally not populous such as a rural sporting ground, oval or reserve. One response raised concerns about the ability or practicality of meeting the one engine inoperative (OEI) requirements where a fire helibase is in a populous area.

CASA’s response to and some further information on the key topics raised is set out below.

Scope of the amendments

These MOS amendments are intentionally targeted at giving greater flexibility for the movement of ground-based personnel in and around firegrounds, in limited circumstances. This is in line with the policy to support more efficient operations at firegrounds while maintaining an acceptable level of aviation safety for persons involved, and for persons and property on the ground. CASA has noted previously that there is some support within the sector for extending the policy to a broader range of emergency service responses; however, this is out of scope for the current amendments.

In relation to suggestions for expansion of the scope to include all aerial firefighting operations, the passenger carrying operations that are intended and would be permitted under Part 138 reflect scenarios that are more aligned to aerial work due to the specific task at the fireground and, when broadly compared to air transport, increased pre-flight uncertainty about the landing site. As the risk exposure for passengers is higher under the aerial work rules compared to air transport, limiting the operations to flights between a helibase and the fireground is an intentional policy decision to mitigate these elevated risks for passengers who are undertaking ground-based roles not connected with the flight. While there may be some concern that the amendments therefore do not address the need for operators to move between rulesets during the day, the flexibility to conduct fireground personnel carriage operations does mean that these passenger carrying operations can be conducted under Part 138 (where the requirements for the operation are met), along with other aerial work operations conducted within, or in the vicinity of, firegrounds.

Flights transporting personnel from regional aerodromes or airports, between state/territory aerodromes or airports, or on other ‘positioning’ flights, are not within the scope of the amendments given the elevated risk for the passengers and the better alignment to the Part 133 rules which afford the passengers the highest level of safety available. Operators could also choose to adhere to the higher standard under the Part 133 rules for operations within the fireground where passengers are carried, reserving the Part 138 rules for other aerial work operations where no passengers are carried.

Appropriateness of aerial work rules to carry passengers

CASA acknowledges the concerns about the different risks that may be present in aerial work operations compared to air transport, particularly for passenger carrying operations conducted in challenging environments. However, in limited circumstances and subject to operator and passenger requirements established by the proposed MOS amendments, the aerial work rules are considered to provide an acceptably safe alternative framework for the carriage of the fireground personnel.

CASA has had regard to a range of factors to assure aviation safety can be maintained in these operations and to ensure that appropriate operational rules can be applied to support the efficient movement of personnel in and around the fireground. These factors include the purpose and necessity of the operation, the extent to which risks are elevated and the available mitigations, specific challenges faced within the sector and impact of operational rules, the type of passenger and their level of knowledge and ability to consent, and broader community and political expectations of aerial firefighting to help protect communities and the environment.

The proposed amendments and the underpinning policy take account of these considerations when determining an appropriate acceptable level of aviation safety. However, in practice, the safe and efficient conduct of the operations at a fireground is a shared responsibility with state and territory emergency authorities, operators, flight crews, and the personnel who are aerial work passengers, all playing an important role.

Pre-flight passenger requirements

In developing the pre-flight passenger requirements, consideration was given to the nature of the obligations and the parties who are best placed and would typically be envisioned to manage them. The amendments reflect an outcome-based approach to enable flexibility for, and variations in, emergency management procedures and processes across Australia. However, proposed section 17A.02 of the Part 138 MOS sets out clear and standardised expected outcomes in relation to the information, acknowledgement and consent requirements for aerial work passengers in fireground personnel carriage operations. These outcomes describe certain actions that need to be taken for this kind of operation.

Ultimately, a decision on whether to consent to participate in a fireground personnel carriage operation will rest with the individual passenger. Their decision will be informed by their own level of understanding of the risks and their individual appetite for risk. To help inform their decision on whether to consent, the amendments require that certain aviation-related information is provided to them.

The requirement for the provision of information and written acknowledgements and consent in a sufficient time before the flight is to make sure the individual can consider their decision having regard to the relevant factors. The requirement for the information and acknowledgement to be no earlier than 12 months before the flight will ensure that this is considered annually.

CASA acknowledges that the new rules also place certain obligations on operators, and on the relevant fireground emergency organisation (which is the lead fire authority, or parks/wildlife authority, for an individual fire incident) in relation to these matters. However, these obligations are considered to align to procedures or processes that would usually need to be managed by these parties.

In relation to the operator verification of the matters in section 17A.02 of the Part 138 MOS for fireground personnel aerial work passengers, it is important to note that the operator must receive a written notification from the relevant fireground emergency organisation about the matters for each passenger to be carried on the flight. This methodology will assist operators by ensuring the process can be handled efficiently and should, in most circumstances, avoid the need for an operator to verify these matters directly with each individual passenger. Rather, the verification will be based on information from the relevant fireground emergency organisation.

The requirement for a written notification from a fireground emergency organisation reflects this organisation’s overall responsibility for managing the individual fire incident and the resources involved. How fireground emergency organisations manage the human resources, including personnel suitability and 'readiness' to undertake certain tasks or participate in certain operations in a fire incident, is a matter for the relevant fireground emergency organisation in each State and Territory. The obligation on this lead organisation to ensure that personnel undertaking taskings at a fireground have the necessary training, knowledge and skills to undertake their roles or taskings safely would include ensuring that the requirements of section 17A.02 of the Part 138 MOS are met to enable written notification to be given to an operator if personnel are to be carried in a fireground personnel carriage operation.

Given that each state or territory organisation would be responsible for managing its personnel, the new requirements in section 17A.02 of the Part 138 MOS could be undertaken as an annual activity within individual brigades or units alongside other annual training requirements or be centrally coordinated by fire authorities. For larger and more complex fire incidents where the fireground emergency organisation requests resources from other emergency services, or interstate resources, the availability and 'readiness' of individual personnel to participate in fireground personnel carriage operations could be sought by the fireground emergency organisation when the resources are made available. How the requirements would be met for contractors, and particularly if there are extraordinary circumstances at a fire incident requiring an urgent or unforeseen engagement of resources, would need to be considered by fireground emergency organisations and appropriate procedures put in place.

The outcome-based approach to the pre-flight passenger requirements will allow fireground emergency organisations to develop workable policies, procedures and processes to manage how best to meet the requirements in their jurisdiction, noting that emergency incident management may vary between Australian jurisdictions and is not a matter for CASA.

Clarifying certain terms and concepts

Aerial work passenger

The current definition of aerial work passenger includes specific people that are prescribed as aerial work passengers for external load, dispensing or task specialist aerial work operations. The purpose of this was to give certainty to industry for these operations in respect to the passengers. 

A fireground personnel carriage operation is a new kind of aerial work operation. Therefore, the amendments add ‘passengers being carried as part of a fireground personnel carriage operation’ to the definition of aerial work passenger, which provides similar certainty that the passengers carried in this operation are aerial work passengers. 

It is important to note that a fireground personnel carriage operation has intentionally been excluded from being an ESO for the purposes of the Part 138 MOS. This is because the focus of fireground personnel carriage operations is to carry passengers undertaking ground-based tasks not connected with the flight. The alleviations in the Part 138 MOS for ESOs are considered to degrade the safety of these passengers beyond the threshold that is acceptable.

Populous area

The requirement for operators to ensure that a helicopter, when operated in or over a populous area, is operated with OEI accountability is considered a necessary safety measure for the people on the ground. This includes the ground-based personnel who are assembled to embark or disembark from the helicopter. However, the requirement is not intended to apply to areas that are not populous areas. While a helibase may be established at a rural sporting ground, oval or reserve that is normally not a populous area, the area can become populous for the operation due to the volume of persons present at that location on a routine basis.

CASA has also identified that it is necessary and appropriate to alleviate the operator of a fireground personnel carriage operation, subject to conditions, from needing to prepare and develop an aerial work zone risk assessment (AWZ-RA) when operating over an area that is defined as an aerial work zone (AWZ) in the Part 138 MOS.

There are timing and urgency of operation practicalities that would reasonably preclude such operators from having the time to prepare and develop an AWZ-RA and obtain the required CASA AWZ-RA approval before conducting the operation. CASA considers that it is therefore reasonable, noting the other Part 138 MOS Chapter 9 and 13 requirements relating to flights over populous areas when regulation 91.265 cannot be complied with, to exclude a fireground personnel carriage operation from the AWZ-RA requirements.

Relevant ground activity

The MOS amendments require that for a fireground personnel carriage operation, the aerial work passengers are carrying out a 'relevant ground activity'. This term is defined broadly to capture the breadth of ground-based tasks that may be carried out at a fireground, with or without equipment, for the purpose of saving or protecting persons, property or the environment. The definition includes some actions that may be taken in relation to the fire itself as well as actions that are about addressing the effects of the fire on animals or wildlife. However, these activities are not exhaustive and other activities at the fireground that are for the purpose of saving or protecting persons, property or the environment could also be captured.

It is a deliberate CASA policy decision that activities at a fireground which are not for the purpose of saving or protecting persons, property or the environment fall outside a fireground personnel carriage operation, meaning that the air transport rules would apply unless the activity is another kind of aerial work. An example of an activity that is intended to be excluded is persons carried by helicopter undertaking mass media reporting activities, or the carriage of government representatives viewing the fire for the purposes of understanding the scope of the operations being conducted.

Given the complexity of attempting to identify and make rules that describe every possible ground activity that could be undertaken at a fireground, the rules take an outcome-based approach. Fireground emergency organisations therefore have scope to determine whether a certain ground activity would meet the purpose and fall within the scope of a fireground personnel carriage operation.

Next steps

Based on feedback received, CASA will make some adjustments to the final Part 138 MOS amendments. The key changes are:

• removing the requirement on an operator to prepare and develop, and obtain pre-approval from CASA of, an AWZ-RA subject to similar conditions already applicable to ESOs
• provide limited dispensation in relation to the avoid area of the HV envelope for a helicopter in a fireground personnel carriage operation, but only where this is needed to avoid an accident or incident
• clarify that for the carriage of fireground-related passengers to be a ‘fireground personnel carriage operation’ the operation must be conducted by the operator for hire or reward
• clarify that positioning flights cannot be conducted as part of a fireground personnel carriage operation
• clarify that the performance of other aerial work operations (except for aerial spotting or aerial photography) cannot be undertaken as part of a fireground personnel carriage operation.

Minor editorial corrections to give better clarity to the rules will also be reflected in the final amendments for incorporation in the Part 138 MOS. These do not make substantive changes.

In addition to publishing the updated Part 138 MOS on the website, CASA will also publish updates to key Part 138 guidance documents (Advisory Circulars 138-01 and 138-05, and the Part 138 AMC/GM document) as well as other guidance materials such as the CASR Flight Operations Sample Exposition / Operations Manual. Emergency service organisations or operators who have questions regarding the changes are encouraged to review these guidance materials before directly contacting CASA.