Response 907382986

Back to Response listing

Personal information

2. Last name

Last name (Required)
Gray

5. If yes, please specify the name of your organisation.

If yes, please specify the name of your organisation
Becker Helicopter Services Pty Ltd

Carriage of documents

1. This proposal introduces new journey log requirements for international flights. (section 3.01 and 3.02 of the Part 91 MOS)

Please select one item
yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
Ticked not applicable

2. This proposal explicitly permits the carriage of documents electronically. (regulation 91.113 of CASR)

Please select one item
Ticked yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
not applicable

Firearms

1. This proposal removes the need for CASA approval for someone to carry firearms on aircraft - for flights not regulated for this purpose under the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004. (regulation 91.130 of CASR)

Please select one item
Ticked yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
not applicable

Crew members

1. This proposal creates a broader requirement for fitness for duty and removes the prescriptive eight-hour rule for alcohol consumption. (regulation 91.215 of CASR)

Please select one item
yes
Ticked some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
not applicable
Comments
Section 6 is too subjective, and you could never prove any knowledge so is there a point to the current wording? For psychoactive it is impossible to state the predictability of an effect such that is is left up to a crew member or operator to decide of their performance is 'likely to be reduced'. For psychoactive substances, the requirement should be clear: 1. For legal substances, to be under the supervision of a DAME. 2. For illegal substances, to be prohibited from operating with clear penalties. For fatigue: For an individual, to knowingly operate outside of proscribed fatigue management frameworks. For an organization, to allow a person to operate outside of in-place fatigue management frameworks.

2. This proposal broadens the requirement for cabin crew, to include non-air transport flights carrying 20 or more passengers. (regulation 91.1460 of CASR)

Please select one item
yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
Ticked no (please specify below)
not applicable
Comments
(3) just adds an extra layer of confusion for the sake of two passengers. Why the complexity? Just put the requirement at 22 rather than to all-up and there's only one rule!

3. This proposal broadens the requirement for passengers to comply with cabin crew safety instructions. (regulation 91.790 of CASR)

Please select one item
yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
Ticked no (please specify below)
not applicable
Comments
(2)(1)(b) The passenger does not comply with the instruction if they are able to do so. A crew member could still potentially instruct a person to conduct an unsafe act (for example evacuating from a door if the passenger can see a hazard that the crew member is unaware of). Adding this wording would just provide a reasonableness test.

Portable Electronic Devices (PEDs)

1. This proposal removes the prescriptive list of permitted portable electronic devices (PEDs) on flights. (regulation 91.145 of CASR)

Please select one item
yes
Ticked some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
not applicable
Comments
How could a pilot possibly determine this for most electronic devices? Is a passenger likely to ask for permission? How can the pilot supervise this in most cases? I think that this rule as written fails the test for what actually happens on aircraft, and the relationship between the pilot and the cabin (and the degree of control that the pilot has over the cabin). The onus should be on the operator (who may be the pilot for small operations) to establish for each aircraft type in their operations safety policy for the types of PED to be used on board. This goes some way to addressing the fact that interactions between PED and aircraft systems can be determined, are to many extents on modern aircraft, and are not just a judgement call on a pilots part. also, add (2)(c) The device is of a type that the passenger has been instructed is not permitted for use onboard the aircraft.

2. This proposal restricts crew members from operating PEDs where that would be distracting to the performance of their duties. (regulation 91.150 of CASR)

Please select one item
Ticked yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
not applicable

Equipment

1. This proposal relaxes oxygen requirements for non-air transport operations. (Division 30.9 of the Part 91 MOS)

Please select one item
Ticked yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
not applicable

2. This proposal expands a requirement to preserve flight recordings (and recorders) after an immediately reportable matter while reducing the amount of time these need to be retained. (regulation 91.724 of CASR)

Please select one item
yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
Ticked no (please specify below)
not applicable
Comments
So you have to preserve recordings, unless you haven't already? For recording devices, why not make it a requirement to preserve all data for 72 hours post flight, and for ATSB reportable matters and additional 72 hours after the report is made? We place mandatory retention requirements on other flight records, so why not recorders? This requirement could be met through either on-recorder retention if memory is sufficient, or post-flight download. For a large organisaiton most are probably doing this anyway, particularly if they're doing FDM. Just making a clear rule - must be saved for 72 hours, and then if the ATSB require it for the period proscribed by the ATSB, makes for a simple rule that everybody can follow and also decreases the possibility that data will be erased if it is pertinent to a safety investigation.

3. This proposal consolidates all the rules for the Minimum Equipment List (MEL) in one place and expands who can approve the MEL. (regulation 91.1680 to 91.1705 of CASR and sections 33.01 to 33.09 of the Part 91 MOS)

Please select one item
yes
Ticked some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
not applicable
Comments
Despite all of the above, I do not see the simple requirement which requires an operator to at least use an MMEL supplied by a manufacturer as part of the aircraft's type certification approval. Generating an MEL takes resources, and as a baseline the application of an MMEL will ensure that the airworthiness assumptions generated though the overall systems safety analysis leading to the issue of a type certificate are honored. Despite the length of this rule, I cannot see the requirement to use at apply an MMEL applicable to an aircraft if one exists. With that in mind, is there any point to CASA approving an MEL in these cases? If an aircraft has an MMEL, an operator should be able to apply any MEL that they wish if the content of that MEL is not more restrictive than an MMEL (which it should not be, or the original airworthiness argument is violated). If an aircraft does not have an MMEL the argument for CASA to require an MEL may exist, in which case this regulation is in place,

Take-off and landing

1. This proposal introduces an approach ban for Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) flights under certain circumstances. (section 17.07 of the Part 91 MOS)

Please select one item
yes
Ticked some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
not applicable
Comments
Why not 'within the Final Approach Fix'? This represents the point when an aircraft will probably be in the landing configuration and where it may be safest, in terms of distractions, to allow a crew to conduct a full approach to an overshoot at DA. Concern is that crews making a decision based on altitude could run the risk of overstress or placing the aircraft in an unusual position as the conduct a non-standard overshoot from an intermediate height.

2. This proposal changes the existing low visibility take off and approach exemptions to an approval. (regulation 91.425 of CASR)

Please select one item
Ticked yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
not applicable

Flight requirements

1. This proposal extends the ability for pilots not operating under an AOC or other certificate to use night vision imaging systems (NVIS) under certain conditions. (section 5.02 of the Part 91 MOS )

Please select one item
yes
Ticked some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
not applicable
Comments
How do we define 'the pilot' as opposed to 'a pilot'. NVIS is a particularly difficult subject as it's use has both extremely positive and negative safety implications depending on the framework supporting operations and the nature of the limitations placed on them. In addition, much like IFR flight, there must be the ability to train pilots or allow them to gain experience when flying with an appropriately qualified person. Propose the following: (1)(a) A pilot may operate under NVIS when not qualified to do so when under direct supervision of a person holding a flight instructor rating with NVIS training endorsement issued under Part 61 of the CASR and when the sortie is for the purposes of flight training or demonstration.

2. This proposal introduces the ability for night Visual Flight Rules (VFR) flights to use IFR lowest safe altitudes. (regulation 91.395 of CASR)

Please select one item
yes
Ticked some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
not applicable
Comments
This does not deal with NVIS operations, and it needs to. The point of NVIS is that it facilitates operations under Night VFR below safety altitude, and down to 'low level' with increased situational awareness. However, the current draft Part 91 requirement for NVIS is to operate under NVFR, which is 'VFR at night'. Therefore, this regulation must provide NVIS operators with the capability to operate at a lower level for training or operational reasons. The regulation should allow operations conducted under NVIS to operate down to Day VFR minimums with appropriate safeguards. If we are rewriting Part 91, can we look at moving some of the CAO 82.6 exemptions and baking them into Part 91 to allow for the simplification of CAO 82.6 in due course?

3. This proposal introduces a requirement to comply with Air Defence Identification Zones (ADIZ) procedures. (regulation 91.362 of CASR)

Please select one item
Ticked yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
not applicable

4. This proposal creates a requirement to comply with aircraft interception procedures. (section 20.05 of the Part 91 MOS)

Please select one item
yes
Ticked some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
not applicable
Comments
I know that the AIP procedures mirror ICAO Annex Procedures, but should is rule provide some note that AIP procedures are designed to comply with the ICAO requirements as the AIP is the 'rules' to which most Australian pilots will have access?

5. This proposal reduces the altitude above which a VFR aircraft must (where practicable) use VFR cruising levels from 5000 ft to 3000 ft AMSL (above mean sea level). (section 13.04 of the Part 91 MOS)

Please select one item
Ticked yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
not applicable

Animals

1. This proposal significantly simplifies the rules for the carriage of animals in the aircraft cabin. (regulation 91.200 of CASR)

Please select one item
Ticked yes
some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
not applicable

Emergency simulation restrictions

1. This proposal restricts the simulation of certain emergencies, predominantly, in Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) or at night. (regulation 91.570 to 91.610 of CASR)

Please select one item
yes
Ticked some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
not applicable

General response

1. Are the proposed changes to the general operating flight rules appropriate and can they be complied with by industry without undue burden?

Please select one item
yes
Ticked some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
not applicable
Comments
Requirements for operations under NVIS do need to be reviewed. At the moment the regulations as written do not allow operators to utilise NVIS for the purposes that NVIS is deployed. This is also an opportunity to take a lot of the confusion away from CAO 82.6 by baking it into the CASR, allowing for the simplification fo CAO 82.6 in due course.

2. One of the aims was to primarily consolidate the current rules and carry over existing regulatory requirements. If you exclude the changes listed in the Summary of Proposed Changes, has this been achieved?

Please select one item
yes
Ticked some change/s required (please specify below)
no (please specify below)
not applicable
Comments
See above

3. Are there any significant aviation safety risks which have not been addressed in the Part 91 of CASR draft regulations and MOS?

Please select one item
yes (please specify below)
some change/s required (please specify below)
Ticked no
not applicable
Comments
Not that I have seen, but the document as written may add some new ones?

Your priorities

1. When you reflect on the feedback you have provided throughout this consultation, what are the three matters you consider most important?

Priority 1
Making appropriate allowances for the flight training industry
Priority 2
Incorporation of NVIS
Priority 3
Freedom of use of OCTA