From 9 June 2022 to 8 July 2022, we sought comment and feedback on key proposals arising from a post implementation review of Part 172 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR) and the Part 172 Manual of Standards (Part 172 MOS).
This consultation has now closed.
This is an interim summary of consultation (SOC) addressing only the feedback provided in relation to the fatigue management proposals.
We have not finalised our policy position on other matters, and we will issue a further SOC in due course.
About this consultation
In relation to fatigue management, we identified that the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) amended Annex 11 to the Chicago Convention requiring States, from November 2020, to introduce legislation supporting and requiring air traffic service (ATS) providers to implement one of the following:
or
or
Relevant to the situation, we were aware Airservices Australia (AA)—the national ATS provider—has used an FRMS since 2003. AA had written to CASA expressing its intent to continue using an FRMS into the future.
We mentioned that Annex 11 did not specify any prescriptive limitations and that States were required to develop those limitations based on their own research. Based on our experience with the flight crew fatigue standards, we were of the view that developing these limitations would take considerable effort for no specific benefit.
Considering the situation, PP 2207AS included the following key policy objectives:
Note: ATS functions are described in subregulations 65.075 (2) and 65.130 (2) of CASR — for example: functions carried out under an aerodrome control rating or a traffic information service rating.
A total of 8 responses were received from 2 ATS providers, 2 airlines, an ATS training provider, and one remotely piloted aircraft system (RPAS) operator.
Of the respondents, 3 consented to their submissions being made public.
Summary of feedback
Five respondents agreed with proposals a. – f. (as mentioned above), while 3 respondents either didn’t comment or indicated they were undecided or the matter was outside their area of expertise. The following is a summary of their feedback:
Four respondents agreed with proposal g. (FRMS administration based on CAO 48.1), while 4 respondents either didn’t comment or indicated they were undecided, or the matter was outside their area of expertise. The following is a summary of their feedback:
Proposal h. (Prescriptive standards only if FRMS is found insufficient) had a mixed response, with 3 respondents agreeing with the proposal, 2 disagreeing, and 4 either not commenting or indicating they were undecided, or that the matter was outside their area of expertise. The following is a summary of their feedback:
We thoroughly reviewed the responses and feedback to this consultation, and the following summarises our response and intended course of action.
Regarding comment about integrating a provider's FRMS with its SMS, we are of the view that sufficient integration exists if FRMS processes are documented within, carried out in accordance with, and managed under the provider’s SMS.
For implementing the new FRMS standards, our intention would be to assess the provider's existing FRMS against the final standards and where necessary work with the provider to arrive at an acceptable configuration. Consistent with CAO 48.1, we would then grant a trial FRMS implementation approval, thus enabling the provider to gather data to prove the effectiveness of the FRMS. Once satisfied with the effectiveness of the provider's trial approval, we would grant a full implementation approval.
We agree that baseline values should include maximum time in position and minimum breaks between time in position, and this will be addressed in our future proposals. We also agree that operational personnel (controllers and flight service officers) have a commensurate responsibility in the effective management of fatigue. Accordingly, we will include maximum time in position and minimum breaks baseline requirements as well as individual personnel responsibilities consistent with the requirements for flight crew specified in subsection 91.520 of CASR.
As to the acceptable level of safety for an FRMS, we are of the view that this is achieved when there is clear evidence the FRMS is present and suitable (established during the initial approval of the FRMS), operating (there is ongoing evidence that the relevant FRMS is in use and an output is being produced) and effective (there is evidence that the relevant indicators are achieving the desired outcomes and having a positive safety impact).
We consider continuous monitoring/improvement/promotion is fundamental to an FRMS. Annex 11 and ICAO Doc. 9966 have many references to 'continuous' in the context of FRMS. The principle is that an FRMS is not a static system but one that is subject to continuous improvement.
Regarding the comment about the administrative arrangements being restrictive, we believe the administrative arrangements are consistent with the arrangements applied to aircraft operators and are demonstrably suitable for CASA having assurance that a full FRMS is effective in managing fatigue. Aspects such as enabling the provider to propose the baseline limits for the FRMS mean the arrangements are, in fact, more flexible than the requirements applied to aircraft operators.
Concerning the negative responses to the proposal for not specifying prescriptive standards, we wish to point out that the proposed arrangement still requires baseline limits for benchmarking the effective operation of the FRMS. The difference is that the provider proposes baseline limits rather than CASA. It should be noted that, unlike the standards in ICAO Annex 6 (Aircraft Operations), an Annex 11 FRMS is not dependent on the State specifying prescriptive standards. Having said this, we are also of the view that baseline standards should not be changeable at will as this arguably affects the ability to observe trends. Instead, we believe it is logical that baseline limits are set in place or are changed only after careful development and testing, and subject to assessment and approval by CASA.
Concerning the transition from a provider’s existing FRMS to the new standards, we do not believe it would be necessary for an ATS to submit a new safety case to re-justify that FRMS.
Finally, a MOS and a CAO have equal relevance from a regulatory standpoint, so there is no benefit in using a CAO for the ATS fatigue management standards. While our initial preference was to simply cross-reference Annex 11, the wording of that Annex does not support this. Hence the proposal to incorporate the standards within the Part 172 MOS.
Next Steps
Considering that the proposals are based on ICAO requirements and existing CASA standards for an FRMS and the overall response to the feedback, we believe it is appropriate to proceed with the proposed fatigue management standards.
Since the release of PP 2207AS, we have established that it is possible to implement them without creating a specific head of power within Part 172 of CASR. Instead, we can use existing powers under Parts 11 and 172 of CASR to fatigue management standards by way of an amendment to the Part 65 MOS and the Part 172 MOS.
Accordingly, we will develop and consult on changes to these manuals of standards that reflect the original proposal in PP 2207AS, but with essential changes as identified in our response to the feedback.
Published Responses
Annex A to this summary details the responses from persons or organisations who have given consent to publish their fatigue management responses.
Once the full SOC is published, those consenting to publish their comments will become visible on the consultation hub.
Part 172 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR) was one of the first CASR Parts introduced in 2003. Part 172 deals with the provision of air traffic services (ATS).
CASA is carrying out a post-implementation review (PIR) of Part 172 of the CASR and its Manual of Standards (MOS). While CASA has amended the MOS from time to time to address specific matters, this is the first comprehensive review of both the Regulation and the MOS.
The structure of Part 172 allows the standards for ATS to be specified either in the MOS or by direct reference to certain International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) documents (Annex 11 and Doc. 4444). One of the first steps in the PIR was to do a comparative check of the regulation, the MOS and the relevant ICAO documents. This revealed significant duplication (same standard mentioned simultaneously in different sources), but critically - no regulatory standards for managing air traffic controller fatigue. The review also found that Part 172 is inconsistent with current CASA policy with regard to managerial and organisational arrangements for aviation service providers.
Proposed changes to regulations and standards
CASA is proposing to amend Part 172 of CASR to:
CASA is also proposing to amend the Part 172 MOS to:
Previous consultations
Prior to the release of this policy proposal, CASA consulted internally and externally via a TWG, consisting of representatives from CASA, Airservices Australia and Civil Air (the air traffic controllers’ association).
The TWG met 19 times since its establishment in late 2019. The advice and feedback from the TWG greatly assisted CASA to develop this policy proposal, which – CASA believes – covers essential changes and improvements to Part 172 and the MOS.
Other consultation activities
Three separate consultation activities are taking place under Project AS 14/23:
We recognise the importance and value of community and industry consultation in policy decision-making and regulatory change. We are consulting to ensure that the proposed changes are appropriate, practical and will work as intended.
Comments are sought from every sector of the community. This includes the general public, government agencies and all sectors of the aviation industry.
Documents for review
All documents related to this policy proposal in the ‘Related’ section at the bottom of the page. This includes an MS Word copy of the online survey to make it easy for you to peruse or coordinate feedback within your organisation.
This consultation includes:
Please submit your feedback through the Consultation Hub using the survey provided. If you are unable to provide feedback this way, please contact us for advice through regulatoryconsultation@casa.gov.au
It is important that you read the Policy Proposal document (PP 2207AS) before providing your feedback.
What happens next
At the end of the response period for public comment, we will review each comment and submission. We will make all submissions publicly available on the CASA website, unless you request your submission remains confidential. We will also publish a summary of consultation which summarises the feedback received and outlines the next steps.
All comments on the PP 2207AS will be considered. Relevant feedback that improves upon the proposed regulations and is consistent with the regulations and other CASA policy, will be incorporated into drafting instructions for the final rules.
Once legal drafting has been completed, we will again consult with industry. This is expected to take place during the second half of 2022.
CASA proposes a transition period of 1 year from the date of commencement of the final changes to ensure that industry has sufficient time to adapt to the new requirements. Timeframes may change depending on the date the draft rules are signed, registered and implemented by CASA.
At the end of the response period for public comment, we will review each comment and submission. We will make all submissions publicly available on the CASA website, unless you request your submission remains confidential. We will also publish a summary of consultation which summarises the feedback received and outlines the next steps.
All comments on the PP 2207AS will be considered. Relevant feedback that improves upon the proposed regulations and is consistent with the regulations and other CASA policy, will be incorporated into drafting instructions for the final rules.
Once legal drafting has been completed, we will again consult with industry. This is expected to take place during the second half of 2022.
CASA proposes a transition period of 1 year from the date of commencement of the final changes to ensure that industry has sufficient time to adapt to the new requirements. Timeframes may change depending on the date the draft rules are signed, registered and implemented by CASA.
Share
Share on Twitter Share on Facebook