We Asked, You Said, We Did

This consultation asked people to review the Draft AC 139.E-03 v1.0 Laser emissions which may endanger the safety of aircraft guidance provided on mitigating the potential harmful effects of laser emissions on pilots. The guidance provided advice on the hazards associated with laser emissions, establishment of protected areas and laser hazard evaluation.

About this consultation
The current AC is brief, and the updated AC provides significantly more guidance in relation to:

• hazards associated with laser emissions
• mitigating the risk of laser emissions
• laser hazard evaluation
• protected flight zones
• operational considerations.

Respondents were asked if the content of the AC clearly identified the hazards associated with laser emissions, provided guidance for the establishment of protected areas and whether the content and structure of the AC is clear and sufficient for the operators of laser light shows.

The responses were generally supportive of the enhanced guidance provided in the AC; however, some specific comments are addressed below.

In total there were 12 responses to the updated AC. Of the respondents who made written submissions, 6 consented to having them made public, 5 requested their submissions be confidential and 1 was a CASA officer.

Four responses were from laser show proponents, 4 from pilots, 1 from an aerodrome operator and 3 others.

Summary of feedback
Detail of responses is as follows:

• Pilots and aircraft operators could be given government subsidies to purchase laser protection eyewear or protection for aircraft windows.
• Malicious use of lasers is not acceptable.
• The guidance does not include control measures if CASA no longer reviews, or assesses, proposed laser displays and does not generate NOTAMs.
• Additional less complex guidance material could be developed e.g. posters or flyers.
• The AC refers to laserpointersafety.com to determine the NOHD and the visual interference results, however this site uses imperial units and does not refer to the relevant Australian Standards. Should AS/NZS 2211 be referenced and other laser classes covered i.e. Class 1, 2 & 3 be included. Should there be designated qualified laser safety officers.
• Why are NOTAM examples provided if CASA is not raising NOTAMs. An online portal should be available with maps of airports and critical flight zones.
• There is no defined approval process for conducting laser displays. Laser operators should be trained, qualified and licensed. CASA should consider some of the recommendations of the International Laser Display Association (ILDA), which provides laser safety courses and recommended standards for laser displays.
• Due to the design of airline windscreens they are not susceptible to malicious laser attacks. However, there should be a NOTAM for any laser light shows.
• The guidance should address deliberate laser attacks as well.
• An explanation would be useful in how to submit NOTAMs.
• Too many rules in regard to lasers for operators.
• Can the AC include information on lighting displays (such as Sky trackers) as this technology is improving and the lighting fixtures are becoming more powerful and accessible. We request a formal process in which CASA can be advised of any lighting displays which project lights into the sky.

The responses to this consultation were greatly appreciated and where appropriate the content of the AC was updated.

Specific changes to the AC include:

• CASA does not assess or approve light shows and the updated AC provides significant extra guidance material to support laser show proponents in assessing the risks to pilots and notifying pilots of these events
• The AC now recommends risk assessments and appointment of laser safety officers for light shows using Class 3B and 4 lasers
• The risks to pilots associated with laser shows does not warrant government expenditure for individual eyewear or aircraft window protection
• CASA does recognise that laser emissions can be a hazard through airline windscreens and as such the guidance material is warranted
• AS/NZS 2211 has been included as a reference, however, is required to be purchased by each laser show proponent, therefore the reference to "Laser Pointer Safety" is retained
• The hazards related to the different laser classes covered has been included in the AC
• Availability of training for laser show proponents, including laser safety officers has been included in the AC
• Guidance has been included on where to access online maps depicting the locations of aerodromes such as the CASA approved "OK2Fly" app
• The AC has been updated to include more content on how to issue NOTAMs, including how to become registered as a NOTAM originator with Airservices Australia.

Next steps
CASA will publish the updated AC, incorporating valuable feedback to the consultation.

CASA, through the Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR), sought feedback from the aviation industry on an airspace change that proposed:  

• reclassifying a section of the Sydney Control Zone (CTR), located south and southeast of the Bankstown CTR, to create a Class G corridor from surface to 1,500 ft above mean sea level
• the introduction of 2 one-way daytime-only visual flight rules (VFR) lanes within the proposed corridor.

The proposal aimed to safely accommodate sustained growth in the Sydney region by reducing congestion and providing more equitable access to airspace. The proposed design intended to reduce airspace risks associated with the constrained nature of the Bankstown CTR while also providing better access to the Sydney training areas.  

The consultation period ran between 27 August and 22 October 2024.

Airservices Australia sought community feedback in parallel with CASA, which will be considered in our decision-making under the airspace regulations.

We sought feedback to understand industry issues, observations or positions regarding the:

• safe accommodation of air traffic in the region
• proposed introduction of the VFR lanes
• proposed airspace design and procedures.

Industry bodies and all local airspace users including flying schools, aero clubs, commercial operators, and recreational and sport aviation pilots were encouraged to respond.

A total of 100 responses were received primarily through the CASA Consultation Hub, but also via direct email.

Submissions were received from a wide variety of airspace users including aerial work operators, flight training organisations, air transport licence holders, commercial licence holders, private/recreational pilots, emergency services, air navigation service provider officers, sports aviation pilots, and some non-aviation industry stakeholders.

Eighty-eight percent of the responses received were from fixed wing operators with 12% from rotary wing operators.

Of the total responses, 8% nominated instrument flight rules (IFR) as their primary mode of operation, 47% indicated visual flight rules (VFR) only and 32% identified both IFR and VFR. Thirteen percent of respondents elected not to answer.

Most responses received were from recreational and private pilots. Air transport pilots and commercial pilots represented around a third of the total submissions. This included those who described their primary role as both air transport and commercial or chief pilot.

Safety managers, air navigation service provider staff and student pilots also provided comments. Specific submissions were also received from several industry organisations including Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus), Australian Airline Pilots’ Association (AusALPA), the Regional Aviation Association of Australia (RAAA) and the aerodrome operator Aeria Management Group.

Summary of feedback

Typical responses recognised that the proposed corridor would enhance safety by reducing congestion and providing improved access to the flying training areas. However, 3 common concerns were raised by most respondents:

• the low-level nature of the corridor
• the risk of mid-air collision
• likelihood of controlled airspace and restricted airspace incursions.

Low-level nature of the corridor

Respondents considered the upper limit of the proposed corridor was constrained by the higher terrain to the south, potentially limiting forward visibility and reducing the time available to manage an inflight emergency or upset.

Risk of mid-air collision

Feedback indicated that the narrow width of the proposed corridor may affect the ability to safely transit in a 2-way configuration.

While many respondents acknowledged the inherent constraints posed by the adjacent restricted areas and the Sydney Kingsford Smith Airport (KSA) control zone, concerns were raised about the risk of collision with opposite tracking aircraft operating along the proposed inbound and outbound lanes simultaneously.

This is particularly the case for less experienced pilots, creating a significant risk of air proximity incidents.

Marginal visual meteorological conditions (VMC) were also cited as a potential contributing factor, as was the perceived complexity of the arrival procedure during a high workload phase of flight.

The less likely ‘nose-to-tail end’ collision risk posed by aircraft ‘catching up to’ or overtaking slower aircraft due to varying performance characteristics was also recognised.

Airspace incursions

The proximity of the proposed inbound and outbound lanes to adjacent restricted areas and the Sydney KSA control zone featured in almost all responses. The high likelihood of incursions into either or both was consistently highlighted as a concern.  

Many considered the narrow dimensions set an unrealistic expectation that VFR aircraft could navigate accurately enough in the available airspace. Using GPS navigation tools, which are typically seen as a risk mitigation measure, was also considered risky because it requires a head down rather than a heads-up posture. This issue was particularly highlighted in responses from some flying training organisations. Many passenger transport pilots that typically operate into Sydney KSA also highlighted concerns about controlled airspace incursions during passenger transport operations.

Other comments

The following concerns and comments also featured.

• Suggestion to establish separate altitude requirements for helicopter operations to address the performance differences between fixed and rotary wing aircraft.
• The impact on passenger transport aircraft arriving and departing on the 07/25 RWY at KSA was raised. This includes the proximity of large aircraft operations above general aviation aircraft as well as concerns about wake turbulence.
• Some respondents raised the perceived complexity of the arrival into the Bankstown Control Zone, particularly the circuit joining procedure. There are concerns about the traffic convergence that could result when arrivals from the 2RN approach point merge with those returning from the proposed corridor.
• Radio congestion was raised as a potential unintended consequence.
• Some respondents favoured the retention of controlled airspace, potentially in its current state, preferring arrangements be established to facilitate regular and reliable access through that airspace volume and receiving an air traffic service.
• An initial trial period was suggested.
• Several noise related responses were received. The responses also raised concerns over a potential ground risk posed by aircraft as the corridor stretches along a populated area.

For more detail, view the published responses below.

Next steps

CASA appreciates the contributions made by respondents and acknowledges that their feedback has been beneficial to the consultation process.

We are working with Airservices Australia to consider all feedback received from both this consultation and the community consultation process they conducted in parallel.

This consultation proposed a policy change to allow Part 138 Aerial Work Certificate holders to carry personnel involved in firefighting activities to and from a fireground in rotorcraft for hire or reward, as an alternative to carriage under the air transport rules.

Firefighting is a major public interest and benefit activity across Australia. It involves a large number of operators, first responders and volunteers who all give their time and expertise to protect the community. The carriage of passengers directly involved in the firefighting activities is a critical part of these operations.

Aircraft operators and fire control agencies have previously told us that the operational environment of the fireground may be more closely aligned with the aerial work rules, due to challenging and dynamic flying conditions and the uncertainty of landing sites. This sets it apart from typical air transport operations.

While air transport operations provide the highest level of safety where passengers are not expected to understand the safety issues and risks, passengers of aerial work operations are expected to be 'informed passengers' and understand these issues and risks.

Safety of the passengers is paramount, and the proposal will involve the implementation of safety controls. These include risk management tools pilots and operators routinely use in aerial work, as well as safety and awareness training for passengers prior to and as part of the operation.

We want to make sure the rules are effective in balancing the safety of the people involved and the public interest and the community benefit of firefighting activities. This includes making sure there is clarity and a shared understanding of the policy and its objectives, the passengers and operations that are covered, and the aims and objectives of the safety controls.

We understand there are other circumstances where emergency services personnel may need to be transported by rotorcraft to help protect the community, such as flood rescue and relief. The implementation of the current proposal in time for fire season 2025/26 will provide valuable insights and help guide the consideration of other operations and aircraft in future.

About this consultation

This consultation opened on 12 September 2024 and closed on 10 October 2024.

For this consultation, 'passengers' refers to the personnel who are involved in firefighting activities and transported as aerial work passengers in accordance with this policy proposal. 'Firefighting activities' are those ground-based activities associated with a tasking by an emergency services agency for the purposes of a response to a fire 'incident'[1].

A summary of the feedback is provided below.

We received 39 responses, mostly from aircraft operators and pilots, with 3 from emergency service agencies. The comments and suggestions are valued and are important in helping to shape workable outcomes that preserve aviation safety.

Twenty-eight respondents (72 %) said they agree with the proposal and 8 (21%) said they do not. Three did not indicate agreement or otherwise. Seventeen respondents provided additional comments on the reasons why they agree or don't agree. Twenty-two respondents did not provide additional comments.

We asked whether there were any concerns about the proposal that we should consider. Seventeen respondents answered 'No, I am satisfied' and one respondent did not answer this question. Twenty-one (54%) respondents indicated 'Yes' and provided a range of suggestions.

Similarly, in relation to suggestions about how the proposal could be improved, 16 respondents said that they did not have any suggestions. Two respondents did not answer this question, and a further 2 respondents noted comments made in the previous section. The remaining 19 respondents provided helpful suggestions on various topics, some of which were out of scope.

We asked whether you had any suggestions or alternative approaches we could take in relation to the carriage of firefighting personnel. Twenty-one respondents answered 'No' to this question and one did not provide a response. Seventeen respondents provided a range of suggestions, with 5 of these referring to their previous comments. Sixteen respondents provided further general comments.

The comments and suggestions received are valued and are important in helping to shape workable outcomes that preserve aviation safety.

We have summarised the feedback below, including the key themes of the suggestions and comments.

Summary of feedback

In support for the proposal, respondents offered opinions and suggestions about:

• the alignment of firefighting operations with the aerial work rules
• opportunities and support for operators to get the job done
• the need for high operational standards, robust procedures and validation of personnel training.

Where the proposal was not supported, respondents offered opinions about:

• the risks associated with conducting operations in such conditions and the preference for higher protections offered by air transport rules
• a lack of clarity in distinguishing between aerial work and air transport across all emergency services, which was raised in the context of widening the proposal to cover a broader range of emergency operations and personnel
• insurance and liability risk.

Other suggestions and comments were provided on the following topics which are noted but out-of-scope of the current proposal:

• expansion of the policy to other emergency services and broader operations
• carrying more than 9 passengers
• use of restricted category aircraft.

Five broad themes emerged from the feedback:

1. Alignment of firefighting operations

Several respondents commented that the proposed policy would reflect a greater alignment of the operations to the Part 138 aerial work rules and would assist industry and emergency services to get the job done. Highlighted in responses was that the operating environment differs from air transport operations in terms of the uncertainty of conditions, the lack of designated landing sites and the necessity for low-level flying in some circumstances.

Three respondents noted that the policy would provide more opportunities for operators, including allowing the use of more aircraft, increased flexibility and efficiency, and reduced costs for fire crew transport. One operator described aerial work operators as being more capable of conducting these operations.

Conversely, 4 respondents raised concerns about passenger safety, noting that the carriage of personnel should be under air transport rules. Further, that firefighting personnel should be afforded the same level of protection as other air transport passengers and have the same level of insurance under 'ICAO charter operations'.

Respondents who indicated that they currently operate under both Part 138 and Part 133 commented they would not be significantly affected by the proposal, and they already apply equivalent risk controls to ensure safety of operations regardless of the applicable ruleset.

CASA's response

The safety of passengers is paramount, and the suitability of both the air transport and the aerial work rules were carefully considered. After discussing the proposal with stakeholders, including the Australasian Fire and Emergency Services Authorities Council (AFAC), emergency services agencies, and operators, a conclusion was reached that an acceptable level of safety can be achieved under the aerial work rules where the operation and passengers are like those typical of aerial work. This aims to provide greater flexibility to operators.

2. Management of passenger training and briefings

Ten (25%) respondents commented about the training of passengers and pre-flight briefings.

One respondent cited challenges in being able to validate the level of understanding passengers have before flying, which may place risk on the operator or pilot on the day and can expose other passengers to increased risk. Another respondent questioned the concept of a firefighter being able to be trained in, and accurately assess, the safety and capability of an aircraft before accepting a mission particularly during an operation. The additional pressures on pilots in terms of needing to deliver complex briefings on the rules under which the flight is conducted, and why the aircraft is suitable, was also raised.

Respondents offered suggestions in relation to training and briefings, which included:

• training through a detailed briefing should be delivered by the operator/pilot before flight to ensure that the training is to the same standard as set out in the company operations manual
• further clarity is needed on the requirements for an operator/pilot to convey training, and how passenger agreement and questions can be recorded in a practical manner
• passengers should be briefed by their own agency to remove the challenges and risks for an operator or pilot to provide this during an emergency services operation
• briefings delivered during the operation should be targeted to information relevant to the flight
• passengers should be trained in crew resource management
• if aircraft unloading is in remote areas, a designed crew person or appointed passenger should be fully briefed on loading/unloading and be capable of delivering a safety briefing.

CASA's response

Under the proposal, the passengers would be considered aerial work passengers. Therefore, they would need to receive training prior to any emergency response, which could be completed as an annual activity through their emergency service agency. This training aims to provide knowledge that is typical of what other aerial work passengers receive. It would include the different risks of aerial work compared to air transport, general safety around rotorcraft operations, loading/unloading processes and the safe carriage of equipment. It is important that this training be undertaken outside of an emergency operation to remove pressure and allow passengers to choose whether to participate.

The responsibility is on operators to have processes in place in their operations manual to ensure that passengers being carried have completed appropriate pre-flight training and that this is recorded accurately. This may be coordinated between emergency service agencies and operators who are engaged by them to conduct operations. This would include measures to record and ensure currency of training. Preflight safety briefings delivered by the operator/pilot on the day are in addition to this generic training.

3. Expanding the policy

Nine (23%) respondents commented that the proposed policy should be expanded to other emergency services, other operations and/or personnel. Suggestions to expand the policy were in respect of:

• other personnel essential to a fire operation, including landholders, rangers, Indigenous rangers and equipment operators
• fixed wing aircraft
• transport from a regional base (not within the vicinity of a fireground) to a remote fireground
• transport from a staging area to another staging area close to a fireground, including pre-positioning to support changing operational requirements
• non-firefighting personnel being transported to a 'Helibase' to conduct support operations, such as an Air Base Manager
• firefighting and State Emergency Service personnel conducting flood rescue and relief taskings
• other essential personnel that may need to be moved during emergency service operations or in around 'work zones', such medical personnel, police, and energy workers
• carriage of more than 9 passengers.

One respondent indicated that they do not support the proposal in its current form due to the scope being limited to firefighters, and the carriage of these passengers in and around firegrounds. The response elaborated on specific concerns including:

• the narrow focus of the proposal leads to an unclear distinction between aerial work and air transport across all emergency operations (firefighting and non-firefighting)
• confusion, inefficiencies and risks could be introduced for multi-agency emergency responses because the regulatory framework would not align with the breadth of these operations and personnel
• emergency services comprise wide range of non-firefighting related incidents and operations that require specialist aerial support, a versatility of helicopter operations and a diversity of support personnel and transitioning to the current proposal could lead to increased risks, operational delays and a reduced capacity for an effective response.

While also out-of-scope for the current proposal, 3 respondents raised concern about the carriage of passengers in restricted category aircraft, such as ex-military aircraft, citing concerns about maintenance standards and a de-valuing of civilian aircraft currently used in operations.

CASA's response

The objective of the current proposal is to enable the carriage of passengers in and around firegrounds by aerial work certificate holders, with the aim of supporting firefighting operations.

For the operation to be an aerial work operation, certain criteria will need to be met, otherwise it would be an air transport operation. For example, the maximum number of passengers will be 9 as per the current aerial work rules. The passengers will also need to have received risk and safety training prior to the incident and consented to participate. This training is a new criterion to ensure that they have been given information to allow them to understand the safety and risks like other aerial work passengers and allow them to choose to participate.

The criteria for application of the aerial work rules will be finalised as part of the next steps to implement the policy, and CASA will continue to consult with the AFAC and stakeholders as appropriate. The criteria will be communicated to stakeholders before the policy commences to ensure there is clarity and a shared understanding. This will also assist emergency services agencies and operators to prepare and put in place appropriate procedures, guidance, operational documents and risk-management strategies to support operations.

In operations where the criteria are not met, the air transport rules will apply. This approach means that emergency service agencies and operators can determine to conduct the flight under the aerial work rules, or the air transport rules, based on an assessment of the individual circumstances. It provides maximum flexibility for emergency services agencies and operators and allows for differences in managing and responding to fire incidents between Australian States and Territories.

The rules for the carriage of passengers not directly involved in the fire incident are not changing, and these passengers are not being considered for carriage under the aerial work rules. They would continue to be transported under the air transport rules in line with the carriage of passengers generally. The framework aims to balance the risks, set clear parameters for the policy, and ensure that an acceptable of aviation safety can be maintained.

In relation to expanding the proposal to other emergency services, CASA is aware that there are other possible use cases and that emergency services agencies are interested in widening the scope of the proposal to similar activities, such as flood relief. It is acknowledged that a broader application may assist emergency services agencies to better manage responses across the breadth of their operations, facilitate efficiencies and provide greater regulatory clarity, particularly for complex multi-agency responses.

It is important to note that the transport of passengers responding to a fire incident by aerial work certificate holders has required careful consideration of the suitability of both the air transport and aerial work rules in relation to these passengers. For passengers captured by the policy, it was important to examine the applicable activities and risks and the passenger's ability to understand and freely accept the risks. Issues specific to firefighting such as the fireground environment and weather conditions, the uncertainty of landing sites, the loading/unloading of passengers within firegrounds and the safety of people on the ground in these zones, may not translate to other emergency incidents which would have their own unique risks.

As the safety of personnel is paramount, a separate consideration of the suitability of the aerial work rules for the carriage of passengers undertaking other emergency service responses will be considered in future in conjunction with emergency services agencies and the AFAC. This includes having a fulsome, considered and shared understanding of the activities, risks and environment that may be present in these operations. For example, the operational risks that may be present in typical flood events, the likely taskings and the personnel directly involved.

Implementation of the current proposal for the 2025/26 fire season will provide valuable insights on the effectiveness and use of the policy. It will help to inform this future work and identify and better manage risks across different and complex responses.

4. Insurance and liability risk

Five respondents raised specific concerns about insurance and liability risks. From an operator perspective, a key concern was increased liability risks in the event of an accident or incident and subsequent claim. This includes potential flow-on business impacts such as the cost of insurance premiums. Two respondents raised insurance from a passenger perspective, commenting that passengers should have coverage to the level of charter operations.

CASA's response

There are key differences in the air transport rules and aerial work rules in relation to insurance and carrier liability. The carrier's liability insurance scheme under the Civil Aviation (Carriers' Liability) Act 1959 is targeted at passenger travel and reflects provisions in international treaties which Australia has signed and ratified. The scheme limits carrier liability for passenger operations conducted by Australian air transport certificate holders and covers events such as injury or death of a passenger, delay, and the loss or destruction of baggage and cargo. It does not, and is not intended to, generally extend to aerial work operations and does not cover operators who hold only an aerial work certificate and carry aerial work passengers in aerial work aircraft.

The insurance and liability implications to an operator in relation to transporting passengers under the aerial work rules is a factor that would need to be carefully examined by the operator based on their individual circumstances and risk assessment of the proposed operations. As noted above, certain criteria will need to be met for the aerial work rules to apply and if they are not met, the air transport rules will apply.

Where an operator holds both an air transport operator's certificate and an aerial work certificate, previous High Court judgements have ruled that aerial work passengers carried in aerial work aircraft are covered by the carrier's liability scheme. Further information on carrier's liability is available on the CASA website at: Carriers' liability insurance | Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

In relation to insurance coverage for passengers, it is important that passengers to be carried under the aerial work rules also understand the different levels of safety and risks, including in relation to insurance coverage in the event of an accident or incident. Under the proposal, personnel are required to receive training prior to an emergency incident on the differences between the air transport and aerial work rules and be willing to participate. The right to refuse to participate rests with individual personnel and may be dependent on a range of individual factors and risk appetite.

5. Operational framework

Nine (23%) respondents commented and provided suggestions on issues related to the operational framework.

The difference in flight duty times under the aerial work rules compared to air transport was raised by some respondents. One respondent noted that the risk of flight duty time breaches would be reduced by the proposal. Another suggestion was that the air transport flight duty times should apply to Part 138 operations where passengers are carried.

Conversely, concern was raised that flight duty times where personnel must be transported outside the policy under the air transport rules, would limit pilot hours and days for the carriage of passengers under the aerial work rules and result in an operational limitation. This concern was raised in the context of expanding the policy to additional emergency services and personnel.

Respondents also commented on the importance of the rules being complied with to ensure safety in an emergency service operation and need for clarity and simplicity in the rules to enable effective compliance. The need to maintain high professional standards was offered by one respondent. Effective communications, including between aircraft as needed, was raised as being critical to operations around firegrounds, particularly in relation to landing sites and the safety of people on the ground in these areas.

Two (5%) respondents commented on the existing aerial work rules, noting that firefighters and task specialist passengers can already be carried by Part 138 Aerial Work Certificate holders. The importance of having clarity around which personnel can be carried was also raised and one respondent suggested this should be set out in operational documents.

CASA's response

Flight duty times. CASA acknowledges that flight duty times depend upon the operation. The definition of 'emergency service operation' in relation to the fatigue management rules is to ensure that appropriate flight duty times apply having regard to the nature of these types of operations, which differ from other operations. Further information on the rules that apply to particular operations is set out in CASA's Civil Aviation Order 48.1 Fatigue Management Plain English Guide, available on the CASA website.

'Emergency service operation' as defined in the aerial work rules allows operations that are aerial work, which are also part of an emergency service operation, to have some special rules apply to the flight.

Compliance and professional standards. CASA agrees with the need for clarity, simplicity and high professional standards. Knowledge of, and compliance with the rules, and a shared commitment to safety for all involved (personnel, pilots, people on the ground), is critical to managing operations in a complex and challenging environment in and around firegrounds.

Existing rules and proposed change.  In relation to the existing Part 138 rules, it is important to note that aerial work passengers can only currently be carried under limited circumstances in relation to aerial work operations. A 'task specialist' is only where the passenger is performing a task that is part of the aerial work operation. It does not include transporting passengers to undertake other tasks.

The operations covered by the proposal target the transport of certain passengers in and around firegrounds who are directly involved in responding to a fire incident. This is not currently permitted by Part 138. Further guidance on the existing Part 138 rules and core concepts can be found in advisory circular AC 138-01 available on the CASA website.

Where needed, CASA will seek to engage with individual respondents to further clarify the existing rules and the proposed policy. Comprehensive communications and guidance materials will be developed as part of the policy implementation activities.

Next steps

CASA will work to implement the policy in time for the 2025/26 fire season.

The next steps are for CASA to finalise the criteria that will need to be met for the aerial work rules to apply for the carriage of passengers involved in responding to a fire incident. This work will be undertaken in consultation with the AFAC and stakeholders.

Further steps will include preparing the necessary legislative instruments, guidance materials and other public communications.

The feedback received as part of this consultation process will be considered in finalising and implementing the policy.

Further discussions with emergency services agencies on how the policy could be applied to other emergency service operations will be undertaken in future. This includes adopting the learnings and experience from the firefighting case.

This consultation set out proposed changes to the legal mechanisms that facilitate CASA's continued administration and oversight of Part 131 recreational activities, initial pilot training and the granting of recreational balloon pilot authorisations, ratings and endorsements. The legal mechanisms are Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 95.54 and the CASA Recreational Ballooning Procedures Manual (CRBPM).

These changes were proposed to apply from 12 November 2024, to align with the commencement of the Part 131 Manual of Standards.

About this consultation
This consultation opened on 24 September 2024 and closed on 8 October 2024. It asked if the proposed CAO 95.54 and the CRBPM would be suitable for the continued operation of recreational ballooning under Part 131 and the Part 131 Manual of Standards.

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

There were five (5) responses in total. One person did not complete the survey.

Three respondents identified as recreational balloon pilots, 2 as commercial balloon pilots, 1 as a balloon owner/operator and 2 as 'other' (respondents could nominate more than one category). All the respondents offered their personal views. Of the respondents who made a written submission, 4 consented to having them made public and 1 requested their submission be confidential.

Summary of feedback
There were no objections to the proposed amendments to CAO 95.54 that would empower CASA to continue to administer recreational balloon activities.

One respondent queried whether they were required to make an application to CASA for endorsements that were previously issued by the ABF. The definition of relevant endorsement in CAO 95.54 includes endorsements that were issued by the ABF prior to 2 December 2023. There is no need to apply for the endorsement again from CASA.

For the gas balloon endorsement, one respondent said there was no mention of which lifting gases are allowed to be used. The regulations do not define lighter-than-air gas. The Aircraft Flight Manual will specify the permissible lifting gas.

Another respondent observed that there was no endorsement for flying in Class C or D airspace. Flying in Class C or D airspace for Part 131 aircraft will be considered by CASA in 2025, in parallel with the development of enduring controlled airspace and controlled aerodrome access requirements for sport and recreation aircraft via the Part 103 Manual of Standards development process. Any requirements relating to such access for CAO 95.54 relevant permit holders would, if created, be placed in CAO 95.54 or elsewhere within the legal instruments relating to Part 131. An interim policy relating to access for Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus) pilots was the subject of a consultation (PP 2412OS - Access to controlled airspace and aerodromes for sport and recreational pilots).

One respondent asked if the parachute guidance material could be distributed for review before it is published. Whilst the guidance material was not included as part of this consultation, CASA will share this guidance with the Australian Ballooning Federation for feedback before publication.

There was one question on how the 200 hours pilot in command (PIC) requirement was determined for the balloon over 120 000 cu ft. endorsement. This requirement aligns with the equivalent endorsement in the UK/EASA regulations. While a CP(B)L holder can fly a Class 1 balloon with 75 hours PIC in Australia, they do this under the supervision of an AOC holder/HOFO. A pilot who wishes to gain experience in flying a larger balloon but does not have the prerequisite 200 hours has the option to qualify for their CP(B)L and then fly privately in a Class 1 balloon.

There was a question regarding how many Private Pilot Instructors Grade 1 would qualify for the carry and release a hang glider endorsement via transitional arrangements, so they can then assess another pilot for the endorsement. CASA is aware of 3 pilots who could take advantage of the transitional arrangement. Another response suggested the rule should include the carriage of other piloted aircraft, however regulation 131.585 of CASR only refers to procedures for the carrying of hang gliders.

While not a question in this consultation, one person gave feedback that consideration should be given to cross notifying other aviation self-administration authorities (such as SAFA or RAAus) if there is a suspension of piloting privileges. Subpart 149.G of CASR already caters for this.

CASA has taken the opportunity to review and update Chapter 6 of the CRBPM on accident and incident reporting to bring it up to date with AIP ENR 1.14.

CASA has removed the requirement for entries to be made in personal pilot logbooks after a successful Recreational Balloon Flight Review (RBFR) and flight instructor proficiency check. The completion of the Flight Review and Proficiency Check table on the pilot's Ballooning Permit is now sufficient.

Additional procedures have been inserted for inflation fan operation procedures (which refer to AC 131-02). We have also added the requirement to have pilot lights off before landing.

As there were no objections to the proposed amendments to CAO 95.54 CASA will proceed to make the instrument and it will come into effect on 12 November 2024.

This consultation asked industry to assess and comment on proposed amendments to the Part 139 Manual of Standards (MOS) associated with operations in the Obstacle Restricted Area (ORA) of an aerodrome.

The consultation was open from 5-19 September 2024 and a summary of the feedback is provided below.

About this consultation
Prior to the consultation, several areas of concern had been identified and communicated to CASA regarding the Part 139 MOS and associated with activities within the ORA.

There are key safety and maintenance activities that need to occur frequently within the ORA, particularly the Runway Strip. The Part 139 MOS unintentionally restricts these activities by requiring written approval by CASA.

The issues identified caused consequential administrative and economic burden to certified aerodromes with an instrument runway. These were subsequently corrected through this proposed amendment.

The consultation survey asked respondents whether they agreed with the proposed variations to the Part 139 MOS applicable to operations within the ORA, and to advise of any issues that they may have identified with the proposed changes.

In total, there were 26 responses to the consultation. Thirteen respondents identified as aerodromes, 1 as ATC/AFIS, 8 as AROs and 10 as 'other'.

Of the respondents who made a written submission, 18 consented to having them made public and 8 requested their submissions be confidential.

Summary of feedback
The majority of the comments by the respondents supported the change and reduction in regulatory burden.

Two of the respondents queried some elements of the proposed changes, however also supported the proposal.

Overall, the common theme was one of support for the proposed changes and amendment to the Part 139 MOS.

Overall, respondents strongly supported the proposed changes. As a result, CASA will now implement changes to the Part 139 MOS including removal of the requirement to seek approvals or exemptions for certain activities.

The amended Part 139 MOS is likely to be in force before the end of 2024.

This consultation provided details of amendments CASA is proposing to make to the Part 66 Manual of Standards (MOS). The consultation has now closed, and a summary of the feedback is provided below.

About this consultation

This consultation survey asked respondents to provide their feedback/comments on a number of proposed amendments to the Part 66 MOS that included:

• adjusting the stand-down periods after a failed Part 66 module exam to assist a candidate’s progression towards attaining a licence
• relocation of Table 5 – Units of competency required for a category or subcategory of modular licence, in Appendix C of the Part 66 acceptable means of compliance/guidance material (AMC/GM) that identifies the units of competency (UOC) required for a modular licence into the Part 66 MOS
• minor changes to some modular licence amendments made in December 2023, to support relocation of the modular licence UOC table and to correct some unintended inaccuracies
• repeal of the expired provisions in the Part 66 MOS that enabled use of the CAR 31 CASA Basics and SOE licensing scheme, to obtain various equivalent Part 66 licence outcomes
• updates to type rating information to add new aircraft types to the type rated aircraft listings in Appendix IX of the Part 66 MOS.

A total of 55 responses were received to the consultation survey. Of the 55 respondents, 32 identified themselves as a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer (LAME), 18 identified as an approved maintenance organisation (CASR Part 145 AMO, or CAR 30 approval holder), 6 identified as an approved maintenance training organisation (CASR Part 147 MTO), with 23 respondents identifying as an aircraft maintenance engineer (AME).

Of the total number of respondents who made written submissions, 40 consented to having their responses/submissions made public, with 15 respondents requesting their responses/submissions to remain confidential.

 

Of the total number of responses received:

• thirty-nine respondents comments were in relation to the proposed adjustments to the stand-down periods after a failed Part 66 module exam
• fourteen respondents suggested further adjustments to the proposed amendments to the stand-down periods after a failed Part 66 module exam, or an alignment to the stand-down periods applied to pilot exams
• forty-one respondents expressed their support of the proposed amendments
• four respondent's comments were unrelated to the details of these amendments
• four respondents provided no comments.

Summary of feedback

Most comments received were in relation to the proposed adjustments to the stand-down periods after a failed Part 66 module exam, with the majority of respondents expressing their support of the proposal.

One respondent commented that the amendment would have a positive effect on those working towards a Part 66 licence, while another applauded CASA for reviewing and amending these waiting periods.

Other comments from respondents suggested the proposed changes don't go far enough and that CASA should consider further 'scaled' reductions in these stand-down periods. For example, one respondent suggested that in the event of an unsuccessful exam result, a student/candidate should have:

• 70 - 75% – ability to re-sit an exam the following day
• 60 - 70% – a stand-down period of 1 month
• 50 - 60% – a stand-down period of 3 months
• 50%> – a stand-down period of 6 months.

Furthermore, to boost a candidate's chance of success on their 3rd attempt of an exam, the respondent suggested a requirement for re-training prior to taking the exam.

Some respondents commented that there should be no stand-down periods at all after a failed Part 66 module exam, to align with pilot exam requirements, or other variations on the theme that if an applicant was close to the pass mark, then the applicant should be allowed to resit the exam the next day.

Other respondents offered various suggestions on this topic including that CASA should enable open book exams and permit subject exams, where a student could sit an exam at the end of each subject within a module, rather than at the end of a complete module.

Regarding feedback on the other proposed changes, most respondents expressed their support of the proposals. In addition, some respondents also identified a few minor errors to existing information, which CASA will address in the final published version of the Part 66 MOS.

Based on the comments received, the majority of which were supportive of the proposed changes, CASA will proceed with the proposed amendments to the Part 66 MOS, with some changes as described below.

CASA will adjust the proposed stand-down periods to incorporate a combination of the industry suggestions to provide further relief for applicants. Specifically, CASA will remove the stand-down period (currently 90 days) for a first failed sitting of a module exam; this would apply for each module. Any subsequent failed attempts, would incur stand-down periods as consulted, i.e. a second failed attempt would incur a stand-down of 30 days (down from 90 days), and a third failed attempt would incur a stand-down of 6 months (down from 12 months) and reset the stand-down cycle. CASA considers this an appropriate arrangement that balances the need to maintain the necessary high standard of knowledge and skills required to be a LAME, with appropriate improvements that reduce timeframes and minimise disincentives for prospective LAMEs in a way that would not have an adverse effect on LAME knowledge and skills standards.

In relation to comments suggesting that the Part 66 module exams should be subject to the same arrangements as the Part 61 pilot licensing exams, CASA notes that the Part 61 rules include additional requirements, such as a 2 year sliding period within which all exams must be completed successfully, stand down periods that commence after 3 failed attempts, and that an applicant who has 4 failed attempts must provide a submission to CASA before they are permitted to attempt the exam again. Considering all these requirements, CASA does not propose to adopt the Part 61 pilot licensing exam arrangements for Part 66 LAME licensing exams.

Due to updates being required to CASA's exam provider's online examination booking system to accommodate the proposed adjustments to the stand-down periods after a failed Part 66 module exam, CASA advises there will be a delayed commencement date for the revised stand-down periods. CASA will set the commencement provisions such that the revised stand-down arrangements can be made available to industry as soon as the necessary implementation arrangements are in place.

The other amendments, including the type rating updates, will commence after making and registration of the MOS amendment.

The Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR) sought feedback from airspace users about a proposed preliminary airspace design to support the introduction of controlled airspace around Ballina.

The proposed airspace design aims to safely accommodate continued growth of air traffic in the Ballina region.

The consultation period ran between 29 July and 25 August 2024.

About this consultation

The consultation posed questions to determine whether the proposed airspace design is fit for purpose considering the variety of operations that occur within the airspace in the vicinity of Ballina.

All local airspace users including flying schools, aero clubs, commercial operators, recreational and sport aviation as well industry bodies were encouraged to respond.

A total of 55 responses were received from a wide variety of airspace users including airlines, aerial work operators, flight training, air transport licence holders, commercial licence holders, private/recreational pilots and sports aviation pilots.

Ninety percent of the responses received were from fixed wing operators, 7% from rotary wing operators, with the remainder being remotely piloted aircraft or other airspace users.

Of the total responses, 22% nominated Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) as their primary flight rules, 41% indicated Visual Flight Rules (VFR) only and 37% identified both IFR and VFR or elected not to answer.

Air transport pilots, commercial pilots and chief pilots represented 28 (50%) of the total submissions. This included 4 who described their primary role as both air transport and commercial or chief pilot. There were 25 responses (48%) from those who identified as recreational or private pilots, including 4 who also nominated as air transport or commercial pilots.

It was equally common that recreational and commercial drone operators described their primary activity as a combination of commercial and private operations.

Safety managers, air navigation service provider staff and student pilots also provided responses.

Summary of feedback

Responses received generally supported the proposed airspace design as well as the principles applied in developing that design. However, the following matters were raised for consideration:

• safety and operational efficiency
• impact on VFR operations
• access to controlled airspace for recreational and sport aviation users
• effect on training organisations
• recommended changes to the design.

Safety and operational efficiency

Responses received indicated support for the establishment of controlled airspace in general, citing enhanced safety, particularly for air transport operations. Some responses included suggested modifications to step heights for better aircraft descent profiles and assurances regarding the surveillance and radio coverage.

However, there was a general sense throughout the survey that some airspace users were being excluded and might therefore be forced into less than desirable regions outside controlled airspace (OCTA).

Impact on VFR operations

While there was support in general from the VFR flying community for the establishment of controlled airspace, several themes regarding the impact on VFR operations emerged. These include:

• the potential difficulties in navigation OCTA considering the high terrain in the region
• strong preference for VFR lanes
• the establishment of VFR approach points.

Access

A significant number of respondents commented about access to controlled airspace for recreational and sport aviation users. The core theme is that current access to the airspace should be retained to the greatest extent possible, recognising that the introduction of controlled airspace will necessitate some changes.

Training

Some respondents raised the impact on the training organisations that occupy the airspace, particularly the potential adverse effect caused by the establishment of controlled airspace. As an example, lower altitude limits could pose risks due to insufficient recovery altitude when operating below controlled airspace during certain training manoeuvres.

Pushing training activities to the north of Byron Bay to remain OCTA was also specifically voiced which has efficiency implications as well as potentially creating congestion due to constraining the airspace available for all training organisations.

Other recommendations

Some responses contained suggestions to adjust the airspace design including step heights and lower limits.

Recommendations include extending certain steps westwards and eliminating others to simplify airspace design and enhance the safety of descent paths. Comments around the number and complexity of the control area steps were also provided. The airspace in the vicinity of Tyagarah and Lismore attracted special interest regarding the proposed lower levels.

Next steps

We received many responses with suggestions intended to enhance safety, operational efficiency and equitable access.

In addition, we received feedback raising concerns about impacts on VFR operations and flight training, terrain clearance, controlled airspace constraints during training manoeuvres, the receipt of clearances, CTA step design, and assurances that the current access to the airspace is preserved.

Key among those suggestions were the introduction of instrument departure procedures at Lismore, adjustments to the airspace steps in a variety of locations as well as leaving the Class C step altitude above Tyagarah at its current level. These modifications are being included into the preferred design.

Airservices Australia consulted the local community about the proposed changes from 29 July 2024 to 8 September 2024. We are working with Airservices to consider all feedback received from both industry and the community and what additional changes should be incorporated into the preferred design. 

We will consult on the preferred design in November 2024 on the CASA consultation hub. This will coincide with the next stage of community engagement being led by Airservices.

The team at CASA’s Flight Safety Australia magazine sought feedback from print and online subscribers to gather information on whether they are happy with the content and safety information provided in the magazine.

The survey period ran for one month between 27 June and 25 July 2024.

The survey asked all readers to rate how strongly they agree with specific statements on how the magazine has improved their awareness of aviation safety. There were also questions specific to the print magazine, including whether the magazine is value for money and if it features a good range of topics. 

We also asked open-ended questions on what readers like most about the magazine and what they think we could improve.

All print and digital subscribers were invited to provide feedback. There was also an opportunity for people who do not currently read the magazine to comment on certain topics.

We received 579 responses from readers across a variety of backgrounds in the aviation industry. Most respondents (60%) fly as recreational or private pilots, 21% are aircraft owners or in general aviation, and 16% are commercial pilots.

Summary of feedback

Overall, the feedback from readers was positive:

• 96% agree they have learned useful information on aviation safety from reading Flight Safety Australia
• 87% say it has influenced them to become safer in their aviation role
• 96% would recommend it to other people in the aviation industry.

Readers enjoy the educational value provided by the magazine especially the case studies, close calls, incident reports and quizzes. They also like the safety focus of the magazine and how that comes through in personal stories and articles with industry expert contributions. The magazine provides a good range of topics and is presented in an easy-to-read format.

When asked if there is anything the magazine could do better, many readers said there was nothing that could be changed and to ‘keep up the good work’. While the magazine does get a lot of things right, some readers suggested areas for improvement.

Accessibility 

Some readers would like to see the magazine return to being free for the aviation industry. This would be especially useful for new or student pilots who can learn from the educational focus of the magazine.

Content suggestions 

Readers would like to see more content aimed at student or low-time pilots, maintenance engineers, as well as commercial and cabin crew. Other topic suggestions include human factors, safety culture, sport and recreation such as gliding and paragliding, and drones. Readers enjoy articles with a technical focus which could include operational procedures, dealing with air traffic control, or upcoming regulatory changes.

Overall, many readers requested that the magazine continue to be produced as a printed publication as it’s easier to read and share with others.

See the full report for a breakdown of all the data and see what people had to say in the published responses.

We have read all comments and feedback and as a result:

• we have compiled a list of content and topic ideas for future publication
• we will actively look for more content relevant to maintenance engineers and others in the industry
• we are working with our design team to review some aspects of the print edition such as the use of dark backgrounds and light text (some readers said it makes articles harder to read)
• we will continue to offer a range of discounts, incentives and rewards throughout the year for new and existing print magazine subscribers.

Finally, we have reviewed the suggestion that the print magazine should be free. The magazine has a long history across the Australian aviation industry from when it was provided free to all aviation reference number (ARN) holders. We understand this was a well-loved initiative however the large cost resulted in the eventual withdrawal from print. Asking readers to pay a subscription fee allows us to continue providing this important safety education tool in print while ensuring a high-quality product. We also make sure all the stories from the print edition are free to access online at flightsafetyaustralia.com (as well as bonus online only content such as videos, animations and audio stories).

Thanks again to the 579 people who took the time to complete the survey. For those who didn’t, we are always open to suggestions. You can contact us any time.

The Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR) sought feedback from airspace users via a CASA Consultation Hub Survey seeking stakeholder feedback on the design concept of establishing Class C and Class D airspace in the vicinity of Ballina aerodrome.

About this consultation

Airspace around Ballina Airport will be controlled by air traffic controllers from 2025 as CASA and Airservices Australia move to develop services to accommodate the airport’s growth.

This follows an airspace review of the Ballina region in 2022. This review included extensive feedback from industry and subsequent discussions with Airservices Australia on timing for the establishment of controlled airspace and air traffic services.

Responses were received from a wide variety of airspace users with airlines, aerial work operators, flight training, air transport licence holders, commercial licence holders, private/recreational pilots, sports aviation pilots and air navigation service provider staff providing responses. 

Summary of feedback

The comments overall supported the concept of establishing Class C and Class D airspace volumes. However, some favoured Class C solely citing concerns about a perceived reduction in safety comparatively where Class D is established rather than Class C. Many responses engaged in a detailed discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of implementing Class C and Class D airspace in the Ballina region. The common issues, questions or suggestions were around:  

• Safety and Operational Efficiency
• Impact on VFR operations
• Equitable access
• Cost to airspace users

Next steps

The feedback received will help us to finalise the draft airspace design of the Ballina region with Airservices Australia.

The full airspace design of the Ballina region will be published for feedback in the coming months.

To be notified of any future consultations, you can subscribe to our consultation and rulemaking mailing list.

This consultation asked people for feedback on a new draft multi-part advisory circular (AC) on all-weather operations (AWO) at aerodromes. This multi-part AC is intended to update and replace existing AC 139-19 v1.0 - All-weather operations at aerodromes. The consultation period ran from 13 February to 12 March 2024.

About this consultation
The original AC 139-19 was issued in May 2016. It cross-referred extensively with the version of the Part 139 Manual of Standards (MOS) (Aerodromes) in use prior to the post-implementation review of Part 139 of CASR. With the release of a new and current Part 139 MOS, much of that cross-referencing became invalid.

To ensure accuracy and relevance, we reviewed the AC and updated the cross-referencing. We also made some small changes to ensure that the AC provided guidance to assist operators of non-controlled aerodromes that support AWO.

The consultation asked respondents to give feedback on the new AC to ensure proposed guidance is suitable, clear and will work as intended.

In total, there were 9 respondents to the consultation ranging from the national air navigation service provider – Airservices Australia, the Bureau of Meteorology, a specialist organisation in airport operations, staff training and management, an instrument flight procedure specialist and several individuals. Of the respondents, 5 consented to having their responses made public and 3 requested their submissions be confidential.

Summary of feedback
Three respondents provided detailed submissions. These submissions included feedback about unclear or inconsistent advice within the document, insufficient coverage of meteorological aspects, and references that appeared to oblige operators of non-controlled aerodromes to support AWO. The submissions from these respondents together with CASA's feedback/disposition are separately attached to this summary of consultation (SOC).

A respondent said CASA should provide all-weather operating minima specific for helicopters. These minima should recognise the unique capability of helicopters (* see below) compared to fixed wing aircraft, and allow helicopters to fly to lower minimums and have less minimum visibility requirements.

One respondent said the standards should allow a local competent observer for example, a town fire service, ambulance, police, or grounds person to be appointed to record automatic terminal information service (ATIS)-type information to be transmitted on a common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF). Another expressed concern about occurrences of departures and arrivals at uncontrolled and uncertified aerodromes in conditions well below the IFR minima. The respondent said the AC should stress that the AC guidance does not imply an ability to use an alternative set of criteria for unauthorised operations.

Finally, a respondent recommended that the AC includes guidance on instrument flight procedure design aspects relevant to AWO.For example: Lower operating speeds and ability to descend more slowly.

* For example: Lower operating speeds and ability to descend more slowly.

Next steps
We appreciate the feedback provided by respondents. For the detailed submissions, we included Annexes (* see below) to this SOC with those submissions and our response or disposition against each specific comment. We have also assessed all other responses to this consultation.

As a result of feedback, we have made a number of changes to the AC. In particular, we included guidance on meteorological and instrument flight procedure design aspects relevant to AWO. We have also clarified the guidance for aerodrome operators, particularly of non-controlled aerodromes, particularly to identify when the AC has relevance (for example when an aerodrome has an instrument flight procedure or is supporting take-off operations in visibility conditions less than 800 m).

Regarding the comment about appointing local competent observers to record ATIS information or equivalent, we consider that provision already exists through the UNICOM standards in Chapter 22 of the Part 139 MOS. However, we have added guidance within the AC in the section on aeronautical information to ensure this is recognised.

Concerning pilots conducting unauthorised operations in poor weather conditions, we have reviewed the AC and believe it does not encourage deviation from flying regulations or from safe flying practices. Accordingly, we believe no changes are necessary.

We now believe the AC will be fit for purpose  for providing best-practice guidance on AWO. Our next steps will be to finalise the draft AC and to publish it at the earliest opportunity.

* Annexes:
A.  Airports Plus submission with CASA response.
B.  Airservices Australia submission with CASA response.
C.  Bureau of Meteorology submission with CASA response.

The Part 101 Manual of Standards (MOS) consultation was open for public consultation from 1 to 28 February 2024. The consultation sought feedback on:

• proposed Chief Remote Pilot Licence (RePL) Instructor (CRI) framework
• improved standards
• transitional requirements
• other minor amendments.

We received 14 submissions from a variety of remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) training organisations and operators.

About this consultation

We are proposing to amend the Part 101 MOS to provide:

• more fit-for-purpose standards
• flexibility within the RePL instructor qualification framework
• clarity of the requirements for RPA operations near aerodromes.

Feedback on these proposed changes was sought including:

• implementation and consequential matters
• impact to training organisations and their personnel
• any other issues that may arise from these amendments.

This consultation has now closed.

There were 14 responses. Nine respondents consented to CASA publishing their feedback, while 5 requested their submissions remain confidential.

The responses represented the remotely piloted community across: RePL training organisations (8), Remotely Piloted Aircraft Operator's Certificate (ReOC) holders (3), and RePL pilots/instructors (1), while 2 respondents marked themselves as ‘other’.

Eleven respondents stated they are representing an organisation, while 3 respondents identified as personal views.

Summary of feedback

In assessing whether industry agreed the proposed changes will benefit RePL training organisations and their personnel, 8 respondents expressed agreement, while 4 disagreed, and 2 respondents chose not to provide a response.

Feedback focused on issues relating to RePL training regulations specifically raising concerns regarding RPA global positioning system (GPS) requirements and advocating for transparent revisions to the syllabus. Recognition of overseas training providers was also highlighted.

Training organisations expressed concern that the introduction of the CRI position would impact resources due to internal changes and alterations required to manuals and training materials. While some respondents believe they already meet the requirements, others anticipate significant increases in workload. Three respondents expressed intent to nominate someone other than the organisations CRP for the CRI position.

We appreciate the valuable contributions made by industry and acknowledge the significance of the feedback to inform and shape the consultation process.

We intend to implement the introduction of the CRI position, along with the other proposed amendments consulted in CD 2401US - Proposed Part 101 Chief Remote Pilot Licence Instructor and other matters with the following changes:

Extended commencement date

Based on stakeholder feedback, we will provide RePL training organisations more time to prepare for the changes.

Commencement of the introduction of the CRI position is to be delayed to 10 July 2024.

The additional time will assist RePL training organisations to identify and review:

• qualification and experience requirements
• potential CRI candidates
• operational documentation requirements and amendments.

Alignment of deemed CRI requirement dates

We will simplify transition arrangements and align the deemed CRI qualification transition date to 10 January 2025. A person that is the deemed CRI will be required to hold qualifications and experience as prescribed in subsection 2.29A(3) of the amended Part 101 MOS by 10 January 2025.

Alternate qualifications recognition

We will also introduce an amendment to provide flexibility for us to assess and approve a person who does not hold the qualifications prescribed in paragraph 2.29A(3)(c) of the amended Part 101 MOS, based on their alternate qualifications and experience.

Next steps

We are committed to working with industry stakeholders to provide clarification on various aspects of the proposed changes, including:

• timeline of changes
• qualification requirements
• the assessment process for those involved.

We will communicate this information with training organisations and RePL holders and provide guidance.

We will consider incorporating a work program review that will be aimed at clarifying the proposed regulatory structure for RePL training and will have a focus on establishing clear standards and reassessing the syllabus.

Summary of consultation on SPC 2319US - Proposed Part 101 MOS - Chief RePL Instructor assessment fee

The Civil Aviation (Fees) Regulations 1995 are the regulations for charging all of CASA's cost recovery activities. For this proposed fee item, 24.12  ties the service fee to the granting of an approval under a Manual of Standards (MOS), in this case under proposed paragraphs 2.29A (2)(c) and (4)(c) of the Part 101 MOS.

The regulatory fees are either a fixed amount or have been set at an hourly rate to reflect the cost of CASA's personnel or systems that are required to deliver the services or activities.

CASA engaged broadly with industry for feedback on the proposed $623 Chief RePL Instructor assessment fee. Notification of the consultation was published in the CASA Briefing newsletter, on social media, and the CASA website. A total of 83 industry stakeholders accessed the consultation CASA's Consultation Hub while the consultation was open, from 6 December 2023 to18 January 2024.

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

About this consultation

The aim of this consultation was to provide operators and industry an opportunity to raise any concerns regarding the proposed regulatory fee. This consultation has facilitated CASA to understand the potential impact that this proposed fee may have on an individual or their operation.

CASA received 14 responses. Nine respondents consented to having their feedback published, while the remaining requested their submissions remain confidential. The responses represented a broad cross section of the remotely piloted community including RePL training organisations (4), Remotely Piloted Aircraft Operator's Certificate (ReOC) holders (3), RePL pilots/instructors (5) and Commercial Pilot Licence and RPA accreditation holders (2). Five respondents stated that they were representing their organisation, while nine were personal views on the proposed fee.

CASA appreciates the contributions made by respondents and acknowledges that their feedback has been beneficial to the consultation process.

There were 83 industry stakeholders who accessed the consultation on CASA's consultation Hub. Of those stakeholders, 17% provided responses.

Of the 14 respondents, 6 supported the proposed fees, one respondent was neutral, and 5 respondents opposed the concept  of fees. Concerns raised included existing charges for ReOC holder renewals, the time needed to undertake the task to process a Chief RePL Instructor assessment, and whether there was a yearly charge to be imposed. These concerns will be addressed in further consultation documentation. Two other respondents disagreed with the fees but did not state their reasons.

The Australian Government’s overarching cost recovery policy is that, where appropriate, non-government recipients of specific government activities should be charged some or all the costs of those activities.

The proposed fees were developed in accordance with the Government Cost Recovery Policy and guidelines. The cost estimates were mapped with a subject matter expert and are the direct cost for a proficient officer to assess a Chief RePL Instructor. Included in this costing is an indirect overhead for system usage and corporate costs. To allow for better industry certainty, it was deemed appropriate to charge a fixed fee.

For existing RePL training organisations that wish to nominate a CRI from the proposed commencement date of the proposed introduction of the CRI position, CASA will be waiving fees for a twelve-month period from the commencement date.

Next steps

As the related CRI application and volume data becomes available, we will review and address assumptions on the fees—this is consistent with the Australian Government Charging Framework. Based on the feedback received from the Technical Working Group (TWG) and industry, the fees do not pose any significant concerns.

 

Between 6 November and 26 November 2023, we sought feedback on the draft legislative instrument Proposed amendments to Civil Aviation Orders (CAO 95 Series) - Gyroplanes and other measures. The consultation addressed proposed changes to the 95-series CAOs.

About this consultation
Relevant CAO 95 series legislative instruments were amended in December 2021 to support the commencement of the new flight operations regulations. The principal aim of the proposed 2023 changes was to ensure Part 149 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR) (Approved self-administering aviation organisations) and the CAOs function correctly after the end of the Part 149 transition period on 1 December 2023.

Additional feedback was also sought on other minor changes to add clarity and ensure consistency with certificate of airworthiness provisions of Subpart 21.H of CASR.

In total there were 18 responses to the consultation. Of the respondents who made written submissions, 11 consented to having them made public and 7 requested their submissions be confidential.

Most responses received were from light sport aircraft, lightweight aeroplane and ultralight aeroplane owners, operators or pilots. Five of the responses received were from gyroplane owners, operators, or pilots. One respondent identified as a pilot of GA aeroplanes licensed under Part 61 of CASR.

Summary of feedback

Issue 1: ASAO administration of gyroplanes
Eight respondents agreed with the proposed amendment to CAO 95.12 and CAO 95.12.1. One respondent agreed with the proposed amendment with changes and 3 were undecided or noted it is not in their area of expertise. Two respondents disagreed with the proposed amendment based on general safety and the classification of gyroplanes. The former being of the view that operation of rotorcraft in the gyroplane class should not be permitted at all, the latter stating that the CAO changes were introducing an additional layer of bureaucracy and that gyroplanes should be considered light sport aircraft (LSA).

CASA's response
While there were a few responses which disagreed with the proposed amendments, overall, the proposed amendments that facilitate Part 149 ASAO administrative oversight of gyroplane operations were supported by most respondents.

In relation to gyroplane operations generally, this class of rotorcraft has been safely operated in Australia for more than 4 decades under the oversight of a CASA-approved sport aviation body. The organisation that administers sport and recreation gyroplane operations has satisfied all the criteria for the issue of a Part 149 ASAO certificate and was issued a certificate on 29 November 2023.

In relation to LSA gyroplanes, gyroplanes that meet the LSA requirements of Part 21 of CASR are eligible for a special certificate of airworthiness issued under that Part, irrespective of whether they are under ASAO administration. Operation of an LSA gyroplane that is not registered on the Australian Civil Aircraft Register (and operated by a Part 61 gyroplane licence holder) can only be conducted under the administrative oversight of an ASAO.

 

Issue 2: CASA's ability to approve persons to conduct initial flight inspection
Eleven respondents agree with the proposed amendment to CAO 95.55. Three were undecided or considered this not their area of expertise and 3 respondents did not answer this question. One respondent disagreed with the proposed amendment.

CASA's response
The proposed amendment to CAO 95.55 reinstates CASA's ability to approve a person to conduct initial flight inspections. It reinstates the previous alternative mechanism in circumstances where the administering sport aviation body, including an ASAO, is unable to do so.

In relation to the single response that disagreed with the proposed amendment, that response reiterated the LSA response mentioned in Issue 1 about gyroplanes. CAO 95.55 does not apply to gyroplanes.

 

Issue 3: Miscellaneous and minor editorial changes
Eight respondents agreed with the proposed amendment to make miscellaneous and editorial changes to the various CAO 95 series. Three respondents agreed with the proposal with changes, 4 remained either undecided or indicated that this is not their area of expertise while 2 respondents did not answer this question. For the respondents who either disagreed or agreed to the proposed amendments with changes, feedback received included:

• enquiries into the reasons and clarification of the proposed amendments
• other miscellaneous and editorial amendments.

CASA's response
While there were a few responses which disagreed with the proposed amendments, overall, they were generally accepted. Those responses that suggested changes were comprised of editorial changes or changes to technical requirements contained in the CAOs that were not proposed by this consultation. Issues identified in relation to the latter are the drafting of paragraphs 8.7, 8.8 and 8.10 of CAO 95.55. These will be addressed through an amendment to the CAO such that paragraphs 8.7 and 8.8 reflect more fully the policy intent of regulation 42U of Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR) and that paragraph 8.10 does not apply the restrictions of regulation 91.875 of CASR to type certificated ultralight aeroplanes. CASA will consider the other technical submissions in the development of the Part 103 Manual of Standards (MOS). As most responses supported the proposed changes, CASA is satisfied that the operation of gyroplanes under ASAO administration will continue to maintain an acceptable level of aviation safety.

 

Other issues: unrelated feedback
Several responses gave feedback to matters that were not asked in the consultation. While this feedback is relevant and valuable for industry, these responses are not specific responses to the questions in the consultation. Three responses commented on other parts of the legislation which was not a subject of this consultation.

Overall, respondents have supported the proposals. Under regulation 149.015 of CASR, all sport aviation bodies have been required to hold an ASAO certificate since the expiration of the Part 149 transitional regulations[1] on 1 December 2023. As a result, CASA has implemented the changes to the various 95-series CAOs. The revised instruments can be found at:

• Civil Aviation Order 95.4
• Civil Aviation Order 95.8
• Civil Aviation Order 95.10
• Civil Aviation Order 95.12
• Civil Aviation Order 95.12.1
• Civil Aviation Order 95.32
• Civil Aviation Order 95.55

CASA thanks the many highly qualified people and organisations contributing their time and thought to this consultation and acknowledges the feedback beneficial to the effectiveness of the consultation process.

[1] Subpart 202.GI of CASR.

We sought industry feedback between 27 October and 17 November 2023 on the proposed policy for a new Class 5 medical self-declaration scheme.

The proposed policy will allow private and recreational pilots to self-assess and self-declare without requiring a medical assessment if they meet fitness and eligibility requirements, complete and pass an online test and operate in accordance with specified operational limitations.

We received 849 responses and contracted an independent consultant to conduct the analysis. 

Feedback from the aviation and medical community highlighted the need for ongoing consideration of the appropriateness of the operational limitations as well as the safety and risk mitigations proposed.

A full summary of consultation can be accessed below.

From 9 February 2024, private and recreational pilots can now apply for a Class 5 medical self-declaration.

As this is the first of its kind in Australia, we are taking an iterative and initially conservative approach.

The scheme is based on comprehensive risk analysis and a careful examination of what other safety authorities do overseas. It includes operational limitations on what you can do when flying with a Class 5.

We will also conduct a post implementation review and consider some of the current exclusions and effectiveness of the self-declaration scheme as well as progress a Class 4 certificate that will create more operational flexibility with the involvement of a GP.

To support applicants and healthcare practitioners, we have developed an online training module and comprehensive guidance material.

Pilots can apply through the myCASA portal.

Learn more about the Class 5 medical self-declaration.

The proposed instrument (CASA EX105/23) — Part 105 (Parachute Operators and Pilots) Instrument 2023 was open for public consultation from 30 October to 13 November 2023. The consultation sought feedback on the proposed instrument that aims to resolve unintended consequences of Part 105 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR).

The instrument is intended to provide for the safe conduct of operations while minimising, and in some cases removing, compliance costs for parachuting organisations and industry that result from the regulations.

About this consultation
The consultation sought comments regarding the following proposed exemptions:

• For a person that provides a business or service for a parachuting activity (other than an activity involving the operation of an aircraft for a descent by a trainee or tandem parachutist), an exemption from holding an authorisation from a Part 105 ASAO to provide that business or service.
• For a person that provides Part 61 flight training or other training to a person who subsequently operates an aircraft used for parachute descents by parachutists who are not trainee or tandem parachutists, an exemption from holding an authorisation from a Part 105 ASAO to provide the training.
• For the operator and pilot in command (PIC) of an aircraft used for parachute descents by parachutists who are not trainee or tandem parachutists, an exemption from holding an authorisation from a Part 105 ASAO.
• For the PIC of a multi-engine aeroplane or a single-engine turbine-powered aeroplane that is being operated to facilitate a parachute descent by a trainee or tandem parachutist, subject to conditions, exemptions from the 10-hour flight time on type as PIC requirement in circumstances where the PIC:
  • is operating an aeroplane of that type under the supervision of an authorised pilot for the purpose of accumulating the required flight time

or

• • has accumulated the flight time in an aeroplane of that type under such supervision.

In association with the proposed exemptions, the consultation sought comments regarding the following proposed direction that prescribe conditions for the purposes of the 10-hour flight time on type exemption:

• Prescribe the circumstances in which the exemption applies.
• Prescribe the aeronautical experience required of supervising pilots and the ASAO-authorisation of those pilots.
• Requirement for the inclusion of safe conduct procedures (in the ASAO’s exposition) for the operation of an aircraft operated to facilitate a parachute descent by a trainee or tandem parachutist that involves pilot supervision.

In addition, the consultation sought comments on a proposed direction that contains conditions that would apply to parachuting descents from a helicopter, including requiring the PIC of a helicopter operated to facilitate a parachute descent by a trainee or tandem parachutist to have a minimum flight time of 10 hours on type.

A total of 13 submissions were received in response to the consultation. Nine of the respondents identified as jump pilot authorisation holders, 8 as aircraft owner/operators, 7 as parachute operators and 4 as an ASAO or prospective ASAO.

Exemption 1
In relation to the consultation question regarding the proposed exemption from holding a Part 105 ASAO authorisation, for a person operating a business or undertaking, who provides services or equipment not directly linked to the conduct of a parachute descent, 11 responses were received that supported the proposed exemption. Two responses were either undecided or did not answer the question.

The purpose of the exemption is to exclude businesses or undertakings that provide equipment or services that are peripheral to the conduct of a parachute descent such as aircraft fuel suppliers.

CASA response
CASA has implemented the exemption as proposed.

 

Exemption 2
In relation to the proposed exemption from holding a Part 105 ASAO authorisation, for a person who provides training in the operation of an aircraft, which skills and privileges may be used to facilitate a parachute descent by a parachutist, 9 responses were received in support of the proposal, 2 responses opposed the proposal, and 2 responses were either undecided or did not answer the question.

One respondent who opposed expressed a view that some formal parachute operations training should be implemented for pilot instructors.

CASA response
Authorisation of a person under Part 105 that conducts training for pilots of parachuting aircraft that are not operating as part of parachuting training operation is not required under the legislation in force before 2 December 2023. The proposal as consulted serves to preserve that position with the end of the Part 105 transitional regulations on 1 December 2023 by means of an exemption from the unintended consequence of the application of regulation 105.065 of CASR to such persons. The exemption ensures Part 61/141/142 flight training is not captured within the scope of Part 105 jump pilot training.

CASA has implemented the exemption as proposed.

 

Exemption 3
In relation to the proposed exemption from holding a Part 105 ASAO authorisation for a pilot operating an aircraft to facilitate a parachute descent by a parachutist, excluding trainee or tandem parachutists, 11 responses were received in support of the proposal, one response supported the proposal with changes, and one was undecided. The purpose of the exemption is to exclude the person who received the Part 61/141/142 flight training in exemption 2 from being captured within the scope of Part 105 activities, as the activity is associated with exercising Part 61 privileges, rather than privileges associated with a Part 105 authorisation.

The response that supported with changes expressed a view that all pilots should receive training in the operation of an aircraft operated for a parachute descent from a person holding a Part 105 ASAO-issued authorisation (a JPA Examiner).

CASA response
An ASAO authorisation to operate an aircraft that is used for a parachute descent that is not operating as part of parachuting training operation is not required under the legislation in force prior to 2 December 2023. The proposal as consulted serves to preserve that position with the end of the Part 105 transitional regulations on 1 December 2023 by means of an exemption from the unintended consequence of the application of regulation 105.065 of CASR to such persons.

The exemption ensures that the Part 105 does not inadvertently introduce a requirement that has not been explicitly consulted with the parachuting sector. While CASA recognises that there may be safety benefits associated with pilots, who are conducting parachuting operations that are not parachuting training, receiving training in the operation of an aircraft operated for a parachute descent from a JPA examiner, such a change is outside the policy scope of the proposed exemption instrument.

CASA has implemented the exemption as proposed.

 

Exemption 4 and 5
In relation to the 2 proposed exemptions (subject to conditions) from certain provisions of regulation 105.080 of CASR relating to the required flight time on type for the operation, in a parachute training operation, of a single-engine turbine-powered aeroplane or a multi-engine aeroplane while under supervision, 9 responses were received in support of the proposals. Two respondents were undecided or did not answer and 2 opposed the proposed exemptions.

The proposal provided an exemption from the 10 hour flight time on type requirement for the PIC in the following circumstances:

1. 1. Before they have 10 hours on type - provided they are under supervision of an authorised pilot.
   2. Once they have 10 hours on type accumulated as PIC, PICUS or as pilot under ASAO supervision – from the 10 hour PIC flight time requirement.

Both respondents who opposed the exemptions did so on the basis of the conditions attached to the exemption.

For the proposed conditions attached to the exemptions, 5 responses supported the conditions, one supported the conditions with changes, 3 did not answer or were undecided and 4 were opposed. All the respondents who supported the proposal with changes or opposed the proposal did so on the basis of the limit of 14 persons on board (POB) condition for the flight. In further consultation with CASA, the Australian Parachute Federation stated that they preferred the exemptions not be made if the 14 POB condition was not removed.

CASA response
The purpose of the 14 POB limit is to minimise the consequence of the risk of an ASAO supervising pilot failing to identify or respond to a developing hazard such that they can assume control of the aircraft in sufficient time (for an aeroplane piloted by a pilot under supervision) to ensure the safety of the aircraft and the persons on board.

CASA does not agree with removing the limit because it considers that it introduces an unnecessary increased consequence, for which no further mitigation is available and assumes the supervising pilot will, in all adverse safety events, be able to recognise and respond quickly and appropriately. The risk of that consequence being realised will be less for operations at MTOW once a pilot is more familiar with the aircraft and supervision of a pilot at the limits of the operating envelope can be conducted with greater confidence. Such supervision can be conducted once the pilot has 10 hours flight time on type.

With the agreement of the Australian Parachute Federation, the exemptions have been omitted from the instrument as made. This means that the alleviation from regulation 105.080 of CASR provided by the 2 proposed exemptions is not available. Consequently, supervision of a pilot with less than 10 hours of flight time on type, either as PICUS (within the meaning of regulation 61.095 of CASR) or as a pilot under ASAO supervision, in a parachute training operation (a flight involving a parachute descent by a trainee or tandem parachutist), is not permitted.

 

Direction: flight time on type - helicopters
For the flight time direction for helicopter pilots, where the PIC of a helicopter operated to facilitate a parachute descent by a trainee or tandem parachutist must have to have a minimum flight time of 10 hours on type, 11 responses supported the proposal and 2 were either undecided or did not answer.

CASA response
CASA has implemented the direction as proposed.

Next steps
Instrument CASA EX 105/23 was registered on the Federal Register of Legislation on 1 December 2023 for concurrent commencement with the Part 105 Manual of Standards (MOS) on 2 December 2023, after the self-repeal of the Part 105 transitional arrangements on 1 December 2023.

Other than the personnel fatigue management rules (required under Subpart 105.G of CASR) that are still subject to development, commencement of these instruments completes the Part 105 of CASR project.

We sought feedback between 24 October 2023 to 6 November 2023 on the proposed amendments to the Civil Aviation (Fees) Regulations1995 to include the Part 43 of CASR fees schedule.

The regulatory fees are either a fixed amount or have been set at hourly rate to reflect the cost of CASA's personnel or systems that are required to deliver the services or activities.  

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

About this consultation

The consultation was to provide operators and industry an opportunity to raise any concerns regarding the proposed regulatory fees. This consultation will help us understand the potential impact that these proposed fees may have on an individual or their operation.

We received 17 responses. Fourteen respondents consented to having their feedback published, while the remaining requested their submissions remain confidential. The responses represented a broad cross section of the aviation community including Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (11), CAR 30 approval holders (8), and pilots (8).

Summary of feedback

We appreciate the contributions made by respondents and acknowledges that their feedback has been beneficial to the consultation process.

There were 7,483 stakeholders consulted with a total of 0.2% responses received from Industry.

Of the 17 respondents, 2 supported the proposed fees, 3 respondents were undecided, with 12 respondents opposed to the concept with concerns ranging from impact of increased costs on smaller organisations, disadvantages to industry for example, struggle to attract new entrants prepared to work towards licenced level. Of note, from the 12 respondents, 5 responses were out of scope and concerns raised were of technical policy matters.

The proposed fees were developed in accordance with the Government Cost Recovery Policy and guidelines. The cost estimates were mapped with a subject matter expert (SME) for a proficient officer and were treated as a direct cost to undertake the activity. It was deemed appropriate to charge a fixed fee, if possible, to give Industry certainty of CASA fees. Regarding the mapping of times for an issuance of AMTC 3 and 4 the allocation of effort was variable, and the decision was that this was to remain at the hourly rate of $160. 

The costing for a renewal or variation of an Inspection Authorisation (IA) is $13 more expensive than an initial due to the required level of delegation sign off.

We will be waiving fees for existing CAR holders that wish to transition to an AMTC 1 and 2 or IA for a three-year period from the go-live date of Part 43 of CASR.

We appreciate the comments provided by the respondents to this consultation. We will review and refine any assumptions on the fees as the data becomes available which is consistent with the Australian Government Charging Framework. Based on the feedback received from the Part 43 Technical Working Group and industry the fees did not pose any major concern.

This consultation was opened on 26 September 2023 and closed on 24 Oct 2023. It asked people to consider a proposal to amend the TAWS fitment rules for Part 135 aeroplanes carrying between 9 and 13 passengers to allow the fitment of TAWS-Class B equipment with a visual terrain display (called a TAWS-Class B+) instead of the currently required TAWS-Class A.

CASA received a total of 17 submissions to this consultation. Twelve responses (70%) were from organisations or operators and 5 (30%) were from individuals. Eight respondents (47%) consented to have their comments attributed to them including publication on the CASA Consultation Hub.

Eleven respondents (64%) agreed that the proposed amendments achieved the policy aim. Two respondents (12%) agreed with the proposal with changes in subject areas that did not directly relate to the question asked by the consultation.

Four (24%) respondents disagreed with the proposal and provided commentary and suggestions, with all these comments concerning topics not canvassed by the consultation. There was no response received that indicated a preference for the existing policy of requiring TAWS A for these aircraft to be retained.

Feedback from those respondents who consented to having their responses published are at Appendix A.

Summary of feedback

Of the 11 respondents who supported the proposal, 9 did not provide significant commentary. One respondent supported the proposal and encouraged CASA to expedite the regulatory amendment process to avoid uncertainty amongst aircraft owners. One respondent supported the proposal and raised an issue concerning how the determination of a suitable visual display of terrain would be carried out. This constituted 64% support for the proposal.

One respondent who agreed with the proposal raised the issue of who would determine the compliance status of any visual display system intended to meet the requirements of TSO C151c, as this information may not be present in manufacturers data. CASA intends to publish advice to operators who wish to take advantage of the TAWS-Class B+ option how they can make this determination.

One respondent who agreed with the proposal mentioned that some operators may still require time to transition to the new TAWS rules. CASA considers that ample time has been allowed for in the transitional instruments and it is not intended to extend these deadlines.

Two respondents agreed with the proposal with changes. Of these, 1 respondent suggested that the requirement for TAWS for VFR operations was excessive and unwarranted and should be reversed. This commentary did not directly relate to the proposal.

CASA's position is that in order to maintain appropriate safety standards when allowing single pilot Part 135 operations carrying more than 9 passengers, CASA was advised by the ASAP and TWG that a suitable mitigator for CFIT risks was to mandate TAWS for all operations. CASA is not considering amending this policy position at this time.

One other respondent who agreed with the proposal with changes suggested that the existing 13-seat limit expressed in CASA EX97-22 should revert to 9 seats for all Part 135 operations. This commentary did not directly relate to the proposal.

CASA's position is that the overwhelming majority of the industry supported the concept of allowing the carriage of more than 9 passengers (in aircraft that were capable of this) in air transport operations under the Part 135 ruleset instead of the Part 121 ruleset due to the added compliance cost burden of the Part 121 rules. At this time, CASA is not considering amending this policy.

Of the 4 respondents who disagreed with the proposal, 1 suggested that CASA should review OEM certification levels, presumably with a view to requiring manufacturers to fit appropriate equipment. CASA has no ambit nor mechanism to influence OEM’s or foreign certification authorities with respect to aircraft equipment. CASA acknowledges the commentary provided by the respondent; however, considers that this suggestion is not feasible.

Another 2 respondents who did support the proposal provided commentary that CASA TAWS policy in general was excessively onerous and inappropriate. Some of this commentary demonstrated a lack of understanding of the intent and background of existing ICAO and other NAA TAWS policy and the operation of the CASA TAWS rules. One respondent suggested that CFIT accidents are correlated to the number of passengers carried and that this was the instigator for expanded TAWS requirements. One view was that the TAWS requirements should be related to the number of seats in the aircraft, not the number of passengers carried.

CASA regulations largely follow international practice where the TAWS rules operate to reduce both the likelihood of a CFIT accident (by mandating technical equipment requirements) and the consequence of such an accident should it occur (by setting upper limits of passengers on board). Previous consultations on the TAWS issue carried out in 2018 prior to the introduction of the FOR affirmed support for the CASA policy position as published in Part 135 of CASR.

CASA’s position on this matter is that the current consultation aims to seek approval for a proposal to refine the original rules and does not extend to contemplating that CASA amend its policy concerning TAWS fitment generally. CASA acknowledges the commentary provided by the respondents, however has no plans to further modify the TAWS rules.

One respondent who disagreed with the proposal suggested that the rules be amended to make piston and turbine powered aircraft with a seating capacity greater than 5 to be subject to the TAWS requirements. It should be mentioned that this proposal was raised in consultation with industry and the public prior to the introduction of the FOR as one of the options for the Part 135 rules and it was decided by CASA to not proceed with this alternative.

In relation to this matter CASA is in receipt of Recommendation 1 from the Coroner’s Court of Queensland findings in relation to the fatal accident at Lockhart River in March 2020 that states:

“The Civil Aviation Safety Authority to implement relevant regulation to mandate the fitment of TAWS for all small aeroplanes conducting air transport operations under IFR (and night VFR) where the aeroplane has a passenger carrying capacity of 6 or more regardless of whether the aeroplane is turbine or piston powered.”

CASA is reviewing this recommendation in line with its obligations and will be able to respond to this commentary when this review is complete.

As a result of the support for the proposal from this consultation, CASA will implement this proposal by amending the legislation. CASA will address the issue raised in relation to how the Visual Terrain Display requirements are determined by the operator and will publish appropriate guidance in due course.

The consultation Proposed modular licensing framework for aircraft maintenance engineers (CD 2309MS) was opened for comment from 14 September to 12 October 2023.

We asked people to provide comments on proposed amendments to the Part 66 Manual of Standards (MOS) to provide a modular licensing framework for aircraft maintenance engineers.

About this consultation

Since the introduction of Part 66 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR), CASA has received submissions from industry stakeholders indicating that the Part 66 licence pathways are too inflexible. Submissions called for a return to the regulation 31 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR) structure with licence categories that better suit the individual areas of interest and workplace needs.

Prior to this consultation, we consulted with the Part 66 Technical Working Group (TWG) on the technical details of the proposed modular licensing structure and In December 2022 we published a Discussion paper on Part 66 modular licensing framework for aircraft maintenance engineers (DP 2218MS).

Respondents generally supported a modular licence structure based on the existing Part 66 knowledge and experience requirements and using exclusions in order to expedite delivery of the intended benefits and outcomes.

This consultation set out the details of the proposed modular structure, including proposed amendments of the Part 66 MOS, for consideration and comment.

In total, there were 35 respondents to the proposed amendments. Most responses received were from LAMEs and AME/trainees, with 1 respondent identifying as having no industry or organisation affiliation.

Of the respondents who made written submissions, 31 consented to having them made public and 4 requested their submissions be confidential.

Summary of feedback

The majority of respondents supported the proposal in its entirety offering comments such as:

"…a great step forward"

"…positive impact"

"The modular licence will work very well for my current workplace."

"Appreciation goes to CASA for supporting the implementation of these amendments which will support the aircraft maintenance industry which is suffering due to the LAME shortage crisis".

Nine respondents who agreed with the proposals said that 2 years' experience was inadequate for a person obtaining their first AME licence. They suggested minimum times varied from 2∙5 to 3 years. The main reason given was the lack of maintenance practice and the "culture" exposure to lack of maturity.

CASA considers 2 years as an acceptable minimum experience requirement for a modular licence. In all cases, before a licence is granted, applicants are required to satisfactorily complete the relevant maintenance tasks to meet the competency requirements. CASA also notes that this proposal will not change existing minimum age requirements, i.e., an applicant for a licence must be at least 18 years of age at the time of application. The minimum age to be authorised by a Part 145 AMO as a certifying employee, remains at 21 years.

Additionally, the 2 years minimum experience meets the requirements of Annex 1, Operation of Aircraft to the Chicago Convention standard a licence with privileges restricted to either airframe and engine and aircraft systems and components, or avionics systems or components. The 2 year time period is also in line with similar EASA provisions and exceeds the FAA minimum standard.

Four respondents said that removal of exclusions needs to be simplified. CASA is working with the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts to receive policy approval to amend the regulations to provide for removal of exclusions using the Part 66 self-study provisions.

Nine respondents said that mapping to the national vocational education and training (NVET) structure is important. CASA is working with MTOs to agree a mapping of the NVET units of competency to the Part 66 licence modules.

One MTO responded saying that Module 11 should be broken into 2 examinations, with the electrical/instrument components examined separately. CASA has considered this in consultation with the TWG and it was decided to leave Module 11 intact to keep the number and the cost of examinations to a minimum and to allow for the expeditious making of the MOS amendments.

One respondent said that "positive sub-ratings" should be used instead of exclusions. CASA advises that positive privilege statements would require extensive redrafting of the regulations and the MOS, which would delay the intended outcomes. CASA will consider this issue with the TWG as a future initiative.

One respondent said we should:

"...stop making changes to an already terrible system. Go back to basics and a known proven method."

CASA advises that reverting to a previous licensing system is not an option contemplated in this proposal.

In view of the high level of support for the proposal, we will progress the proposed amendments to the Part 66 Manual of Standards and the associated implementation arrangements to provide modular licensing pathways via both self-study and Maintenance Traning Organisations (MTOs). We will also work with the Part 66 Technical Working Group and MTOs to finalise the list of competency units that will be required to be completed for each modular licence by applicants using the MTO pathway.

This consultation outlined the proposed amendments to Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 95.54 (Part 131 Recreational Activity and Specialised Balloon Operations) Instrument 2021 that would empower CASA to administer recreational balloon activities.

The Australian Ballooning Federation (ABF) currently administers recreational ballooning activities. The ABF do not wish to transition to become a Part 149 approved self-administering aviation organisation (ASAO) by the deadline of 2 December 2023. Therefore, CASA will assume the role of issuing private pilot authorisations and the oversight of private pilot training and operations.

About this consultation
This consultation was open for 2 weeks and closed on 25 September 2023. The consultation asked if the proposed amendments would empower CASA to effectively administer recreational balloon activities in place of the ABF. A draft of the CASA Recreational Ballooning Procedures Manual (CRBPM) was attached for information. The CRBPM is a repurposed version of the ABF operations manual v3.0 and sets out the syllabus of training, privileges and limitations for pilot authorisations ratings and endorsements. Other information about operations, maintenance and incident and accident reporting is also included in the CRBPM.

Twelve responses were received. Seven respondents identified as recreational balloon pilots, 3 as commercial balloon pilots, 4 as a balloon owner, and 6 as 'other' (respondents could nominate more than one category). Ten respondents offered their personal views and 2 submitted feedback on behalf of an organisation. Of the respondents who made a written submission 8 consented to having them made public, 3 requested that their submissions remain confidential, and one identified as a CASA officer.

Summary of feedback
There were no objections to the proposed amendments to CAO 95.54 that would empower CASA to administer recreational balloon activities. Most of the comments received were about omissions from, or amendments to, the CRBPM. CASA did not seek comment on the CRBPM at this consultation, but we will continue to work with the ABF on the content of the CRBPM until the handover.

CASA identified that a further amendment to CAO 95.54 was required so that the holder of a private pilot (balloon) permit issued by CASA could conduct balloon maintenance in accordance with Part 2 of Schedule 8 of CAR. This has been added to the amendment instrument.

As there were no objections to the proposed amendments to CAO 95.54 CASA has proceeded to make the instrument and it will come into effect on 2 December 2023.

We sought feedback between 17 May and 30 June 2023 on a proposal to establish standards for fatigue management for air traffic services (ATS) personnel.

We proposed changes to the Part 172 Manual of Standards (MOS) that would require an ATS provider to use a fatigue risk management system (FRMS). The standards for the FRMS would be consistent with the standards specified in Annex 11 to the Chicago Convention, but would include practical operating procedures and administering requirements based on existing standards within Civil Aviation Order 48.1 that apply to flight crew.

We also proposed complementary changes to the Part 65 MOS, which would set conditions on licence holders to the effect they must not begin to perform an ATS function if, due to fatigue, the holder is, or is likely to be, unfit to perform a task that the holder must perform for that function. Again, the proposed requirements were consistent with the requirements that already apply to pilots.

About this consultation

Airservices Australia (AA) - the national ATS provider - has used an FRMS since 2003. However, there has been no underpinning legislation, so AA's action was a voluntary undertaking.

Effective from 5 November 2020, ICAO amended Annex 11 to the Chicago Convention with new standards requiring States to have legislation for managing fatigue in the provision of air traffic control services. At the time the new ICAO standards came into effect, AA wrote to CASA expressing its intent to continue using an FRMS into the future and agreed to, as necessary, amend its FRMS to address any differences with the Annex 11 standards.

While AA's voluntary compliance would satisfy immediate safety requirements, the arrangement is not sufficient to demonstrate that Australia is meeting its international obligations to have adequate legislation. As a signature to the Convention on Civil Aviation, Australia has an obligation to adopt ICAO standards unless there is a compelling reason against such an adoption. Also, the lack of legislative authority limited CASA's ability to effectively regulate the provider's FRMS.

We consider fatigue among aviation personnel is a critical safety consideration and therefore considered it appropriate to introduce appropriate legislation. Summary of proposed change (SPC) 2303AS therefore asked two questions of respondents "Do you think the proposed fatigue management requirements in the proposed amendments to Part 172 will work as intended" and "Do you think the proposed fatigue management requirements in the proposed amendments to Part 65 will work as intended".

We received 17 responses - the majority of which were from Air Traffic Controllers expressing personal views - one response from a Part 121 air operator and one response from Airservices Australia.

Three respondents consented to having their feedback published, while the remaining requested their submissions remain confidential.

Summary of feedback

Proposal 1: Changes to the Part 172 MOS

Seven respondents agreed with the first proposal, with all providing feedback or recommendations for change. A summary of the feedback from those agreeing is as follows:

• The requirement for FRMS should be extended to technical support personnel - those covered under Part 171 of CASR
• The requirements for practical operating procedures should differentiate between the requirements for day shift work and night shift work
• Data gathered for the FRMS should be accessible to employees
• There needs to be assurances about the science used when developing an FRMS
• An FRMS must have a simple if possible automated process to log scheduled and actual work
• There are gaps in the provider's existing FRMS and it will be critical for CASA to routinely review the provider's FRMS and scrutinise risk assessment reports
• It should not be necessary for a provider to have a standalone FRMS manual, but instead it should be possible for the policy, procedure and documentation for an FRMS to be addressed or embedded with other forms of a provider's policy procedure and documentation.
• Maximum and minimum values for the practical operating procedures should not be hard limited and instead should allow variation
• As AA has had an FRMS for many years, it should not be necessary for the provider to undergo trial implementation approval
• It is essential for CASA to take a more active role in overseeing the ATS provider's FRMS as the existing system is not fit for purpose, has no easy reporting channels, does not provider for consultation for changes and currently unsatisfactory responses from CASA to confidential reporting.
• We need for CASA to assume oversight of FRMS as the non-regulated system has not been fit for purpose.

Six respondents disagreed with the first proposal. However, all but two respondents provided free text feedback that indicated satisfaction with the proposed standards or reflected concern or dissatisfaction with AA's implementation of FRMS.

A summary of this feedback is as follows:

• The requirement for an FRMS should be clearly laid out and should not be subject to change as a result of enterprise agreements
• A licensed controller should be able to measure their own fatigue as this is individual and not able to be reflected by standardised assessment.
  • Overtime is preventing the system from operating even more frequently at reduced capacity.
• The provider's current FRMS is flawed or not fit for purpose.
• The proposal to identify 'operational person' complicates matters and is not compliant with ICAO standards.
  • Standards should simply refer to 'air traffic controllers'
• The intent behind the change is sound.
• The ATS provider's governance of its FRMS is suspect.

Four respondents either didn’t provide feedback on the first proposal or indicated they were undecided or that the matter was outside their area of expertise. However, 3 of these respondents provided feedback and this is summarised as follows:

• AA should always proactively move to ICAO's standards
• The fatigue management standards for ATS personnel should be expanded to also include Part 171 (Aeronautical Telecommunications) personnel.
• Respondent had an unsatisfactory experience when dealing with CASA on the approval of a Part 133/138 helicopter operator's FRMS
  • CASA experts did not properly contextualise safety policy and fatigue science to suit the scale and complexity of an operator's operations or made incorrect assumptions
  • CASA did not recognise that the provider's existing, fit for purpose, FRMS did not provide a reasonable basis for an Appendix 7 FRMS
  • Respondent is concerned that ATS provider's will have a similar negative experience.

Proposal 2: Changes to the Part 65 MOS

Seven respondents agreed with the second proposal, with 3 providing feedback or recommendations for change. A summary of the feedback from those agreeing is as follows:

• There needs to be a mechanism for operational personnel to provide direct feedback to CASA
• The respondent's feedback against the changes to the Part 172 MOS apply equally to the changes to the Part 65 MOS
• The changes [as proposed] are necessary to align Part 65 with the changes to Part 172.

Six respondents disagreed with the second proposal, with four providing feedback or recommendations for change. A summary of the feedback from those disagreeing is as follows:

• The requirement for an FRMS should be clearly laid out and should not be subject to change because of enterprise agreements
• The respondent's feedback against the changes to the Part 172 MOS apply equally to the changes to the Part 65 MOS
• The proposal to identify 'operational person' complicates matters and is not compliant with ICAO standards.
  • Standards should simply refer to 'air traffic controllers'
• Concerned that the ATS providers has used incomplete data to justify using less people on console.
  • Concerned that the provider would not provide robust data while justifying their FRMS proposal.
  • Asserts that none of the people who collect and interpret the data have qualifications in data collection or data analysis.
  • However, the proposed changes themselves seem sound.

Four respondents either didn’t provide feedback on the second proposal or indicated they were undecided or the matter was outside their area of expertise. However, 2 of these respondents provided feedback and this is summarised as follows:

• Cannot comment on the pros or cons of the proposal,
  • But can say that if a topic is not contained within CASR/MOS it is subject to the whim of the provider - this is not a policy position that Australia should be proud of.
• 'My concern is more in the support of Part 172 rather than Part 65'.
• The fatigue management standards for ATS personnel should be expanded to also include Part 171 (Aeronautical Telecommunications) personnel.
• The respondent summarised an unsatisfactory experience when dealing with CASA on the approval of a Part 133/138 helicopter operator's FRMS
  • CASA experts did not properly contextualise safety policy and fatigue science to suit the scale and complexity of an operator's operations or made incorrect assumptions
  • CASA did not recognise that the provider's existing, fit for purpose, FRMS did not provide a reasonable basis for an Appendix 7 FRMS
  • Respondent is concerned that ATS provider will have a similar negative experience.

General feedback

Twelve respondents provided general feedback on the proposed changes. This is summarised as follows:

• ICAO expects member States to adopt the 2020 amendments, striving for the world's best practices should be the position Australia adopts.
• The ATS provider’s technical staff may have significant work hour and travel obligations that can lead to fatigue of these personnel. I encourage the inclusion of FRMS while the Part 171 Reg and MOS are being updated.
• Minimum required time off between shifts must be clearly mandated. At least 12 hours in all circumstances
• If ATC are responsible for their own fatigue management, then taking our feedback on FRMS trials and implementation should also be included.
• Previous changes to FRMS have resulted in more fatiguing rosters, because fatigue data was seemingly misrepresented, misunderstood, incomplete, or lacked a proper scientific process.
• These proposed changes will likely impact my ability to conduct overtime shifts which I enjoy and enables my airspace to remain at full capacity.
• Cementing the current FRMS will not protect controllers but entrench a poor tool that is fundamentally unfit for purpose.
• "What frequency are reviews of operational FMRS going to occur?
• What industry standard is CASA utilising when approving proposed FMRS from service providers?
• Ultimately this seems like a positive move towards reducing operational risk
• Airservices have historically used FRMS as an excuse to punish staff for not ceding rostering restrictions contained in employment agreements.
  • This has created an imbalance where staff find it difficult to manage work/life balance due to rosters yet when required for additional duty Airservices sign off on bogus risk mitigators to supress the problem.
• The proposed changes seems sound. Mandated breaks and maximum time plugged in are much better than ASA offers us now.
• Unknown how a regulated FRMS would integrate with an Enterprise Agreement system providing similar protections.
  • A regulated FRMS appears to be CASA and Employer developed/approved, not necessarily with employee input.
• The proposed changes aim to address the significant flaws in AsA's current FRMS and improve fatigue management for ATS personnel.
• Our experience with a flight crew FRMS shows that implementation requires considerable resourcing, data gathering, review and ongoing focus.
  • An FRMS for the ATS provider must be implemented in a way that is considerate of provider’s current resourcing challenges.
  • It is important to understand the impact that compliance and importantly, the process of becoming compliant, may have on aviation industry. 
  • The change management process will be particularly important to ensure continuity of Air Traffic Services are maintained throughout implementation."

We thoroughly reviewed the responses and feedback to this consultation, and the following summarises our response and intended course of action.

Concerning the feedback that subsection 4.08(1) should have separate maximum/minimum values for day shifts and overnight shifts, we are confident that the proposed requirement covers all types of work shifts. The maximum and minimum values required by section 4.08 of the proposed standards must be relevant for any time that a ATS function is performed. Accordingly, the section requires values to be based on scientific principles and knowledge (including well-established knowledge about circadian rhythms and the effects of night shift work), and to be subject to safety assurance and amendment processes as necessary. CASA is satisfied that the existing wording of section 4.08 is adequate to cover all situations (night and day) where ATS functions are performed. We also require the ATS provider to obtain approval before making significant changes to the FRMS including changes to maximum and minimum benchmark values.

Regarding the feedback about employees having access to FRMS data, we believe this is adequately addressed via section 4.07 of the proposed standards, which requires ATS providers to include mechanisms for ongoing involvement in fatigue risk management of management, operational personnel, and all other relevant personnel."

CASA does not believe it is appropriate to leave it to the individual to assess and manage their own fatigue. The proposed standards have complementary obligations on individual staff and provider for managed overtime. However, we are of the view that it is essential for the ATS provider to manage work practices and rostering to ensure that fatigue does not cause unacceptable risk to aviation safety. The proposed standards are consistent with existing Australian standards for other types of aviation personnel personal as well as standards specified by the International Civil Aviation Organization.

Concerning the feedback about a negative experience when engaging with CASA’s fatigue panel, we informed that panel. While it is not appropriate to respond about individual circumstances, each application for an FRMS approval is an opportunity to improve processes and procedures. We have successfully assessed several applications for FRMS approval since the new CAO 28.1 came into effect, and we would use the experience thus gained to ensure a fair and appropriate assessment of an ATS provider's application.

We have confirmed that the proposed standards are set in a way that allows FRMS policy, procedure and documentation to be embedded within or to be addressed by other forms of provider policy, procedure and documentation. This is also a clear requirement in paragraph 4.06(2)(b) for a provider’s FRMS to be integrated with the provider’s FRMS. However, CASA would expect whatever method used to address the requirements of an FRMS to distinctly mention its relevance and application to FRMS.

Regarding the feedback that standards should not specify outer or absolute limits, we agree that a maximum or minimum values within section 4.08 should be for benchmark or strategic planning and that the values would not represent outer or absolute limits. Accordingly, we have amended the proposed standards so that there is provision for variation from specified values, including the necessary actions required in the event of deviation.

We disagree that Airservices should be exempt from the trial process. The trial period provides an opportunity for Airservices to fine-tune and demonstrate that its Annex 11-compliant FRMS is operating effectively within a regulated environment. A trial period also allows shortcomings to be revealed and corrected without the need or compulsion for non-compliance action - which would be CASA's only option if Airservices has a final FRMS implementation approval. Accordingly, we intend to proceed with the original proposal.

We also recognise that implementing a requirement for a provider's FRMS to be approved (either as a trial or final implementation) at the onset of the new standards would cause Airservices to be immediately in breach of the standards. For this reason, we have amended the standards to the effect that the requirement for an FRMS has immediate effect however the requirement for approval is deferred until 1 September 2024. This provides lead time for Airservices to apply for a trial implementation approval."

Regarding the feedback about having a mechanism for operational staff to provide direct feedback to CASA. This mechanism already exists, either directly to CASA – including anonymously – using this web page https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/contact-us/report-concerns-about-aviation-safety or via the Australian Transport Safety Bureau’s REPCON system. Information so provided would inform CASA's engagement with the ATS provider on the relevant matter.

Regarding the feedback that the standards should simply refer to controllers instead of operational personnel, we chose that term to provide something that would apply to both air traffic controllers and flight service officers. The latter continue to be employed for ATS functions.

Regarding the feedback that CASA must routinely review the provider’s FRMS and scrutinise the risk assessment reports, we intend to conduct safety reviews based on assessed risk in accordance with existing CASA procedures. These risk levels are initially established and then reassessed at regular intervals. The proposed standards will require the ATS provider to operate under a trial FRMS for at least one year. At the conclusion of this time and only once the ATS provider has demonstrated the effective operation of its FRMS will CASA grant a full FRMS approval. Thereafter, reports and incidents relating to FRMS will drive CASA's review intervals.

We believe employee involvement in fatigue management matters is adequately addressed via section 4.07 of the proposed standards, which requires ATS providers to include mechanisms for ongoing involvement in fatigue risk management of management, operational personnel, and all other relevant personnel.

Regarding the feedback about including personnel involved in the provision of aeronautical telecommunications (Part 171 of CASR), we have asked the relevant CASA subject matter expert to consider this as part of the Post implementation review of that Part.

Next steps

Considering that the proposals are based on ICAO requirements and existing CASA standards for an FRMS and the overall positive response to the feedback, we believe it is appropriate to proceed with the proposed fatigue management standards.

Accordingly, we will finalise the changes to the Part 65 MOS and the Part 172 MOS proposed in this consultation but with small changes as identified in our response to the feedback.