[Peetwo]

Mythical reform: Part 138 yet another train wreck?

From CASA web pages on Part 138:

CASR Part 138 - Aerial work operations

Part 138 of CASR consolidates the requirements affecting aerial work operations that apply in addition to or in substitution for those required under Part 91. It also establishes the general standards for aerial work for both rotorcraft and aeroplanes.

Part 138 reflects CASA's policy that traditional aerial work operations will be classified, authorised and managed on the basis of the safety risk management of the activity being undertaken.

---

CASR Part 138 - History

Civil Aviation Safety Amendment (Part 138) Regulations 2018
Regulation made 6 December 2018
20 December 2018

---

Plus:


Project OS 10/26 - CASR Part 138 - Aerial work operations

CASR Part 138 is a re-establishment of the requirement for a dedicated set of operational regulations for aerial work operations. This project was born out of the consultation processes for the amalgamated CASR Part 133A and 133B project, where CASA and the industry recognised as a result of extensive changes and progress in the use of rotorcraft and aeroplanes in such activities that specific regulations would be required for this sector.

Objective

The Part will bring together requirements affecting aerial work operations that apply in addition to or in substitution for those required under Part 91 and will also establish the general standards for aerial work for both rotorcraft and aeroplanes. Further, Part 138 will reflect CASA's policy which envisages traditional aerial work operations will be required to be classified, authorised and managed on the basis of the safety risk management of the activity being undertaken.

 Which brings me to this tweet from AAAA CEO Phil Hurst yesterday:

Phil Hurst
@PhilHurst62

I suppose there are worse places to work...  in town for another CASA meeting to try and fix the CASR Part 138 trainwreck... #aviation

---

Followed by this reply - 

Fibre-Tech Australia
@fibretechaus·
8h
Replying to
@PhilHurst62

Interesting Phil who’s taking the lead and providing certified lifting equipment to AS/ISO standards.
And internal external restraint.

Also related was this recent post from Sandy:

Criticism of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) in regard to the implementation of new Part 138 dealing with charter flights is correct. 

CASA was tasked with a total rewrite of the rules over thirty years ago and last year, wrongly, boasted that it had completed this task. Around fifteen years ago, by CASA’s own figures, it had spent more than $200 million in an incredible make work process that continues today unabated. This is the modus operandi of a body that has no other direction or incentive because successive governments have abandoned responsibility for the proper administration of civil aviation in Australia, hence the three parts demise of what was once a strong and growing General Aviation (GA) industry.  

To date the total rules rewrite spend is unknown but thought to be closer to $500 million. New Zealand managed to rewrite their rules in a short time for around $5 million and their rules are largely fit for purpose and therefore they have a prosperous GA industry. 

CASA’s claim that changed community standards of safety demand new rules is spurious. The new licencing rules of Part 61, which, in conjunction with years of increased paperwork, CASA’s permission fee gouging and Parts 141/142 (new rules for flying schools) have destroyed hundreds of flying schools and their associated charter services. There was no community demand for changed standards and I defy CASA to procure such evidence that supports it’s fallacious contention. There’s no doubt that we all look for improvements which come with knowledge, prosperity and growth.  Now with the ubiquitous ability to communicate risk and reward, which can be readily assessed, our freedoms should be enhanced, not truncated by a self serving bureaucracy. 

CASA’s predations on GA are counterproductive to safety. Examples are the loss of experienced instructors and the mish mash of training rules between the low weight category and mainstream GA which bear directly on the recent problems of Soar Aviation, related pending class action and a plethora of similar cases festering in the background. 

In the regions and country areas the almost complete loss of light aircraft charter has led to under-the-lap private charters in a less regulated environment. Similarly for aircraft maintenance, the ever changing rules, unnecessary and expensive maintenance  imposts (eg., Cessna Special Inspections) and disincentives for the training of maintenance apprenticeships all conspire against safety. Inevitably making operations completely devoid of any official oversight more attractive at the margins. 

Where flying charter or private category is not available or too expensive then long and dangerous road trips may be the only alternative, provided the road is passable. 

This is the reality of GA in Australia, a scene of death by a thousand regulatory cuts and the loss thousands of jobs and hundreds of GA businesses, and, incredibly, the need to import airline pilots. Not to mention such debacles as the Mildura Airport saga, a manifestation of a thoroughly failed Commonwealth airports policy that made no provision for freehold availability, the obvious cornerstone for any successful businesses which are necessarily tied to a physical location. 

Not one more government inquiry into any facet of GA, such as the latest Senate Estimates variety, in a very long, almost continuous make work program of Government Industries, will make one iota of difference to this shameful state of affairs. The last great and hopeful example, the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (Forsyth Report) commenced in 2014 has seemingly sunk without trace. Thousands of hours of both paid and voluntary work, submissions and the salaries and fees of the officials employed, virtually all wasted. 

Parliamentary action is the only possible means to regrow this important segment of Australian life. Engaging with our MPs should be regarded as a duty, to inform, persuade and to encourage root and branch reform.

MTF...P2