[Peetwo]

Submission 65 - ALAEA

Via the RRAT inquiry webpages: 

Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Assocation (PDF 5585 KB)

Application of the Civil Aviation Act and is the legislative and regulatory framework underpinning CASA’s aviation safety management functions fit for purpose?

In short – No.

The main object of the Civil Aviation Act (the Act) is “to establish a regulatory framework for maintaining, enhancing and promoting the safety of civil aviation, with particular emphasis on preventing aviation accidents and incidents.” One of CASA’s main functions under the Act is “developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards;” and the Act was amended in 2019 to include a requirement for CASA to “consider the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community of the standards;” when doing so.

28 years ago a goal was set to create a three tiered aviation safety regulatory system. This was also a recommendation of the 2014 Aviation Safety Review. This goal seems as far away today as it at its inception.

Simultaneous regulations in place for the past decade

We have observed significant shortcomings in the legislative and regulatory frameworks particularly in relation to aircraft airworthiness and maintenance. A decade after the making and introduction of the Maintenance Suite of Regulations (Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASR) Parts 42, 145, 147 and 66) there still exists Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR) 30 and 42 relating to maintenance and licencing for a large sector of the aviation community particularly in the areas servicing rural and regional Australia. There are large sections of the General Aviation industry where the two sets of regulations overlap causing unnecessary confusion and uncertainty. The situation will become more convoluted with the proposed introduction of CASR Part 43, currently under development (and well over schedule) in an attempt to regulate the maintenance of General Aviation aircraft. Part 43 has been proposed to cover not only the maintenance requirements of the aircraft (I.e. what must be done and when) but also the requirements of organisations maintaining the aircraft, as well as the training and licencing of engineers.

These requirements are already catered for in both the CAR and CASR’s Part 42 (continuing airworthiness), Part 66 (engineer licencing), Car 30 and Part 145 (approved maintenance organisations).

As it stands the introduction of the proposed Part 43 will create multiple levels of standards and training for engineers who are essentially working on the same aircraft but in different operations classifications and will remove the requirements for qualifications for important specialist skills such as aircraft welding, composite repairs and Non-Destructive Testing. Ideally aircraft airworthiness, approved maintenance organisations, engineer licencing, and maintenance training should be found in the CASR’s only.

They are Parts 42 (continuing airworthiness), 145 (approved organisations) 66 (licencing) and 147 (training) supported by a Manual of Standards (MOS) and the appropriate supporting Guidance Material and Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC and GM). Clear and concise regulation should not need any additional material to explain its purpose or how to comply. Our criticisms of the Part 43 proposal have been magnified by the consultation process outlined later in this submission.

MTF...P2