[Peetwo]

CASA (some) AQON BACK??

It would appear that EWBs has cracked the whip (just a little bit) - Via the RRAT Supp Estimates 2023-24 webpage:

302.-CASA-Aviation-Safety-Advisory-Panels-ASAP-Technical-Work-Group-report-into-LAME-shortage.pdf

Senator Bridget McKenzie asked:
1. In response to Question on Notice 159 of the 2022-23 Supplementary Budget Estimates
you stated that the was no evidence that there are insufficient Licensed Aircraft
Maintenance Engineers, and only said that there were anecdotal reports suggesting delays
due to limited supply. This is in direct contradiction to the evidence in the Aviation Safety
Advisory Panel’s ASAP Technical Work Group’s second meeting report in 2020 which stated
that there is a shortage, especially in rural and regional areas. If there’s no evidence now,
what has changed in those three years?
2. Has CASA actually taken on board the work of the advisory group and implemented
recommendations from the working group to ensure that Australia has sufficient access to
LAMEs to support the aviation industry?
3. Why is CASA not acknowledging the evidence from the working group and admitting that
we do have a problem with LAME availability in Australia, and working with industry to find
a solution before we see more safety incidents as a result?
4. Has CASA engaged with other departments to try and improve training pathways for
LAMEs?
5. What is CASA doing to improve the number of LAMEs that are available to service
Australia’s fleet of planes?
Answer:
1. CASA’s response to Committee Question Number 159 (SQ23-003424) from the 2022-23
Supplementary Budget Estimates hearing was not saying that there was no shortage of
Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineers (LAMEs), but that all CASA has received was
anecdotal evidence. This includes the second meeting report of the Aviation Safety
Advisory Panel’s (ASAP) Technical Working Group (TWG) for maintenance personnel
licensing.

CASA is acting to help address the shortage of LAMEs through the development of the
modular licensing initiative. This initiative will make it easier for people to obtain a
licence or return to the profession after a long absence. It will also assist foreign licence
holders seeking a qualification to work in Australia.
2. Yes.
3. Refer to the answers to questions 1 and 2.
4. Yes.
5. Refer to the answers to questions 1 and 2.

303. CASA - Emergency service agency personnel allowed on ex-military aircraft

Senator Bridget McKenzie asked:

1. Does the regulation authorise the carriage of emergency service agency personnel on the
aircraft?
2. The people of New South Wales effectively own an ex-military Chinook helicopter along
with the 737 Fireliner, Marie Bashir and several smaller aircraft to respond to emergencies
within the state. During the 2022 floods impacting a wide area of Northern NSW, the NSW
Rural Fire Service requested the operator of their contracted Chinook at the time to support
uplift and delivery of vital supplies to members of the public stranded by flood waters. This
request was made to CASA under the relevant regulation available to authorise ex-military
aircraft to carry emergency response cargo. In order to reduce increased stress during times
of emergency response, would CASA consider pre-approval of the relevant authorisation
rather than waiting until a crisis has developed?
3. In overseas jurisdictions, and here in Australia, ex-military aircraft are a very important
element of the aerial firefighting capability required to protect the public during heightened
risk fire seasons over the coming years. Significantly, in the USA specialist support and direct
firefighting personnel are able to be carried on ex-military aircraft – why is this key
capability not allowed in Australia, yet I can go out today and book an adventure flight in an
ex-military jet that is up to 65 years old?

Answer:

1. The majority of the civil firefighting fleet are certified to civil airworthiness standards
and are approved to operate under Part 133 or 135 of the Civil Aviation Safety
Regulations. These aircraft can carry passengers including firefighters.

Highly modified aircraft that do not meet civil certification requirements, and ex-military
aircraft that are not designed to meet civil certification standards can be permitted to
operate for a particular special purpose operation, such as firebombing via a Restricted
Category Type Certificate (RTC).

All civil aviation regulators impose additional controls to mitigate inherent risk when
aircraft, including military surplus aircraft, are operated in a civil role. This includes
restricting people who can be carried on the aircraft to crew members, or a person who
performs an essential function in connection with the special purpose operation for
which the aircraft is certificated. Carriage of emergency service personnel purely for the
purposes of transportation is not permitted.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) utilises the same assessment criteria as the
FAA to certify military surplus aircraft in Restricted Category. This assessment criteria
applies internationally aligned controls to mitigate the risks associated with operating
these aircraft. The United States, Canada, and New Zealand all restrict the carriage of
people on military surplus aircraft.

CASA is reviewing the carriage of persons by non-air transport operators and is actively
consulting with stakeholders on this issue. This will include consideration of carriage of
persons on a restricted category aircraft. CASA needs to determine what alleviations
from the current rules can be applied whilst maintaining a level of risk that is acceptable
to all stakeholders, including firefighters.

2. In the case of the Chinook operated by NSW Rural Fire Service, this aircraft has been
certified by the FAA in Restricted Category to include transportation of cargo under
certain conditions. CASA would consider this cargo transportation role in any future
application received from NSW Rural Fire Service for CASA to approve operations using
the Chinook. CASA has powers to grant exemptions from compliance with requirements
of the regulations in exceptional circumstances, including emergency response. CASA is
confident that it has the ability to respond swiftly to facilitate such exemptions for
operators as the need arises, as it did with the Chinook operated by the NSW Rural Fire
Service.

3. Unlike Australia, in the United States an aircraft may be operated for certain purposes
by or on behalf of a state government entity as a public aircraft. Although public aircraft
operations must comply with certain general operating rules, including those applicable
to all aircraft in the National Airspace System, most other civil certification and safety
oversight regulations do not apply to their operation. Accordingly, many aspects of
public aircraft operations are not subject to FAA oversight. Under these arrangements,
oversight of the safe operation of a public aircraft operation is the responsibility of the
state government entity under whose auspices those operations are conducted, not the
FAA.

Without a public use declaration and the assumption of liability by the state government
entity, ground based firefighters are not able to be carried in Restricted Category aircraft
under the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) in the USA1
.
An amendment to the Civil Aviation Act would be required to introduce a comparable
system in Australia, subject to identifying an appropriate constitutional basis.
As noted in the answer to question 1 above, CASA is currently consulting with
stakeholders on the possibility of allowing firefighters to be carried on Restricted
Category aircraft in certain circumstances.

In the United States a bill has recently passed the house, that directs the FAA to within 18 months to produce
a rule that requires ground-based firefighters being transported to and from the base of a “wildfire” for
wildfire suppression to be categorised as “essential crewmembers”, thereby permitting their carriage in
Restricted Category aircraft. Notably this bill does not permit the carriage of ground-based firefighters in exmilitary aircraft that have been modified for firefighting. This Bill is now before the US Senate for review and
debate.

304. CASA - Drone incidents at airports

305. CASA - Drone incidents reported to CASA on 18 and 27 April 2023

306. CASA - Working conditions and staffing issues of CASA employees

308. CASA - Hire or reward practice

Senator Bridget McKenzie asked:

1. Are there any concerns around CASA’s test for ‘hire or reward’ is out of line with the
Standards and Recommended Practices of the International Civil Aviation Organisation and
other aviation jurisdictions in the world?
2.Was the introduction covered in the notices of proposed rulemaking and economic impact
statement?

Answer:

1. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s (CASA) interpretation of the concept of ‘hire or
reward’ closely aligns with the use of that concept, and similar formulations, by other
leading aviation countries and the International Civil Aviation Organisation.

2. The test of hire and reward was not introduced by the new flight operations regulations.
That concept had been part of the previous regulatory framework and the new
regulations did not alter its meaning.

However, the new regulations did make changes to the definition of the kinds of
passenger carrying operation which can be regarded as private operations. This meant
that some operations which had been conducted as a private operation under the old
regulations could no longer be conducted on that basis under the new regulations.

CASA published extensive guidance about these changes which led a number of
operators to approach CASA seeking exemptions to allow them to continue operating
flights as private flights. Given the significant number of operators effected, CASA
decided to issue an exemption to facilitate continued operation of these flights while it
reviewed the position further.

309. CASA - Process of filling Board appointments and the Chairs involvement

388. CASA - Freedom of Information Figures

391. CASA - Incidents mentioned in SQ23-003791

MTF...P2