[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.

Addendum: CASE Studies and Motherhood statements

Case Study 1. Eurocopter / Kawasaki BK117

The following is a real example of the system in practice.

The BK117

A Mechanical LAME with extensive experience on the Eurocopter / Kawasaki MBB-BK117
helicopter, which is used extensively in the search and rescue and for firefighting activities,
transitioned from the CAR 31 licence system to the Part 66 system with an exclusion against
certifying for the electrical systems. The BK117 was not classified as a complex helicopter
under CAR31 and did not require additional Type training to be carried out. Because it has
two engines CASA reclassified it as Large meaning, that Type training is now required.

The LAME enrolled in a TAFE exclusion removal course costing $3500 to have the electrical
exclusions removed from his basic licence. In effect this training was the equivalent of the
previous Group 2 electrical category licence and if it was attained under the previous
system, he would have been qualified to certify the electrical systems of the Bk117 and 18
other twin-engine helicopters with no additional training. However due to the
administrative reclassification of those helicopters, he was required to also carry out
approved Type training. At the time there were no “approved” training courses available. He
had already completed two equivalent courses run by the manufacturer of the helicopter,
however as the helicopter had never required CASA approved training under CAR31, the
manufacturer had never needed to have their courses approved. The approval process is
long and expensive and the opportunity for a commercial return for an approval is limited.

The LAME had also held a Maintenance Authorisation (MA) issued by CASA covering the
majority of the aircraft electrical system. The inability of the LAME to be able to meet the
new qualification requirements set by CASA in Part 66 meant that his employer was
required to contract in Avionic LAMEs to certify for the electrical work on the aircraft, even
though the work was completely within the skills set of the LAME in question.

The ALAEA made numerous representations on the LAME’s behalf, and eventually CASA
issued a new MA covering the electrical systems – in effect removing the exclusions.

However, an MA has restrictions – it restricts the holder to a single employer and they are
not allowed to certify for other people’s work as a normal LAME does. This means no other
engineers, including apprentices in the workplace, can obtain and record experience on the
aircraft.

So, on one hand CASA recognises he has the skills, training and experience to certify for
maintenance, but on the other hand, the regulations prevent them from issuing him a
licence reflecting that.

To this end the LAME made an application for an exemption to the regulations with respect
to the CASA approved Type training. This application costs several thousand dollars to make.

The application was submitted in May 2019, and in July 2019, it was indicated to him that
the exemption would be supported. It was eventually issued in January 2021, the process
taking 19 months. The regulations are too complex to grant him an exemption.

This is just for one helicopter – consider the costs for the other 18. Hundreds of thousands
of dollars in course fees, travel and business costs for the 2 years of additional training. For
no additional safety benefit.

Case study 2. Discriminatory regulations

This case study is about an ALAEA member who held a CAR 31 licence covering fixed wing
aircraft and helicopters including multiple helicopters reclassified from Group 19 under
CAR31 to “Large” under Part 66. The LAME moved from Australia around 2004 and worked
around the world in countries including New Zealand, the US and Angola on helicopters and
fixed wing aircraft and running his own maintenance organisation for a number of years
until returning to Australia in 2016

The LAME had successfully renewed his CASA licence a number of times in the period up to
2010. Unfortunately, in 2010 the licence application renewal process didn’t run smoothly
due to a number of factors and as a result the licence wasn’t renewed at the time.

In 2016 the LAME unsuccessfully attempted to apply for a new licence under Part 66 based
on the qualifications on his previous Australian licence but this was rejected as there was no
regulatory mechanism to allow CASA to refer to his previous Australian licence. He was
required to have his qualifications assessed by a 3rd party training organisation approved
under Part 147 (= $$$$) before CASA would issue a new licence. BUT because CASA had
reclassified the helicopters from Grp 19 to Large (Type rated) the 147 training school wasn’t
able to issue a certificate to CASA that included the helicopters previously covered by the
CAR 31 licence. Thus, the LAME was left with a new licence that wasn’t equivalent to the
one he held under CAR 31 and would be required to undergo expensive and extensive
training and travel merely to achieve what he had held 5 years earlier and had been working
on extensively in that same period under his US, Angolan and NZ licences.

The major irony here is had he held a foreign licence that listed aircraft type ratings and the
licence had expired, CASA would have been able to add those licences from the expired
foreign licence to a Part 66 licence without any additional training requirements.

CASA Regulatory Philosophy – A Motherhood Statement.6

CASA displays on their website their “regulatory philosophy”. This submission would like to
draw the Committee’s attention to philosophy number 2.

2. Mindful of the primacy of air safety, CASA takes account of all relevant considerations, including
cost

Although safety must always be CASA's 'most important consideration', this does not mean that safety
is the only consideration CASA takes into account when performing its regulatory functions and
exercising its regulatory powers. CASA is required to take all relevant considerations, including cost, into
account.

Where reasonable alternative approaches to the fulfillment of a regulatory requirement satisfy
applicable legal requirements and do not unacceptably compromise safety. 

CASA will readily entertain such alternatives if they are proposed, and accept them in the absence of
compelling reasons not to do so.

The examples in case studies 1 & 2 demonstrate clearly that the philosophy is simply a
motherhood statement with no effect in the real world.

In the LAME’s case in case study 1, reasonable alternate approaches have been put to CASA
to the extent that CASA have permitted the LAME to certify and release aircraft, they
support the issuing of an exemption because there is an absence of compelling reasons not
to do so, yet it took 19 months to finally issue the exemption.

In reality CASA could rectify the problem with a simple amendment of the Part 66 Manual of
Standards (MoS) identifying the helicopters in question and specifying the training required
(as they already do for aircraft such as the Air Tractor, DHC-4 and RUAG 228 which are large
aircraft by weight, yet classified as small aircraft for licencing).

Unfortunately, even a simple amendment requires CASA Standards and legal drafting
resources, and sufficient resources haven’t been made available. It also requires people
inside CASA with the necessary experience.

In the case of the LAME in case study 2, a review and simple amendment to allow CASA to
make an assessment against a previously held Australian licence would have solved the
problem; however the resources and directions to implement these simple solutions simply
aren’t there.

It appears only a single person has been allocated to the review of Part 66 licencing and
other resources have been diverted to other projects such as the highly secretive Part 43 –
General Aviation regulations.

MTF...P2